1AC

Core
 Inherency
Contention One: Educational Federalism is Failing

The current structure of educational federalism causes huge disparities in educational

opportunity
Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)

Education federalism in the United States traditionally embraces state and local authority over
education and a restricted federal role.l Even as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB")2
expanded and transformed the federal role in education, the tradition of state and local control over
education influenced key provisions within the statute.3 Some praise the nation's longstanding
approach to education federalism-which this Article defines as an emphasis on state and local control
over education and a limited federal role-for its ability to foster local control of education, encourage
experimentation, and promote a robust competition for excellence in education. 4 This approach to
education federalism also is praised for how it enables local communities to respond to local needs and
promotes accountability.5 The current structure of education federalism resembles the relationship
between the national and state governments, and like that relationship, it seeks to capitalize on an array
of viewpoints and methods regarding the most effective approaches to education. 6 Although the
nation's current approach to education federalism undoubtedly generates some benefits, it also
tolerates substantial inequitable disparities in educational opportunity both within and between
states. 7 The reality of local control of education for many communities means the ability to control
inadequate resources that provide many students substandard educational opportunities. s The
opportunity divide in American education continues to relegate far too many poor and minority
schoolchildren to substandard educational opportunities.9 These communities are left behind in the
competition for educational excellence.lO In addition, highpoverty schools, particularly those within
urban school districts, regularly yield the worst academic outcomes.H These disparities in educational
opportunity hinder schools from fulfilling some of their essential national and institutional goals.
Schools serve indispensable public functions within a democratic society: they prepare students to
engage in the nation's political system in an intelligent and effective manner and transmit the
fundamental societal values that a democratic government requires. 12 The nation also relies on its
public schools as the principal institutional guarantor of equal opportunity within American society by
serving as a mechanism to ensure that children are not hindered in attaining their dreams by their life
circumstances,13 Americans depend on schools to address the societal challenges created by social
and economic inequality rather than creating the extensive social welfare networks that many
industrialized countries have implemented.l4 The disparities in educational opportunity that relegate
many poor and minority students to substandard schooling have hindered the ability of schools to serve
these functions. Indeed, rather than solve these challenges, low graduation rates and substandard
schools cost the United States billions of dollars each year in lost tax and income revenues, higher
health care costs, food stamps, and welfare and housing assistance, to name a few of the costs.l5 This
Article will show the consistent ways that the current understanding of education federalism within the
United States has hindered three of the major reform efforts to promote a more equitable distribution
of educational opportunity: school desegregation, school finance litigation, and, most recently, NCLB.
In exploring how education federalism has undermined these efforts, this Article adds to the
understanding of other scholars who have critiqued these reformsl6 and examined why the nation has
failed to guarantee equal educational opportunity. 17 For example, scholars have argued that the
failure to undertake earnest efforts to achieve equal educational opportunity is caused by a variety of
factors, including the lack of political will to accomplish this goal the domination of suburban influences
over education politics, and the failure of the United States to create a social welfare system that
addresses the social and economic barriers that impede the achievement of many poor and minority
students.1s In a past work, I also explored some of the reasons that these efforts have failed to ensure
equal educational opportunity,19 In light of this literature, education federalism undoubtedly is not the
only factor that has influenced the nation's inability to ensure equal educational opportunity.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand the consistent ways in which education federalism has
contributed to the ineffectiveness of efforts to ensure equal educational opportunity as scholars
propose new avenues to achieve this paramount goal. In addition, in both past and future work, I argue
that the nation should consider embracing a new framework for education federalism that would
enable the nation to more effectively achieve its goals for public schools.2o Understanding how
education federalism has hindered past reforms is an essential part of exploring how education
federalism should be reshaped.

The supposed benefits of educational federalism are an ILLUSION empirics invalidate

theoretical benefits
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Education Federalism Does Not Consistently Reap Some of the Benefits It Is Designed to Achieve
Although education federalism undoubtedly reaps some of the benefits that it is designed to
accomplish,72 the current approach does not consistently yield the benefits that it is supposed to
secure. For instance, education federalism has been praised for its ability to allow the state and local
governments to serve as laboratories of reform. However, research reveals that in the area of school
finance reform, most of the changes have been fairly limited in scope, and that the reliance on
property taxes to fund schools remains the prevailing method for local funding of schools.73 This
method has continued despite the Supreme Courts 1973 call for school finance reform in San Antonio
Independent School District v. Rodriguez: The need is apparent for reform in tax systems which may well
have relied too long and too heavily on the local property tax. And certainly innovative thinking as to
public education, its methods, and its funding is necessary to assure both a higher level of quality and
greater uniformity of opportunity.74 Even when plaintiffs have prevailed in litigation that sought to
reform school finance systems, most states typically have maintained the same fundamental and
unequal structure for school finance.75 Additionally, in a substantial majority of the states, funding
inequities between wealthy and poor districts and schools persist.76 Only fourteen states provide
more funding to districts with high concentrations of poverty than those with low concentrations of
poverty,77 despite consistent research that lowincome students require more resources for a
successful education than their more affluent peers.78 The 2013 Equity and Excellence Commission
report confirms this lack of additional funding to students who live in high poverty concentrations and
notes that substantial reform is needed because, apart from a few exceptions, states fail to link their
school finance systems to the costs that they would need to invest to educate all children in compliance
with state standards.79 Given decades of reforms that have not made consistent and substantial
inroads on these challenges, the states are not serving as effective laboratories for school finance
reform.
 Plan
PLAN: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding
and regulation of elementary and secondary education in the United States to
promote equal access to educational opportunity.
Coop Fism
 Coop Federalism Stem
Contention Two: Non-dual Federalism

The federal role in education is EXPANDING piecemeal but lacks a theoretical basis for
COOPERATION
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

My theory for reconstructing education federalism envisions the federal, state, and local governments
joining together in a shoulder-toshoulder partnership to build an education system in which all
schoolchildren receive equal access to an excellent education. By establishing the federal government
as the final guarantor of equal educational opportunity, it offers innovative ways to empower and
incentivize state and local governments to close opportunity and achievement gaps. It would require
the federal government both to demand much from state and local governments and give much to
them.
My theory is particularly timely because it is offered at a time when the nation has already begun to
embrace a historic expansion of the federal role in education.341 A substantial federal role in
education is likely to continue because it generally enjoys bipartisan support as well as support from
the business community, civil rights groups, and many other Americans.342 Although support for
federal involvement in education has been growing, the United States has lacked a theory for how this
role should evolve.343 Several scholars and the Equity and Excellence Commission have offered a
variety of proposals for how the federal role in education should be strengthened to advance equal
educational opportunity.344 I offer a theory of education federalism that could guide implementation
of such proposals by analyzing how the nation should improve upon the strengths of federal
education policymaking and identifying critical missing components of an effective reform movement.
Disrupting the nations longstanding approach to education federalism and reconstructing it in ways
that support the nations education goals will be essential to successful education reform. Federal
education law and policy built upon my theory would restructure education federalism in ways that
support closing opportunity gaps. Closing these gaps is essential to closing achievement gaps and
thereby enabling all children to enjoy the possibilities of the American dream. Research reveals that
closing achievement gaps would both greatly increase the nations economic growth and lead to
future economic strength and competitiveness of the U.S. economy.345 As the United States continues
to search for new ways to expand educational opportunity and improve educational quality, my theory
offers some pioneering ideas for moving our national dialogue away from educational paralysis and
toward educational excellence

The primacy of state autonomy in education rests on an OUTMODED model of DUAL

federalism
Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)
In addition, this Article also briefly highlights that when the Supreme Court and Congress limited
reforms to advance equal educational opportunity, they harkened back to an extinct model of dual
federalism and failed to acknowledge that, since the New Deal, the nation has moved to the increasing
jurisdictional partnerships that are oftentimes labeled cooperative federalism .21 In this way, this
Article engages some of the federalism scholarship. Furthermore, this Article notes that one possible
explanation for some of the Court's decisions is that the Court may be claiming that federalism
prevents it from acting when the Court lacks the will or an interest in ensuring that equal educational
opportunity becomes a reality for all schoolchildren. Although it would be impossible to confirm if this
explanation is accurate, this Article identifies the evidence that suggests that this behavior by the Court
may be occurring. After noting this possibility, this Article then takes the Court at its word that
education federalism is driving its decisions while exploring the ramifications of the Court's decisions for
equal educational opportunity.
Federal leadership for equal access creates a NET beneficial model of COOPERATIVE
federalism
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Under my proposed theory, states admittedly would lose some control over education because they
would be accountable to the federal government for ending longstanding disparities in educational
opportunity. A hallmark of the American education system has been the freedom that mostly affluent
parents enjoy: to provide their children a better education than the one given to less privileged
children.330 In addition, some states and localities also may contend that they should retain the ability
to focus their resources on some children rather than spreading them more equitably to all children.331
I contend that the loss of this type of state and local control would benefit the nations education
system. At the same time, other aspects of state and local control of education would remain if my
theory was adopted. Under this theory, states would retain authority to control education
policymaking through education governance, the nature and content of a school finance system, state
assessments and graduation standards, and a wide variety of teaching and curricular decisions. 332
Localities would continue to administer education, manage the daily operation of schools, hire teachers
and staff, build and maintain schools, and transport students.333 Issues such as class size and
governance would remain within the purview of state and local government. Furthermore, maintaining
these functions under state and local authority fosters continuance of most of the existing levels of state
and local accountability for education. Most importantly, my proposed theory would foster new types
of state and local control over education. Currently, substantial disparities exist in each states
capacity to offer high-quality educational opportunities.334 The absence of federal intervention to
address these disparate capacities leaves many states without the ability to offer their citizens an
excellent education. Placing primary responsibility on the federal government for leading a national
effort to close opportunity and achievement gaps will expand state and local control of education
because it will provide state and local governments both a greater and more equal capacity to offer all
children an excellent education.335 This enhanced capacity will empower states and localities to
engage in innovative reforms that were previously hindered by capacity limitations. In this way,
greater equity in the distribution of state and local control and equal access to an excellent education
can co-exist as complementary rather than competing goals. Once each state has a more uniform ability
to offer equal access to an excellent education, the states will decide how they want to achieve this
goal. By leaving the methods for achieving this goal to the states, my theory will preserve the states
and localities as laboratories of reform. Moreover, these laboratories would have new federal
research, technical expertise, and financial assistance to support the identification and implementation
of effective reforms. Therefore, those who believe that excellence is best fostered through state and
local control may find comfort in the fact that under my proposed theory, the states ultimately would
decide how to ensure equal access to an excellent education.

This realignment creates a workable federalism model to SUPPLANT the squo

UNFUNDED MANDATES
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In making the federal government the final guarantor of equal access to an excellent education, my
proposed theory would strengthen the relationship between growing federal influence in education
and greater federal responsibility for accomplishing national objectives. This transformation would
greatly improve upon the nations current cooperative federalism framework for education .269
Today, although the federal government invests in education, this investment is quite limited relative
to state and local investments.270 By increasing its demands while limiting its contributions , the
federal government has been able to avoid shouldering a substantial portion of the costs and burdens
associated with accomplishing the nations education goals while still enjoying the ability to set the
nations education agenda and demand results.271 In contrast, my proposal would establish a much
closer and more effective marriage between federal influence and responsibility.
 Coop / Executive Fism: Dealmaking Bad
CHECKERBOARD federalism through a cooperative model best checks executive power
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

As I have suggested, executive federalism grows out of the political polarization of our times.
Hyperpolarized parties gridlock Congress and push federal authority to the executive branch, but they
also create strong links across the state-federal divide.165 These links may enable something like party
government through state-federal cooperation among copartisans, enhancing the ability of the federal
executive and certain states to act. At the same time, the state-federal connection amplifies
opportunities for partisan resistance and contestation. If state and federal executives seek each other
out because of partisan affinity, their collaborations tend also to bring in other states with opposing
positions. The most basic way executive federalism has negotiated these distinct possibilities is by
allowing for differentiation within federal policy across states. For instance, waivers under the ACA
have fostered Democratic states implementation of the Act while permitting departures from federal
policy in certain Republican states.166 States that have legalized marijuana have succeeded in making
the federal Controlled Substances Act a nullity with respect to most marijuana offenses within their
borders, but the CSA remains operative in states that continue to criminalize marijuana. The EPAs Clean
Power Plan, which provides different emissions reduction targets for each state and allows for state
flexibility in meeting these targets, is a more deliberately designed state-differentiated federal policy.
167 The agency appears to be proposing a compromise given sharp ideological disagreement about
climate change regulation. Most notably, it has chosen to measure state capacity to reduce emissions in
part based on states own policy decisions. RGGI participants and California have already shown that
they are willing to defy the expectations of collective action federalism and create environmental
benefits on which other actors may free-ride.168 The federal executive branch capitalizes on this
commitment by asking those states to contribute disproportionately to a national endeavor. Having
taken the initiative on their own, these states are now instructed to continue to do so as a matter of
federal law. Meanwhile, the EPAs decision to ask less of other statesand its more general granting of
flexibility to states to choose how to reach the established targetsmust be in part an attempt to pacify
opposition in coal-reliant, Republican jurisdictions.169 Although the proposal has hardly appeased all
such constituencies,170 it may be helping the EPA establish collaborative relationships with state
regulators.171 If the Plan survives legal challenges, we can expect this state differentiation to yield
diverse approaches to emissions regulation within a single federal law. Although relatively novel in the
United States, state-differentiated federal policy of this sort has analogues abroad.172 In a variety of
federations with stronger traditions of executive federalism, federal policy is often developed in a
nonuniform fashion.173 In Canada, for example, negotiations can yield significant policy variation
across the provinces and different degrees of provincial and federal responsibility, sometimes called
checkerboard federalism. 174 In the European Union, states often work toward shared objectives at
varied speeds, or subgroups of states pursue shared policies without full EU participation.175 This
practice of differentiated integration or variable-speed federalism allows groups of states to create
EU policy in the absence of consensus. Sometimes the differentiation is simply a matter of timing: with
multi-speed integration, a subgroup of states realizes a common policy faster than other states, but all
states ultimately participate. In other instances, differentiation may be long-lasting or permanent: with
variable-geometry integration, only certain states participate in a common project, while a la carte
integration permits states to adopt particular aspects of policies.176 These various forms of
differentiated integration have led commentators to observe that there is not one Europe, but rather
many Europes, depending on the policy field in question.177 In the EU, Canada, and several other
federations, differentiated integration or related forms of checkerboard policymaking arise principally
because of strong state sovereignty and consensus rules. Demanding full participation by all member
states would foreclose the pursuit of certain policies or water down obligations for all participants.178
As with executive federalism generally, state-differentiated federal policy arises from distinct
circumstances in the United States. The federal government has legal authority to mandate nationwide
policy and to override conflicting state views in the absence of unanimity. Indeed, it was designed to
facilitate collective governance without consensus rules.179 But polarization makes the political realities
of American governance more closely resemble those in federations with weaker central governments
and stronger subunit autonomy. Frequently, Washington cannot act even when it is legally authorized to
do so; states therefore become necessary engines of national policymaking, yet states are also
polarized, so national policy cannot be made by the fifty states working collectively. Instead, the federal
executive branch and the states seek out one another to push forward particular objectives. In
response to political polarization, then, the United States is groping its way toward checkerboard
federalism or differentiated integration.180 As this account suggests, state-differentiated federal policy
is not likely to be embraced as a first-best governance strategy; some would prefer uniform policy set by
the federal government, while others would prefer more devolution to the states.181 As an initial
matter, however, it is worth noting that these preferences likely depend on the partisan composition of
each government, rather than something about state versus federal authority as such.182 The same
Democrats who today favor federal policy solutions championed state authority during George W.
Bushs presidency, and the same Republicans who today disparage federal overreach were eager to
preempt state experimentation when Bush was president. The instability of such preferences means
that state-differentiated federal policy may deny everyone their preferred policymaking forum at any
given moment but better satisfy preferences over time as the partisan makeup of various institutions
shifts. More generally, there is a strong case for state-differentiated federal policy as compared to the
alternatives that emerge from a gridlocked Congress. In contrast to unilateral federal executive action ,
state participation builds contestation into federal policy; it diminishes the specter of unchecked
authoritarianism that haunts exercises of executive power .183 It also incorporates values
traditionally associated with federalism, such as diversity and experimentation, into federal policy.184 In
contrast to pure devolution to the states, however, this approach acknowledges the need for national
responses to certain problems. It underscores the possibility of, and the responsibility of working
toward, national cohesion even in the face of disagreement.185

INTERACTION is the crucial internal link DUAL federalism fails

Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

While the empirics are uncertain, we might nonetheless predict that certain forms of differentiation are
more likely to yield integration over time, or even simply to propose certain forms of differentiation as
more attractive than others. In particular, the parameters of differentiated integration might vary
among states that are part of a longstanding union and those that are still experimenting with union
formation. For the former, we should be particularly concerned about full state opt-outs from national
policy. This is in part for the practical reason that opt-outs may damage the prospect of national
policymaking; as I have noted, if national action is responding to collective action problems, state opt-
outs may vitiate participation altogether. Although partial concessions to oppositional states might
also mean some states are contributing disproportionately to a collective endeavoras in the Clean
Power Planthe fact of universal participation should mitigate a sucker effect for those states
carrying the greatest burden.191 More deeply, even in polarized times, we should seek differentiation
that forces political interaction among those who disagree about policy choices.192 Allowing states
to opt out of national policymaking altogether short-circuits such interaction, and the integrative
possibilities of even contestatory forms of engagement. In judging the state-differentiated national
policies produced by executive federalism, then, we should consider whether both states and the
federal government alike are participating in some form in national policymaking. In contrast to a
system of opt-ins and opt-outs, diversified participation may have salutary implications for
democratic representation, as I discuss below.193 It may also create new opportunities for negotiation
and compromise that reshape partisan dynamics, as I now address.

Trump Executive power used to pursue DEALMAKING specifically debt renegotiation

Solomon and Zaring 17 The Dealmaking State: Executive Power in the Trump Administration UC Berkeley Public Law Research
Paper No. 2921407 49 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2017 Steven Davidoff Solomon University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of
California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy David T. Zaring University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department
Date Written: February 21, 2017

The government responded to the financial crisis by using corporate mergers to solve regulatory
problems in order to act quickly to stem financial calamity.1 But what if deals became a principal
mechanism for the promulgated of government policy, overseen by an executive who promises to be
the dealmaker in chief?2 In this article, we analyze dealmaking as an ordinary policymaking tool, and,
identify some useful constraints on the practice. We do so because the deals are not going away, even
though the emergency is over. With a deal-making president in the White House an entrepreneur who
co-wrote a book titled The Art Of The Deal, who uses the language of deals to describe his approach to
policy, and who has identified a number of ways the private sector can be utilized to meet his goals
the state looks set for an expansion of dealmaking as an ordinary governance strategy. 3 In particular,
the new administration has vowed to use deals with private companies to advance public policy.4 Even
before being inaugurated, President Trump entered bargaining on a number of issues, designed to cut
deals with companies to keep jobs in the United States.5 The last time the government pivoted towards
dealmaking to realize policymaking objectives was during the financial crisis. Those deals were a form of
necessary regulatory arbitrage by government, which is constrained by, among other things, notice and
comment obligations, compensation requirements for takings, and principles of shareholder democracy
that shield investors from public or private oppression.6 The financial crisis deals served as a means to
evade these core values, even if they were done with attention to what the law required.7 hat crisis
response and attention to the law did not mean that regulation by deal lacked controversy. Solving
regulatory problems through deals creates government-endorsed winners and losers.8 It is replete with
novel process questions and costs, which in some ways are antithetical to the administrative state. And
it is justified mostly with reference to the need, in an emergency, for energetic action. The
administration has announced that it will use deals to pursue its policy objectives in two principal
ways, and acted through other mechanisms that imply that its governing ethos will be transactional.
First, a dealmaking president can pursue economic policy though deals with particular manufacturers,
conditioned on the onshoring of jobs. One of the first economic announcements made by then
President-Elect Trump was a deal made to keep an air conditioning firm from moving jobs to Mexico.9
Local tax breaks were exchanged for a promise not to move the jobs the effort was characterized in
the press a deal he brokered to keep American jobs in the U.S.10 Such dealmaking might encompass
broader measures such as promises not to retaliate against certain companies in exchange for steps
taken to keep or locate jobs in the United States. 11 Second, a deal-making approach to governance will
implement programs through shared ownership contracts with private parties rather than through
government programs.12 The new president has indicated his hat crisis response and attention to the
law did not mean that regulation by deal lacked controversy. Solving regulatory problems through deals
creates government-endorsed winners and losers.8 It is replete with novel process questions and costs,
which in some ways are antithetical to the administrative state. And it is justified mostly with
reference to the need, in an emergency, for energetic action. The administration has announced that it
will use deals to pursue its policy objectives in two principal ways, and acted through other mechanisms
that imply that its governing ethos will be transactional. First, a dealmaking president can pursue
economic policy though deals with particular manufacturers, conditioned on the onshoring of jobs.
One of the first economic announcements made by then President-Elect Trump was a deal made to
keep an air conditioning firm from moving jobs to Mexico.9 Local tax breaks were exchanged for a
promise not to move the jobs the effort was characterized in the press a deal he brokered to keep
American jobs in the U.S.10 Such dealmaking might encompass broader measures such as promises not
to retaliate against certain companies in exchange for steps taken to keep or locate jobs in the United
States. 11 Second, a deal-making approach to governance will implement programs through shared
ownership contracts with private parties rather than through government programs.12 The new
president has indicated his partnerships to meet their missions.18 Finally, approaching the task of
governing through a dealmaking lens could affect even those government programs that can be
implemented without deals with the private sector. Using deals to do the work of government can
become a state of mind one where foreign policy, for example, is conceived as a set of deals the
Iran Deal19 the China Deal,20 and a free trade deal with Mexico that the president has
characterized as the worst deal ever.21 The government could be staffed with dealmakers, and
dealmaking experience might be deemed a plus for questions of agency leadership.22 Dealmaking
could even be deployed to reduce the deficit the president has mused about renegotiating the
terms of the countrys sovereign debt which would also represent a deal a negotiated workout with
creditors, instead of the more arms length transactions represented by the selling of government debt
on licensed exchanges.23 We see two implications for regulation by deal; one for administrative
procedure, and a second for the separation of powers. Procedurally, dealmaking in the service of
government policy is a way to comply with the law and yet get around its most onerous terms and
process requirements.24 It is a way to manage legality by enacting policy through unorthodox
channels.25 In this sense it is both consistent with the rule of law, at least to some degree, and a
challenge to it. The implications of a widespread embrace of transactions as tools to make government
policy will accordingly depend on ones comfort with the administrative state as it currently exists. For
those who believe that the administrative state has ossified the ability of the government to make
policy, administration by deal is a remedy an alternative to a notice and comment process that that is
slow and a protracted government contracting process.26 Of course, bureaucracy and burdens can rear
their heads in different contexts, such as through the terms of contracts, as those who do deals with the
government to assure that jobs are onshored are discovering.27 As a constitutional matter, dealmaking
privileges an executive model of governance . We would not argue, as some have, that the executive is
or should be unbounded when making deals.28 But it is fair to say that Congress cannot administer by
deal and that the courts are unlikely to be able to review deals. They do not create widespread injury
that permit an array of plaintiffs to contest the legality of the deal.29 Scholars of varying persuasions
have argued that governance is either normatively or descriptively best located in the hands of a
powerful executive. Elena Kagan famously argued that administration centered in the presidency was
attractive because of the coordinative powers and democratic legitimacy of the White House.30 Adrian
Vermeule and Eric Posner posited that unfettered presidential action was an inevitable consequence of
emergencies, and implicitly suggested that this was a good thing.31 Governance by presidential deal is
the logical endpoint of this sort of pro-presidentialist scholarship. In our view, it has always been better
to ensure the importance of the institutional constraints imposed by the law. Descriptively, legal
constraints drive the implementation of deals, and normatively, using deals to routinely evade
government process affects core values and often lowers the quality of governance.32 It threatens to
unbalance the separation of powers More as well. specifically, governance by deal allows the
executive to act quickly and decisively in emergencies and can tailor actions to the needed conduct. The
downside is a lack of broader participation, and hence a higher chance that the policy incorrectly
represents the will of the people in a democratic regime. Acting through legislation means broader
consensus but higher transaction costs as the legislative process puts brakes on policy actions.33 In most
areas of domestic law and outside emergencies, we have traditionally accepted the higher transaction
costs, but government by deal upsets this balance. We also think that the government has found legal
constraints limiting even when doing deals in emergencies, and we generally welcome those constraints.
If a president is going to make deals an important mechanism of policymaking, there is no doubt that he
can do so. But governance through dealmaking outside a financial crisis ought to be constrained in a
few ways if it is to become an ordinary tool of policymaking, rather than an extraordinary option. Deals
should be publicly disclosed, so that they can be scrutinized by the citizenry. They should be executed
slowly, rather than quickly, to avoid some of the problems of overhasty mergers and acquisitions and
private equity style deals that have bedeviled the governments response to the financial crisis. They
should only be permitted when reasonable interpretations of governing law would permit them. And
after the deal is done, due process, and perhaps also the Takings Clause, requires that those adversely
affected by the deal receive a day in court.

Uncheked DEALMAKING tanks the economy through corruption and innovation stall
Davis 3/2/17 https://harpers.org/blog/2017/03/dealmaker-in-chief/ Owen Davis is a New York-based writer who explores school
politics and education reform. He designs curriculum for the alternative children's magazine IndyKids.

Throughout his campaign, Trump criticized the U.S. government for making bad deals. To him, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Paris climate agreement are all
examples of inept negotiations carried out by career politicians in Washington. I do deals. Its what I
do, he told a crowd of supporters in October, pledging to fight for working-class Americans. Of course,
the executive who builds a new plant in the Rust Belt expects something in return. When the
manufacturer Carrier agreed in November to keep seven hundred and thirty jobs that had originally
been slated to move to Mexico, the company won tax incentives and a vague promise of lighter
regulations. Carriers tax break, $7 million over a decade, didnt come close to recompensing the
company for the $65 million it had hoped to save by sending jobs to Mexico. But other incentives were
at play. Carriers parent company, United Technologies, can now rest assured that its government
contracts, worth more than $5 billion a year, are safe from Trumps whims. And though political
goodwill cant be tabulated on a balance sheet, Carriers executives can count themselves on the right
side of Trumps ledger of friends and enemies. I was born at night but not last night, United CEO Greg
Hayes said after the deal. I also know that about 10 percent of our revenue comes from the U.S.
government.

History has shown that direct interventions like these tend to produce corruption without broader
economic gains. Researchers who study authoritarian regimes, where such tactics are common, say that
targeting individual companies causes industries to focus less on innovating and more on currying favor.
Pleasing the president becomes the fastest path to profits, and businesses race to take advantage. One
study that looked at forty-eight countries over a period of thirty-five years, from 1950 to 1985, found
that corporate profits tend to rise during a shift to autocracy. CIA-backed coups toppling foreign leaders
throughout the mid-twentieth century provide the most dramatic examples of this phenomenon. For
instance, after the 1973 coup that installed Augusto Pinochet as ruler of Chile, the countrys two major
banking conglomerates, nicknamed the piranhas by international investors, grew at an unprecedented
clip. As Pinochet enacted sweeping market reforms, the holding companies Vial and Cruzat-Larrain
rapidly consolidated their grip on Chilean business, together controlling fully half of the total assets on
Chiles public stock exchange by 1978. It didnt hurt that the two conglomerates maintained close ties
with functionaries in Chiles central bank and budget office. Meanwhile, the economy as a whole
crumbled: As corporate profits boomed, inequality spiked and average wages fell, not to return to
their 1970 levels until 1992.

For decades, presidents have largely respected what post-war business leaders called the right to
manage, letting individual companies operate without direct interference. Americas last dealmaker in
chief was Richard Nixon, who, like Trump, pursued an unabashedly transactional mode of politics where
economic outcomes were subordinate to political ambitions. In May 1971, for example, Nixon found
himself in need of funds for his upcoming re-election campaign. One of his targets was the International
Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (I.T.T.), which was seeking to merge with Hartford Fire Insurance
in what would be the largest corporate tie-up in memory. Does I.T.T. have money? Chief of Staff H. R.
Haldeman can be heard asking on Nixons secret tapes. Oh God yes, Nixon replied. Thats part of this
ball game.

The I.T.T.-Hartford merger had already been flagged by Nixons justice department, which opposed the
deal on the grounds that it would increase market concentration and allow I.T.T. to give its subsidiaries
favorable insurance rates at the expense of consumers. But Nixon said he would force the department
to drop its antitrust action if the company paid up. He told his aides to cut a deal with I.T.T. and leaned
hard on Richard McLaren, a meddlesome antitrust regulator, to allow the merger. If its not
understood, McClarens ass is to be out of there within one hour, Nixon said. The I.T.T. thingstay the
hell out of it. Two months later, the merger went ahead as I.T.T. quietly pledged $400,000 to the 1972
Republican National Convention.
After Nixon was impeached, Congress enacted a raft of rules to prevent Nixon-style horsetrading,
including disclosure requirements that opened government meetings to the public. Corporate America,
ever agile, responded by building a subtler system of cocktail hours, revolving-door hires, and the soft
corruption of limitless political spending. Lobbyists regularly wine and dine congressional aides, who
return the favor by running industry-friendly legislation up the flagpole. Successive rollbacks of political
spending limits, Citizens United being the most famous, have allowed corporate interests to fund
massive communications efforts pushing their agendas. That system has been effective at giving
business a huge advantage. Researchers recently found, for instance, that Americans pay about twice
what Germans do for cell-phone service because our telecommunications firms wield such extensive
market power and political connections.

Many economists worry that Trump could preside over a fundamental realignment of government-
business relations and usher in an era of naked corruption. Matthew Mitchell of the Mercatus Center
explained that when leaders direct punishment toward selective companies, Youre really just inviting
firms to ingratiate themselves to policy makers. Take antitrust regulation, an area of policy where
candidate Trump made occasional anti-monopoly rumblings. So far, Trump has only expressed concern
over monopolies that involve his political enemies. He has condemned Amazon, whose chief executive
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and opposed the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, which owns
the cable-news network CNN. Analysts have mused that Trump may make the deal contingent on Time
Warner dropping CNN.

The message is clear: show loyalty to Trump and reap the rewards. That may explain why markets have
stayed strong even while the media gives Trump credit for bodyslamming big companies, as one Post
columnist put it. Corporations know that the presidents demands are publicity stunts that will be
accompanied by tax cuts, deregulation, and direct access to the levers of government. Wall Street has
tried to persuade the public that those policies will accelerate economic growth. But a University of
Chicago survey of prominent academics found that while 62 percent agreed that Trumps policies would
increase corporate profits, only 16 percent predicted quicker economic growth that would benefit the
average American. Daron Acemoglu, an economic historian at MIT who took part in the survey,
condensed his thoughts into a tweet-length summary: [Trumps plans], he wrote, are much more
likely to be disastrous for the economy.

Debt dealmaking incinerates the global economy

Yglesias 5/6/16 https://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11607464/trump-haircut-default-debt Matthew Yglesias is an American blogger and
journalist who writes about economics and politics from a liberal / progressive perspective

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Donald Trump broke with tired clichs about the evils of federal debt
accumulation. "I am the king of debt," he said. "I love debt. I love playing with it." But he replaced
fearmongering about debt with an even more alarming notion a bankruptcy of the United States
federal government that would incinerate the world economy. "I would borrow, knowing that if the
economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump said. "And if the economy was good, it was good. So
therefore, you can't lose." With his statement, Trump not only revealed a dangerous ignorance about
the operation of the national monetary system and the global economic order, but also offered a
brilliant case study in the profound risks of attempting to apply the logic of a private business
enterprise to the task of running the United States of America. Trump's business logic makes sense
Trump is a businessman, and in terms of thinking like a businessman his idea makes sense. The interest
rate that investors currently charge the United States in order to borrow money is very low. A smart
business strategy under those circumstances would be to borrow a bunch of money and undertake a
bunch of big investment projects that are somewhat risky but judged to possibly have a huge payoff.
You now have two possible scenarios. In one scenario, the investments work out and you make a ton of
money. In that case, you can easily pay back the loan and everyone wins. In another scenario, the
investments don't work out and you don't make much money. In that case, you objectively can't pay
back the loan. You either work out a deal with the people you owe money to in which they accept less
than 100 percent of what you owe them (this is called a "haircut") or else you go to bankruptcy court
and a judge will force them to accept less than 100 percent. This is how businesspeople think
especially those who work in capital-intensive industries like real estate. And for good reason. This is the
right way to run a real estate company. Applying this idea to the United States would destroy the
economy The United States of America, however, is not a real estate development company. If a real
estate company defaults on its debts and its creditors lose money, that's their problem. If a bank fails as
a result, then it's the FDIC's responsibility to clean it up. The government doesn't work like that. Right
now, people and companies all around the world treat US government bonds as the least risky
financial asset in the universe. If the government defaults and banks fail as a result, the government
needs to clean up the mess. And if risk-free federal bonds turn out to be risky, then every other
financial asset becomes riskier. The interest rate charged on state and local government debt, on
corporate debt, and on home loans will spike. Savings will evaporate, and liquidity will vanish as
everyone tries to hold on to their cash until they can figure out what's going on. Every assessment of risk
in the financial system is based on the idea that the least risky thing is lending money to the federal
government. If that turns out to be much riskier than previously thought, then everything else becomes
much riskier too. Business investment will collapse, state and local finances will be crushed, and
shockwaves will emanate to a whole range of foreign countries that borrow dollars. Remember 2008,
when the markets went from thinking housing debt was low-risk to thinking it was high-risk, and a global
financial crisis was the result? This would be like that, but much worse US government debt is the
very foundation of low-risk investments. What's especially troubling about Trump's proposal is that
there is genuinely no conceivable circumstance under which this kind of default would be necessary. The
debt of the federal government consists entirely of obligations to pay US dollars to various individuals
and institutions. US dollars are, conveniently, something the US government can create instantly and in
infinite quantities at any time. Of course, it might be undesirable to finance debts by printing money
rather than raising taxes or cutting spending. In particular, that kind of money printing could lead to
inflation, and even though inflation is very low right now there's no guarantee that it will always be low.
But a little bit of inflation is always going to be strictly preferable to destroying the whole American
economy, especially because a debt default would cause a crash in the value of the dollar and spark
inflation anyway.
Economic decline causes war miscalc, resource wars and political instability
Royal 10 - Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,
2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of
War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.
Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic
decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent slates. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level. Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (19%) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-
eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,
exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (sec also
Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation
(Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive
environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately.
Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the
likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a
dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He
argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult lo replace items such as energy resources, [lie likelihood for conflict increases. as
states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because il triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external
armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-
reinforce each other. (Blomberg & I less. 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an
increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. & Wccrapana. 2004). which has the capacity to
spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity
of a silting government. "Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from
economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military
conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blomberg. Mess,
and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least
indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to
the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to
lack of domestic support. DcRoucn (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates
economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science
scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This
implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other
perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict,
such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of
and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered
ancillary to those views.
 Dealmaking Bad: Global Development

Economic transactionalism under Trump would tank development efforts

Morris 1/17/17 https://www.cgdev.org/publication/dangers-deal-making-development SUBSCRIBE Scott Morris Senior Fellow,
Director of the US Development Policy Initiative Expertise: International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and particularly the relationship between
the IFIs and the United States. Education: Education: MPP, University of Michigan (1994); BA, Franklin & Marshall College (1991)

Newt Gingrich, one of President-elect Trumps key advisors, thinks US foreign assistance needs a
dramatic overhaul, dismissing a status quo that he characterizes as our bureaucracy giv[ing] another
bureaucracy money. He would prefer an approach that relies on tax breaks for US firms to invest in
developing countries. This doesnt exactly jibe with the new administrations broader sentiments about
the tax treatment of US firms invested overseas. But never mind that. The more fundamental issue
relates to how we think about promoting private sector development in other countries. In one sense,
the case is obviouseconomies will not grow in a sustainable way without a robust private sector. This
simple premise has long underpinned efforts in institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, and the US
Treasury to promote sound regulatory regimes and macroeconomic policies, and even more
fundamentally, basic adherence to rule of law. Private sector development has long been viewed as
essential, and the US role in promoting it has focused mostly on how developing country governments
could best set a policy environment that made it possible. In more recent years, though, as donor dollars
have become more scarce, the global agenda has shifted to emphasize various ways that official actors
can seek to attract private funds to development projects. This evolution of the private sector
development agenda increasingly has donor governments playing the role of deal makers rather than
policy makers. And into this environment comes the election of Donald Trump, lauded and derided as
the United States new deal maker in chief. It would seem that Trumps modus operandi is ready
made for the current development zeitgeist. But lets consider the risks of this for development. What
could go wrong with an agenda that is centered on deal making for development? One of the tropes
of this agenda is the win-win, that seemingly everywhere and always, a transaction involving a US firm
and a developing country is good for the firm and good for development. We see this kind of thinking in
the rhetoric of the Obama administrations Power Africa initiative, even as the initiative itself seems to
take aim at policy reform alongside project-level transactions. In President Obamas words, Power Africa
is a win for Africansand its a win for the United States because [it] means more exports for the US
and more jobs in the US. Maybe, but this is not intrinsically so. Any private transaction can create
winners and losers, often among those who are not direct parties to the deal. In economic terms, these
are the external costs and benefits that ought to be accounted for under a sound policy framework.
Indeed, with appropriate policy guidance, the US government would only involve itself in deals where
there are clear market failures. More generally, the case for our governments involvement is not
narrowly defined by the private parties to the deal, but by the broader public interest. This is not
exactly cutting edge development policy thinking. The United States, like many other countries, has a
broad and deep regulatory and tax regime that speaks directly to the potential for winners and losers in
private transactions, whether it relates to environmental impact, corruption, or even national security
considerations. So what are the risks of a US development policy that puts private sector deals center
stage? First, a deal making culture will promote transactions that consistently benefit US firms, but
less consistently benefit the developing country. This is why we long ago negotiated international
standards that limit tied aid in the face of evidence that the United States and other donor countries
were pushing goods and services on developing countries that were too often unwanted and unneeded.
The pushing is a consequence of domestic political interests (typically commercial interests) taking
precedence over the interests of the developing country. Second, when the private sector deal is viewed
as intrinsically good for development, we will see more deals that proceed with indifference to social
costs. With evidence that continuing to add coal capacity globally would harm climate progress, the
Obama administration sought to restrict coal projects through Exim and OPIC, the US governments
overseas financiers. The Obama administrations decision was hard fought politically, and particularly at
Exim, was portrayed by critics as sacrificing American jobs for climate objectives. If Exims deal-based
culture had had the upper hand over broader policy considerations within the administration, these
restrictions would not have prevailed. A third risk of deal making for development is that it ignores and
in some cases even corrupts the objectives of sound regulatory and tax regimes in developing
countries. A deal making US government could find itself a party to transactions that need a quick
regulatory fix in a developing country in order to proceed. That fix may or may not be in the broader
public interest, and could even undermine a competitive marketplace by conferring special
protections or market power on the parties to the deal. Finally, government needs to be able to act
clearly in the public interest at times when those interests strongly collide with an individual firm. This
can be particularly challenging politically when the collision occurs overseas. There is an important
reason that the United States government found itself filing an amicus brief in support of the
government of Argentina and against the interests of US-based holdout bondholders in a case before
the US Supreme Court a few years ago. The government properly was looking out for the publics
interest in ensuring orderly international financial markets, with clear evidence of the damage caused by
disorder just a few years prior with the Great Recession. Yet, this dispute pitted an American firm, which
employed tremendous lobbying resources, against a foreign government that was not particularly
friendly to the United States. Which is to say, the politics of the US governments stance were horrible,
even as that stance on behalf of the public was sound. In an administration where deal making abroad is
elevated, it is far less clear that the U.S. government would choose to weigh in on a court case to defend
broader policy considerations. Now, all of these risks can be mitigated when we consider carefully-
crafted proposals to expand OPIC or create a new US development finance institution (DFI), such as
those based on work done at the Center for Global Development. No less a thoughtful champion of
development than US Senator Chris Coons has taken up just such an idea. Unfortunately, there is
considerable risk at the moment in putting forward a development initiative that emphasizes US
government support for specific private transactions over policy. Leading economists and legal experts
have already raised serious concerns about the president-elects interventions with private firms since
the election as well as his unwillingness to follow long-standing practice with regard to the emoluments
clause of the US Constitution. Both critiques engender little confidence that a Trump administration will
seek to use a DFI under a broader framework defined consistently by the public interest. Instead, we
could see a Trump-era DFI giving rise to deals that do more harm than good to the broader aims of
development. Rule of law, efficient tax systems, and sound regulatory regimes these are the
elements of a policy agenda that can unlock private sector development. Theres a role for project level
interventions in the face of clear market failures and under a strong policy framework. But these
interventions should not be center stage for US development policy. It is possible that thoughtful
champions like Senator Coons could succeed in working with the new administration on an approach
that strikes the right balance between policy and deal making, and includes good safeguards associated
with the latter. But anything short of that should be rejected.
Micro-proliferation makes solving third developing countries poverty apriori to
prevent extinction
Carrico 9, Lecturer UC Berkeley, Fellow Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies SF Art Institute, PhD Rhetoric Berkeley, 6
(Dale, http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2006/03/technology-and-terror.html)

" Key technologies of the future - in particular, genetic engineering, nanotech, and robotics (or GNR) because they are self-replicating
and increasingly easier to craft - would be radically more dangerous than technologies of the past," writes Lessig in terms that evoke an earlier
essay by Bill Joy, but the technophobic conclusions of which Lessig significantly rejects. "It is impossibly hard to build an atomic bomb; when you build one, you've built just one. But the equivalent evil implanted in a malevolent
virus will become easier to build, and if built, could become self-replicating. This is P2P (peer-to-peer) meets WMD (weapons of mass destruction), producing IDDs (insanely destructive devices)." Rorty writes in a similar vein that
"[w]ithin a year or two, suitcase-sized nuclear weapons (crafted in Pakistan or North Korea) may be commercially available. Eager customers will include not only rich playboys like Osama bin Laden but also the leaders of various
irredentist movements that have metamorphosed into well-financed criminal gangs. Once such weapons are used in Europe, whatever measures the interior ministers have previously agreed to propose will seem inadequate." It is
probably inevitable that discussions of the threat of weaponized emerging technologies will reflect the distress of the so-called contemporary "War on Terror." But it is important to recognize that present-day

terrorism, however devastating, is a timid anticipation of the dangers and dilemmas to come. The March 11, 2004
Madrid attacks made use of conventional explosives, and the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States involved the crude hijacking and repurposing of fuel-fat jets as missiles. To the extent that these attacks have provoked

, it is increasingly difficult to
as a response (or worse, have provided a pretext for) "preemptive" and essentially unilateral military adventures abroad, and assaults on civil liberties at home

maintain much hope that we are mature enough as a civilization to cope with the forces we have
ourselves set in motion. Regulation Between Relinquishment and Resignation Both Lessig and Rorty anticipate that when confronted with the horrifying reality or even simply the prospect of new
technological threats the first impulse of the North Atlantic democracies is almost certain to be misguided compensatory expansions of state surveillance and control. Both essays point to the likely futility of such efforts to perfectly
police the creation and traffic of unprecedented technologies. In the worst case, with Lessig's designer pathogen or with the goo bestiary that preoccupies the nightmares of nanotech Cassandras (and don't forget the actual story:

we are confronted with the prospect of new massively destructive technologies that might
Cassandra was right!),

be cooked up in obscure laboratories at comparably modest costs, using easily obtainable materials,
employing techniques in the public domain, and distributed via stealthy networks. In the Bill Joy essay that inspired Lessig's
piece, the epic scale of the threats posed by emerging technologies prompted Joy to recommend banning their development altogether. The typical rejoinder to Joy's own proposal of "relinquishment," of a principled (or panic-
stricken) pre-emptive ban on these unprecedentedly destructive technological capacities is that it is absolutely unenforceable, and hence would too likely shift the development and use of such technologies to precisely the least
scrupulous people and least regulated conditions. And all of this would, of course, exacerbate the very risks any such well-meaning but misguided ban would have been enacted to reduce in the first place. Definitely I agree with
this rejoinder, but it's important not to misapply its insights. The fact that laws prohibiting murder don't perfectly eliminate the crime scarcely recommends we should strike these laws off the books. If Joy's technological
relinquishment was the best or only hope for humanity's survival, then we would of course be obliged to pursue it whatever the challenges. But surely the stronger reason to question relinquishment is simply that it would deny us
the extraordinary benefits of emerging technologies - spectacularly safe, strong, cheap materials and manufactured goods; abundant foodstuffs; new renewable energy technologies; and incomparably effective medical
interventions. Technophiles often seem altogether too eager to claim that technological regulation is unenforceable, or that developmental outcomes they happen to desire themselves are "inevitable." But of course the shape that
development will take - its pace, distribution, and deployments - is anything but inevitable in fact. And all technological development is obviously and absolutely susceptible to regulation, for good or ill, by laws, norms, market
forces and structural limits. Market libertarian technophiles such as Ronald Bailey sometimes seem to suggest that any effort to regulate technological development at all is tantamount to Joy's desire to ban it altogether. Bailey
counters both Joy's relinquishment thesis and Lessig's more modest proposals with a faith that "robust" science on its own is best able to defend against the threats science itself unleashes. This is an argument and even a
profession I largely share with him, but only to the extent that we recognize just how much of what makes science "robust" is produced and maintained in the context of well-supported research traditions, stable institutions,
steady funding and rigorous oversight, most of which look quite like the "regulation" that negative libertarians otherwise rail against. For me, robust scientific culture looks like the fragile attainment of democratic civilization, not
some "spontaneous order." So too "deregulation" is a tactic that is obviously occasionally useful within the context of a broader commitment to reform and good regulation. But treated as an end in itself the interminable market
fundamentalist drumbeat of "deregulation" - so prevalent among especially American technophiles - amounts to an advocacy of lawlessness. Does this really seem the best time to call for lawlessness? Market libertarian
ideologues often promote a policy of "market-naturalist" resignation that seems to me exactly as disastrous in its consequences as Joy's recommendation of relinquishment. In fact, the consequence of both policies seems precisely
the same - to abandon technological development to the least scrupulous, least deliberative, least accountable forces on offer. My point is not to demonize commerce, of course, but simply to recognize that good governance
encourages good and discourages antisocial business practices, while a healthy business climate is likewise the best buttress to good democratic governance. While I am quite happy to leave the question of just which toothbrush
consumers prefer to market forces, it seems to me a kind of lunacy to suggest that the answer to coping with emerging existential technological threats is, "Let the market decide." What we need is neither resignation nor
relinquishment, but critical deliberation and reasonable regulation. What we need is Regulation between Relinquishment and Resignation (RRR). Resources for Hope? Lessig and Rorty make different but complementary
recommendations in the face of the dreadful quandaries of cheap and ubiquitous, massively destructive emerging technologies. Taken together, these recommendations provide what looks to me like the basis for a more
reasonable and hopeful strategy. Rorty insists, first and foremost, that citizens in the North Atlantic democracies must challenge what he describes as "the culture of government secrecy": "Demands for government openness
should start in the areas of nuclear weaponry and of intelligence-gathering," which are, he points out, "the places where the post-World War Two obsession with secrecy began." More specifically, we must demand that our
governments "publish the facts about their stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction [and] make public the details of two sets of planned responses: one to the use of such weapons by other governments, and another for their
use by criminal gangs such as al-Qaida." He goes on to point out that "[i]f Western governments were made to disclose and discuss what they plan to do in various sorts of emergency, it would at least be slightly harder for
demagogic leaders to argue that the most recent attack justifies them in doing whatever they like. Crises are less likely to produce institutional change, and to have unpredictable results, if they have been foreseen and publicly
discussed." Never has the need for global collaboration been more conspicuous. Never has the need to unleash the collective, creative, critical intelligence of humanity been more urgent. And yet the contemporary culture of the
"War on Terror" has seemed downright hostile to intelligence in all its forms. Efforts to understand the social conditions that promote terror are regularly dismissed as "appeasement." Critical thinking about our response to terror
is routinely denigrated as "treason." Authorities strive to insulate their conduct from criticism and scrutiny behind veils of secrecy in the name of "security." (And all of this is depressingly of a piece, of course, with the current Bush
Administration's assaults on consensus environmental science, genetic research, effective sex education, and all the rest.) It is no wonder so many of us fear the "War on Terror" quite as much as we fear terrorism itself. But how

When
much more damaging than the self-defeating and authoritarian responses to conventional terrorism can we expect the response to the emerging threats of Lessig's "Insanely Destructive Devices" to be?

devastating technologies become cheap and ubiquitous we must redress the social discontent that
makes their misuse seem justifiable to more people than we can ever hope to manage or police. Since
we cannot hope to halt the development of all the cheap, disastrously weaponizable technologies on
the horizon, nor can we hope to perfectly control their every use, Lessig suggests that "perhaps the
rational response is to reduce the incentives to attack... maybe we should focus on ways to eliminate
the reasons to annihilate us." Fantasies of an absolute control over these technologies, or of an absolute control through technology (SDI, TIA, and its epigones, anyone?), are sure to exacerbate
the very discontent that will make their misuse more widespread. Anticipating the inevitable objection, Lessig is quick to point out that "[c]razies, of course, can't be reasoned with. But we can reduce the incentives to become a
crazy. We could reduce the reasonableness - from a certain perspective - for finding ways to destroy us." Criminals, fanatics and madmen are in fact a manageable minority in any culture. (Racist know-nothing slogans to the

,
contrary about a so-called epic and epochal "Clash of Civilizations" deserve our utter contempt.) Although there is no question that Lessig's "Insanely Destructive Devices" could still do irreparable occasional harm in their hands

it is profoundly misleading to focus on the threats posed by crazy and criminal minorities when it is as
often as not the exploitation of legitimate social discontent that makes it possible for lone gunmen to
recruit armies to their "causes." Lessig concludes that "[t]here's a logic to p2p threats that we as a society don't yet get. Like the record companies against the Internet, our first response is
war. But like the record companies, that response will be either futile or self-destructive. If you can't control the supply of IDDs, then the right response

is to reduce the demand for IDDs. [Instead, America's] present course of unilateral cowboyism will continue to produce generations of angry souls seeking revenge on us." For generations,
progressives have sought to ameliorate the suffering of the wretched of the Earth. We have struggled to diminish poverty, widen the franchise, and ensure through education and shared prosperity that more and more people
(though still obscenely too few people) have a personal stake as citizens in their societies. We have fought for these things because we have been moved by the tragedy of avoidable suffering, and by the unspeakable waste of

The emerging threat of cheap and

intelligence, creativity and pleasure that is denied us all when any human being is oppressed into silence by poverty or tyranny.

ubiquitous, massively destructive technologies provides a new reason to redress social injustice and
the discontent it inspires (for those among you who really need another reason): The existence of
injustice anywhere might soon threaten you quite literally, and needlessly, with destruction.
 Coop Fism Impact: Climate
Cooperative federalism solves warming allows the government to set regulations to
stop race to the bottom standards but preserves state autonomy in implementation
Doremus and Hanemann, 8 Holly, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley and UC Davis, and Michael, Chancellors Professor,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley and UC Davis, SYMPOSIUM: Of Babies and
Bathwater: Why the Clean Air Acts Cooperative Federalism Framework is Useful for Addressing Global Warming, 50 Arizona Law Review 799,
pg. lexis, ALB

B. Why the Cooperative Federalism Framework of the Clean Air Act Is a Good Fit for Global Warming
EPA's general counsel opined in 1998 that the agency had authority to regulate GHG emissions as air
pollutants under the Clean Air Act, n109 but the agency took no steps to do so. Five years later, a different general
counsel working for a different administration offered a different interpretation, asserting that the Clean Air Act did not allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
n110 That conclusion rested on the view that the Clean Air Act's regulatory framework was ill-suited to the problem of global climate change. Some important
politicians agree. Congressman John Dingell has said that regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would produce "a glorious mess," n111 and
President Bush has worried that applying the Clean Air Act (or the Endangered Species Act or National Environmental Policy Act, for that matter) to global warming
would cripple the economy. n112 Those concerns featured prominently in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) EPA issued in July 2008, n113
belatedly responding to Massachusetts v. EPA. In an unusual personal preface, the EPA Administrator revealed both a striking general hostility to the Clean Air Act
and a commitment to avoiding its use to deal with GHG emissions, writing: I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to
control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases... . Pursuing this course of action would
inevitably result in a very complicated, time-consuming and, likely, convoluted set of regulations. These rules would largely pre-empt or overlay existing programs
that help control greenhouse gas emissions and would be relatively ineffective at reducing greenhouse gas concentrations given the potentially damaging effect on

jobs and the U.S. economy. n114 We agree that it would be difficult to apply the current Clean Air Act directly to GHG emissions. Nonetheless , we believe
that many aspects of the Clean Air Act, notably including its division of responsibilities between state
and federal authorities, would serve the nation well in tackling global warming . The combination of
federal [*821] minimum standards for both stationary and mobile sources with state obligations to meet
emission targets that characterizes the Clean Air Act could address many of the gaps that emission
trading will inevitably leave. 1. Air Quality Standards The one conspicuous misfit between the present Clean Air
Act and the global warming problem is the Act's reliance on national air quality standards. EPA's 2003
determination that it lacked the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions rested in large part on its conclusion that the NAAQS were not a useful way to
address global warming. The general counsel wrote: Unique and basic aspects of the presence of key GHGs in the atmosphere make the NAAQS system
fundamentally ill-suited to addressing global climate change. Many GHGs reside in the earth's atmosphere for very long periods of time. CO<2> in particular has a
residence time of roughly 50-200 years. This long lifetime along with atmospheric dynamics means that CO<2> is well mixed throughout the atmosphere, up to
approximately the lower stratosphere. The result is a vast global atmospheric pool of CO<2> that is fairly consistent in concentration everywhere along the surface
of the earth and vertically throughout this area of mixing. ... Any CO<2> standard that might be established would in effect be a worldwide ambient air quality
standard, not a national standard - the entire world would be either in compliance or out of compliance. Such
a situation would be
inconsistent with a basic underlying premise of the CAA [Clean Air Act] regime for implementation of
a NAAQS - that actions taken by individual states and by EPA can generally bring all areas of the U.S.
into attainment of a NAAQS... . The globally pervasive nature of CO<2> emissions and atmospheric
concentrations presents a unique problem that fundamentally differs from the kind of environmental
problem that the NAAQS system was intended to address and is capable of solving. n116 It is true that
no state could on its own assure compliance with an air quality standard for CO<2>. In that sense, the
Clean Air Act is a poor fit for any global, or even regional, problem. Furthermore, the impacts of
greenhouse gases on health and welfare are significantly different than those of the current criteria
pollutants. Instead of direct effects on human life and ecosystems, carbon dioxide's impacts are largely
indirect, mediated through changes in air and water temperatures due to increased retention of solar
energy. That so many people have looked to the Clean Air Act's acid rain program as a model for dealing with greenhouse gases is no surprise. The effects of
CO<2> in the atmosphere are even less direct and more independent of the geographic location of emission than the acid rain effects of SO<2>. Surely the sense
that the Clean Air Act cannot deal with such a delocalized pollution problem, together with the desire to solve the problem as painlessly as possible, has contributed
significantly to the enthusiasm for cap-and-trade approaches. We
believe that Congress should identify the goals of GHG
regulation outside the strictures of the air quality provisions of the Clean Air Act. Those provisions
require that EPA set NAAQS at levels requisite to protect public health and welfare, without regard to
costs. Given the difficulty of deciding what level of global warming is acceptable, the likelihood that
we are already committed to a level of warming that will significantly affect public health and welfare ,
and the potentially high costs of reaching our GHG goals, it is probably essential that Congress take
the lead in setting those goals. We also believe that an emission target makes more sense in this case
than an atmospheric level target. As EPA has noted, the level of CO<2> in the atmosphere is essentially
independent of the decisions of any individual state, and indeed it is at least somewhat independent
of the decisions of all the U.S. states together. States should not face sanctions, as they might under the NAAQS framework, for
atmospheric CO<2> [*823] levels that are beyond their control. n123 Nonetheless, that domestic emission reductions cannot assure attainment of the atmospheric
goal need not be a barrier to regulation. The fight against global warming must proceed on a number of fronts. The 1970 Clean Air Act set emission limits for
automobiles based on back-of-the-envelope calculations of the level of reduction in automobile emissions necessary, in concert with other reductions to be pursued
under the NAAQS provisions, to achieve desired air quality levels. n124 In much the same way, targets could be set for domestic emission reductions with the
understanding that vigorous pursuit of an international successor to the Kyoto Protocol will also be necessary to ensure that climate goals are realized. The Clean Air
Act, then, is not quite the right tool for setting regulatory goals and determining acceptable emission levels for greenhouse gases. But the
fact that the
initial step under the NAAQS provisions does not seem to work for CO<2> should not blind us to the
fact that in many ways the state planning and implementation framework used to achieve the NAAQS
is an excellent fit for addressing global warming. It can engage the states as full partners in addressing
the problem, leverage the work they are already doing, provide info rmation needed to tackle aspects
of the problem that are not well suited to markets, recognize local variation in challenges and
opportunities, take advantage of the special political and practical abilities of the states to deal with
behavioral emissions, and help states learn from one another's successes and failures. Federal
climate legislation should adopt emission reduction goals applicable to the states and require that
states prepare and implement "climate implementation plans" modeled on the SIPs to achieve those
goals. Global warming is a daunting problem, one that will be far more difficult to solve than the "standard" pollution problems that gave rise to the Clean Air
Act. Stabilizing the climate at an acceptable CO<2> level will take the concerted efforts of many nations, all levels of domestic government,

and a committed citizenry. Others have argued - quite correctly - that federal GHG legislation should
protect the ability [*824] of states to engage in their own climate change efforts. We would go
further. For this problem, it is not enough to allow states to participate to the extent they choose to
do so. Because global warming provides textbook temptations for a race to the bottom, emission
goals should be set at the national level. States should be free to adopt more stringent goals should
they choose to do so, just as they are currently free to impose air quality standards tougher than the
federal NAAQS on themselves. Once the federal government sets minimum emission reduction goals,
the states should be required to play a primary role in implementing those goals. Federal legislation
can and should affirmatively confer upon states the authority and the responsibility to play that role.
Surprisingly, none of the current crop of GHG bills deals with the role of the states in any depth. None
would assign the states an important role, or even provide them with incentives to voluntarily assume
such a role. There may be other models that would work, but the Clean Air Act's SIP program, while it
surely could use some tweaking, provides a useful and readily available starting model for an
appropriate state role.

Warming is real, anthropogenic and causes extinction

Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center. Don Flournoy is a PhD and MA from the
University of Texas, Former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, Former Associate Dean @ State University of New York and Case
Institute of Technology, Project Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of
Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don, "Solar Power Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space
Development, Book, p. 10-11

In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes,

The evidence of global warming is alarming, noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate
change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate
changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data
relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the

subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious

problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human
interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming
scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earths
atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the
overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a
potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do
nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earths biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk
assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a

fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can
be potentially the extinction of human species , a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances (Hsu 2010 )
 Coop Fism Impact Module: Terrorism
Federal-state-local coop key to prevent terrorism through law enforcement
Downing and Mayer 13 Michael P. Downing is Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations
Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department. Matt A. Mayer is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of Homeland Security and
Federalism: Protecting America from Outside the Beltway. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/preventing-the-next-lone-wolf-
terrorist-attack-requires-stronger-federalstatelocal-capabilities

Preventing the Next Lone Wolf Terrorist Attack Requires Stronger FederalStateLocal Capabilities
Finally, in November 2012 and January 2013, Tsarnaev yelled in protest during services at a local
mosque about the content of the sermon.[7] The mosques leaders warned him he would not be
welcome if he continued with such outburstsa short-term solution that, while positive, failed to alert
the BPD to Tsarnaevs potential for homegrown violent extremism. A more effective long-range solution
to such threat rests with greater interaction and cooperation between law enforcement and local
communities. Fortunately, state and local organizations recognize that outreach and engagement
strategies build trust and solve community problems at the grassroots level. Indeed, state and local
law enforcement have spent years developing a relationship of trust with local leaders. No one knows
this landscape better than the boots on the ground. The integration of these sometimes-isolated
communities into the greater fold of society has never been more importantand is not the job of
federal authorities. It is, of course, impossible to know whether all of these puzzle piecesor even some
of themwould have been pieced together by the BPD and/or the FBI. Yet the goal of the U.S.
domestic counterterrorism enterprise is not to provide an impenetrable defense against terrorism;
rather, the objective is to give federal, state, and local law enforcement the greatest possible number
of constitutionally grounded opportunities to detect and stop potential terrorists. Rather than again
debate the dangerous proposal of a domestic intelligence agency, the counter-terrorism conversation
should focus on how legally and ethically to take advantage of the decentralized, community-focused,
and well-positioned nature of state and local law enforcement. Without question, had the FBI shared its
interview actions with the BPD, local law enforcement would have had a much greater chance of
detecting Tsarnaevs extremism. Federal law enforcement is not designed to fight against this kind of
threat; it is built to battle against cells, against groups, and against organizations, but not against
individuals. As a consequence, U.S. national strategy reinforces the community policing, outreach, and
engagement model of state and local enforcement.

Lone wolves use WMDs

Gary A. ACKERMAN, Director of the Special Projects Division at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to

Terrorism (START), University of Maryland, AND Lauren E. PINSON, Senior Research/Project Manager at START and PhD student at Yale

University, 14 [An Army of One: Assessing CBRN Pursuit and Use by Lone Wolves and Autonomous Cells, Terrorism and Political Violence,
Vol. 26, Issue 1, 2014]

The first question to answer is whence the concerns about the nexus between CBRN weapons and isolated actors come and whether these are
overblown. The general threat of mass violence posed by lone wolves and small autonomous cells has been detailed in accompanying issue
contributions, but the potential use of CBRN weapons by such perpetrators presents some singular features that either amplify or supplement
the attributes of the more general case and so are deserving of particular attention. Chief among these is the impact of rapid technological
development. Recent
and emerging advances in a variety of areas, from synthetic biology 3 to nanoscale
engineering, 4 have opened doors not only to new medicines and materials, but also to new possibilities
for malefactors to inflict harm on others. What is most relevant in the context of lone actors and small
autonomous cells is not so much the pace of new invention, but rather the commercialization and
consumerization of CBRN weapons-relevant technologies. This process often entails an increase in the
availability and safety of the technology, with a concurrent diminution in the cost, volume, and
technical knowledge required to operate it. Thus, for example, whereas fifty years ago producing large quantities
of certain chemical weapons might have been a dangerous and inefficient affair requiring a large plant, expensive equipment, and
several chemical engineers, with the advent of chemical microreactors, 5 the same processes might be accomplished far more
cheaply and safely on a desktop assemblage, purchased commercially and monitored by a single
chemistry graduate student. The rapid global spread and increased user-friendliness of many
technologies thus represents a potentially radical shift from the relatively small scale of harm a single
individual or small autonomous group could historically cause. 6 From the limited reach and killing power of the sword, spear,
and bow, to the introduction of dynamite and eventually the use of our own infrastructures against us (as on September 11), the number of
people that an individual who was unsupported by a broader political entity could kill with a single action has increased from single digits to
thousands. Indeed, it has even been asserted that over time as
the leverage provided by technology increases, this
threshold will finally reach its culminationwith the ability of one man to declare war on the world and
win. 7 Nowhere is this trend more perceptible in the current age than in the area of unconventional
weapons. These new technologies do not simply empower users on a purely technical level. Globalization and the expansion
of information networks provide new opportunities for disaffected individuals in the farthest corners of
the globe to become familiar with core weapon concepts and to purchase equipmentonline technical
courses and eBay are undoubtedly a boon to would-be purveyors of violence. Furthermore, even the most solipsistic
misanthropes, people who would never be able to function socially as part of an operational terrorist group, can find radicalizing
influences or legitimation for their beliefs in the maelstrom of virtual identities on the Internet . All of
this can spawn, it is feared, a more deleterious breed of lone actors, what have been referred to in some quarters as super-
empowered individuals. 8 Conceptually, super-empowered individuals are atomistic game-changers, i.e.,
they constitute a single (and often singular) individual who can shock the entire system (whether national, regional,

or global) by relying only on their own resources . Their core characteristics are that they have superior intelligence,
the capacity to use complex communications or technology systems, and act as an individual or a lone-
wolf. 9 The end result, according to the pessimists, is that if one of these individuals chooses to attack the
system, the unprecedented nature of his attack ensures that no counter-measures are in place to
prevent it. And when he strikes, his attack will not only kill massive amounts of people, but also profoundly change the
financial, political, and social systems that govern modern life. 10 It almost goes without saying that the same
concerns attach to small autonomous cells, whose members' capabilities and resources can be
combined without appreciably increasing the operational footprint presented to intelligence and law
enforcement agencies seeking to detect such behavior. With the exception of the largest truck or aircraft bombs, the
most likely means by which to accomplish this level of system perturbation is through the use of CBRN agents as
WMD . On the motivational side, therefore, lone actors and small autonomous cells may ironically be more likely
to select CBRN weapons than more established terrorist groupswho are usually more conservative in their tactical
orientationbecause the extreme asymmetry of these weapons may provide the only subjectively
feasible option for such actors to achieve their grandiose aims of deeply affecting the system. The
inherent technical challenges presented by CBRN weapons may also make them attractive to self-
assured individuals who may have a very different risk tolerance than larger, traditional terrorist
organizations that might have to be concerned with a variety of constituencies, from state patrons to
prospective recruits. 11 Many other factors beyond a perceived potential to achieve mass casualties might play into the decision to pursue
CBRN weapons in lieu of conventional explosives, 12 including a fetishistic fascination with these weapons or the perception of direct referents
in the would-be perpetrator's belief system. Others are far more sanguine about the capabilities of lone actors (or indeed non-state actors in
general) with respect to their potential for using CBRN agents to cause mass fatalities, arguing that the barriers to a successful large-scale CBRN
attack remain high, even in today's networked, tech-savvy environment. 13 Dolnik, for example, argues that even though homegrown cells are
less constrained in motivations, more challenging plots generally have an inverse relationship with capability, 14 while Michael Kenney
cautions against making presumptions about the ease with which individuals can learn to produce viable weapons using only the Internet. 15
However, even most of these pundits concede that low-level CBR attacks emanating from this quarter will
probably lead to political, social, and economic disruption that extends well beyond the areas
immediately affected by the attack. This raises an essential point with respect to CBRN terrorism:
irrespective of the harm potential of CBRN weapons or an actor's capability (or lack thereof) to successfully
employ them on a catastrophic scale, these weapons invariably exert a stronger psychological impact
on audiencesthe essence of terrorismthan the traditional gun and bomb. This is surely not lost on those lone actors or
autonomous cells who are as interested in getting noticed as in causing casualties . Proven Capability and Intent While
legitimate debate can be had as to the level of potential threat posed by lone actors or small autonomous cells wielding CBRN weapons,
possibly the best argument for engaging in a substantive examination of the issue is the most concrete one of allthat these
actors have
already demonstrated the motivation and capability to pursue and use CBRN weapons, in some cases even
close to the point of constituting a genuine WMD threat . In the context of bioterrorism, perhaps the most cogent
illustration of this is the case of Dr. Bruce Ivins, the perpetrator behind one of the most serious episodes of bioterrorism in living memory, the
2001 anthrax letters, which employed a highly virulent and sophisticated form of the agent and not only killed five and seriously sickened 17
people, but led to widespread disruption of the U.S. postal services and key government facilities. 16 Other historical cases of CBRN pursuit and
use by lone actors and small autonomous cells highlight the need for further exploration. Among the many extant examples: 17 Thomas Lavy
was caught at the Alaska-Canada border in 1993 with 130 grams of 7% pure ricin. It is unclear how Lavy obtained the ricin, what he planned to
do with it, and what motivated him. In 1996, Diane Thompson deliberately infected twelve coworkers with shigella dysenteriae type 2. Her
motives were unclear. In 1998, Larry Wayne Harris, a white supremacist, was charged with producing and stockpiling a biological agent
bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax. In 1999, the Justice Department (an autonomous cell sympathetic to the Animal Liberation
Front) mailed over 100 razor blades dipped in rat poison to individuals involved in the fur industry. In 2000, Tsiugio Uchinshi was arrested for
mailing samples of the mineral monazite with trace amounts of radioactive thorium to several Japanese government agencies to persuade
authorities to look into potential uranium being smuggled to North Korea. In 2002, Chen Zhengping put rat poison in a rival snack shop's
products and killed 42 people. In 2005, 10 letters containing a radioactive substance were mailed to major organizations in Belgium including
the Royal Palace, NATO headquarters, and the U.S. embassy in Brussels. No injuries were reported. In 2011, federal agents arrested four elderly
men in Georgia who were plotting to use ricin and explosives to target federal buildings, Justice Department officials, federal judges, and
Internal Revenue Service agents. Two recent events may signal an even greater interest in CBRN by lone malefactors. First, based on one
assessment of Norway's Anders Breivik's treatise, his references to CBRN weapons a) suggest that CBRN
weapons could be used
on a tactical level and b) reveal (to perhaps previously uninformed audiences) that even low-level CBRN weapons could
achieve far-reaching impacts driven by fear. 18 Whether or not Breivik would actually have sought or been able to pursue
CBRN, he has garnered a following in several (often far-right) extremist circles and his treatise might inspire other lone actors. Second, Al-Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released
two issues of Inspire magazine in 2012. Articles, on the one hand, call for
lone wolf jihad attacks to target non-combatant populations and, on the other, permit the use of chemical
and biological weapons. The combination of such directives may very well influence the weapon
selection of lone actor jihadists in Western nations. 19
 Coop Fism Impact Module: SOP
Cooperative federalism uses multiple checks to rein in executive
Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

States, this Article argues, check the exercise of federal executive power in an era of expansive
executive power, and they do so as champions of Congress, both relying on congressionally conferred
authority and casting themselves as Congress's faithful agents. When they disagree with the federal
executive about how to administer federal law, states force attention back to the underlying statute:
Contending that their view is consistent with Congress's purposes, states compel the federal executive
[*504] to respond in kind. In addition, states may reinvigorate horizontal checks by calling on the
courts or Congress as allies. State administration of federal law may be a particularly realistic means
of checking federal executive power because instead of fighting problems commentators emphasize -
a vast administrative state, broad delegations to the executive branch, and powerful political parties -
cooperative federalism harnesses these realities to further separation of powers objectives .

SOP prevents tyranny

Samuels and Eaton 2 (David, University of Minnesota, Kent, Princeton University, Presidentialism And, Or, and Versus
Parliamentarism: The State of the Literature and an Agenda for Future Research Conference on Consequences of Political Institutions in
Democracy, Duke University, 4/5)

The authors of the US constitution feared tyranny of the majority. They aimed to create a stable
government, but one that did not move quickly to either enact or to change policy, so as to protect
minority rights. They concluded that the best way to do so was to set ambition against ambition
within a system of majority rule, by separating executive and legislative origin and survival. This basic
constitutional structure has been the model for all subsequent presidential systems. The Madisonian
conception of the separation of powers holds that tyranny is relatively less likely given the separation
of survival because it places the executive and legislative branches in formally different institutional
environments. This generates different behavioral incentives, making majority steamrolls at a minimum
more difficult to coordinate. Even when there is substantial preference overlap between branches,
separation of survival thus provides a safeguard against tyranny. In modern political science parlance,
the structure of presidentialism is designed to be less decisive and more resolute (Cox and McCubbins
2001). That is, we expect policy change to be slower and less dramatic under presidentialism.

Endless wars
Doyle 04 (Michael W, Harold Brown Professor at Columbia University in the School of International and Public Affairs and Columbia Law
School, Liberal Internationalism: Peace, War and Democracy, 6/22 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/doyle/index.html)

Peace and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, it has often been said. In a speech before the
British parliament in June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed that governments founded on a
respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy. He
then, perhaps unaware of the contrast, announced a "crusade for freedom" and a "campaign for
democratic development."2 In making these claims the President joined a long list of liberal theorists
(and propagandists) and echoed an old argument: the aggressive instincts of authoritarian leaders and
totalitarian ruling parties make for war. Liberal states, founded on such individual rights as equality
before the law, free speech and other civil liberties, private property, and elected representation are
fundamentally against war, this argument asserts. When citizens who bear the burdens of war elect
their governments, wars become impossible. Furthermore, citizens appreciate that the benefits of
trade can be enjoyed only under conditions of peace. Thus, the very existence of liberal states, such as
the United States, the European Union and others, makes for peace. And so peace and democracy are
two sides of the same coin.

[OR CUT AND PASTE IMPACT FROM EXEC FISM IF NOT READING]
 Coop Fism Impact Module: Banking Regs
Cooperative federalism key to successful banking regulation
Neiman 10/13/10 SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM IN BANK SUPERVISION
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches/sp101013.htm

The need for reform and a Cooperative Federalism Now, almost three years later, I am even more
convinced that enhanced consumer protection will be the bedrock of our current economic recovery
and of future financial stability . What I advocated when I spoke here last was a renewed level of
coordination among state and federal financial supervisors, a Cooperative Federalism . By this I meant
an approach that retains what is best in our current dual state-federal framework while incorporating
the competitive benefits of more centralized models, through enhanced cooperation. For instance,
states like New York and North Carolina were the first to identify the subprime crisis amidst dangerous
lending practices almost 10 years ago. The states were forced to stand down their enforcement efforts
by federal regulators who were asserting preemption and calling for exclusive authority at the federal
level. We can do better than that. We can achieve appropriate oversight and national standardization
while putting to best use the expertise and resources of each level of government. This may sound to
some like an attempt to do the impossible. But I believe it not only can be done, but has been done to a
large extent through the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. As a starting point, going back to the
subprime example, Dodd-Frank has explicitly empowered states. It heightened the standards that must
be met before the Office of Comptroller of the Currency can nullify state consumer protection laws with
respect to national banks. I would like to explore Cooperative Federalism further by considering - Three
new opportunities created by Dodd-Frank that can further strengthen state-federal cooperation; and,
The need for an exponential increase in federal-federal cooperation among regulators as well. Most
importantly, I see Dodd-Frank as a re-affirmation of the dual banking system. Reform could have
eliminated a meaningful state oversight and enforcement role. It could have removed supervisory
authority from the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, the agencies that partner with the states, and created
a single monolithic regulator. It could have undermined state supervision of the vast majority of
branches of foreign banks operating in the U.S. But instead, in no small part due to the efforts of the
Conference of State Banking Supervisors, Congress confirmed that the state role is critical -- providing
checks and balances, more cops on beat in enforcement, and serving as a proving ground for new
laws.

Banking Regulation stopping another financial crisis

Krugman 8/3/14 Paul Robin Krugman is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-
frank-financial-reform-is-working.html?_r=0

But what about the administrations other big push, financial reform? The Dodd-Frank reform bill has, if
anything, received even worse press than Obamacare, derided by the right as anti-business and by the
left as hopelessly inadequate. And like Obamacare, its certainly not the reform you would have devised
in the absence of political constraints. But also like Obamacare, financial reform is working a lot better
than anyone listening to the news media would imagine. Lets talk, in particular, about two important
pieces of Dodd-Frank: creation of an agency protecting consumers from misleading or fraudulent
financial sales pitches, and efforts to end too big to fail. The decision to create a Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau shouldnt have been controversial, given what happened during the housing boom.
As Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve official who warned prophetically of problems in subprime
lending, asked, Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? He
went on, The question answers itself the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into
taking these products. The need for more protection was obvious. Of course, that obvious need didnt
stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, financial industry lobbyists and conservative groups from going all
out in an effort to prevent the bureaus creation or at least stop it from doing its job, spending more
than $1.3 billion in the process. Republicans in Congress dutifully served the industrys interests, notably
by trying to prevent President Obama from appointing a permanent director. And the question was
whether all that opposition would hobble the new bureau and make it ineffective. At this point,
however, all accounts indicate that the bureau is in fact doing its job, and well well enough to inspire
continuing fury among bankers and their political allies. A recent case in point: The bureau is cracking
down on billions in excessive overdraft fees. Better consumer protection means fewer bad loans, and
therefore a reduced risk of financial crisis. But what happens if a crisis occurs anyway? Continue reading
the main story undefined Comments Share your thoughts Share your thoughts The answer is that, as
in 2008, the government will step in to keep the financial system functioning; nobody wants to take the
risk of repeating the Great Depression. But how do you rescue the banking system without rewarding
bad behavior? In particular, rescues in times of crisis can give large financial players an unfair
advantage: They can borrow cheaply in normal times, because everyone knows that they are too big to
fail and will be bailed out if things go wrong. The answer is that the government should seize troubled
institutions when it bails them out, so that they can be kept running without rewarding stockholders or
bondholders who dont need rescue. In 2008 and 2009, however, it wasnt clear that the Treasury
Department had the necessary legal authority to do that. So Dodd-Frank filled that gap, giving
regulators Ordinary Liquidation Authority, also known as resolution authority, so that in the next crisis
we can save systemically important banks and other institutions without bailing out the bankers
Bankers, of course, hate this idea; and Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell tried to help their
friends with the Orwellian claim that resolution authority was actually a gift to Wall Street, a form of
corporate welfare, because it would grease the skids for future bailouts. But Wall Street knew better. As
Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points out, if being labeled systemically important were actually
corporate welfare, institutions would welcome the designation; in fact, they have fought it tooth and
nail. And a new study from the Government Accountability Office shows that while large banks were
able to borrow more cheaply than small banks before financial reform passed, that advantage has now
essentially disappeared. To some extent this may reflect generally calmer markets, but the study
nonetheless suggests that reform has done at least part of what it was supposed to do. Did reform go
far enough? No. In particular, while banks are being forced to hold more capital, a key force for stability,
they really should be holding much more. But Wall Street and its allies wouldnt be screaming so loudly,
and spending so much money in an effort to gut the law, if it werent an important step in the right
direction. For all its limitations, financial reform is a success story.
decline causes escalating tensions and guarantees global nuclear war.
Washingtons Blog 14 Washingtons Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. We at
Washingtons Blog have an insatiable curiosity for new discoveries, new information and new insights.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/war-2.html

Reagans head of the Office of Management and Budget David Stockman is posting pieces warning
of the dispute between the U.S. and Russia leading to World War 3. Investment adviser Larry Edelson
wrote an email to subscribers entitled What the Cycles of War are saying for 2013, which states:
Since the 1980s, Ive been studying the so-called cycles of war the natural rhythms that predispose
societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war. Im certainly not the
first person to examine these very distinctive patterns in history. There have been many before me,
notably, Raymond Wheeler, who published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a
period of 2,600 years of data . However, there are very few people who are willing to even discuss the
issue right now. And based on what Im seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge . Former
Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner who has made some big accurate calls, and counts
major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients says there will
be a major war, which will drive the Dow to 5,000. Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a
war is epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East. Economist and investment manager
Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic
crisis : The next thing the government will do to distract the attention of the people on bad
economic conditions is theyll start a war somewhere . If the global economy doesnt recover,
usually people go to war. Martin Armstrong who has managed multi-billion dollar sovereign
investment funds wrote in August: Our greatest problem is the bureaucracy wants a war. This will
distract everyone from the NSA and justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction for the
economic decline that is coming. Armstrong wrote a piece this month entitled, Why We will Go to War
with Russia, and another one saying, Prepare for World War III.
 Coop Fism Impact Module: International Human Rights

Cooperative federalism crucial to international human rights

Kaufman 12 Cardozo Law Review 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 1971 LENGTH: 25355 words ARTICLE: "By Some Other Means": Considering the
Executive's Role in Fostering Subnational Human Rights Compliance NAME: Risa E. Kaufman* BIO: * Executive Director, Human Rights Institute,
Columbia Law School, and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School.

With a few notable exceptions, n23 less considered and theorized is the appropriate role of the federal
government vis-a-vis state and local efforts to implement human rights, particularly the rights
contained in treaties ratified by the United States. Given the United States's practice of ratifying human
rights treaties with the declaration that they are non-self-executing, n24 Congress' potential role in
ensuring subnational implementation is relatively clear: Congress can enact legislation implementing
human rights treaty requirements and making them enforceable against the states. In the absence of
such congressional action, the role of the executive takes greater prominence. The Supreme Court's
decision in Medellin v. Texas makes clear that, absent implementing-legislation, the President is
constrained in his or her ability to compel states to comply with human rights treaty obligations. n25
Yet, it also indicates that there are other options at the President's disposal that could be used to bring
the United States into compliance with treaty obligations, noting that, "The President may comply with
the treaty's obligetions [*1978] by some other means, so long as they are constituent with the
Constitution." n26 This Article explores the concept of "by some other means." While acknowledging
both the important role that states and localities play in domestic human rights integration and
implementation, and the need for cooperation between the federal branches in implementing treaty
obligations, it takes the position that the federal executive can play a greater role in fostering,
coordinating, and engaging compliance with human rights treaties at the state and local level.
Drawing upon relevant examples of cooperative federalism in other contexts, this Article suggests
some core functions in this regard. In so doing, this Article deepens and expands the understanding of
"dialogical federalism" urged by Catherine Powell in the realm of human rights treaty implementation.
n27 Powell urges cooperation between federal and local government as an avenue to meaningful
implementation of human rights in the United States, to help overcome the "democratic deficit"
inherent in international law, as well as to broaden coordination of state and local innovation. n28 She
envisions a robust partnership among federal, state, and local governments, with the federal
government playing a strong coordinating function, particularly in the context of unratified treaties and
where the United States has ratified treaties subject to particular limitations. n29

Key to war and WMD use prevention

William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson

School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University; Spring 04

17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249

This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human
rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between
the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct.
Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may
directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S.
military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates
that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in
aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of
aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security.
Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to
engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace
and the prevention of such acts of aggression. n2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S.
policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A
strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy
modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting
the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means
of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it
provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior
through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human
rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N.
cooperation on human rights issues.

extinction
Annas et al 2 (George, (Edward R. Utley Prof. and Chair Health Law Boston U. School of Public Health and Prof. SocioMedical
Sciences and Community Science Boston U. School of Medicine and Prof. Law Boston U. School of Law), Lori Andrews, (Distinguished Prof.
Law Chicago-Kent College of Law and Dir. Institute for Science, Law, and Technology Illinois Institute Tech), and Rosario M. Isasa, (Health
Law and Biotethics Fellow Health Law Dept. of Boston U. School of Public Health), American Journal of Law & Medicine, THE GENETICS
REVOLUTION: CONFLICTS, CHALLENGES AND CONUNDRA: ARTICLE: Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty
Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations, 28 Am. J. L. and Med. 151, L/N)

The development of the atomic bomb not only presented to the world for the first time the prospect of total annihilation, but also,
paradoxically, led to a renewed emphasis on the "nuclear family," complete with its personal bomb shelter. The conclusion of World War II
(with the dropping of the only two atomic bombs ever used in war) led to the recognition that world wars were now suicidal to the entire
species and to the formation of the United Nations with the primary goal of preventing such wars. n2 Prevention, of course, must be based on
the recognition that all humans are fundamentally the same, rather than on an emphasis on our differences. In the aftermath of the Cuban
missile crisis, the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war, President John F. Kennedy, in an address to the former Soviet Union,
underscored the necessity for recognizing similarities for our survival: Let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to
our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved . . . . For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is
that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. n3 That we are
all fundamentally the same, all human, all with the same dignity and rights, is at the core of the most important
document to come out of World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the two treaties that followed it (together known as the
"International Bill of Rights"). n4 The
recognition of universal human rights, based on human dignity and equality
as well as the principle of nondiscrimination, is fundamental to the development of a species
consciousness. As Daniel Lev of Human Rights Watch/Asia said in 1993, shortly before the Vienna Human Rights Conference: Whatever
else may separate them, human beings belong to a single biological species, the simplest and most fundamental commonality before which the
significance of human differences quickly fades. . . . We are all capable, in exactly the same ways, of feeling pain, hunger, [*153] and a hundred
kinds of deprivation. Consequently,
people nowhere routinely concede that those with enough power to do so
ought to be able to kill, torture, imprison, and generally abuse others. . . . The idea of universal human
rights shares the recognition of one common humanity, and provides a minimum solution to deal with its miseries. n5
Membership in the human species is central to the meaning and enforcement of human rights, and
respect for basic human rights is essential for the survival of the human species . The development of the
concept of "crimes against humanity" was a milestone for universalizing human rights in that it recognized that there were certain actions, such
as slavery and genocide, that implicated the welfare of the entire species and therefore merited universal condemnation. n6 Nuclear weapons
were immediately seen as a technology that required international control, as extreme genetic manipulations like cloning and inheritable
genetic alterations have come to be seen today. In fact, cloning and inheritable genetic alterations can be seen as crimes against humanity of a
unique sort: they are techniques that can alter the essence of humanity itself (and thus threaten to change the foundation of human rights) by
taking human evolution into our own hands and directing it toward the development of a new species, sometimes termed the "posthuman." n7
It may be that species-altering techniques, like cloning and inheritable genetic modifications, could provide benefits to the human species in
extraordinary circumstances. For example, asexual genetic replication could potentially save humans from extinction if all humans were
rendered sterile by some catastrophic event. But no such necessity currently exists or is on the horizon.
 Coop Fism Impact Module: Immigration Policy
Immigration law under the current system of federalism has led to conflict, including
punishing sanctuary cities
Amdur 16 (Spencer E., October, 2016, Spencer Amdur is a writer and lawyer based in Philadelphia. He
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. "The Right of Refusal: Immigration Enforcement and the New
Cooperative Federalism," Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
https://newrepublic.com/authors/spencer-amdur)

In recent years, immigration enforcement has provoked conflicts among almost every level and branch of
American government. Some disputes are horizontal: between the President and Congress, governors and
state legislatures, sheriffs and boards of supervisors. Others are vertical: between states and federal agencies, the
President and governors, states and localities. Many of the constitutional questions posed by these
conflicts have entered the courts and spawned large academic literatures. But at least one has not: federal power to
enlist state and local aid. Attempts to secure such aid-which I will call " inducement strategies"- are a pervasive
feature of modern federalism . They take many forms, ranging from simple solicitation, to financial
incentives, to outright mandates. In one form or another, they show up whenever the federal government
lacks the resources, or the political buy-in, to enforce a large regulatory program on its own. Sites of federal creativity
and local resistance, these interactions are where broader visions of federal-state relations-partnership, hierarchy, bargaining, competition-play
out on the ground. Inducement strategies are testing constitutional limits in areas as diverse as climate
change,' health care, and marijuana enforcement .' But in immigration law, they have generated some
particularly intense conflicts. In 2015, the concept of a "sanctuary city"-one whose police and sheriffs do not help
enforce immigration law-burst into the national immigration debate. In the preceding decade, a vast new
interior enforcement system had come to heavily rely on state and local police to identify and arrest deportable
noncitizens. Objecting to the attendant financial burdens and harm to police work, a number of cities, counties, and states began to resist. By
the summer of 2014, hundreds of jurisdictions were refusing to cooperate, and later that year, federal officials were forced to
revisit their own policies.4 This tension came to the fore in July of 2015, after an unauthorized immigrant shot and killed a woman on
a pier in San Francisco. The shooter had been convicted of several immigration and drug crimes, and after being transferred to San Francisco on
an old warrant, he had been released pursuant to a local non-cooperation policy.' A national furor erupted. Presidential candidates began
calling for a "crack down" on cities like San Francisco.6 A
host of politicians began proposing legislation to punish
cities and states that refused to cooperate. The issue remained in the foreground throughout the 2016
presidential campaign.' Forcing local cooperation is now one of the main planks in the in- coming
administration's immigration platform.9 A lurking question has thus come to the surface: how far can the federal
government go to demand state and local support? The question comes at a time of uncertainty in the
law of cooperative federalism ."

Cooperative federalism is key to structuring immigration policy And vice versa

Amdur 16 (Spencer E., October, 2016, Spencer Amdur is a writer and lawyer based in Philadelphia. He
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. "The Right of Refusal: Immigration Enforcement and the New
Cooperative Federalism," Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
https://newrepublic.com/authors/spencer-amdur)
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB), the Supreme Court struck down a
spending condition as unconstitutionally coercive for the first time in history." In doing so, it reopened some
federalism questions that date back to the 198os and 1990s, when the Court established that Congress
could regulate state entities alongside private ones, but could not commandeer states' regulatory services. In the wake of
NFIB, scholars, courts, and lawyers must grapple with some new questions. How do coercion and commandeering fit together? Does NFIB tell
us anything deeper about the nature of American federalism? Immigration law provides especially fertile ground for
thinking about those questions because of how deeply the federal government now relies on state assistance. Our
immigration system delegates a large portion of immigrant screening to back-end enforcement," one of
whose primary criteria is criminality. But the federal government lacks the physical resources and constitutional
authority to widely access that criterion-only states can enforce general criminal law. As a result, interior
enforcement now functions largely as an adjunct to state criminal justice systems. In perhaps no other realm of federal policy
does enforcement so depend on state and local aid. 14 To maintain that link, different federal actors have
used or proposed a number of boundary-pushing inducement strategies. The approaches vary widely in the
amount of pressure they apply. Some involve simple solicitation of aid, or unilateral offers of resources and authority.

Others trade federal funds and services for local assistance. Harsher proposals involve threats to punish
resistance by cutting off pre-existing federal grants. Several even ban certain forms of refusal outright, or
mandate certain forms of participation. These different forms of pressure share a common tendency to locate enforcement decisions in
increasingly lower levels of the state criminal-justice hierarchy. But they imply widely divergent visions of federal-state
relations . They also fit uneasily into federalism's existing doctrine and theory. The Supreme Court in NFIB
updated its inducement jurisprudence to prohibit certain spending threats; as Part II argues, its cooperative federalism cases now
cohere around what I call a "right of refusal," a narrow but absolute right against certain forms of inducement. But the Court-and,
for the most part, the lower courts-have had little occasion to grapple with many of the strategies being
tested in the immigration sphere. Those strategies include mandates to share information,
prohibitions against non-cooperation policies, and funding threats directed at local actors. As I explain in Part III,
each of these strategies is in some tension with the Court's emerging federalism jurisprudence. These unique forms of integration
similarly cut across existing scholarly accounts of how our federal system functions, or should function. They shed new empirical light
on old debates about how to promote local autonomy and strengthen political accountability. They
also show how federalism can protect individual liberty and encourage a robust national debate. In other words,
immigration is on the front lines of today's federalism , whose law and theory must now account for it. The converse
is also true. The structure of immigration policy is now very sensitive to the changing norms of
cooperative federalism . The coevolution of immigration and federalism promises to profoundly
shape both . Despite this rich terrain, scholars of immigration federalism have largely focused on other constitutional questions. A vast
literature has explored questions of state power and preemption." This tracks the federalism controversies that have generated the most
litigation in the last decade, such as Arizona's S.B. 1070 and similar laws. After
the 2016 presidential election, however,
questions of federal inducement power loom on the horizon." And while earlier scholarship has examined the
question of whether state and local police should choose to participate,1 7 none has subjected the range of federal inducement practices to
sustained doctrinal and theoretical scrutiny.18 Scholars of federalism, meanwhile, have largely treated immigration as a footnote. As they
have identified new modes of integration and begun to reconcile them with the Court's federalism jurisprudence, 9 few have looked closely
at the encounters taking place in the immigration realm.20 Perhaps this has stemmed from a perception that immigration is different, a self-
contained area of law whose rules and patterns cannot be generalized. That may be true of some federalism questions, such as state
authority to regulate migration, which is uniquely constrained.2 1 But the
Supreme Court has given no indications that
procedural constraints on federal power-commandeering, state sovereign immunity, coercion, spending
conditions, and the like-vary from one area of substantive law to the next. Immigration therefore presents the
opportunity to test federalism doctrine and theory where federal-state integration is tightest.
[insert immigration impact]
DHSs biggest dependence on state-local cooperation is immigration reform
Amdur 16 (Spencer E., Fall, 2016, Spencer Amdur is a writer and lawyer based in Philadelphia. He
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. "The Right of Refusal: Immigration Enforcement and the New
Cooperative Federalism," Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
https://newrepublic.com/authors/spencer-amdur)

3. The Present Federalism

Impasse Secure Communities was slowly rolled out over the next four years.71 It is "the
largest expansion of local involvement in immigration enforcement in the nation's history." 2 Anytime a person is
booked by a law enforcement agency in the United States, their fingerprints are sent to the FBI. 73 Secure Communities links the FBI database
to a DHS database of people who have come into contact with the immigration system.74 The
program thus allows DHS to screen
every arrestee in the country for potential deportability. At first, DHS signed agreements with state officials before activating
Secure Communities within their states.75 Many states signed up, but others balked.76 As resistance grew, on August 5, 2011, DHS announced
that the program was actually mandatory, and that states could not back out.7 7 It rescinded all the agreements that had been signed up to
that point, explaining that they were no longer necessary78 Many state officials and advocacy groups protested this reversal, 9 but because
Secure Communities simply sends fingerprints from one federal agency to another, local police had no way to prevent its operation, short of
not sending fingerprints to the FBI.so A subtle but important shift happened when DHS announced that Secure
Communities would be mandatory. In the previous decade, as the federal government sought to enlist local support-whether
through the 287(g) program, the 2002 OLC memo, the expansion of the NCIC, or direct solicitations by agency officials-its means were mostly
precatory, encouraging participation without forcing the issue. And while
Congress had passed laws in 1996 that formally
prohibited some non-participation, the federal government had never enforced them, and they had been
largely ignored."' Now, for the first time, the administration imposed a form of unwanted participation that
many states and localities had already opposed. Secure Communities intersects with an older federal effort to connect state
prisons and local jails to the immigration system. Agents from its interior enforcement arm, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
search in person, by reading jail logs and interrogating detainees. This occurs under the aegis of a program called the Criminal Alien Program,
which traces its roots back to the post-IRCA jail-based initiatives."8 The Criminal Alien Program accounts for some of ICE's funding spike over
the last decade: from $6.6 million in 2004 to $322.4 million in 2015-a fifty-fold increase. By some estimates, "[b]etween two-thirds and three-
quarters of individuals removed from the interior of the United States are removed through [the Criminal Alien Program]. "83 It can be hard to
separate different programs, because their operations overlap and employees are not necessarily assigned to one or the other. But
collectively, DHS's prison- and jail-focused programs-in other words, those that rely on state and local
participation-account for the vast majority of its interior enforcement activity.

In the SQ, the right of refusal is superseded by inducement strategies based on years
of cases
Amdur 16 (Spencer E., Fall, 2016, Spencer Amdur is a writer and lawyer based in Philadelphia. He
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. "The Right of Refusal: Immigration Enforcement and the New
Cooperative Federalism," Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
https://newrepublic.com/authors/spencer-amdur)

II. INDUCEMENT IN LEGAL CONTEXT: THE "RIGHT OF REFUSAL" There are many ways the federal government can
implement policy over and through the states. To put the inducement continuum in legal context, this Part surveys the various
constitutional "rules of engagement,146 and then proposes a new principle that ties together the primary limits on federal
power: the "right of refusal." Most simply stated, the right of refusal bars inducement strategies that deny states
a meaningful option to withhold their regulatory assistance . The principle is narrow, in that it does not disturb
the background rules of engagement announced in the 198os: that Congress may induce through offers, trades, and even some threats, and it
can directly regulate state governments just as it regulates private entities. But the principle is also adaptable, in that it bars all
forms of threat, prohibition, and mandate that effectively force states to help regulate. This principle
simultaneously reconciles the cooperative federalism cases of the last three decades, aligns their normative
justifications, and generates insights about their future application . A. Background Rules of Engagement: Before
getting to the commandeering and coercion limits, it is important to appreciate the baseline regime over which they were drawn. In the decade
before New York v. United States-when it started striking down statutes on federalism grounds-the Supreme Court approved some basic
methods by which the federal government can regulate state governments and encourage them to help implement federal law. Four
principles are most relevant for understanding modern inducement strategies. 1. Regulating States: Congress
can impose generally applicable regulations on state and local governments. In 1985, the Supreme Court held in
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority that Congress could extend the Fair Labor Standard Act's minimum wage and overtime
provisions to state and local employees.'14 Note that this meant upholding a federal command to state governments: pay employees a
minimum wage and overtime. That command, however, only required states, as employers, to do what all other employers had to do. It did not
require them to use their regulatory authority in any particular way. Garcia's rule, if not its rationales,'" has largely survived the federalism
revival of the last two and a half decades. In the first "new federalism" cases of the early 199os, the Court reaffirmed Garcia's basic holding,
albeit begrudgingly.'49 Even after all the new limits of the 199os, it has continued to uphold generally applicable federal regulation of state
activities, with no concern for whether those activities are traditional, integral to state sovereignty, or anything else.' 2.
Conditional
Offers: Congress can trade things within its power-like money, or regulatory authority, or forbearance from preemption-
for state assistance that would otherwise lie beyond its reach. In a conditional spending program, Congress offers
money to states or localities, but only if they comply with certain conditions. The 1987 case South Dakota v. Dole confirmed that those
conditions can reach subject matter beyond Congress' enumerated powers.'"' Congress can similarly impose conditions on a state's continued
regulation in a field that federal law could fully occupy (this is frequently called "conditional non-preemption").'5 2 In Hodel v. Virginia Surface
Mining and Reclamation Ass'n, the Court upheld a challenge to federal mining regulations that state regulators had to enforce in order to stay
in business." 3 It explained that "Congress could constitutionally have enacted a statute prohibiting any state regulation of surface coal mining,"
but instead "chose to allow the States a regulatory role."154 The Court upheld an even more intrusive version the following year in FERC v.
Mississippi. 55 Both spendingand non-preemption conditions provide Congress with a powerful tool to
induce assistance that it could otherwise not secure. 3. Regulatory Burdens: Otherwise-valid legislation does not
violate, the Tenth Amendment simply because the states must legislate or expend resources to
comply. In both Hodel and FERC, the Court rejected the notion that the financial cost of compliance might render a statute
unconstitutional.1"6 In South Carolina v. Baker, the Court extended that principle to laws that required state legislation to achieve compliance.'
Congress had effectively banned unregistered bonds, by removing the tax exemption for interest earned on them.''8 To comply with the ban,
states had to enact statutes to provide for issuing registered bonds. The Court was untroubled. It explained that the statute "regulates state
activities; it does not, as did the statute in FERC, seek to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties."' 9 South
Carolina stressed that, to comply with the ban, "many state legislatures had to amend a substantial number of statutes in order to issue bonds
in registered form," but the Court dismissed that concern as "an inevitable consequence of regulating a state activity."' 4. Clear Notice
Finally, the boundaries of cooperative programs need to be clearly stated. For instance, when Congress offers
federal funds, the conditions attached to those funds must be "unambiguous[]."' Likewise, waivers of sovereign immunity, as conditions for
program participation, must be "unmistakably clear.""' These clear-statement rules instantiate the political-safeguards approach of Garcia by
ensuring that impositions on state government are the product of considered federal deliberation, and that states and their constituents know
what they are signing up for. 163

Funding systems for criminal and illegal immigration programs are muddled with
regulatory uncertainty
Amdur 16 (Spencer E., Fall, 2016, Spencer Amdur is a writer and lawyer based in Philadelphia. He
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. "The Right of Refusal: Immigration Enforcement and the New
Cooperative Federalism," Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
https://newrepublic.com/authors/spencer-amdur)

4. Applying the Right of Refusal: At the outset, both

notification and detainer conditions appear to direct the use of
SCAAP funds. Funds granted under SCAAP are specifically tied to the incarceration of deportable immigrants, and
they can only be used for correctional purposes. 9 7 It is true that the program only funds a fraction of actual detention costs.'9 But in many
programs, Congress imposes conditions on activities it funds only a portion of. Assuming the Court, in NFIB, did
not intend to upend decades of cooperative regulatory programs, the use of funds must not be analyzed at such a low
level of generality. 99 In the terms of my taxonomy, these conditions would simply change SCAAP from an offer to
a trade: Congress would essentially be saying that it will help pay for detention, but only if part of the
funds are used to report on and extend that detention in certain cases. 300 Things are less clear for the

other programs , most of which do not fund jails, prisons, or anything to do with immigrants. For
instance, the officers whose salaries are funded by the COPS program are almost never the ones receiving
detainer and notification requests. Then again, as I argued in Section III.A, notification and detainers do not
simply request one quick email from one jail official. They enlist the entire law enforcement process, from
investigation to arrest to detention. Thus, a more plausible narrative might be that federal funds for, say, officer
salaries can only be used to fund officers whose police-work is subject to later reporting. Interestingly, this
pits the legality of mandatory reporting against the legality of the proposed funding cut-offs. The more
notification co-opts the whole law enforcement process, the less viable it is as a mandate, but the more viable it is as a condition on funding for
earlier stages of that process. That said, I doubt a court would dilute the inquiry this far. A requirement that jail officials honor detainers hardly
seems to direct the use of funds that pay for new squad cars, or a patrol officer's salary, or a prosecutor's salary. This means that threats to cut
off COPS, JAG, and other law enforcement grants cannot be per se constitutional on those grounds. Neither can the Community Development
Block Grant program, whose funds have little to do with law enforcement, much less immigration. On the other hand, most of the conditions
are probably germane to the local law enforcement funds. The local-enforcement proposals, in their proponents' telling, are designed to
improve public safety by facilitating the removal of non-citizen criminals. That purpose is certainly germane to law enforcement grants under a
deferential analysis.3 "' This is not to endorse the proponents' assumption that local participation in immigration enforcement improves public
safety; indeed, many law enforcement officials, immigrant communities, state and local governments, and scholars dispute it.30 2 But a
deferential germaneness analysis requires crediting the federal government's plausible policy assumptions. The same cannot be said, however,
for Community Development Block Grants, which fund local activities like affordable housing and small business development. If immigration
enforcement were related to that purpose, it would obliterate the germaneness requirement, which every member of the Supreme Court has
recently re-endorsed.30 3 This application of the condition therefore fails under Dole. The same is true, necessarily, for the recent proposals
that would reach even further to cut off all funding to local governments.30 4 Federal grants fund local projects as diverse as roads, schools,
and hospitals. While the germaneness requirement may be underdeveloped, it does still exist. Such an indiscriminate threat, leveled for no
purpose other than to undermine the right of refusal, seems like exactly the kind of spending condition the germaneness requirement would
prevent. That leaves COPS and JAG. If the anti-coercion rule extends to local institutions, threats to these programs would have to be
considered jointly. As I argued in Section III.C.3, it is difficult to know how that analysis should play out-whose budget to consider, for instance-
without answers to some deeper questions about local government's role in federalism. There is also a further obstacle to assessing these
threats' legality, which is that macrodata on the percentages of local budgets funded by specific federal law enforcement grants does not yet
exist. 30 5 Assembling that dataset is beyond the scope of this Article, but it is an essential project for future study, both for answering this
particular question, and for examining the larger issue of how much leverage, in practice, the federal government has over local policing
practices. For now, it is enough to say that the right of refusal probably protects local governments, not just states, and that threats to cut off
non-law-enforcement funds probably fail the Dole test. IV. NORMATIVE DEBATES ABOUT FEDERALISM AND INDUCEMENT This Part moves
beyond the case law to explore immigration enforcement's intersection with scholarly claims about cooperative federalism. Since New York,
debate has simmered over the wisdom of protecting states from commandeering. Now, in the wake of
NFIB, that question has purchase across a number of federal-state interactions. The new question is
where, and to what degree, courts should protect the right of refusal. A satisfying answer to that question must, of
course, refer to the values served by federalism. We cannot know if a rule makes sense without some normative baseline about
the ends the rule is meant to serve. Courts and scholars have identified a long list of values associated with federalism. My goal in this Part is
not to balance their relative importance. It is simply to show how immigration enforcement speaks to some recurring themes in the ongoing
conversation about how constitutional doctrine serves different federalism values. Because federalism scholars have tended not to closely
engage with immigration, it has yet to leave its full mark on these broader debates. This Part begins that project. I
explore the right of refusal's impact on state and local autonomy, subfederal participation in national dialogue, individual liberty, and
accountability.3 06

Amdur 16 (Spencer E., Fall, 2016, Spencer Amdur is a writer and lawyer based in Philadelphia. He
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. "The Right of Refusal: Immigration Enforcement and the New
Cooperative Federalism," Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
https://newrepublic.com/authors/spencer-amdur)
D. The Right of Refusal: This Section distills a unified principle to fuse the ostensible silos of cooperative federalism: the right of refusal. Simply
stated, the right of refusal prohibits any form of inducement that would meaningfully eliminate a state's
ability to decline to help implement a federal regulatory scheme. The principle is comprehensive, in that
it reaches forms of regulatory compulsion beyond those at issue in New York, Printz, and NFIB, but it is narrow, because it is bounded
by the limits of Garcia, Baker, and Condon. In other words, within its small domain, the right is absolute. My
goal in this Section is interpretive-to explain how the Court's cases fit together in a coherent way. '1 But the right of refusal is more than
a descriptive heuristic; it also adds analytic clarity to the cases' normative and doctrinal dimensions . This Section is
backward-looking: it explores the right of refusal's role in Tenth Amendment jurisprudence. The next Part is prospective: it puts these claims to
the test by applying the right of refusal to some fairly novel-but potentially pervasive-inducement strategies. According to NFIB,
commandeering and coercion are two sides of the same coin. As the Chief Justice put it, "[t]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the
authority to require the States to regulate.""' Before NFIB, that statement would have only described commandeering. But now, it occurs when
"Congress directly commands a State to regulate or indirectly coerces a State to adopt a federal regulatory system as its own."' 9 The joint
dissenters drew on the same reasoning. After stating the anti-commandeering rule, they explained that "Congress effectively engages in this
impermissible compulsion when state participation in a federal spending program is coerced, so that the States' choice whether to enact or
administer a federal regulatory program is rendered illusory."200 According
to at least seven Justices, then,
commandeering and coercion are merely variants, formal and functional, on the same principle: states and
their officials must have a meaningful right to refuse participation in federal programs.2 0 There are
indications, moreover, that the right to withhold that participation is broader than the sum of the anti-coercion and anti-commandeering
doctrines-that is, the federal government may not force the states to help regulate even if it does so without using direct commands or
spending conditions. One indication is that the Court first recognized the possibility of uncon- stitutional regulatory coercion in Steward
Machine Co. v. Davis, a case that did not involve threats to withhold any federal-state funds.2 o 2 Another indication is that, more recently,
several Justices raised the possibility of coercion-withoutspending-conditions during the oral argument in King v. Burwell.2 3 The question in
King was whether the Affordable Care Act allowed subsidies for health insurance purchasers in states that declined to set up their own
exchanges-a possibility that would have destroyed the healthcare markets in states that refused to help implement the program.2 o 4 Justice
Kennedy observed that "the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral,"
and he called this "a serious constitutional problem.o" 2 s Both Justices who dissented on the coercion issue in NFIB agreed.206 These
inclinations make sense: there are ways the federal government might take away a state's refusal ability that do not involve commandeering or
spending conditions. The right of refusal I have identified protects states from any such inducement. A few things are gained by casting
the doctrine in these terms. For one thing, it aligns many of the justifications for the coercion and commandeering bans. If
it is not a good idea to let the federal government mandate state regulation, then it is probably not a good idea to let it coerce state regulation
either.2 0 7 Pre-NFIB scholarship recognized the coercive potential of spending threats, but often treated this as an indication of anti-
commandeering's incoherence.20 Aligning their core concerns allows us to start evaluating and applying the
larger principle, instead of lamenting its absence. (I take on some of these normative questions in Part IV.) The right of refusal
similarly ties these harder Tenth Amendment limits to the Court's softer federalism-protecting clear-
statement rules: states cannot meaningfully exercise their right of refusal over grant conditions and sovereign immunity waivers that
they do not know about.
Big Stick Advantages
 Economy Module

Inequity from failed educational federalism impose massive systemic drag on

economy
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Education federalism also is supposed to yield an efficient and effective education system. However, the
education system regularly falls short of achieving these goals.80 The substantial percentage of poorly
educated students inflicts substantial costs upon the United States, resulting in numerous
inefficiencies.81 For example, as I have noted in prior scholarship,82 increasing the high school
graduation rate could save the nation between $7.9 and $10.8 billion annually in food stamps, housing
assistance and welfare assistance.83 The nation forfeits $156 billion in income and tax revenues during
the life span of each annual cohort of students who do not graduate from high school.84 This cohort
also costs the public $23 billion in health care costs and $110 billion in diminished health quality and
longevity.85 By increasing the high school graduation rate by one percent for men aged twenty to sixty,
the nation could save $1.4 billion each year from reduced criminal behavior.86 Given this research,
ineffective schools inflict high costs upon the nation costs that it cannot afford as it wrestles with
predicted long-term growth in the deficit and significant, yet declining, unemployment.87

Economic decline causes war miscalc, resource wars and political instability
Royal 10 - Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,
2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of
War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.
Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic
decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent slates. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level. Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (19%) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-
eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,
exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (sec also
Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation
(Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive
environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately.
Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the
likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a
dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He
argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult lo replace items such as energy resources, [lie likelihood for conflict increases. as
states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because il triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external
armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-
reinforce each other. (Blomberg & I less. 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an
increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. & Wccrapana. 2004). which has the capacity to
spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity
of a silting government. "Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from
economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military
conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blomberg. Mess,
and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least
indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to
the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to
lack of domestic support. DcRoucn (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates
economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science
scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This
implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other
perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict,
such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of
and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered
ancillary to those views.
 Competitiveness Module
Disparities crush US competitiveness
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The harms from persistent and pervasive disparities in educational opportunity are not limited to
schoolchildren, their families, and their communities. These disparities also harm nationwide interests
in a strong economy and a just society. The United States needs to maintain international academic
competitiveness to attract businesses and prevent the loss of jobs to other more educated nations.130
Yet, international assessments reveal that the performance of U.S. students is often average or below
average when compared to other countries,131 which will make it difficult for U.S. students to
compete successfully against students from many other nations. The Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA), an international assessment of performance in math, reading and science, was
administered in 2012 to students in sixty-five education systems.132 The results showed that the
average U.S. student who participated scored average in reading and science literacy and below average
in math literacy when compared to other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.133 Doctors Eric A. Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson and Ludger Woessman, professors of
education at Stanford University, Harvard University and the University of Munich respectively,
summarized the lackluster performance of U.S. students on international assessments in a 2013 book by
noting that: The evidence of international comparison is now clear. American students lag badly and
pervasively. Our students lag behind students not just in Asia, but in Europe and other parts of the
Americas. It is not just disadvantaged students or a group of weak students who lag, but also American
students from advantaged backgrounds. Americans are badly underrepresented among the worlds
highest achievers.134 Although some challenge such conclusions from international assessments as
overblown and simplistic,135 others conclude that these less than stellar outcomes indicate that the
U.S.education system is failing to prepare many of its students to compete successfully for jobs with
other students from around the world.136 Research reveals that the long-term vigor of the U.S.
economy will depend on the advanced skills that are typically provided in higher education and that
are needed for upper-level technical occupations.137 Although the U.S. higher education system
historically has been considered world-class, the United States is facing substantial competition from
other countries with their fast-growing higher education systems.138 As Thomas Bailey, Teachers
College professor of economics and education, has summarized in his research: Occupational forecasts,
analyses of job content, trends in wages, and changes in international competition all point to an
increasing need in the United States for workers with high-level skills. Achieving increases in skill levels
will be difficult as long as current gaps in educational attainment based on income, race, and ethnicity
remain.139 In this environment, the U.S. economy and its competitiveness will be increasingly
hindered by low college enrollment and completion rates for Hispanic and African American students
who increasingly will make up a larger share of the workforce.140 Many U.S. students cannot compete
successfully with students from other developed countries, and the lower achievement of U.S. students
could cause comparatively slow growth for the U.S. economy in the years to come.141
Failure to maintain US growth will collapse hegemony impact is global conflict
Khalilzad, 11 former United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations,
former director of policy planning at the Defense Department (Zalmay, The Economy and National
Security, The National Review, 2/8/2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/259024/economy-
and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States position
as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the
economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift
from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry
and even war among the great powers . The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business
cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy
ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst,
huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S.
government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without
faster
economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If
interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest pay ments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or
require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if
unanticipated events trigger what economists
call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its
outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a
radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the
international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the
rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the

economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to

their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and
allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be
compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face
this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound
political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this
could alter the global
distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a
new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify
geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major
powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises
because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace
among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been
unstable , with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers.

Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars . American retrenchment could
have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in
an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races,

miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers
may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make

aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijings economic rise
has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities.
Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region
have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations
with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the
risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and
managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy
still accounts for over 20 percent of the worlds GDP. American institutions particularly those providing enforceable rule of law

set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are
healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized
enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to
work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The
policy question is how to enhance economic growth and
employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of
Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obamas debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on
measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax
expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both
parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be.
It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should
point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order,
it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese
expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While Chinas economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also
frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done.
Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. Chinas military assertiveness
should enable security cooperation with countries on Chinas periphery particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam in ways that complicate Beijings strategic
calculus. Chinas mercantilist policies and currency manipulation which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere should be used to fashion a
coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijings over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist
alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.
Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled
America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless
we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the
rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems . Regional
hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-
polarity.
 Heg Good Module
Harms will derail US hegemony econ, US cohesion, human capital, military
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Another important cost of a gradual approach to federal influence over funding systems is that it will
allow the current inequities in funding to continue to harm children. Tomorrow's jobs increasingly
demand high-level skills. Higher skills and educational outcomes will be needed for employment and to
maintain a good quality of life. 240 Yet, many disadvantaged students attend schools that employ less
qualified and less effective teachers.241 Such schools also educate students with greater mobility and
more behavior and learning challenges. 242 Excellent schools are essential for those students to
successfully enter college or the workforce and disadvantaged students also need the out-of-school
supports that can address the challenges associated with poverty .43 The harms of inadequate and
inequitable funding for schools extend beyond individual students and families. The interests of the
United States also are harmed by these challenges. National security is threatened by our inadequate
education system, as documented by a task force report from the Council of Foreign Relations: The Task
Force members believe America's educational failures pose five distinct threats to national security:
threats to economic growth and competitiveness, U.S. physical safety, intellectual property, U.S.
global awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion. The Task Force does not deny America's military might,
but military might is no longer sufficient to guarantee security. Rather, national security today is closely
linked with human capital, and the human capital of a nation is as strong or as weak as its public
schools." The U.S. education system also is proving inadequate to prepare many individuals for
military service, given that one in five students who seeks to enter the military is not academically
prepared to do so.245 Research reveals other additional costs for the continued inadequacies of the
education system that an incremental federal strategy may allow to persist. 24 6 Less educated workers
are less productive, thus reducing the economic gains of their labor.247 Those with lower educational
levels commit crime more frequently 248 and participate less often in civic activities such as voting. 249
One study found that the level of education an individual achieves has significant and independent
effects on participation in civic activities and civic attitudes. This research confirms the importance of a
strong education system for an effective democracy. 250 These harms will continue and compound as
long as state funding systems remain inadequate and inequitable . Undoubtedly, the United States
would greatly benefit from an immediate fix to inadequate and inequitable funding models that harm
the nation's interests.

The PERCEPTION of inequity sufficient to destroy US global leadership

Klein and Rice 12 Condoleezza Rice is a professor of political economy in the Graduate School of Business, the Thomas and Barbara
Stephenson senior fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution, and a professor of 90 Task Force Members political science at Stanford
University. She is also a founding partner of the Rice Hadley Group. Rice served as the sixty-sixth U.S. secretary of state, the second woman and
first African-American woman to hold the post. Rice also served as President George W. Bushs national security adviser, the first woman to
hold the position. Rice served as Stanford Universitys provost from 1993 to 1999 and was the institutions chief budget and academic officer. In
1991, Rice cofounded the Center for a New Generation (CNG), an innovative, after-school academic enrichment program for students in East
Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California. Previously, Rice served on President George H.W. Bushs National Security Council staff as director,
senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, and special assistant to the president for national security affairs. In 1986, while an
international affairs fellow at CFR, Rice also served as special assistant to the director of the joint chiefs of staff. Rice currently serves on the
boards of KiOR, C3, Makena Capital, the George W. Bush Institute, the Commonwealth Club, the Aspen Institute, the John F. Kennedy Center for
the Performing Arts, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. She holds a BA and PhD from the University of Denver and a masters degree
from the University of Notre Dame. Joel I. Klein is CEO of the education division and executive vice president in the office of the chairman at
News Corporation, where he also serves on the board of directors. Klein was chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, where
he oversaw a system of over 1,600 schools with 1.1 million students, 136,000 employees, and a $22 billion budget. In 2002, he launched
Children First, a comprehensive reform strategy that has brought coherence and capacity to the system and resulted in significant increases in
student performance. He is a former chairman and CEO of Bertelsmann, Inc., a media company. Until September 2000, he served as assistant
U.S. attorney general in charge of the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and before that he was deputy White House counsel
to President Clinton from 1993 to 1995. Klein entered the Clinton administration after twenty years of public and private legal work in
Washington, DC. Klein received his BA from Columbia University, earned his JD from Harvard Law School, and has received honorary degrees
from Amherst College, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Fordham Law School, Georgetown Law Center, Macaulay
Honors College at CUNY, Manhattanville College, New York Law School, and St. Johns School of Education. He is the recipient of the NYU Lewis
Rudin Award and the Ma nhattan Institute Alexander Hamilton Award and was recognized as one of Time magazines Ten People Who
Mattered in 1999 and one of Americas 20 Best Leaders in 2006 by U.S. News & World Report. Independent Task Force Report No. 68 Joel I.
Klein and Condoleezza Rice, Chairs Julia Levy, Project Director U.S. Education Reform and National Security

When we as chairs convened this Task Force, we asked, Why is K-12 public school education a national
security issue? First, it is critical that children in the United States be prepared for futures in a
globalized world. They must master essential reading, writing, math, and science skills, acquire foreign
languages, learn about the world, andimportantlyunderstand Americas core institutions and values
in order to be engaged in the community and in the international system. Second, the United States
must produce enough citizens with critical skills to fill the ranks of the Foreign Service, the intelligence
community, and the armed forces. For the United States to maintain its military and diplomatic
leadership role, it needs highly qualified and capable men and women to conduct its foreign affairs.
Third, the state of Americas education system has consequences for economic competitiveness and
innovation. No country in the twentyfirst century can be truly secure by military might alone. The
dominant power of the twenty-first century will depend on human capital. The failure to produce
that capital will undermine American security. Finally, the United States cannot be two countries
one educated and one not, one employable and one not . Such a divide would undermine the
countrys cohesion and confidence and Americas ability and willingness to lead. Opportunity and
promise for all Americans are bedrock principles upon which this country was founded. The United
States is an exceptional nation in many ways. As a people, we are not held together by blood,
nationality, ethnicity, or religion. The true American identity is born of the idea that it does not matter
where you came from; it only matters where you are going. And thus, solutions to education must be
unique and foster the American identity among citizens. The circumstance in which this American ideal
is no longer obtainable for a substantial part of the American population is unacceptable. While
recognizing the improvement efforts already in progress, this report details the above concerns and
offers recommendations to build upon the American education system today. This is a clarion call to the
nation, aiming to magnify the need for change. We feel strongly that the United States must continue
to provide an education that allows our country to lead the international community. The nation
cannot allow Americans to lose confidence or the country to turn inward, resulting in a lack of
American leadership around the world. American education is vital to sustaining the nations
international leadership and competitiveness. And it is core to upholding the American ideals that our
forefathers set out to establish in this democracy. We took on this project because we believe that the
crucial question for our generation is whether the American Dream becomes the American memory on
our watch. We believe and hope that the American Dream can still be sustained.
[INSERT HEG GOOD IMPACT]
RWP
 Right Wing Populism Stem
Deep inequities are driving resurgent right wing populism
Lister and Hunt 12/12/16 http://www.just-fair.co.uk/single-post/2016/12/12/To-combat-right-wing-populism-we-need-to-
reclaim-human-rights Paul Hunt is a UN independent human rights expert (1999-2008) and Professor at the Human Rights Centre, Essex
University. Ruth Lister is a Labour peer and Emeritus Professor, Loughborough University and Chair Compass Management Committee.

Human rights are central to understanding and arresting the rise in right-wing populism. Farage,
Trump, Le Pen and their fellow travellers gain strength from the poverty, inequality and unfairness
experienced by millions of working and middle class families. Their experience is sometimes laced with
prejudice and intolerance. This perfect human rights storm demands an urgent human rights response.
But, if this response is to succeed, human rights need to be refreshed for modern times and understood
as important to us all. This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of the worlds two most important
international human rights treaties the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All British governments since 1966 have signed up to these legally
binding Covenants. Their anniversary is the occasion to reclaim and renew human rights for the post-
Brexit era. The history of the twin Covenants highlights their contemporary relevance. Amid the ruins of
the Second World War, governments grasped that human rights are needed as safeguards, not only
against authoritarianism, but also against the causes of authoritarianism. Remembering the 1920s and
30s, they understood that financial crisis, poverty and widening inequality provided fertile ground for
the right-wing populism which led to war. So, in 1945, governments made the promotion of human
rights one of the four key objectives of the new UN. Out of this historic commitment grew the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Covenants in 1966. One of the Covenants protects civil and
political rights, such as freedom of speech, which are designed as bulwarks against authoritarianism. The
other enshrines economic, social and cultural rights, such as an adequate standard of living, affordable
housing, food, education, an equitable health system and workers rights, which are designed to
eliminate the economic and social causes of authoritarianism. But in the modern era of globalisation
and economic neoliberalism, governments forgot history and their obligation to take all reasonable
measures to deliver economic, social and cultural rights for everyone. For millions of families,
governments failed to provide the conditions for decent work, a reasonable standard of living and
affordable homes. Poverty, inequality and a sense of injustice deepened. This neglect a neglect of
human rights contributed to Brexit and Trumps presidential success. Of all the rights in the twin
Covenants, social rights were and remain the most overlooked. Take the UK, for example. Civil and
political rights are protected by the Human Rights Act which the government wishes to replace with a
British Bill of Rights. Powerful forces in the legal profession and elsewhere will rightly rally to the Acts
defence if the government moves against it. Economic rights better known as workers rights have
been seriously eroded in recent decades and must be strengthened. Despite all the obstacles put in their
way, trade unions protect workers rights, just as GMB did in last months landmark case against Uber.
When confronted with Islamophobic and other hate crimes, many well-established organisations,
including faith groups, call for cultural rights, non-discrimination and equality to be respected. All these
human rights are and must continue to be protected by their defenders. But what about social
rights? Although successive polls show considerable public support for the idea of social rights, they are
largely invisible in the UK. No major interest group consistently comes to their defence. Who knows
there is a right to an adequate standard of living so that nobody should have to rely upon a foodbank?
Or a right to education, including access to skills training? Or a right to health protection, including
effective measures against child obesity? Or a right to social security based on respect not sanctions? Or
a right to affordable housing? Of course, strategies for these social rights are not going to be
implemented overnight. The Covenant is realistic. It requires social rights to be realised over a
reasonable period of time, as a national priority, accompanied by accountability arrangements to make
sure promises are kept. UN committees are dismayed at how the social rights of those living in poverty,
and the just managing, have been drastically weakened in recent years. Social rights establish a
culture, not of entitlement, but of accountability. These left behind rights are especially vital to left
behind individuals and communities. Twenty-five years ago, the content of social rights was not clear,
but now their main features are taking shape, enabling them to play multiple roles. They not only
establish the values for a fair society, such as equality, freedom and decent living standards, they also
provide a detailed guide for policy makers, including in the Brexit negotiations. They position us all as
empowered rights-holders, not clients or supplicants. In the post Brexit era, human rights practice
needs strengthening. Equal attention must be devoted to all rights social rights must no longer be
neglected. Although the conventional view is that human rights place obligations on governments alone,
they must also be understood as placing obligations on other bodies wielding enormous public power in
our globalised world, such as corporations. Social rights must be shaped by the left behind, not the
privileged and powerful. They have to be popular and participatory. Human rights have to strike a fairer,
healthier balance between individualism and the public good, without ever permitting the individual to
become a victim of any collective. Crucially, it must be recognised that human rights are relevant to the
lives of everyone and a selective human rights approach diminishes people and rights. For the time
being, right-wing populism is in the ascendancy . But it is not too late for individuals, communities,
civil society and progressive political parties to organise around renewed human rights, including social
rights. There is no better time to do this than on the fiftieth anniversary of the twin Covenants.

Failure to address inequity makes the slide from right populism into fascism inevitable
Crossland 7/21/16 https://curiouscivilian.com/fascism-income-inequalitys-best-friend-forever-f83f74a1c38d Ken is a writer from
New York City. He's also the founder of the Curious Civilian

If all of this sounds familiar, its the siren call of fascism, which has slowly crept back into the global
political landscape, especially among first-world nations. While many of us with a foggy recollection of
high school social studies think of fascism is a relic of the early 20th century, its come roaring back since
the end of the Great Recession. Why on earth would people still toy with fascism? Oh right, the
economy. Fascism appears when were at our most desperate, and its message sings the loudest to
people who are at the end of their ropes. It scratches the itch of nationalism and isolationism, an
evolutionary response when we feel like were losing something. Its a retreat into the past, and a
regression into what we think is familiar and, quite possibly safer. In the heat of the moment, the main
appeal of fascism is that its comforting. It gives us a reason for why things went wrong, and offers a
solutionand a culpritregardless of how dangerous its conclusions could be. Lets do a visualization
exercise: If youre struggling right now, and finding work under President Barack Obama has been
incredibly difficult, the promise of modest social improvement (like the kind Hillary Clinton espouses)
wont dampen your fears. Its stuff that looks sensible on paper, but your needs are much more
immediate, and patience wont save your house from foreclosure, or pay off that massive credit card
bill. With these optics in mind, which candidates sales pitch sounds better? Candidate A: I want to
keep moving forward, gradually shifting our country to a more level playing field where everyone gets a
fair shake. Its going to be very difficult, and will take many years, but its the only reasonable path to
equality in our nation. Candidate B: Lets burn this motherfucker to the ground! Ive got a truck full
of kerosine! When the deck is stacked against you, which do you think you would choose? People
think the deck is stacked against them because it is. So lets return to the 2016 Democratic primary. An
obscure, 74-year-old senator from Vermont got crowds of 10,000-plus people to attend his rallies as he
improbably ran for president, seriously challenging Hillary Clinton, a well-financed, and incredibly well-
known political figure for the partys nomination. His message? The system is completely against you,
and we need to do something about it, NOW. Well start a goddamn political revolution if we have to.
The reason Sanderss message hit so hard with people? Because he was right. Income inequality is by far
the largest problem the world is facing, and it either causes or augments many other issues that loom
heavily on the global stage. Racism? One racial/ethnic group has vastly more money and resources than
another. Might that financial disparity create a skewed perception of worth along racial lines? Sexism?
Historically, women have had little opportunity for ownership, and despite recent progress, they still
make 77-cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. How can women be thought of as
true equals, when society places such a low market value on their abilities? Environmental protection?
Why do you think elected officials vote against reversing global warming, dooming 99% of the worlds
population. Because people with a lot of money tell them to. War? Do you think people followed Adolph
Hitler into battle because things were spiffy in Germany, or because it cost a wheelbarrow full of marks
to buy a loaf of bread? Healthcare? As you might expect, people with more money and easier access to
medical care live a heck of a lot longer than those who dont. How much money you have directly
influences your qualityand lengthof health. Education? Wealthy citizens have easier roads to
quality education, and are rarely saddled with any post-graduation debt, giving them a leg up once they
hit the real world. Not only that, but its been proven time and time again that better education directly
correlates with future financial success. Eliminating income inequality? Try controlling how wide it is,
first. In order to have a functioning capitalist system, wealth gaps are inevitable. Capitalism, by its very
definition, is an economic system that relies on private ownership and exists to generate profit. As the
world contains a finite amount of resources, there will always be individuals who end up acquiring more
of it, whether it be land, oil, or any other sellable commodity. What makes our society stable is when the
illusion of income inequality starts to disappear. Lets be bluntmost people wont and cant be rich.
What truly matters to most people is something a little different: Standard of living. Income inequality
is strangepeople are more than willing to overlook it as long as their quality of life remains
unchanged. When your rent/mortgage is paid on a decent house or apartment, your retirement is
funded, your kids are able to go to college, you can afford to take vacations, or you just happen to have
a little extra spending cash, youll look the other way while wealthy raiders are trying to buy and sell
anything that isnt nailed down. You can rationalize their greediness, because it doesnt, in your view,
effect your day-to-day life. Its people running up the score in a game youre not playing. This ultimately
becomes the main problem. Enough is never really enough for various rich individuals. Unless the
government steps in and hits the pause button, wealthy people will keep working the system until it
completely breaks down. This is why we face such catastrophes when business is de-regulated. It
becomes a spiraling death cycle: Lots of money is made in a capitalist nation. The rich get richer. The
lower classes get a little more comfortable. The rich want to get vastly richer, and use their influence to
de-regulate the economy, saying, Hey man, if we make more, the lower classes will get some, too. The
lower class dont really get a raise, as de-regulation allows the rich to overreach, squeezing the lower
classes with no one to stop them. The economy collapses. The rich remain rich, the lower class gets
poorer. The lower class gets furious, and vote heavily against the establishment because they rightfully
blame the government for selling them out. The anti-establishment is incompetent and ruins things
furtherfor the poor. Lower class people turn on each other, causing political chaos, rampant racism,
and nationalism. The rich fear the uprising, so they allow themselves to be regulated again, lest
revolution hurts their profits. The nation returns to prosperity. Rinse, repeat. Go left, progressive!
Luckily for us, the tide might be turning. Regardless of what you thought of Senator Bernie Sanders (and
those who follow me know Ive had sharp criticisms of him), he had the fortitude to make income
inequality the biggest issue of his campaign, and to his credit, he never went off-message. He put a
specific, damning label on the creeping dread many Americans have been feeling for decades, and he
was able to turn that discontent into something more tangiblevotes. He got millions of Americans to
use their voices at the ballot box to reject income inequality, and to outright question if there was
something deeply wrong with how America was doing business. His messaging was so effective that he
got Hillary Clinton to basically move her entire platform (and consequentially, the entire Democratic
Party) farther left, getting her to agree that, yeah, the issue of wealth distribution was no fad, and it
desperately needs to be addressed. Heres what his campaign helped change: Income inequality is now
a permanent plank of the Democratic and progressive agenda. The rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street
worked. One-percent is now officially part of the American lexicon, and people are demanding, more
and more, that the rich pay up. People are starting to ask questions about how their representatives are
financially backed. The vote has become increasingly more powerful. Hillary Clinton was seriously
challenged by an unknown socialist, who got a whopping 13 million votesthe same as Donald Trump,
who won his nomination. And yes, that brings us to The Donald. Like any serious problem facing a nation
(and in this case, the world at large), there are usually two prevailing thoughts on what to do about it.
The first? Genuinely trying to tackle the problem either through legislation or grassroots activism. The
other? Totally exploiting it. Donald Trump, like Bernie Sanders, understands very well that theres a lot
of anger and resentment coming from people who were left behind in the changing economy. To his
credit, Sanders was looking to convert that ire into a political revolutionor at least get people started
in the right direction. Trump, well, Trump doesnt have any real plans beyond obtaining the presidency.
But Trump is no dummy. If he has one skill thats better than almost anyone on the planet, its his ability
to read a room. While the news media blanches over a Trump speech littered with lies and overt racism,
the people at his rallies feel like hes speaking their language. They feel truly heard and valued. Think
about this for a moment: Donald Trump is the son of a rich guy. He's always been rich. He literally has no
idea what its like to be poor. Hes actively hurt the poor with his businesses. Yet hes beloved by the
oppressed. Why? Trump is fluent in the language of dumb, unfiltered anger. He personifies all of our
worst, irrational thinking, especially the garbage that runs through out heads when we think no one is
around. Weve all done it. Youre irritated, dont quite have all the facts, and you want to blame
something or someone to mitigate the pain. Thats Trump. Hes digging right into everyones lizard brain
with sentiments that feel truein the momentto anyone whos been severely pissed off. And boy
does he know it. Like aspiring despots of years past, hes doing it because it works. To many of his
supporters, it makes him authentic. Two choices America only really has two options this November,
and its not even between Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Its between doing something marginally
constructive with the system we have, or setting everything on fire. Donald Trump offers very little to
American progress. Hes angry. Youre angry. But what has anger, when acted upon, ever gotten you? A
moment of sweet relief followed by what? Almost always, regret. Lets not, however, marginalize whats
going on in the United States. Weve blown the social contract apart, and its caused a pair of deadly
consequences: intense anxiety from economic insecurity, and poverty that engulfs a worrisome
percentage of our citizens. This is unconscionable when you realizetheres no actual reason this
needed to happen. Humanity has gotten to a point where weve somehow allowed the bounties of the
planet to be hoarded by a small cadre of wealthy people, when in reality, all of us need a piece for our
survival. Thats really the operative word heresurvival. Arriving at tomorrow with a feeling of stability,
to many, is a reasonable measure of successand its barely a lot to ask. But when every activity of
your day is a constant reminder of your financial peril, isnt it natural that youd freak out? This isnt
radical thinking, either. It makes sense on a practical level. The United States has the highest GDP in the
world. Why on earth are we on the edge of electing a fascist when we have so many resources available
to alleviate poverty? Thats the hard question we need to be asking. The United States is in dire need of
self-reflection. How can we really continue a path where only some people control the wealth, and the
rest are left twisting in the wind? At what point do we decide that a common standard living is more
than just a nice idea, that its integral to having a stable, peaceful society? Everything hinges on it: Our
relationships to each other across race, gender, class. The strength of our communities. Whether or
not we engage in war. Our public safety (crime, police relations, etc.). The mental well-being of our
citizens. This is why fascism is banging down our door . Weve lost our understanding of what, exactly,
needs to happen at the base level of a functioning societythat everyone needs at least some
reasonable shot at having a normal life. Were watching a generally sensible population become angry,
violent, and wilfully ignorant. Were witnessing a deep class separation in our republic, and its grown
so large that were seriously considering an authoritarian to be our next leader. Something has to give.
The only question, is what.
 RWP Extinction impacts
Global authoritarian waves creates multiple extinction scenarios outweighs critical
purity
Morris 17
http://greens2017.org/sites/default/files/Green%20Action%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Trump%2C%20Erdogan%2C%20Putin%20and%20Rig
ht-wing%20Populism.pdf David Morris Director of the Public Good Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance David Morris is co-founder of
the Minneapolis, Portland and Washington,D.C.-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance. He is the author of several books, including The New City
States; We Must Make Haste Slowly: the Process of Revolution in Chile; and, Seeing the Light: Regaining Control of our Electrical System.

Its now 2017, but it feels more and more like 1932, the year when Adolf Hitler skilfully used the fear
and anger generated by the Reichstag fire to gain complete control over all the levers of power in the
German state. Do we stand at the brink of a similar eventor one even greater in scope? Was the 2016
U.S. Presidential Election a crucial tipping point in world history? Are freedom and democracy
throughout the world evaporating before our eyes? Has a chain of events been set in motion that
seriously threatens all life on this planet with extinction? Is there anything at all that we members of
the Global Green community can do to help stop it? I believe that the answer to all of these questions
is yes. With Trump in the White House, the global drift towards 21st century fascism is on the verge of
becoming a flood. Had things gone the way most people predicted last November and Hillary Clinton
been elected, there may well have been more coddling of big business than most of us would have liked,
but at least we could have counted on the United States to continue supporting the basic concept of
liberal democracy. Instead, the most powerful nation in the world is now led by an incompetent, childish
narcissistic blowhard who is either in the pocket of Vladimir Putin or perhaps worse simply shares his
love of militaristic ultra-nationalism and autocratic kleptocracy. At the same time, with Trump and his
crew in charge, it isnt hard to think of plausible scenarios that would lead to the real possibility of
nuclear war, global financial chaos or runaway climate change. Suppose, for example, that Putin really
does have damning kompromat on Trump and feels free to make an incursion of some sort into one of
the Baltic states, but internal U.S. politics force Trump into a firm response. Putin then threatens to spill
the worst of the dirt and Trump, being Trump, says something to the effect of, Do that and Im nuking
the Kremlin! Could we count on our two self-styled alpha male leaders to sensibly back down - or
might their escalating chest-thumping lead in the end to an actual exchange of missiles? Or what would
happen if Russian forces down Israeli jets trying to degrade Syrian air defences? Or Chinese and U.S.
forces face off over one of the artificial islands in the South China Sea? Or North Korea starts to deploy
nuclear-armed ICBMs capable of hitting the mainland United States? Can we really rely on Trump to
make the kind of calm, well-considered decisions needed to defuse crises such as these? Trumps
belligerent America first trade policies and his desire to destroy even the minimal regulations put on
financial institutions after the 2008 crisis could also easily throw a monkey wrench into the fragile world
economic system and lead to global chaos and untold suffering for the most vulnerable. As we members
of the Global Green movement are perhaps more aware than anyone, however, the greatest danger
brought by Trump may well be in the area of climate change. Suppose for a moment that Trump actually
succeeds within the framework he has put forward. The U.S. would experience an economic boom with
significant reindustrialization and the return of millions of jobs in fields such as production and mining. A
key component of this would be a massive increase in the extraction of oil, gas and coal. With sanctions
removed, Russia, too, would likely be part of this boom and there is little doubt that new U.S. Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, would be all too happy to help Putin actualize
their earlier plan to bring massive oil drilling to the arctic. Instead of at long last a serious effort to
start addressing climate change based on the Paris accords, a Trump-Putin alliance is likely to bring full-
speed movement in the wrong direction. Deniers such as Trump are fond of saying that the science of
climate change has not been settled, by which they mean that opinion ranges from the whole thing
being a hoax at one extreme, to the IPCC warnings at the other. This is, of course, nonsense. The actual
debate among real climate scientists ranges more from the IPCC predictions of catastrophe by the end
of the century being the most conservative view to those who hold that a sudden release of arctic
methane may well lead to a mass extinction of us and most other plant and animal species within our
lifetime occupying the other end of the opinion spectrum. Take your pick war, economic ruin or
climate catastrophe if the runaway freight train of global authoritarianism is not derailed soon, the
results are likely to be dire. And we havent even touched on issues such as LGBT, immigrant and
womens rights, freedom of speech and assembly, racial prejudice and economic inequality. In a
separate article, written in December and also posted on this site, I suggested that the installation of
Donald Trump was not something that occurred either suddenly or in a vacuum. Rather, it was the result
of what might be called a longterm, multi-faceted, slow-motion coup detat. This was a very well-funded
and organized project on which the right wing in the United States has been working tirelessly for
decades, but in this election cycle there seemed to be something new. That is, of course, the
involvement of - and likely collusion with - the intelligence services of a hostile foreign power. Digging a
little deeper, however, we find evidence that elements of the U.S. Christian right have been in close
contact with their Russian counterparts for years, and many of them have come to view Vladimir Putin
as some sort of heroic defender of their version of (white) Christian culture. For example, well-known
American right-winger Pat Buchanan wrote in 2014, In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin
is planting Russias flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity. While these revelations might not
come as much of a surprise to our Green Party friends in France, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the
former Soviet republics, who have faced years of electoral interference from Putins Russia, it is still
shocking to see the extent to which the current push for ring-wing authoritarianism seems to have
become some sort of coordinated international movement. In the face of such a juggernaut, what can
we the members of the Global Green movement badly funded and relatively small in numbers as we
are do to help stem the tide and return the world to some sort of sanity? The answer is quite a bit.
Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University is a historian who specializes in the study of how Germany
and other 20th century democracies descended into fascism. He sees many parallels between the 1930s
and now, but says that we have one huge advantage we have seen this movie before. We know how
authoritarians try to undermine and replace democratic institutions and we know how important it is
to actively oppose these efforts. In the professors words, Today, we are no wiser than the Europeans
who saw democracy yield to totalitarianism in the twentieth century. But when the political order seems
imperilled, our advantage is that we can learn from their experience to resist the advance of tyranny. In
a recent book, Dr Snyder offered twenty practical suggestions for how to do this, including: Do not
obey in advance. Defend institutions. Beware the one-party state. Believe in truth. Investigate.
Learn from peers in other countries. and Be as courageous as you can. Excellent advice all, but let
me add a few that might, in my humble opinion at least, apply especially well to members of the Global
Green movement. Support progressive alliances At this critical point in the world, stopping the
disastrous march of global authoritarianism is far more important than any personal attachment we
might have to pet causes or progressive purity . Each national and local party should think long and
hard about when we should fight elections with all our might under our own bannersand when we
should be willing to offer our support to candidates from other parties who might not meet our
standards in some areas, but who are honestly committed to an anti-authoritarian agenda. Our numbers
might not be huge, but we can bring a lot of moral authority to the table, especially in areas related to
the climate and the environment and social justice.

Right wing populism makes nuclear war inevitable

McCoy 4/3/17 http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40075-the-bloodstained-rise-of-global-populism-a-political-movement-s-violent-
pursuit-of-enemies Alfred W. McCoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a TomDispatch regular, and author most
recently of the award-winning book, Policing Americas Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State. He has
also convened the Empires in Transition project, a global working group of 140 historians from universities on four continents. The results of
their first meetings were published as Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State, and the findings from their latest
conference, at Barcelona last June, will appear next year as Endless Empires: Spains Retreat, Europes Eclipse, and Americas Decline.

In 2016, something extraordinary happened in the politics of diverse countries around the world. With
surprising speed and simultaneity, a new generation of right-wing populist leaders emerged from the
margins of nominally democratic nations to win power. In doing so, they gave voice, often in virulent
fashion, to public concerns about the social costs of globalization. Even in societies as disparate as the
affluent United States and the impoverished Philippines, similarly violent strains of right-wing populist
rhetoric carried two unlikely candidates from the political margins to the presidency. On opposite sides
of the Pacific, these outsider campaigns were framed by lurid calls for violence and even murder. As his
insurgent crusade gained momentum, billionaire Donald Trump moved beyond his repeated promises to
fight Islamic terror with torture and brutal bombing by also advocating the murder of women and
children. "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these
terrorists, you have to take out their families," he told Fox News. "They care about their lives, don't kid
yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." At the
same time, campaigning in the Philippines on a law-and-order program of his own, Rodrigo Duterte,
then mayor of a remote provincial city, swore that he would kill drug dealers across the nation, sparing
nothing in the way of violent imagery. "If by chance that God will place me [in the presidency]," he
promised in launching his campaign, "watch out because the 1,000 [people executed while he was a
mayor] will become 100,000. You will see the fish in Manila Bay getting fat. That is where I will dump
you." The rise of these political soulmates and authoritarian populist strongmen not only resonated
deeply in their political cultures, but also reflected global trends that made their bloodstained rhetoric
paradigmatic of our present moment. After a post-Cold War quarter-century of globalization, displaced
workers around the world began mobilizing angrily to oppose an economic order that had made life so
good for transnational corporations and social elites. Between 1999 and 2011, for instance, Chinese
imports had eliminated 2.4 million American jobs, closing furniture manufacturers in North Carolina,
factories that produced glass in Ohio, and auto parts and steel companies across the Midwest. As a
range of nations worldwide reacted to such realities by imposing a combined 2,100 restrictions on
imports to staunch similar job losses, world trade actually started to slow down without a major
recession for the first time since 1945. The Bloodstained History of Right-Wing Populism Across Europe,
hyper-nationalist right-wing parties like the French National Front, the Alternative for Germany, and the
UK Independence Party won over voters by cultivating nativist, especially anti-Islamic, responses to
globalization. Simultaneously, a generation of authoritarian populist demagogues either held, gained, or
threatened to take power in democracies around the world: Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in
the Netherlands, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Erdogan in Turkey, Donald
Trump in the US, Narendra Modi in India, Prabowo Subianto in Indonesia, and Rodrigo Duterte in the
Philippines, among others. Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra recently summed up their successes this way:
"Demagogues are still emerging, in the West and outside it, as the promise of prosperity collides with
massive disparities of wealth, power, education, and status." The Philippine economy offered typically
grim news on this score. It grew by an impressive 6% annually in the six years before Duterte launched
his presidential campaign, even as a staggering 26 million poor Filipinos struggled to survive on a dollar a
day. In those years, just 40 elite Filipino families grabbed an estimated 76% of all the wealth this growth
produced. Scholar Michael Lee suggests that an authoritarian populist leader succeeds by rhetorically
defining his or her national community by both its supposedly "shared characteristics" and its inevitable
common "enemy," whether Mexican "rapists" or Muslim refugees, much as the Nazis created a
powerful sense of national selfhood by excluding certain groups by "blood." In addition, he argues, such
movements share the desire for an "apocalyptic confrontation" through a final "mythic battle" as "the
vehicle to revolutionary change." Although scholars like Lee emphasize the ways in which authoritarian
populist demagogues rely on violent rhetoric for their success, they tend to focus less on another crucial
aspect of such right-wing populists globally: actual violence. These movements might still be in their
(relatively) benign phase in the United States and Europe, but in less developed democracies around the
world authoritarian populist leaders haven't hesitated to inscribe their newfound power on the battered
bodies of their victims. For more than a decade, for instance, Russian President Vladimir Putin, a
reasonable candidate for sparking this wave of right-wing populism, has demonstrated his famously
bare-chested version of power politics by ensuring that opponents and critics meet grim ends under
"mysterious" circumstances. These include the lethal spritz of polonium 210 that killed Russian secret
police defector Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006; the shooting of journalist and Putin critic Anna
Politkovskaya outside her Moscow apartment that same year; a dose of rare Himalayan plant poison for
banker and Putin nemesis Alexander Perepilichny in London in 2012; a fusillade that felled opposition
leader Boris Nemtsov in downtown Moscow in 2015; and four fatal bullets this March for refugee
whistleblower Denis Voronenkov on a Kiev sidewalk, which Ukraine has denounced as "an act of state
terrorism." As an Islamist authroritarian populist, Turkish president Recep Erdogan has projected his
power through a bloody repression of, and a new war with, the country's Kurdish minority. He portrays
the Kurds as a cancer within the country's body politic whose identity must be extinguished, much as his
forebears rid themselves of the Armenians. In addition, since mid-2016, he's overseen a wholesale purge
of 50,000 officials, journalists, teachers, and military officers in the aftermath of a failed coup, and in a
brutal round of torture and rape filled Turkish prisons to the brim. In 2014, retired general Prabowo
Subianto nearly won Indonesia's presidency with a ight-wing populist campaign of "strength and order."
In fact, Prabowo's military career had long been steeped in such violence. In 1998, when the
authoritarian regime of his father-in-law Suharto was at the brink of collapse, Prabowo, then
commander of the Kopassus Rangers, staged the kidnapping-disappearance of a dozen student activists,
the savage rape of 168 Chinese women (acts meant to incite racial violence), and the burning of 43
shopping malls and 5,109 buildings in Jakarta, the country's capital, that left more than 1,000 dead.
During his first months in power, newly elected Philippine President Duterte waged his highly publicized
war on the drug trade in city slums by loosing the police and vigilantes nationwide in a campaign already
marked, in its first six months, by at least 7,000 extrajudicial killings. The bodies of his victims were
regularly dumped on Manila's streets as warnings to others and as down payments on Duterte's
promises of a new, orderly country. And he wasn't the first right-wing populist in Asia to take such a
path either. In 2003, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra launched his "red shirt" movement as a
war on his country's rampant methamphetamine abuse. In just three months under Thaksin's rule, the
police carried out 2,275 extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers and users, often leaving the
bodies where they fell as a twisted tribute to his power. Such examples of right-wing populist political
carnage and the likelihood of more to come -- including what Donald Trump's presidency might have in
store -- raise certain questions: Just what dynamics lie behind the urge toward violence that seems to
propel such movements? Why does the virulent campaign rhetoric of right-wing populist political
movements so often morph into actual violence once an authoritarian populist wins power? And why is
that violence invariably aimed at enemies believed to threaten the imagined integrity of the national
community? In their compulsion to "protect" the nation from what are seen as pernicious alien
influences, such right-wing populist movements are defined by their need for enemies. That need, in
turn, infuses them with an almost uncontrollable compulsion for conflict that transcends actual
threats or rational political programs. To give this troubling trend its political due, it's necessary to
understand how, at a particular moment in history, global forces have produced a generation of
authoritarian populist leaders with such potential compulsions. And at the moment, there may be no
better example to look to than the Philippines. During its last half-century of bloodstained elections, two
authoritarian populists, Ferdinand Marcos and Rodrigo Duterte, won exceptional power by combining
the high politics of diplomacy with the low politics of performative violence, scattering corpses scarred
by their signature brutality as if they were so many political pamphlets. A quick look at this history offers
us an unsettling glimpse of America's possible political future. Authoritarian Populism in the Philippines:
the Marcos Era Although now remembered mainly as a "kleptocrat" who plundered his country and
enriched himself with shameless abandon (epitomized by the discovery that his wife possessed 3,000
pairs of shoes), Ferdinand Marcos was, in fact, a brilliant right-wing populist, thoroughly skilled in the
symbolic uses of violence. As his legal term as president came to an end in 1972, Marcos -- who, like
many authoritarian populists, saw himself as chosen by destiny to save his people from perdition -- used
the military to declare martial law. He then jailed 50,000 opponents, including the senators who had
blocked his favored legislation and the gossip columnists who had mocked his wife's pretensions. The
first months of his dictatorship actually lacked any official violence. Then, just before dawn on January
15, 1973, Constabulary officers read a presidential execution order and strapped Lim Seng, an overseas
Chinese heroin manufacturer, to a post at a Manila military camp. As a battery of press photographers
stood by, an eight-man firing squad raised their rifles. Replayed endlessly on television and in movie
theaters, the dramatic footage of bullets ripping open the victim's chest was clearly meant to be a vivid
display of the new dictator's power, as well as an appeal to his country's ingrained anti-Chinese racism.
Lim Seng would be the only victim legally executed in the 14 years of the Marcos dictatorship. Extra-
judicial killings were another matter, however. Marcos made clever use of the massive US military bases
near Manila to win continuing support for his authoritarian (and increasingly bloody) rule from three
successive American administrations, even effectively neutralizing President Jimmy Carter's human
rights policy. After a decade of dictatorship, however, the economy began to collapse from a too-heavy
dose of "crony capitalism" and the political opposition started to challenge Marcos's self-image as
destiny's chosen one. To either sate or subdue an increasingly restive population, he soon resorted to
escalating raw violence. His security squads conducted what were referred to as "salvagings," more than
2,500 of them (or 77% of the 3,257 extrajudicial killings during his 14-year dictatorship). Bodies scarred
by torture were regularly abandoned in public plazas or at busy intersections so passers-by could read
the transcript of terror in their stigmata. In the capital, Manila, with only 4,000 police for six million
residents, the Marcos regime also deputized hundreds of "secret marshals" responsible for more than
30 shoot-on-sight fatalities during May 1985, the program's first month, alone. Yet the impact of
Marcos's version of right-wing populist violence proved mutable -- effective at the start of martial law
when people yearned for order and counterproductive at its close when Filipinos again longed for
freedom. That shift in sentiment soon led to his downfall in the first of the dramatic "people power"
revolutions that would challenge autocratic regimes from Beijing to Berlin. Authoritarian Populism in the
Philippines: Duterte's Violence Rodrigo Duterte, the son of a provincial governor, initially pursued a
career as the mayor of Davao City, a site of endemic violence that left a lasting imprint on his political
persona. In 1984, after the communist New People's Army made Davao its testing ground for urban
guerilla warfare, the city's murders soared, doubling to 800, including the assassination of 150
policemen. To check the communists, who took over part of the city, the military mobilized criminals
and ex-communists as death squad vigilantes in a lethal counterterror campaign. When I visited Davao
in 1987 to investigate death squad killings, that remote southern city already had an unforgettable air of
desolation and hopelessness. It was in this context of rising national and local extrajudicial slaughter that
the 33-year old Rodrigo Duterte launched his political career as the elected mayor of Davao City. That
was in 1988, the first of seven terms that would keep him in office, on and off, for another 21 years until
he won the country's presidency in 2016. His first campaign was hotly contested and he barely beat his
rivals, taking only 26% of the vote. Around 1996, he reportedly mobilized his own vigilante group, the
Davao Death Squad. It would be responsible for many of the city's 814 extrajudicial killings over the next
decade, as victims were dumped on city streets with faces wrapped bizarrely in packing tape. Duterte
himself may have killed one or more of the squad's victims. Apart from liquidating criminals, the Davao
Death Squad also conveniently eliminated the mayor's political rivals. Campaigning for president in
2016, Duterte would proudly point to the killings in Davao City and promise a drug war that would
murder 100,000 Filipinos if necessary. In doing so, he was also drawing on historical resonances from
the Marcos era that lent some political depth to his violent rhetoric. By specifically praising Marcos,
promising to finally bury his body in the National Heroes Cemetery in Manila, and supporting Ferdinand
Marcos Jr. for vice president, Duterte identified himself with a political lineage of authoritarian populist
strongmen epitomized by the old dictator at a time when desperate Filipinos were looking for new hope
of a decent life. On taking office, President Duterte promptly started his promised anti-drug campaign
and dead bodies became commonplace sights on city streets nationwide, sometimes accompanied by a
crude cardboard sign reading "I am a pusher," or simply with their faces wrapped in the by-now
trademark packing tape used by the Davao Death Squad. Although Human Rights Watch would declare
his drug war a "calamity," a resounding 85% of Filipinos surveyed were "satisfied," apparently seeing
each body sprawled on a city street as another testament to the president's promise of order. At the
same time, like Marcos, Duterte deployed a new style of diplomacy as part of his right-wing populist
reach for unrestrained power. Amid rising tensions in the South China Sea between Beijing and
Washington, he improved his country's bargaining position by distancing himself from the Philippines'
classic alliance with the United States. At the 2016 ASEAN conference, reacting to Barack Obama's
criticism of his drug war, he said bluntly of the American president, "Your mother's a whore." A month
later during a state visit to Beijing, Duterte publicly proclaimed "separation from the United States.'' By
setting aside his country's recent slam-dunk win over China at the Court of Arbitration in the Hague in a
legal dispute over rival claims in the South China Sea, Duterte came home with $24 billion in Chinese
trade deals and a sense that he was helping establish a new world order. In January, after his police
tortured and killed a South Korean businessman on the pretext of a drug bust, he was forced to call a
sudden halt to the nationwide killing spree. Like his role model Marcos, however, Duterte's
authoritarian populism seems to contain an insatiable appetite for violence and so it was not long
before bodies were once again being dumped on the streets of Manila, pushing the death toll past
8,000. Success and the Strongman The histories of these Filipino strongmen, past and present, reveal
two overlooked aspects of the ill-defined phenomenon of global right-wing populism: the role of what
might be termed performative violence in projecting domestic strength and a complementary need for
diplomatic success to show international influence. How skillfully these critical poles of power are
balanced may offer one gauge for speculating about the fate of authoritarian populist strongmen in
disparate parts of the globe. In Russia's case, Putin's projection of strength through the murder of
selected domestic opponents has been matched by unchecked aggression in Georgia and Ukraine -- a
successful balancing act that has made his country, with its rickety economy the size of Italy's, seem like
a great power again and is likely to extend his autocratic rule into the foreseeable future. In Turkey,
Erdogan's harsh repression of ethnic and political enemies has essentially sunk his bid for entry into the
European Union, plunged him into an unwinnable war with Kurdish rebels, and complicated his alliance
with the United States against Islamic fundamentalism -- all potential barriers to his successful bid for
unchecked power. In Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto failed in his critical first step: building a domestic
base large enough to sweep him into the presidency, in part because his call for order resonated so
discordantly with a public still capable of remembering his earlier bid for power through eerie violence
that roiled Jakarta with hundreds of rapes, fires, and deaths. Without the popular support generated by
his local spectacle of violence, President Duterte's de facto abrogation of his country's claims to the
South China Sea's rich fishing grounds and oil reserves in his bid for Chinese support risks a popular
backlash, a military coup, or both. For the time being, however, Duterte's deft juxtaposition of
international maneuvering and local bloodletting has made him a successful Philippine strongman with,
as yet, few apparent checks on his power. While the essential weakness of the Philippine military limits
Duterte's outlets for his authoritarian populist violence to the police killings of poor street drug dealers,
Donald Trump faces no such restraints. Should Congress and the courts check the virulence of his
domestic attacks on Muslims, Mexicans, or other imagined enemies and should his presidency run into
further setbacks like the recent repeal-Obamacare humiliation, he could readily resort to violent
military adventures not only in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Libya, but even in Iran, not to
speak of North Korea, in a bid to recover his authortarian populist aura of overweening power. In this
way, unlike any other potential authoritarian populist politician on the planet, he holds the fate of
countless millions in his much-discussed hands. If right-wing populism's need for what scholar Michael
Lee calls an "apocalyptic confrontation" and a "mythic battle" proves accurate, it might, in the end, lead
the Trump administration's "systemic revolutionaries" far beyond even their most extreme rhetoric
into an endlessly escalating cycle of violence against foreign enemies, using whatever weapons are
available, whether drones, special operations forces, fighter bombers, naval armadas, or even nuclear
weapons.
Resurgent populism kills human rights
Roth 17 Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world's leading international human rights
organizations, which operates in more than 90 countries. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch in 1987, Roth served as a federal prosecutor in
New York and for the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington, DC. A graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, Roth has conducted
numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world. He has written extensively on a wide range of human rights abuses,
devoting special attention to issues of international justice, counterterrorism, the foreign policies of the major powers, and the work of the
United Nations. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism

The appeal of the populists has grown with mounting public discontent over the status quo. In the West,
many people feel left behind by technological change, the global economy, and growing inequality.
Horrific incidents of terrorism generate apprehension and fear. Some are uneasy with societies that
have become more ethnically, religiously and racially diverse. There is an increasing sense that
governments and the elite ignore public concerns.

In this cauldron of discontent, certain politicians are flourishing and even gaining power by portraying
rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety,
economic welfare, and cultural preferences of the presumed majority. They scapegoat refugees,
immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty. Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and
Islamophobia are on the rise.

This dangerous trend threatens to reverse the accomplishments of the modern human rights
movement. In its early years, that movement was preoccupied with the atrocities of World War II and
the repression associated with the Cold War. Having seen the evil that governments can do, states
adopted a series of human rights treaties to limit and deter future abuse. Protecting these rights was
understood as necessary for individuals to live in dignity. Growing respect for rights laid the foundation
for freer, safer, and more prosperous societies.

But today, a growing number of people have come to see rights not as protecting them from the state
but as undermining governmental efforts to defend them. In the United States and Europe, the
perceived threat at the top of the list is migration, where concerns about cultural identity, economic
opportunity, and terrorism intersect. Encouraged by populists, an expanding segment of the public sees
rights as protecting only these other people, not themselves, and thus as dispensable. If the majority
wants to limit the rights of refugees, migrants, or minorities, the populists suggest, it should be free to
do so. That international treaties and institutions stand in the way only intensifies this antipathy toward
rights in a world where nativism is often prized over globalism.

It is perhaps human nature that it is harder to identify with people who differ from oneself, and easier to
accept violation of their rights. People take solace in the hazardous assumption that the selective
enforcement of rights is possiblethat the rights of others can be compromised while their own remain
secure.
But rights by their nature do not admit an la carte approach. You may not like your neighbors, but if
you sacrifice their rights today, you jeopardize your own tomorrow, because ultimately rights are
grounded on the reciprocal duty to treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. To violate the
rights of some is to erode the edifice of rights that inevitably will be needed by members of the
presumed majority in whose name current violations occur.

We forget at our peril the demagogues of yesteryearthe fascists, communists, and their ilk who
claimed privileged insight into the majoritys interest but ended up crushing the individual. When
populists treat rights as an obstacle to their vision of the majority will, it is only a matter of time before
they turn on those who disagree with their agenda. The risk only heightens when populists attack the
independence of the judiciary for upholding the rule of lawthat is, for enforcing the limits on
governmental conduct that rights impose.

Such claims of unfettered majoritarianism, and the attacks on the checks and balances that constrain
governmental power, are perhaps the greatest danger today to the future of democracy in the West.
 Impact: Pandemics
Trumpist populism increases risk of global pandemic
Bellfield 11/18/16 http://effective-altruism.com/ea/146/president_trump_as_a_global_catastrophic_risk/ Haydn works across all
of CSERs research projects. He has a background in policy and politics, including as a Policy Associate to the University of Oxfords Global
Priorities Project, as a Senior Parliamentary Researcher to a British Shadow Cabinet Minister, and a degree in Philosophy, Politics and
Economics from Oriel College, University of Oxford.

A pandemic, whether natural or man-made, would be catastrophic. There are three main reasons the
risk is likely to increase under President Trump. First as argued above there is likely to be less
international cooperation. Monitoring and preparing for pandemics relies on extensive international
coordination and trust. Trump seems less willing than other Presidents to participate meaningfully in
cooperative systems like the World Health Organisation. Additionally, the US is likely to give less
international aid. This would mean less help to build up developing world health systems and developing
world disease monitoring systems. Second Trump is seemingly inconsistent, volatile, and does not
respect scientific conclusions. He reacted poorly to the Ebola outbreak exaggerating fears and
proposing populist solutions. He seems to not respect science, as is also shown by his climate change
position. He might, for example, react to reports of an emerging disease in ways that raised the risk of
global catastrophe, for example by mandating that most vaccines produced for the disease be kept in
the US, rather than used to prevent the early spread.

INSERT PANDEMIC IMPACT

 RWP Impact: OW

Right wing populism fueled by inequality is the largest existential risk

Muggah and Glenny 1/4/17 Robert Muggah Research Director, Igarap Institute Misha Glenny Writer and
Broadcastehttps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/populism-is-poison-plural-cities-are-the-antidote/

The worlds most powerful nation states are flirting with catastrophic conflict. Whether it is in Europe,
Asia or the Middle East, for the first time since the 1960s we are facing a real possibility of nuclear
confrontation. With nation states distracted, the threat of irreversible climate change also looms
large. Global anxiety is feeding the growth of nationalist movements, emboldened by the drum beat of
populism. Anti-immigrant and anti-establishment parties are capitalizing on public disquiet, gaining
footholds in political systems across the planet. But as alarming as all this sounds, there are
opportunities to head off potential disaster. One of the most powerful antidotes to populism is right in
front of us. Many of the worlds cities are busily re-imagining politics, economics and environmental
action from the bottom-up. Some of them are constructing a positive, inclusive and plural vision of the
future, even as nationalist leaders peddle fear, close borders and build walls. Cities are the vanguard of
the global cosmopolis, argues Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies at the University of
Oxford, With people from everywhere every faith, language, culture living and working cheek by
jowl, the stereotypes of the Other peddled by populism are refuted by everyday experience. Plural
cities will play a critical role in determining whether humanity survives this century, or not. The
economic roots of populism We have seen the merger of ultra-nationalism and right wing populism
before. It did not end well. The world is again entering a period that is easily recognizable as pre-
authoritarian and fascistic. And the stakes could hardly be higher. The future of liberal democracy
hangs in the balance as it did in the 1930s. Nationalistic populism surges during times of economic
volatility. This latest wave is a by-product of the appalling excesses of financial capitalism, culminating in
the housing disaster of 2008 and its aftershocks that continue to this day. The political backlash is now
being felt. While globalization has brought benefits to some, the accelerated exchange of people, goods
and ideas has also eviscerated jobs and contributed to extreme inequality. Those left behind have seen
their wages stagnate and deeply resent the elites who they hold responsible.
 K Pre-emption for RWP

The immediacy of right wing populism demands prioritizing material and concrete
strategies above the elevation of ideals
Keenan and El-Enany 12/2/16 http://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/12/02/beware-ivory-dwellings-left-political-purity-face-
fascism/ Nadine El-Enany and Sarah Keenan are Lecturers in Law, Birkbeck Law School, University of London

For some time we have been witnessing the rise of racist nationalism and fascism in many parts of the
world. In Europe and North America, significant elements of both the Brexit and Trump campaigns
propagated explicitly racist ideals, albeit to varying degrees. Whether you understand Brexit and Trump
as having triumphed despite or because of the racism that dominated both campaigns, the reality is that
these victories have legitimised white supremacy in alarming ways. Despite the increasing rise in racist
violence and rhetoric, some on the Left are reluctant to acknowledge the severity of this political
development, in part because of a preference to perceive the Brexit and Trump victories as anti-
establishment movements /the end of neoliberalism/expressions of the legitimate grievances of the
white working class/a more honest face to an already racist and violent liberal order. As the racist
horrors of the EU referendum unfolded, from widespread fear-mongering linking EU migration to ISIS, to
the brutal murder of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox by a white supremacist a week before the vote, some
Leftists continued to advocate for a leave vote. In the wake of the Leave victory, many Lexiters
encouraged people to unite and work together in what they see as a moment of opportunity for
dramatic change. A few months later, despite Trumps campaign having been endorsed by the Ku Klux
Klan, and his victory unleashing a wave of violence by emboldened and gleeful white supremacists,
some on the Left cautiously welcomed his election as a shakeup of the status quo, a development
preferable to a Clinton presidency because of its potential to force a new political mobilisation on the
Left. No doubt these positions are well-meaning, driven by a concern to end the structural violence of
neoliberal capitalism and a commitment to radically transforming societies through a fairer distribution
of material resources. But there are dangers to prioritising political ideals and goals at whatever cost .
If the rise of racist nationalism and fascism are to be countered, political purity is a luxury the Left
cannot afford . This is especially so in relation to law , which is often the last chance of protection for
the most vulnerable in society. In a recent commentary on the High Court judgment in the case of Miller
v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Paul OConnell and Nimer Sultany, concerned to
highlight the popular grievance at the base of Brexit, put forward an argument on what it means to
adopt a critical stance vis--vis constitutional developments and judgments. The case was decided in
favour of Miller, the High Court ruling that Theresa May, as head of the executive branch of
government, cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the process for exiting the EU, without the
consent of Parliament. The judgment was met with unbridled rage from some corners, with the the
litigant, Gina Miller bombarded with rape and death threats, and the High Court judges described as
enemies of the people on the front page of The Daily Mail. OConnell and Sultany argue that legal
scholars who have defended the judgment on the basis that it concerned a purely legal matter are
failing to be sufficiently critical. For them, taking a critical stance on the Miller decision requires
acknowledging that it was political and not merely a matter of legal interpretation. They insist that
judicial decision-making is anti-democratic, and particularly so in this instance because, as they see it,
the judgment goes against a majoritarian choice and hinders the implementation of the Brexit vote, a
result born out of a participatory exercise in democracy. OConnell and Sultanys position begs the
question of who is represented in the purportedly participatory democratic process of referenda? The
EU referendum was explicitly exclusive of those who would be made most vulnerable to harm and
insecurity by its result. In particular, EU migrants and people with insecure immigration statuses were
not permitted to vote. The referendum debate was eclipsed by the topic of migration, with the Brexit
campaign unrelenting in its scapegoating of migrants, calling on voters to take back control of our
borders. Since the referendum, racist hate crime is up by 16% across the country and peaked at a 58%
increase in the week following the vote. Just weeks after the referendum, Arkadiusz Jwik was beaten
to death in Essex, having reportedly been attacked for speaking Polish in the street. While referenda
may give majorities a vote, they can be dangerous, undemocratic exercises entailing people voting on
whether their neighbours should be deported. Along with the undemocratic nature of the EU
referendum, the danger of OConnell and Sultanys critique of judicial power is its upshot: the bolstering
of executive power. In a structurally racist, sexist and elitist society, of course any exercise of judicial
power is necessarily political. But to argue for the enhancement of executive power as an alternative, or
even to entertain it as a byproduct of limiting judicial power, is dangerous. Executive government is a far
cry from government by the people. It is a privilege to be in a position to criticise judicial power, but for
people at the hard end of executive decisions, judicial review can be all that stands between them and
the brute force of state power. What of the migrant with an insecure status subject to a deportation
order by the Home Secretary, her only hope a judicial review of that decision whereby a judge might
stay the deportation? Judicial review is also the final avenue for prisoners appealing parole decisions
and pensioners challenging reductions in their rent assistance. To argue that a critical stance requires a
rejection of judicial power in favour of majoritarian decision-making is dangerous if the upshot is the
strengthening of executive power, and betrays an absence of consideration of the position of the most
marginalised in society. In an imperfect world, one imbued with structures which expose racialised
people, women and non-binary people to violence and premature death, a critical praxis must have
survival of the most vulnerable at the core of its strategy. Those who are privileged enough to not be
at risk of new levels of violence whatever the outcome of a majoritarian process, must adopt the
position that ensures the least violence for the most vulnerable. Critical race feminists have much to
teach us in this regard. The failure or unwillingness of some on the Left to meaningfully engage with
critical race feminist theory and strategy when this work is urgently needed is not only dangerous, but
reveals a profound lack of understanding of the structural production and effects of racism. Critical
scholars and activists have put much intellectual effort into developing structural understandings of
class, but many have failed to do the same for race. This failure not only replicates and reproduces
structures which make invisible the work of feminist and race scholars, but has also facilitated the
accommodation of left, critical political positions that bolster rather than challenge the reality of a
burgeoning far-right movement which is endangering the lives of racialised minorities. Having to fight
for survival in a structurally violent world requires being strategic in relation to law. Recalling the
words of Mari Matsuda is helpful here: There are times to stand outside the courtroom door and say
this procedure is a farce, the legal system is corrupt, justice will never prevail in this land as long as
privilege rules in the courtroom. There are times to stand in the courtroom and say, this is a nation
of laws, laws recognising fundamental values of rights, equality and personhood. Sometimes, as
Angela Davis did, there is a need to make both speeches in one day .1 Acknowledging and vigilantly
imbibing this in ones politics and strategy is what it means to engage with the work of critical race
feminists, not by occasionally citing Audre Lorde. Some responses to Brexit and Trump have made it
apparent that the Left has its own bespoke ivory dwellings. These are places of privilege from which
arguments and strategies are espoused that bear the marks of ignorance of the lived experiences of
the most disenfranchised in society. Calls for solidarity are premature without a rebuilding of trust on
the Left. Those who have been willing to prioritise political ideals and goals over the immanent
physical safety of racialised people cannot then call for union and solidarity, not without first accepting
they were wrong to do so. Trust can only emerge through a collective and unwavering commitment to a
strategy which has survival for the most vulnerable in our societies at its core. Without this
commitment, urgently needed solidarity cannot emerge. Without solidarity, there can be no lasting,
transformative, progressive political change.

The right wing resurgence means we cant abandon electoral and mainstream politics
EVEN THOUGH liberalism is contingent and the system is flawed
Read 11/22/16 http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/reflections/147-richard-rorty-and-how-postmodernism-helped-elect-
trump UPERT READ IS READER IN PHILOSOPHY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA.

This article is about how Richard Rorty, the late American Neo-Pragmatist philosopher, foresaw the
coming of Donald Trump. It tells of the Richard Rorty I knew, an acerbic critic both of traditional
philosophy and of the new brand of literary theory and of postmodern fashions that swept the
academic world and the cultural milieu more generally, in the later years of his life. Rortys name has
suddenly become something of an internet sensation, with the rediscovery of his lovely little book of the
late 90s: Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth century America. Specifically, what has
been rediscovered is his prescience in worrying that the promotion of cultural politics above real
politics, and a growing sense on the part of the working class that they have been stiffed by
globalisation and neoliberalism, would combine in many of them abandoning the Left for a nasty
populist Right - realpolitik in the harshest sense of the term. This rediscovery has in the last few days
been featured in the media in the U.K. and U.S.: see for example this useful article in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/19/donald-trump-us-election-prediction-richard-
rorty . I was fortunate enough to have had Richard Rorty (1932-2007) as one of my teachers. Rorty had a
significant influence on me, in terms of cementing the critique of philosophical foundationalism (the
baleful influence of philosophies such as Cartesianism) but without, as so many postmodern thinkers
did, undermining faith in traditional electoral politics. Rorty was deeply worried by the widespread but
in his view fundamentally-mistaken equation between the questioning of traditional philosophys
quest for certainty on the one hand and the assumption of a truly post-truth politics on the other.
For Rorty, raising philosophical questions about theories of truth (which he did, as did Derrida or
Baudrillard or Lyotard) by no means equated to putting a question-mark in front of ordinary politics
altogether (and on this point Rorty was antagonistic to most of the followers of these French thinkers).
Our whole culture and civilisation has features which probabilify a tendency toward a notion that we
live in post-truth times. Chief among these is consumerism, which makes it seem as though ones
opinions are ones own; that one can buy whatever subjective truth one wants. The problem with
postmodernism is arguably that it legitimates this kind of tendency, rather than challenging it. But Rorty
would probably distinguish between being post-Truth - post-metaphysical-theories-of-truth - and
being post-truth - post-truth altogether. He would approve of the former (like the French apostles of
post-modernism) but disapprove of the latter. He once remarked to me that it was fine even to call the
Correspondence Theory of Truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth ) - the
classic boldest metaphysical theory of Truth - true provided that one recognised that all one was then
doing was praising an un-cash-able metaphor. He thought that, really, philosophical theories were in
most cases just metaphors pretending that they were more than mere metaphors. Rorty was all in
favour of being post-Truth, but solidly against being post-truth. Thats the crucial difference between
him on the one hand and the relativist or subjectivist philosophies of our time (and Donald Trump) on
the other. Rorty believed that the need for real social reform, for the tackling of inequality, and for the
reining in of out-of-control financial etc. elites was not in the least undermined by giving up on
excessively ambitious philosophical aims. He thought that the Enlightenment was on balance a
philosophical failure - but t hat it was a political success that badly needed defending. In other words:
he thought that the philosophies of Kant and the other philosophical heroes of the Enlightenment
over-reached, positing a kind of knowledge of Reality that was unattainable or absurd - but that the
political values that emerged from these philosophies (of defending civil liberties, of resisting arbitrary
religious authority, and of democracy), ought to be of enduring importance. I studied with Rorty at the
School of Criticism and Theory at Dartmouth, in the summer of 1992. Most of those in the class with me
(a mix of professors and grad students) were not philosophers; most were from Literature Departments.
The atmosphere in the class was often not at all pleasant; only a handful of us were interested in
defending or even constructive criticism of Rortys ideas. And some defence they needed: because most
of those in the class were extremely hostile to Rortys defence of anything like the traditional Left, and
to his deep questioning of where the obsession with cultural politics was leading the English-speaking
world. I remember one incident particularly vividly. One of the students (a young, smart Literary Theory
Prof) quizzed Rorty about his attitude to Judith Butlers (brilliantly clever) work (which we were studying
in the class) on gender and performativity. Didnt he (Rorty) think that it was of value for academics to
bring out the radical potential of undermining traditional norms as to the nature of gender? Rorty
responded thus, with a strong sense of irony and a hangdog look: Yes; perhaps you are right; perhaps in
the current state of our society the most effective subversive thing a male professor can do in the
classroom is: once in a while to wear a dress. What Rorty meant was: if this is true, then it reflects
somewhat badly on us and on the potential of our profession and of our culture more generally. For
what would be missing from a society where that was the acme of radicalism was a sense of what
needed critiquing and changing in that society that would speak to the needs of the ordinary mass of
people coping with the aftermath of 12 years of Republican cuts, of extreme levels of economic
inequality, and so forth. Yes; critiquing the idea of gender itself and exploring gender's performative
aspects is a valuable thing to do. But the quest to be ever-more 'subversive' in this way misses the real
radicalism: which would be (for example) changing our intellectual and practical priorities in such a way
that the ideas of (for example) a Bernie Sanders got taken much more seriously...because he got put into
the Oval Office... A question of real interest and importance to the general public, now, is: how do we
remain solid about politics, true to sentiments on the doorstep, true to a basic sense of our inhabiting
a shared reality, serious about changing the world for the better (or at least: stopping it from
uncontrollably sliding into a worse and worse situation, vis a vis politics, democracy, inequality, climate,
and more) how do we do all this in a culture where we are more than ever suspicious that what we
are told may be untrue, and more than ever suspicious about what it means for something to be true.
Rorty offers a possible way forward, vis a vis this crucial question. I once asked Dick Rorty whether he
would contemplate going into electoral politics himself. He answered strongly in the negative. It wasnt
his role at all, it wasnt his forte, he said to me. His role was that of the public intellectual, trying to get
people who were willing to think about politics to think about how the aim of politics needed to change,
and how it needed to stay the same. Perhaps if there had been just a little more such thinking, the Free
World wouldnt now be led by a man whose post-truth rantings should make some postmodernists
more than a little ashamed of themselves.

Critical responses to the right wing resurgence feed it prioritize SOLVENCY above
DIAGNOSTIC argument
Claudio 7-1, (assistant professor of development studies and southeast Asian studies at the Ateneo de Manila University, Intellectuals
have ushered the world into a dangerous age of political nihilism, qz.com/721914/intellectuals-have-ushered-the-world-into-a-dangerous-age-
of-political-nihilism/)

On the surface, it would seem that intellectuals have nothing to do with the rise of global illiberalism.
The movements powering Brexit, Donald Trump and Third-World strongmen like Philippine president
Rodrigo Duterte all gleefully reject books, history and higher education in favor of railing against
common enemies like outsiders and globalization. And youll find few Trump supporters among the
largely left-wing American professoriate. Yet intellectuals are accountable for the rise of these
movementsalbeit indirectly. Professors have offered stringent criticisms of neoliberal society. But they
have failed to offer the public viable alternatives. In this way, they have promoted a political nihilism
that has set the stage for new movements that reject liberal democratic principles of tolerance and
institutional reform. Intellectuals have a long history of critiquing liberalism, which relies on a
philosophy of individual rights and (relatively) free markets. Beginning in the 19th century, according
to historian Francois Furet, left-wing thinkers began to arrive at a consensus that modern liberal
democracy was threatening society with dissolution because it atomized individuals, made them
indifferent to public interest, weakened authority, and encouraged class hatred. For most of the 20th
century, anti-liberal intellectuals were able to come up with alternatives. Jean-Paul Sartre famously
defended the Soviet Union even when it became clear that Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer. French,
American, Indian, and Filipino university radicals were hopelessly enamored of Mao Zedongs Cultural
Revolution in the 1970s. The collapse of Communism changed all this. Some leftist intellectuals began to
find hope in small revolutionary guerrillas in the Third World, like Mexicos Subcomandante Marcos.
Others fell back on pure critique. Academics are now mostly gadflies who rarely offer strategies for
political change. Those who do forward alternatives propose ones so vague or divorced from reality that
they might as well be proposing nothing. (The Duke University professor of romance studies Michael
Hardt, for example, thinks the evils of modern globalization are so pernicious that only worldwide love is
the answer.) Such thinking promotes political hopelessness. It rejects gradual change as cosmetic, while
patronizing those who think otherwise. This nihilism easily spreads from the classroom and academic
journals to op-ed pages to Zuccotti Park, and eventually to the public at large. For academic nihilists, the
shorthand for the worlds evils is neoliberalism. The term is used to refer to a free market ideology
that forced globalization on people by reducing the power of governments. The more the term is used,
however, the more it becomes a vague designation for all global drudgery. Democratic politics in the age
of neoliberalism, according to Harvard anthropologists Jean and John Comaroff, is something of a
pyramid scheme: the more it is indulged, the more it is required. They argue that our belief that we can
use laws and constitutional processes to defend our rights is a form of fetishism that is ultimately
chimerical. For the University of Chicago literary theorist Lauren Berlant, the democratic pursuit of
happiness amid neoliberalism is nothing but cruel optimism. The materialist things that people desire
are actually an obstacle to your flourishing, she writes. According to this logic, we are trapped by our
own ideologies. It is this logic that allows left-wing thinkers to implicitly side with British nativists in their
condemnation of the EU. The radical website Counterpunch, for example, describes the EU as a
neoliberal prison. It also views liberals seeking to reform the EU as coopted by the right wing and its
goalsfrom the subversion of progressive economic ideals to neoliberalism, to the enthusiastic
embrace of neoconservative doctrine. Across the Atlantic, Trump supporters are singing a similar tune.
Speaking to a black, gay, college-educated Trump supporter, Samantha Bee was told: Weve had these
disasters in neoconservatism and neoliberalism and I think that he [Trump] is an alternative to both
those paths. The academic nihilists and the Trumpists are in agreement about a key issue: The system is
fundamentally broken, and liberals who believe in working patiently toward change are weak. For the
Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, indifference is the the hallmark of political
liberalism. Since liberals balance different interests and rights, Santos writes, they have no permanent
friends or foes. He proposes that the world needs to revive the friend/foe dichotomy. And in a profane
way, it has: modern political movements pit Americans against Muslims, Britain against Europe, a
dictatorial government against criminals. Unfortunately, academic anti-liberalism is not confined to the
West. The Cornell political scientist Benedict Anderson once described liberal democracy in the
Philippines as a Cacique Democracy, dominated by feudal landlords and capitalist families. In this
system, meaningful reform is difficult, since the countrys political system is like a well-run casino,
where tables are rigged in favor of oligarch bosses. Having a nihilist streak myself, I once echoed
Anderson when I chastised Filipino nationalists for projecting hope onto spaces within an elite
democracy. Like Anderson, I offered no alternative. The alternative arrived recently in the guise of the
Duterte, the new president of the Philippines. Like Anderson and me, Duterte complained about the
impossibility of real change in a democracy dominated by elites and oligarchs. But unlike us, he
proposed a way out: a strong political leader who was willing to kill to save the country from criminals
and corrupt politicians. The spread of global illiberalism is unlikely to end soon. As this crisis unfolds, we
will need intellectuals who use their intellects for more than simple negationprofessors like the late
New York University historian Tony Judt, who argued that European-style social democracy could save
global democracy. Failing that, we need academics who acknowledge that liberal democracy, though
slow and imperfect, enables a bare minimum of tolerance in a world beset by xenophobia and hatred.
For although academics have the luxury of imagining a completely different world, the rest of us have
to figure out what to do with the one we have.
S
 Solvency

The aff solves through a system of FLEXIBLE targets that spur state action without
stifling innovation
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

In designing any federal mandate to influence state education funding, the federal government should
draw upon lessons from state funding case law and reforms. For instance, federal mandates should not
demand perfect equality for all students because such a standard is quite difficult to maintain.2 10
Instead, substantial equality should be deemed adequate21' although that standard should not be used
as a gateway for ever-widening disparities. In addition, the federal government also should follow the
lead of states by focusing more attention on equal access to an excellent education than equal
outcomes because states possess a greater ability to influence access rather than outcomes .212 Even if
a federal mandate were adopted, states must retain flexibility to reform their funding systems in ways
that address their primary shortcomings. Undoubtedly, states will initially struggle to redesign their
systems in ways that ensure equal access to an excellent education, just as numerous states repeatedly
failed to meet their state constitutional obligations when courts ordered them to conform the systems
to those obligations.2 1 3 The Federal government should follow the lead of state courts that have
provided legislatures flexibility to design remedies in response to court decisions without allowing
them to circumvent constitutional obligations. The Kansas Supreme Court recently noted that the
Kansas legislature had a variety of options to cure the constitutional deficiencies that it had identified
and reaffirmed that it was the legislature's prerogative-not the court's-to choose appropriate reforms . 2
14 Flexibility in designing reforms of state funding systems is important for several reasons. Different
performance standards will lead to disparate funding systems when those systems are linked to
ensuring that students achieve the state performance standards. 215 Even given the substantial number
of states that have adopted the common core standards, 21 6 the continued divergence in standards,
goals, implementation approaches, assessments, and political economies may encourage states to adopt
a variety of disparate funding systems. Flexibility also enables states to take care in designing systems
that address their shortcomings while also avoiding unintended adverse impacts. 21 7 States should be
permitted to determine the funding system that best serves the citizens of the state as well as the
national interest in ensuring equal access to an excellent education. However, retaining flexibility for
states should not be used as a shield that prevents federal accountability for the funding systems
needed for equitable and excellent schools, just as the NCLB requirement of state-determined
"challenging" academic standards was used by some states as a means to establish academic standards
that were not demanding. 2 8 As a result, once a federal mandate is enacted, the federal government
will need to retain some influence over state funding systems to ensure that reforms are passed,
funded, and implemented, just as state courts have needed to retain jurisdiction over school funding
systems to ensure that states take action consistent with the guiding principles in court opinions. 2 9
Retaining this influence ensures that the federal government will remain vigilant in its efforts to guide
the states toward more equitable and excellent funding systems. 220
Only federal action can solve unique symbolic, historic, expertise, and leadership
make leadership indispensable EVEN THOUGH states retain flexibility
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Establishing the Federal Government as the Final Guarantor of Equal Access to an Excellent Education by
Strengthening the Relationship Between Federal Influence and Responsibility By enacting federal
legislation and initiatives that embrace each of the elements discussed above, the federal government
would reestablish itself as the final guarantor of equal access to an excellent education.251
Historically, equal educational opportunity served as one of the principle rationales for federal
involvement in education.252 The federal government has played a critical role in assisting vulnerable
groups when the states have failed to act in the national interest.253 Yet, an increasing focus on
standards and accountability shifted federal attention away from issues of educational equity, while
federal reforms unsuccessfully attempted to ensure a quality education for all schoolchildren.254
Although the federal government consistently should aim to maintain excellence, it also needs to
reassert itself as the final guarantor of equal educational opportunity because the current failure of the
federal government to fulfill this role is one of the critical missing elements of the education reform
agenda. In making this recommendation, I join with other scholars, such as Michael Rebell and now-
California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, whose proposals call upon the federal government to
guarantee some form of equal educational opportunity.255 History suggests that the federal
government is likely to be the only level of government to engage in the leadership and substantial
redistribution of resources that equal access to an excellent education will require.256 Local politics
oftentimes hinders substantial efforts to redistribute resources.257 Thus, it is unsurprising that it took
federal legislation to initiate numerous past reform efforts that addressed disparities in educational
opportunity, such as those that assist disadvantaged students,258 girls and women,259 and disabled
children.260 The federal government possesses an unparalleled ability to mobilize national, state, and
local reform when the United States confronts an educational crisis.261 Therefore, my call for a
stronger federal role in education would build upon the historical federal role in advancing
educational equity and the superior ability of the federal government to accomplish a redistribution
of educational opportunity. By focusing its attention on the policymaking areas identified in Parts II.A
through E above, the federal government would shoulder the primary burden for a national effort to
ensure equal access to an excellent education. This primary federal burden would be carried through a
multifaceted approach in which each policymaking area would support and reinforce the others and
draw upon federal strengths in education policymaking. At the same time, federal leadership would
incentivize the states to engage in a collaborative partnership with the federal government to achieve
this goal. States would retain substantial control over education as they choose among a wide array of
reforms while facing compelling incentives to join in this national effort.
Federal action is SYMBOLICALLY crucial to alter the national commitment to equity in
education
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7
Prioritizing a National Goal of Ensuring Equal Access to an Excellent Education The federal government
must identify a national goal of ensuring that all children are provided equal access to an excellent
education. Some national leaders already have noted the importance of this goal.158
However, some key points are missing from this rhetoric that must be emphasized to support the type
of comprehensive reforms envisioned in this Article. For instance, the nations top education leaders,
including the President, the Secretary of Education, and members of Congress, would need to initiate a
national conversation on why the United States should no longer tolerate longstanding disparities in
educational opportunity and why federal action is needed to address them .159 Federal and national
education leaders also must make the case that the entire nation would benefit from ending inequitable
disparities in education because research reveals that reforms to help those who are disadvantaged
typically do not succeed unless they benefit more privileged Americans.160 Therefore, the federal
government must convince the more affluent segments of American society that a more equitable
distribution of educational opportunity would inure to their benefit. This could be accomplished in part
by publicizing existing research that quantifies the myriad of high costs that the United States pays for
offering many schoolchildren a substandard education and that acknowledges that even many
advantaged children are not competing effectively with their international peers.161 Initiating such a
conversation also requires the federal government to prioritize equal access to an excellent education
among its national policymaking agenda.
Our articulation of a top level goal is CRUCIAL for driving both reform and continued
implementation research
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Building the Political Will for Education Reform that Ensures Equal Access to an Excellent Education
Additional objections to my theory may focus on the lack of political will to adopt it. Some may argue
that the nation is not ready to do what it takes to complete a comprehensive assault on opportunity and
achievement gaps. My proposed theory is intentionally unapologetic in its comprehensive and
aspirational scope . Its comprehensive nature seeks to address the fact that past education reforms
have not attempted to address the magnitude of the problem confronting the nation.338 It leverages
the expanding federal role in education as the opportune time to restructure education federalism in
ways that support the nations education goals. As leading education historian Carl Kaestle has noted,
Presidents and Congress will continue to reinvent the federal role, because education has become a
top-tier domestic agenda item and because federalist traditions do not make clear what the federal
role in education is, nor how reformers should proceed to improve education on a national scale.339
As the federal role in education continues to expand, this Article seeks to supply some of the critical
answers that debates on education reform lack regarding how education federalism should be
restructured to support effective, comprehensive reform. Although this theory is aspirational because
the United States currently lacks sufficient political will to adopt all aspects of my theory, I seek to
contribute to the growing momentum for reform340 in several ways. I want to spark a national
dialogue about why changing education federalism should be included among the education reform
conversations. The public needs to understand the many costs that the United States has paid for its
approach to education federalism. The United States also needs to adopt a research-driven basis for
how education federalism should be restructured to achieve the nations education goals. My theory
injects the foundational issue of education federalism and how it must be restructured as a critical
missing element of the ongoing education reform agenda.
Core xt
Uniqueness xt
 Advantage Uniqueness xt

Mass educational inequality now, caused by current flawed education federalism

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The United States continues to tolerate a longstanding educational opportunity gap. Today, it
relegates at least ten million students in lowincome neighborhoods and millions more minority
students to poorly performing teachers, substandard facilities, and other inferior educational
opportunities.1 This occurs in part because the United States invests more money in high-income
districts than in low-income districts, a sharp contrast to other developed nations.2 Scholars and court
decisions also have documented the sizeable intrastate disparities in educational opportunity.3 In
addition, interstate inequalities in educational opportunity represent the largest component of
disparities in educational opportunity.4 The harmful nature of interstate disparities falls hardest on
disadvantaged schoolchildren who have the most educational needs,5 and states do not possess the
resources and capacity to address the full scope of these disparities.6 Furthermore, research confirms
that as the gap in wealth has grown between low-income and high-income families, the achievement
gap between children in low-income and high-income families also has widened.7 Although equal
educational opportunity remains a central goal of the U.S. education system, it has never been
realized.8 Indeed, the United States relies heavily on schools to overcome the influence of a childs
circumstances, such as family income and structure, on life opportunities despite evidence that schools
are not effectively serving this function.9 Fulfilling the goal of equal educational opportunity will
become increasingly important to the nations interests given research that reveals that the United
States will need more highly skilled workers to fill jobs that meet the economys demands. This research
also indicates that the achievement gap must be closed to ensure that students from rapidly growing
minority communities possess the educational skills necessary to contribute to the economy.10 The
nations approach to education federalism which I define as a balance of power between the federal,
state and local governments that emphasizes substantial state autonomy over educationhas played a
significant and influential role in undermining federal reforms that have attempted to address
disparities in educational opportunity.11 In a recent article, I examined how the nations approach to
education federalism served as one of the principal obstacles to three of the most comprehensive
federal attempts to advance equal educational opportunity: school desegregation, federal school
finance litigation, and the No Child Left Behind Act.12 Although some contend that these decisions and
results are driven more by a lack of political will rather than education federalism,13 the consistency
with which federalism has arisen as a real or imagined obstacle to reforms aimed at ensuring equal
educational opportunity suggests that it is a significant contributing factor even if other factors also
adversely influenced these reforms.
Solvency
 Fed Inev

Federal action HAPPENING NOW aff just chooses the AMBITION of these efforts
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The ongoing expansion of federal influence over education in the United States provides a particularly
salient time to consider how education federalism should be structured to achieve the nations
education goals. One of the nations unfulfilled and yet essential education goals is to ensure that all
students receive equal access to an excellent education. A variety of scholars and, most recently, the
federal Equity and Excellence Commission have offered proposals for advancing this goal. By building on
this growing momentum for reform, I argue that disrupting the nations longstanding approach to
education federalismwhich I define as the balance of power between federal, state, and local
governments that emphasizes substantial state autonomy over education is necessary for a
successful national effort to achieve this goal. I then provide a foundational theory for strengthening
the federal role in education by analyzing the essential elements of a successful reform effort based
upon research regarding the strengths of federal education policymaking and upon identification of the
missing elements of current reforms. Finally, I respond to many of the potential arguments against
disrupting education federalism. For instance, I argue that National Federation of Independent Business
v. Sebelius continues to provide ample room for Congress to expand the federal role in education in
ways that are needed to build a more equitable education system. I also explain that although
strengthening the federal role in education will reduce some forms of state and local control over
education, it also will provide states and localities new forms of control.
 Solvency: Equal Access

Equal access education sufficient to substantially reduce educational inequality

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Throughout this Article, I define equal access to an excellent education as the opportunity for all
students to attend a high-quality school that enables them to effectively pursue their life goals, to
become engaged citizens, and to develop their abilities to their full potential.15 Equal access to an
excellent education includes enabling all students to receive a real and meaningful opportunity to
achieve rigorous college- and career-ready standards.16 If the United States pursues equal access to
an excellent education as the primary goal for its education system, it will break the traditional link
between low-income and minority status and inferior educational opportunities.17 This goal
recognizes that educational opportunities should be tailored to meet the individual needs of students
that may vary dramatically depending on a variety of factors, including family structure and stability,
students health and nutrition, and neighborhood climate.18 This goal also embraces closing
opportunity gaps as an essential prerequisite for closing achievement gaps.19 Incentivizing and
embracing racially and economically diverse schools is essential for achieving this goal because of
compelling research regarding the harms of racial and class isolation, the benefits of diversity, and
evidence that diverse schools provide important educational benefits that cannot be duplicated by
alternative reforms.20 An excellent education for all schoolchildren should be the nations ultimate
education goal because all families ultimately want a first-rate education for their children and the
United States would benefit economically, socially, and politically from providing such an education.

These measures are a prerequisite to addressing systemic inequality

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The nation also has a strong interest in ensuring that entire segments of the American public are not
foreclosed from the American dream due to their family income and racial and ethnic background. The
principle of equal opportunity remains an enduring value within American society142 even though
that value has never been fully realized. Rather than abandon the interest in equal opportunity, the
nation must explore how this value can become a reality for the nations schoolchildren. In Part II I
propose some innovative ideas on how to accomplish this goal by restructuring education federalism.
 Federalization Key

Federalizing education is crucial to ensuring equal access

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Given this compelling history and the nations deeply entrenched educational opportunity gap, I
propose a theory for strategically restructuring and strengthening the federal role in education in the
United States to establish the necessary foundation for a national effort to ensure equal access to an
excellent education. This restructuring and strengthening of the federal role in education will disrupt
the nations longstanding approach to education federalism because it would require shifting the
balance of power in education away from the state and local governments and toward the federal
government. The United States would then need to adopt a new understanding of education
federalism that embraces the federal government as the guarantor of equal opportunity because it is
the only government with the capacity and sufficient incentive to lead a national effort to achieve this
widely supportedyet persistently elusivegoal. Although this would not require federalizing the
nations education system as at least one scholar has recommended,14 it would require acceptance of a
larger federal role in education to hold the states accountable for ensuring that all students receive
equal access to an excellent education.

federalization is necessary and sufficient structure and empirics prove states follow
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Education federalism should be restructured to embrace greater federal leadership and responsibility
for a national effort to provide equal access to an excellent education. This Part recommends the key
elements for strengthening the federal role in education to accomplish this goal. It identifies new federal
responsibilities that should be undertaken and recommends reforms of existing federal education policy
that would facilitate this goal. Any substantial strengthening and reform of the federal role in
education will transform the nature of education federalism because substantive changes to federal
authority over education directly affect the scope of state and local authority over education. These
shifts in education federalism have occurred throughout U.S. history, including federally mandated
school desegregation,146 NCLB,147 and, most recently, waivers to NCLB.1
 Standalone Bill k2 signal
Standalone bill solves best for signal
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Finally, the most ambitious way to include federal conditions on state funding systems would be to pass
a separate statute that conditions all federal education funding on states adopting and implementing a
funding system that promotes equal access to an excellent education. Such a requirement would be
analogous to the requirement that recipients of federal funds must not discriminate on the basis of race,
color or national origin in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 196 Similar requirements prohibit federal fund
recipients from discriminating on the basis of sex in education programs and activities in Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972197 or disability in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.198
New stand-alone conditions would enjoy a distinct advantage over conditions in the ESEA because they
would only need to be enacted once. This would enable the conditions to become an embedded and
accepted part of the political, legal and policy landscape. Although executive officials would have the
authority to vary their interpretation of the conditions, the central importance of having a funding
system that promotes equity and excellence. would endure. The longevity of enforcement also would
provide the executive branch ample time to understand how it can most effectively enforce the statute,
just as it has learned these lessons under Titles VI and IX and Section 504. Administrative agencies,
rather than Congress, would be best equipped to use their expertise to clarify the requirements of
conditions
 Fed Key
State control alone failsthe role of the federal government in education policy needs
to be clarified
Spellings 2011 (Margaret Spellings, Former U.S. Secretary of Education and White House Domestic
Policy Advisor, The Rub in Education: Federal v. Local Control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-spellings/the-rub-in-education-fede_b_992141.html) [NJ]
Among recent top stories: the Obama Administrations move to remake K-12 education policy and significantly strengthen the hand of the
federal government in the process. While policymakers on both sides of the aisle have been talking more than acting, the Administration has
been diligently preparing its battle plans for an overhaul of No Child Left Behind. And it looks like theyre about to do an end run around the
Congress. Heres where things are at the moment. People
on both sides of the debate are reiterating calls for local
control. Yet, interpreting what local means depends on whos saying it. For example, a group of Senate
Republicans recently introduced a package of bills that would remove pressure now put on states and districts by the federal government to
improve schools and student achievement that is tied to our taxpayer dollars. Still
others are calling to shutter the U.S.
Department of Education, eliminating altogether the discrete role the federal government currently has
in education. On the other end of the spectrum, teachers unions and the policymakers who support
them have been pleading for weaker accountability requirements that would allow local and state
administrators and school boards to have more power and greater reign over the management of
schools. In short we would return to the days of sending out money and hoping for the best a failed strategy we used for too many years.
In a perfect world where state and local administrators kept the best interests of students and taxpayers front and center, Id be all for it. But
the world isnt perfect, and in far too many places, state and local control means excuses, inaction,
complacency, and union control. Our children, particularly those who most need us to have their backs, deserve better
than that. Sadly, left to their own devices, too many states and districts have not held themselves accountable
for making much progress in enhancing student achievement and closing the staggering achievement
gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Instead, they have looked for escape hatches.
When I was Secretary, I received an abundance of waiver requests to get out of doing the hard work required by the law. Two quick examples:
Kentucky wanted to make accountability determinations every two years instead of annually and Utah asked to educate only 75 percent of its
kids to grade level in reading and math. What parent in Kentucky would be satisfied with a report card that arrived every other year and which
25 percent of parents in Utah would be told their kids didnt matter enough to be educated to grade level? These requests were made by the
very adults in the system charged with overseeing the improvement of our schools: administrators and school boards. Not that we should be
surprised. School boards are often populated with former teachers and administrators whose policies are aligned with those of the teachers
unions, including opposing teacher evaluation efforts, discouraging the opening of new charter schools despite pleas from parents and
opposing school turnaround efforts. Wedo need to be clear about the appropriate role of the federal government
in education. A lot of hard earned taxpayer dollars are at stake so its important to get it right. In my view, the federal government
plays an important role in establishing broad goals, asking states to meet those goals, and holding their
feet to the fire to make sure they are achieved.
Inequality
 Education inequality leads to econ inequality
Gaps in educational quality translate to gaps in the economy creating inequality
Duncan and Murnane 2014 (Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane, Growing Income Inequality
Threatens

American Education Rising economic and social inequality has weakened neighborhoods and families in
ways that make effective school reform more difficult
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/01/kappan_duncanmurnane.html) [NJ]
America has always taken pride in being the land of opportunity, a country in which hard work and sacrifice result in a better life for ones
children. Economic growth has made that dream a reality for generations of Americans, including many
people who started out poor. The quarter century following World War II was a golden era for the U.S. economy, as high- and low-
income families shared the benefits of substantial economic growth. But storm clouds began to gather in the 1970s. In
particular, computer-driven technological changes favoring highly educated workers, plus demographic
shifts such as the rise of single-parent families, have produced sharply growing income gaps among
families. In the past, Americas public schools have responded well to the challenges of a changing world. Indeed, Americas world leadership
in education has fueled much of its prosperity and made the 20th century the American Century (Goldin & Katz, 2008). But
technological changes, globalization, and rising income inequality have placed great strains on the
decentralized American approach to public education. We are constantly reminded that the math,
science, and language skills of our children and young adults lag far behind those of children in other
countries. In international rankings, our college graduation rate has fallen from first to 12th. In this article
the first of two appearing in consecutive monthswe describe the origins and nature of growing income inequality and some of its
consequences for American children. We document the increased family income inequality thats occurred over the past 40 years. An
increase in income disparity has been more than matched by an expanding gap between the money
that low- and high-income parents spend on enrichment activities for their children. Most
distressingly, increasing gaps in academic achievement and educational attainments have
accompanied the growth in income inequality. Differences in the reading and math achievement levels
of low- and high-income children are much larger than several decades ago, as are differences in college
graduation rates. What accounts for these widening gaps? Drawing from the first part of our recent book, Restoring Opportunity: The
Crisis of Inequality and the Challenge for American Education (Harvard Education Press and the Russell Sage Foundation, 2014), we explain that
the evidence supports pathways operating through both families and schools. In addition to growing
differences in the resources spent by poor and rich families on their children, declining real incomes for
low-income families have affected maternal stress, mental health, and parenting. storing the
educational opportunities that children from low-income families need if they are to lead productive
and fulfilling lives. Rising residential segregation by income has led to increasing concentrations of low- and high-income children
attending separate schools. Peer problems, geographic mobility, and challenges in attracting and retaining good teachers have made it difficult
to provide consistently high-quality learning experiences in schools serving a large proportion of low-income students. Next months article
draws from the second part of Restoring Opportunity to describe ideas based on proven policy approaches that will enable the country to make
progress on the enormous task of re-storing the educational opportunities that children from low-income families need if they are to lead
productive and fulfilling lives. Widening Gaps Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, the left-hand bar in each set of bars in Figure 1 shows the
average income in a particular year (in 2012 dollars) for children at the 20th percentile of the nations family income distribution. This means
that, in a given year, 20% of children lived in families with incomes below that level, while 80% had incomes above it. In 1970, the dividing line
was drawn at $37,664. The middle bar in each set shows the average family income in a given year at the 80th percentile of the distribution,
which was about $100,000 (in 2012 dollars) in 1970. The right-hand bar in each set shows the average income for very high-income families
those with incomes exceeding those of 95% of U.S. families (a little more than about $150,000 in 1970). In contrast to the two decades before
1970, when the incomes of these three groups grew at virtually identical rates, economic growth over the next four decades failed to lift all
boats. In 2010, family income at the 20th percentile was more than 25% lower than the inflation-adjusted corresponding family income in 1970.
In contrast, the real incomes of families at the 80th percentile grew by 23% to $125,000 over these four decades, while the incomes of the
richest 5% of families rose even more. Census Bureau data also show that the decline of the incomes of families at the lower end of the
spectrum is reflected in the nations child poverty rate: Over 16 million U.S. childrenmore than 20%were living in poor families in 2012, up
sharply from the 15% child poverty rate in 1970. During this same time period, the
gap between the average reading and
mathematics skills of students from low- and high-income families increased substantially. As illustrated in
Figure 2, among children who were adolescents in the late 1960s, test scores of low-income children lagged behind those of their better-off
peers by four-fifths of a standard deviation which represents about 80 points on the scale used to measure SAT scores. Forty years later, this
gap was 50% larger, amounting to nearly 125 SAT-type points (Reardon, 2011). We were surprised to discover how much the income-based gap
grew during this period in view of the decline in the racial gap in test scores in the decades following the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Brown vs. Board of Education. Given the importance of academic preparation in determining educational success, it should come as no surprise
that growth in the income gap in childrens reading and mathematics achievement has contributed to growth in the corresponding gap in the
rate of college completion (Figure 3, which is based on Bailey & Dynarski, 2011). Among children growing up in relatively affluent families, the
four-year college graduation rate of those who were teenagers in the mid-1990s was 18 percentage points higher than the rate for those who
were teenagers in the late 1970s. In contrast, among children from low-income families, the graduation rate was only 4 percentage points
higher for the later cohort than for the earlier one. Analysts differ in their assessments of the relative importance of college costs and academic
preparation in explaining the increasing gulf between the college graduation rates of affluent and low-income children in our country. However,
both cost burdens and academic performance are rooted, at least in part, in the growth in family income inequality. Inequality Affects Skills
Attainment American society relies on its families to nurture its children and its schools to level the playing
field for children born into different circumstances. More than any other institution, schools are charged
with making equality of opportunity a reality. During a period of rising inequality, can schools play this critical role effectively?
Or has growing income inequality affected families, neighborhoods, and schools in a manner that undercuts the effectiveness of schools serving
disadvantaged populations? Families Very young children tend to be completely dependent on their families to provide what they need for
healthy development (Duncan & Magnuson, 2011). Children growing up in families with greater financial resources score higher on many
dimensions of school readiness upon entering kindergarten. An obvious advantage of a higher family income is that it provides more resources
to buy books, computers, high-quality childcare, summer camps, private schooling, and other enrichments. In the early 1970s, high-income
families spent just under $3,000 more per year (in 2012 dollars) on child enrichment than low-income families (Figure 4; Duncan & Murnane,
2011). By 2006, this gap had nearly tripled, to $8,000. Spending differences are largest for enrichment activities such as music lessons, travel,
and summer camps (Kaushal et al., 2011). Differential access to such activities may explain the gaps in background knowledge between children
from high-income families and those from low-income families that are so predictive of reading skills in the middle and high school years (Snow,
2002). Parents also spend different amounts and quality of time interacting with their children. High-income parents spend more time than
low-income parents in literacy activities with their children. Most disparate is time spent in novel places other than at home, school, or in
the care of another parent or a childcare provider. Between birth and age six, children from high-income families spend an average of 1,300
more hours in novel contexts than children from low-income families (Phillips, 2011). These experiences, financed by the higher incomes of
more affluent families, also contribute to the background knowledge that is so critical for comprehending science and social studies texts in
middle school. It is difficult to untangle the precise effects of a multitude of family-related factors income and expenditures, family structure,
time, and language use on the disparities in childrens school readiness and success that have emerged over the past several decades. But
the evidence linking income to childrens school achievement suggests that the sharp increase in the income gap between high- and low-
income families since the 1970s and the concomitant increase in the income-based gap in childrens school success are hardly coincidental. In
particular, two experimental studies in the 1970s examined the overall effects on children of income supplements that boosted family income
by as much as 50% (Maynard, 1977; Maynard & Murnane, 1979). At two of the three sites, researchers found that children in families randomly
assigned to receive an income supplement did significantly better with respect to early academic achievement and school attendance than
children in families that received no income supplement. Still more evidence on policy-relevant effects of income increases comes from a study
that takes advantage of the increasing generosity of the U.S. Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) between 1993 and 1997 to compare childrens
test scores before and after the credit was expanded (Dahl & Lochner, 2012). The authors found increases in low-income childrens
achievement in middle childhood that coincided with the EITC expansion. The
strongest research evidence appears to
indicate that money matters in a variety of ways for childrens long-term success in school. While some
children always have enjoyed greater benefits and advantages than others, the income gap has widened
dramatically over the past four decades and, as these research studies suggest, this has been a
significant factor in widening the gap in childrens school success as well. Schools Researchers have long known that
children attending schools with mostly low-income classmates have lower academic achievement and graduation rates than those attending
schools with more affluent student populations. Less well understood are the ways in which student body composition shapes school
functioning and childrens developmental trajectories and long-run outcomes. In recent decades, it has been largely through an increase in
income-based segregation of neighborhoods and schools that growing inequality of family income has affected the educational attainments of
the nations children. Residential segregation by income has increased substantially in recent decades, as high-income families buy homes in
neighborhoods where less-affluent families cannot afford to live, and poor families are increasingly surrounded by neighbors who are poor as
well (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011). This reduces interactions between rich and poor in settings ranging from schools and child care centers to
libraries and grocery stores. Without the financial and human resources and political clout of the wealthy, institutions in poorer neighborhoods,
including schools, may decline in quality. Perhaps most important, increasing residential segregation by income has led to increasing school
segregation by income. From 1972 to 1988, schools became more economically segregated, and teenagers from affluent families were less and
less likely to have classmates from low-income families (Altonji & Mansfield, 2011). As a result, a child from a poor family is two to four times as
likely as a child from an affluent family to have classmates in either elementary or high school with behavioral problems and low skills. This
sorting matters because the weak cognitive skills and behavioral issues of many low-income children have a negative effect on their classmates
learning. Student mobility resulting from these residential changes poses another threat to achievement. Urban families living in poverty move
frequently, and, as a result of school sorting by socioeconomic status, children from poor families are especially likely to attend schools with
relatively high numbers of new students arriving during the school year. Recent research has shown that children attending elementary schools
with considerable student mobility make less progress in mathematics than do children in schools with less student turnover. Moreover, these
negative effects apply to students who themselves are residentially stable as well as to those who are not and are likely to stem from disruption
of instruction caused by the entry of new students into a class (Raudenbush, Jean, & Art, 2011). Poor teacher quality, too, contributes to the
weak performance of students in high-poverty schools. A substantial body of research has shown that schools serving high concentrations of
poor, nonwhite, and low-achieving students find it difficult to attract and retain skilled teachers. In addition to preferring schools with relatively
low proportions of low-achieving students, teachers favor schools in neighborhoods with higher-income residents and less violent crime (Boyd
et al., 2011). In high-poverty schools, teacher commitment, parental involvement, and student achievement all tend to be lower. Yet another
challenge facing many of the nations schools concerns the school placements of new immigrants, many of whom speak little English. Todays
immigrants are more likely than their predecessors in the early 1970s to come from high-poverty countries. Black and Hispanic immigrants to
New York City are much more likely to be poor than are white immigrants from Eastern Europe, and they are more likely to attend elementary
and middle schools with native-born black and Hispanic students who are poor (Schwartz & Stiefel, 2011). Thus, while immigrants are not
segregated from the native-born in New York City schools, their residential patterns contribute to segregation of schools by socioeconomic
status and race. Helping Low-income Children By
widening the gap in educational opportunities between children
from low- and higher-income families, increasing income inequality jeopardizes the upward
socioeconomic mobility that has long held our pluralistic democracy together. Improving educational
outcomes for children growing up in low-income families is therefore critical to the nations future
and requires a combination of policies that support low-income families and measures to improve the
quality of schools that low-income children attend. The United States has implemented a range of policies to raise the
buying power of low-income families, including the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, cash assistance programs, and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps). Recent studies show that the increases in family incomes produced by
these programs result in improved educational outcomes for young children and health in adulthood (Hoynes, Schanzenbach, & Almond, 2013).
Unfortunately, these programs are under attack as Congress seeks ways to reduce the federal budget deficit. Improving the quality of schools
attended by low-income children poses even more important and difficult challenges. As a nation, we have failed to appreciate the extent to
which technological innovations have brought changes in the skills needed to succeed in todays economy. Moreover, the rising economic and
social inequality produced by technology and globalization has weakened neighborhoods and families in ways that make effective school
reform all the more difficult. For a variety of historical reasons, our nation has not learned how to provide the consistent supports that
schoolsespecially those serving large numbers of low-income childrenmust have to succeed. Discussions
of school reforms
often center on simplistic silver bullets: more money, more accountability, more choice, new
organizational structures. None of these reforms has turned the tide because none focuses directly on
improving what matters most in education: the quality and consistency of the instruction and
experiences offered to students. In our companion article, which will appear next month, we detail the building blocks that we
consider essential for an American solution to the serious problems facing our nations schools.

The level of education of students receive have a large effect of the economy and its growing rate
Jamison et. al 08 (Eric A. Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Dean T. Jamison is professor of
health economics in the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Eliot A. Jamison is an investment professional at
Babcock & Brown. Ludger Woessmann is professor of economics at the University of Munich and heads the Department of Human Capital and
Innovation of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect those of their employers. Education and Economic Growth, http://educationnext.org/education-and-economic-growth/)

In a series of studies conducted over several years, the four of us have explored the role of both school
attainment and cognitive skills in economic growth. Beginning in the mid-1960s, international agencies
started conducting tests of students performance in mathematics and science at various grade levels .
We used performance on 12 of these standardized tests as rough measures of the average level of cognitive skill in a given country. With
this information, we could assess how human capital relates to differences in economic growth for 50
countries from 1960 to 2000, more countries over a longer period of time than any previous study. We
were also able to pay close attention to institutional factors that influence economic growth, such as openness of the economy and
protection of property rights. What we discovered gives credence to the concerns expressed in A Nation at Risk .
The level of cognitive skills of a nations students has a large effect on its subsequent economic growth
rate. Increasing the average number of years of schooling attained by the labor force boosts the economy only when increased levels of

school attainment also boost cognitive skills. In other words, it is

not enough simply to spend more time in school;
something has to be learned there. We also discovered that the size of the impact of cognitive skills
depends on whether a nations economy is open to outside trade and other external influences. The
more open the economy, the more important it is that a countrys students are acquiring high levels
of cognitive skills. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent or flat, to use New York Times columnist Thomas Friedmans
familiar terminology, enhancing human capital will become increasingly critical. As the world continues to
change, the United States can ill afford to rest easily on its past accomplishments.

Current U.S. policies have only resulted in inequality and less economic growth
Rothwell 16 (Jonathan Rothwell, a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. He now is a Senior Economist at Gallup, The
declining productivity of education, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/12/23/the-declining-productivity-of-
education/)

Unfortunately, as my report shows, federal loans have increasingly gone to the worst-performing colleges, from the perspective of default rates,
which is consistent with Brookings research showing the rising prevalence of for-profit colleges as aid recipients. In primary and secondary public
education, where price increases have been less dramatic, there has been a decline in bureaucratic efficiency. The number of students for every
district-level administrator fell from 519 in 1980 to 365 in 2012. Principals and assistant principals managed 382 students in 1980 but only 294 in
2012.An even bigger problem perhaps is that teaching itself has become increasingly unattractive.
Salaries for teachers start low, relative to the education they require, and never get particularly
competitive. School systems also impose frustrating daily constraints upon teachers, often in the form
of mandatory administrative exams, required by school districts, states, and federal bureaucracies. This
burden, combined with weak pay, has deterred many top students from entering teaching, and driven many others out . Declining
education productivity disproportionately harms the poor. The rising costs of education cannot be
fully offset by redistributive mechanisms. And unlike their affluent peers, low-income parents lack the
resources to overcome weak quality by home-schooling their children or hiring private tutors. Over the
last 30 to 40 years, the United States has invested heavily in education, with little to show for it. The result
is a society with more inequality and less economic growth; a high price.

Focusing on education is crucial for increasing economic growth

Economist 16 (Insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology, books and arts, The way
ahead, https://medium.economist.com/the-way-ahead-65b73e3801fb)

A major source of the recent productivity slowdown has been a shortfall of public and private
investment caused, in part, by a hangover from the financial crisis. But it has also been caused by self-
imposed constraints: an anti-tax ideology that rejects virtually all sources of new public funding; a fixation on deficits at the
expense of the deferred maintenance bills we are passing to our children, particularly for
infrastructure; and a political system so partisan that previously bipartisan ideas like bridge and airport upgrades are nonstarters. We
could also help private investment and innovation with business-tax reform that lowers statutory rates and closes loopholes, and with public
investments in basic research and development. Policies focused on education are critical both for increasing
economic growth and for ensuring that it is shared broadly. These include everything from boosting
funding for early childhood education to improving high schools, making college more affordable and
expanding high-quality job training.

The result of lower education creates more of an unstable economy better policies
need to be in place to replenish our already declining economy
Stiglitz 17 (Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in 1979,
is University Professor at Columbia University, and Chief Economist of the Roosevelt Institute, Joseph Stiglitz Says Standard Economics Is
Wrong. Inequality and Unearned Income Kills the Economy, http://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/)

There are different channels through which inequality harms the economy. First, inequality leads to
weak aggregate demand. The reason is easy to understand: those at the bottom spend a larger fraction of their income than those at
the top. The problem may be compounded by monetary authorities flawed responses to this weak demand. By lowering interest rates and
relaxing regulations, monetary
policy too easily gives rise to an asset bubble, the bursting of which leads in
turn to recession. Many interpretations of the current crisis have indeed emphasized the importance of distributional concerns. Growing
inequality would have led to lower consumption but for the effects of loose monetary policy and lax regulations, which led to a housing bubble
and a consumption boom. It was, in short, only growing debt that allowed consumption to be sustained. But it was inevitable that the bubble
would eventually break. And it was inevitable that, when it broke, the economy would go into a downturn. Second, inequality of
outcomes is associated with inequality of opportunity. When those at the bottom of the income
distribution are at great risk of not living up to their potential, the economy pays a price not only with weaker demand
today, but also with lower growth in the future. With nearly one in four American children growing up in
poverty, many of them facing not just a lack of educational opportunity but also a lack of access to
adequate nutrition and health, the countrys long-term prospects are being put into jeopardy. Third, societies with greater
inequality are less likely to make public investments which enhance productivity, such as in public
transportation, infrastructure, technology and education. If the rich believe that they dont need these public facilities, and worry that a
strong government which could increase the efficiency of the economy might at the same time use its powers to redistribute income and
wealth, it is not surprising that public investment is lower in countries with higher inequality. Moreover, in such countries tax and other
economic policies are likely to encourage those activities that benefit the financial sector over more productive activities. In the United States
today returns on long-term financial speculation (capital gains) are taxed at approximately half the rate of labour, and speculative derivatives
are given priority in bankruptcy over workers. Tax laws encourage job creation abroad rather than at home. The
result is a weaker
and more unstable economy. Reforming these policies and using other policies to reduce rent-
seeking would not only reduce inequality; it would improve economic performance.

Current policies result in economic inequality among school districts and the general
public
Robinson 2015 (Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959
(2015)., pp. 979-980. Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7) [NJ]

Education Federalisms Insistence on State and Local Control of School Finance Systems Invites
Inequality Primary state and local control over education essentially invite inequality in educational
opportunity because of pervasive state insistence that local governments raise education funds and
state funding formulas that do not effectively equalize the resulting disparities in revenue.121 Although some
influential victories have occurred,122 school finance litigation has mostly failed to change the basic
organizational structure of school finance systems and their reliance on property taxes to fund
schools.123 Instead, this litigation at best has obtained limited increases in funding for property-poor
districts while allowing property-rich districts to maintain the same funding level or to raise their funding
rate at a slower pace.124 Recent evidence of the persistent inequalities in school funding can be found in two distinct 2013 reports. A
report from the Council on Foreign Relations found that in the United States more is spent per pupil in
high income districts than in low-income districts.125 This stands in sharp contrast to most other developed nations where
the reverse is true.126 The Equity and Excellence Commission report also found that [n]o other developed nation has inequities nearly as deep
or systemic; no other developed nation has, despite some efforts to the contrary, so thoroughly stacked the odds against so many of its
children.127 These
disparities are due in substantial part to the continued state reliance on property
taxes to fund schools.128 As a result, state school finance systems in the United States typically create many
predominantly low-income and minority schools that predictably produce poor outcomes because these
schools typically lack both the resources to ensure that their students obtain an effective education and
the capacity to undertake effective reforms even when these reforms are well conceived.129 The harms
from persistent and pervasive disparities in educational opportunity are not limited to schoolchildren,
their families, and their communities. These disparities also harm nationwide interests in a strong
economy and a just society.

Low school performance is directly tied to rising income inequality

Russel Sage Foundation, n.d. (The Russel Sage Foundation is an American philanthropic foundation
that primarily funds research relating to income inequality.
https://www.russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/social-inequality-and-educational-disadvantage)
[NJ]

Too many of Americas most disadvantaged children grow up without the skills needed to thrive in the
twenty-first century. Whether in educational attainment between income groups or racial/ethnic
groups or across geographic locationsinequality persists. Low levels of performance among the most
disadvantaged create long-term problems, particularly in an economy in which higher skill levels are
more and more valued and the wages available to less-skilled workers are deteriorating. Some researchers
claim, on one hand, that educational inequality is due to social class and family background. Others argue that inadequately managed schools
bear most of the responsibility for low student achievement. Under the direction of Greg Duncan (University of California, Irvine) and Richard J.
Murnane (Harvard University), Social Inequality and Educational Disadvantage will explore the so-called middle ground between these claims
and focus on the impact of neighborhoods, families, and labor marketsthe environment around the schoolon schooling outcomes. These
social domains have direct effects on what and how much children learn. Children
growing up in low-income neighborhoods,
for example, are much more likely to experience repeated stress from violence and crime that may
inhibit cognitive development. Rising income inequality in the United States over the past three
decades has increased the importance of understanding how these external environmental factors
impact students and schools. The disparities between rich and poor families and neighborhoods have
increased, exacerbating the differences between schools and widening the gap in opportunities.
 Econ/Inequality i/l
Education growth level tied to income inequality- key to econ growth
Dunn 14 (Catherine, senior writer for the International Business Times, S&P: Income Inequality and
Education Gap Hurting Economic Growth Article, http://www.ibtimes.com/sp-income-inequality-
education-gap-hurting-economic-growth-1649850)

In a new examination of rising income disparity, the ratings agency Standard & Poor's says that current
inequality levels are hindering U.S. economic growth, and the firm has cut its forecast accordingly.
"Standard & Poor's sees extreme income inequality as a drag on long-run economic growth,"
the report says. "We've reduced our 10-year U.S. growth forecast to a 2.5 percent rate. We
expected 2.8 percent five years ago." S&P looked at data from several major institutions, citing, for
example, Congressional Budget Office figures on after-tax average income. For the top 1 percent of
earners, that income rose 15.1 percent from 2009 to 2010; for the bottom 90 percent, income rose by
less than 1 percent, "and fell for many other income groups." One of the primary, negative
consequences of high income imbalances is that they lead to "economic swings" and boom-and-bust
cycles, a la the Great Recession, according to the report. But another big problem, to which S&P
economists devoted much of the report, is the effect of inequality on educational
achievement and, by extension, earnings potential. "Aside from the extreme economic swings,
such income imbalances tend to dampen social mobility and produce a less-educated workforce that
can't compete in a changing global economy," the report says. "This diminishes future income
prospects and potential long-term growth, becoming entrenched as political repercussions
extend the problems." Theres a lot of arguments about how to rebalance the economy, and
one of the ideas is possibly improving education status, S&P U.S. chief economist Beth Ann
Bovino told International Business Times.Rates of educational achievement have slowed in the U.S. over
the past three decades. The S&P report cites research by Harvard professors Claudia Goldin and
Lawrence Katz to this effect: In 1980, Americans age 30 years or older had 4.7 years more
schooling on average than Americans in 1930 -- but Americans in 2005 had only 0.8 years
more schooling on average than Americans in 1980.If we were alone in the world, maybe
that wouldnt matter, Bovino said. But, of course, the U.S. has a lot of competition in the
international marketplace, and those competitors are pulling ahead with more college
degrees. For example, in 2011, about 43 percent of Americans aged 25 to 34 held a college degree. By
comparison, more than 50 percent of Japanese and Canadians in the same age group had a college
degree, and among South Koreans, more than 60 percent had degrees, according to Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development data. In researching the report, Bovino said she was
particularly struck by the link between college achievement and social mobility for the poorest families.
While there is a 45 percent chance that a child born into a poor family will remain [poor] as an adult,
chances of staying poor drops to 16 percent if that child finishes college, the S&P report says.Then
theres the wage differential for college grads, to the tune of about $30,000: "Occupations that typically
require postsecondary education generally paid much higher median wages ($57,770 in 2012) -- more
than double those occupations that typically require a high school diploma or less ($27,670 in 2012)."
According to S&P's own calculations, if the U.S. workforce gained just one more year of education on
average, U.S. GDP would grow by an additional $525 billion by 2019. There is a precedent for such a
growth level in educational attainment, Bovino noted. From 1960 to 1965, the American workforce
gained one year of education. Back in the '60s, this wouldnt have been out of the realm, to see the
pace of education picking up to those levels, Bovino said. To get there would likely require
increased investments in college financial aid, and in K-12 education, the report states. To
bring many more children into higher education, "the money needs to come from somewhere,"
Bovino said. "And I guess well have to leave that up to policymakers.

Boston proves poor education and low income are related

Weiner 16 (Michael, Research and Programs Assistant at Pioneer Institute, Addressing
Inequality though K-12 Article, http://pioneerinstitute.org/education/addressing-inequality-
through-k-12-education-in-boston/)

According to a new Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) study cited by The Boston Globe, nearly half
of Boston residents make under $35,000 per year. These findings, coupled with a January Brookings
Institution report ranking Boston number one nationally in income inequality, paint a worrisome picture
of the city. Sadly, many of those left behind in the midst of Bostons economic boom are low-income
minorities. The underlying issue is that Bostons schools have not successfully promoted educational
opportunity and economic mobility for many of its students. And Boston Public Schools have a
particularly high bar to meet because, as the Globe notes, 40 percent of jobs in Massachusetts require a
bachelors degree compared to 27 percent nationally. Inequality in K-12 education can be a significant
contributor to overall income inequality, and it has proven to be problematic in Boston. The National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has consistently placed Massachusetts at or near the top of
its Nations Report Card rankings over the last decade, and Boston Public Schools students have
consistently scored higher than average on the programs Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) in
math and reading, which shows the schools are capable of providing something a whole lot better than
many other urban districts across the country. However, given a 70 percent high school graduation rate
that is well below state and national averages, far too many Boston students, many of whom are
minorities, will not have an opportunity to achieve the American Dream. The evidence is clear: as the
BRA notes, two thirds of people with less than a high schsool degree have annual incomes of less than
$25,000. Considering that many BPS students are dropping out of high school while others are excelling,
it would appear that some schools in the district are performing well while others are failing. This theory
is supported by a report put out by Boston Public Schools on 2015 graduation rates, which reveals
glaring school-to school discrepancies. Some boast graduation rates over 90 percent, while others are
near 50 percent. Given these inconsistencies, it seems unfair to penalize students for the neighborhoods
they live in by forcing them to attend failing schools. Students should be able to attend schools that best
serve their own needs and interests, which is why providing the option of charter schools, Catholic
schools, METCO (Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity), and vocational schools will help
more young people succeed. These additional options have shown great potential in Boston, indicating
that there is plenty of room for improvement of the citys overall educational infrastructure. For
example, a nationwide study of urban charter schools conducted by Stanford Universitys Center for
Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) revealed across-the-board improvements in math and
reading performance for students at Boston charter schools compared with their district school
counterparts. Charter schools, it must be noted, are just one of the options that should be considered.
Catholic schools have also produced superior academic results, as Cara Stillings Candal outlined in a
paper for Pioneer, titled, Be Not Afraid. Additionally, the METCO program has helped fight education
inequality along with racial and economic segregation by providing students living in low-income Boston
neighborhoods with the opportunity to attend schools in suburban areas. As Pioneer described in its
2011 paper, METCO Merits More, the program has dealt with repeated budget cuts in spite of the
benefits it provides to needy students. Finally, while vocational schools have served as inspiring success
stories in other parts of the state, Boston lags behind. As Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios has
noted, Bostons Madison Park Technical-Vocational High School, the citys only public vocational school,
has been mired in a cycle of poor performance, due largely to an ineffective oversight structure. Fixing
Madison Park, as former Mayor Thomas Menino pledged to do, would provide Boston students with
exciting new opportunities, and could create yet another vital tool for combatting educational
inequality. Mayor Marty Walsh has made addressing income inequality a priority, stressing the issue in
his most recent State of the City address. Mayor Walshs main initiatives for tackling inequality involve
on-the-job training and education for low-income workers, emphasizing that the best way to take on the
problems facing Boston is through education. Thats a good start but more is needed. As of October
2015, there are about 34,000 students on waiting lists for Massachusetts charter schools, 19,749 of
whom are in Boston. More than a third of Boston charter school students go on to earn a college degree
within six years of graduation, compared with just 15 percent of their Boston Public Schools
counterparts. With impressive statistics like that, why not give more children a chance at upward
mobility? A recent Pioneer Institute study showed that a 5 percent increase in spending could eliminate
urban charter school waitlists. And as district schools compete with charters for students, there is little
doubt that the result will be better education for all public school students.

Inequality starts in education- key to broader inequality issues

Ireland 16 (Corydon, staff writer of the Harvard Gazette,The Costs of Inequality: Education Is the Key to
It All https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/the-costs-of-inequality-education-is-the-key-
to-it-all)

Before Deval Patrick '78, J.D. '82, was the popular and successful two-term governor of Massachusetts,
before he was managing director of high-flying Bain Capital, and long before he was Harvard's most
recent Commencement speaker, he was a poor black schoolchild in the battered housing projects of
Chicago's South Side. The odds of his escaping a poverty-ridden lifestyle, despite innate intelligence and
drive, were long. So how did he help mold his own narrative and triumph over baked-in societal
inequality? Through education. "Education has been the path to better opportunity for generations of
American strivers, no less for me," Patrick said in an email when asked how getting a solid education,
in his case at Milton Academy and at Harvard, changed his life. "What great teachers gave me was not
just the skills to take advantage of new opportunities, but the ability to imagine what those
opportunities could be. For a kid from the South Side of Chicago, that's huge." If inequality starts
anywhere, many scholars agree, it's with faulty education. Conversely, a strong education can act as
the bejeweled key that opens gates through every other aspect of inequality, whether political,
economic, racial, judicial, gender- or health-based. Simply put, a top-flight education usually changes
lives for the better. And yet, in the world's most prosperous major nation, it remains an elusive goal for
millions of children and teenagers. Plateau on Educational Gains The revolutionary concept of free,
nonsectarian public schools spread across America in the 19th century. By 1970, America had the world's
leading educational system, and until 1990 the gap between minority and white students, while clear, was
narrowing. But educational gains in this country have plateaued since then, and the gap between white
and minority students has proven stubbornly difficult to close, says Ronald Ferguson, adjunct lecturer in
public policy at Harvard Kennedy School and faculty director of Harvard's Achievement Gap
Initiative. That gap extends along class lines as well. In recent years, scholars such as Ferguson, who is an
economist, have puzzled over the ongoing achievement gap and what to do about it, even as other nations'
school systems at first matched and then surpassed their U.S. peers. Among the 34 market-based,
democracy-leaning countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
the United States ranks around 20th annually, earning average or below-average grades in reading,
science, and mathematics. By eighth grade, Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. noted last year, only
44 percent of American students are proficient in reading and math. The proficiency of African-American
students, many of them in underperforming schools, is even lower. Education Gap: The Root of
Inequality Education may be the key to solving broader American inequality, but we have to solve
educational inequality first. Ferguson says there is progress being made, there are encouraging examples
to emulate, that an early start is critical, and that a lot of hard work lies ahead. But he also says, "There's
nothing more important we can do." "The position of U.S. black students is truly alarming," wrote Fryer,
the Henry Lee Professor of Economics, who used the OECD rankings as a metaphor for minority standing
educationally. "If they were to be considered a country, they would rank just below Mexico in last place."
Harvard Graduate School of Education Dean James E. Ryan, a former public interest lawyer, says
geography has immense power in determining educational opportunity in America. As a scholar, he has
studied how policies and the law affect learning, and how conditions are often vastly unequal. His book
"Five Miles Away, A World Apart" (2010) is a case study of the disparity of opportunity in two
Richmond, Virginia, schools, one grimly urban and the other richly suburban. Geography, he says,
mirrors achievement levels. A ZIP Code as Predictor of Success "Right now, there exists an almost
ironclad link between a child's ZIP code and her chances of success," said Ryan. "Our education system,
traditionally thought of as the chief mechanism to address the opportunity gap, instead too often reflects
and entrenches existing societal inequities." Urban schools demonstrate the problem. In New York City,
for example, only 8 percent of black males graduating from high school in 2014 were prepared for
college-level work, according to the CUNY Institute for Education Policy, with Latinos close behind at
11 percent. The preparedness rates for Asians and whites 48 and 40 percent, respectively were
unimpressive, too, but nonetheless were firmly on the other side of the achievement gap. In some
impoverished urban pockets, the racial gap is even larger. In Washington, D.C., 8 percent of black eighth-
graders are proficient in math, while 80 percent of their white counterparts are. Fryer said that in
kindergarten black children are already 8 months behind their white peers in learning. By third grade, the
gap is bigger, and by eighth grade is larger still. According to a recent report by the Education
Commission of the States, black and Hispanic students in kindergarten through 12th grade perform on a
par with the white students who languish in the lowest quartile of achievement. There was once great faith
and hope in America's school systems. The rise of quality public education a century ago "was probably
the best public policy decision Americans have ever made because it simultaneously raised the whole
growth rate of the country for most of the 20th century, and it leveled the playing field," said Robert
Putnam, the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, who has
written several best-selling books touching on inequality, including " Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of the American Community" and " Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis." Historically,
upward mobility in America was characterized by each generation becoming better educated than the
previous one, said Harvard economist Lawrence Katz. But that trend, a central tenet of the nation's
success mythology, has slackened, particularly for minorities. "Thirty years ago, the typical American had
two more years of schooling than their parents. Today, we have the most educated group of Americans,
but they only have about .4 more years of schooling, so that's one part of mobility not keeping up in the
way we've invested in education in the past," Katz said. As globalization has transformed and sometimes
undercut the American economy, "education is not keeping up," he said. "There's continuing growth of
demand for more abstract, higher-end skills" that schools aren't delivering, "and then that feeds into a
weakening of institutions like unions and minimum-wage protections." Fryer is among a diffuse cohort of
Harvard faculty and researchers using academic tools to understand the achievement gap and the many
reasons behind problematic schools. His venue is the Education Innovation Laboratory, where he is
faculty director. "We use big data and causal methods," he said of his approach to the issue. Fryer, who is
African-American, grew up poor in a segregated Florida neighborhood. He argues that outright
discrimination has lost its power as a primary driver behind inequality, and uses economics as "a rational
forum" for discussing social issues. Better Schools to Close the Gap Fryer set out in 2004 to use an
economist's data and statistical tools to answer why black students often do poorly in school compared
with whites. His years of research have convinced him that good schools would close the education gap
faster and better than addressing any other social factor, including curtailing poverty and violence, and he
believes that the quality of kindergarten through grade 12 matters above all. Supporting his belief is
research that says the number of schools achieving excellent student outcomes is a large enough sample to
prove that much better performance is possible. Despite the poor performance by many U.S. states, some
have shown that strong results are possible on a broad scale. For instance, if Massachusetts were a nation,
it would rate among the best-performing countries. At Harvard Graduate School of Education, where
Ferguson is faculty co-chair as well as director of the Achievement Gap Initiative, many factors are
probed. In the past 10 years, Ferguson, who is African-American, has studied every identifiable element
contributing to unequal educational outcomes. But lately he is looking hardest at improving children's
earliest years, from infancy to age 3. At Age 1, Children Score Similarly Fryer and Ferguson agree that
the achievement gap starts early. At age 1, white, Asian, black, and Hispanic children score virtually the
same in what Ferguson called "skill patterns" that measure cognitive ability among toddlers, including
examining objects, exploring purposefully and "expressive jabbering." But by age 2, gaps are apparent,
with black and Hispanic children scoring lower in expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension and
other indicators of acuity. That suggests educational achievement involves more than just schooling,
which typically starts at age 5. Key factors in the gap, researchers say, include poverty rates (which are
three times higher for blacks than for whites), diminished teacher and school quality, unsettled
neighborhoods, ineffective parenting, personal trauma, and peer group influence, which only
strengthens as children grow older. "Peer beliefs and values," said Ferguson, get "trapped in culture"
and are compounded by the outsized influence of peers and the "pluralistic ignorance" they spawn. Fryer's
research, for instance, says that the reported stigma of "acting white" among many black students is true.
The better they do in school, the fewer friends they have while for whites who are perceived as
smarter, there's an opposite social effect. Fryer suspects that peer behavior among minorities was
adversely affected by two main factors: the fading aspirational effects of the Civil Rights Movement that
worked to the advantage of children in the 1960s, and the emergence of gangster rap culture in the
1980s.The researchers say that family upbringing matters, in all its crisscrossing influences and
complexities, and that often undercuts minority children, who can come from poor or troubled homes.
"Unequal outcomes," he said, "are from, to a large degree, inequality in life experiences." Trauma also
subverts achievement, whether through family turbulence, street violence, bullying, sexual abuse, or
intermittent homelessness. Such factors can lead to behaviors in school that reflect a pervasive form of
childhood post-traumatic stress disorder. At Harvard Law School, both the Trauma and Learning Policy
Initiative and the Education Law Clinic marshal legal aid resources for parents and children struggling
with trauma-induced school expulsions and discipline issues. At Harvard Business School, Karim R.
Lakhani, an associate professor who is a crowdfunding expert and a champion of open-source software,
has studied how unequal racial and economic access to technology has worked to widen the achievement
gap. At Harvard's Project Zero, a nonprofit called the Family Dinner Project is scraping away at the
achievement gap from the ground level by pushing for families to gather around the meal table, which
traditionally was a lively and comforting artifact of nuclear families, stable wages, close-knit extended
families and culturally shared values Lynn Barendsen, the project's executive director, believes that
shared mealtimes improve reading skills, spur better grades and larger vocabularies, and fuel complex
conversations. Interactive mealtimes provide a learning experience of their own, she said, along with
structure, emotional support, a sense of safety, and family bonding. Even a modest jump in shared
mealtimes could boost a child's academic performance, she said. Fryer suspects that peer behavior among
minorities was adversely affected by two main factors: the fading aspirational effects of the Civil Rights
Movement that worked to the advantage of children in the 1960s, and the emergence of gangster rap
culture in the 1980s. The researchers say that family upbringing matters, in all its crisscrossing influences
and complexities, and that often undercuts minority children, who can come from poor or troubled homes.
"Unequal outcomes," he said, "are from, to a large degree, inequality in life experiences." Trauma also
subverts achievement, whether through family turbulence, street violence, bullying, sexual abuse, or
intermittent homelessness. Such factors can lead to behaviors in school that reflect a pervasive form of
childhood post-traumatic stress disorder. At Harvard Law School, both the Trauma and Learning Policy
Initiative and the Education Law Clinic marshal legal aid resources for parents and children struggling
with trauma-induced school expulsions and discipline issues. At Harvard Business School, Karim R.
Lakhani, an associate professor who is a crowdfunding expert and a champion of open-source software,
has studied how unequal racial and economic access to technology has worked to widen the achievement
gap. At Harvard's Project Zero, a nonprofit called the Family Dinner Project is scraping away at the
achievement gap from the ground level by pushing for families to gather around the meal table, which
traditionally was a lively and comforting artifact of nuclear families, stable wages, close-knit extended
families and culturally shared values"We're not saying families have to be perfect," she said,
acknowledging dinnertime impediments like full schedules, rudimentary cooking skills, the lure of
technology, and the demands of single parenting. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Whether poring
over Fryer's big data or Barendsen's family dinner project, there is one commonality for Harvard
researchers dealing with inequality in education: the issue's vast complexity. The achievement gap is a
creature of interlocking factors that are hard to unpack constructively.Going Wide, Starting Early With
help from faculty co-chair and Jesse Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree, the Achievement
Gap Initiative is analyzing the factors that make educational inequality such a complex puzzle: home and
family life, school environments, teacher quality, neighborhood conditions, peer interaction, and the fate
of "all those wholesome things," said Ferguson. The latter include working hard in school, showing
respect, having nice friends, and following the rules, traits that can be "elements of a 21st-century
movement for equality." In the end, best practices to create strong schools will matter most, said Fryer.
He called high-quality education "the new civil rights battleground" in a landmark 2010 working paper
for the National Bureau of Economic Research called "Racial Inequality in the 21st Century: The
Declining Significance of Discrimination." Fryer tapped 10 large data sets on children 8 months to 17
years old. He studied charter schools, scouring for standards that worked. He champions longer school
days and school years, data-driven instruction, small-group tutoring, high expectations, and a school
culture that prizes human capital all just "a few simple investments," he wrote in the working paper.
"The challenge for the future is to take these examples to scale" across the country.How long would
closing the gap take with a national commitment to do so? A best-practices experiment that Fryer
conducted at low-achieving high schools in Houston closed the gap in math skills within three years, and
narrowed the reading achievement gap by a third. "You don't need Superman for this," he said, referring
to a film about Geoffrey Canada and his Harlem Children's Zone, just high-quality schools for everyone,
to restore 19th-century educator Horace Mann's vision of public education as society's "balance-wheel."
Last spring, Fryer, still only 38, won the John Bates Clark medal, the most prestigious award in
economics after the Nobel Prize. He was a MacArthur Fellow in 2011, became a tenured Harvard
professor in 2007, was named to the prestigious Society of Fellows at age 25. He had a classically
haphazard childhood, but used school to learn, grow, and prosper. Gradually, he developed a passion for
social science that could help him answer what was going wrong in black lives because of educational
inequality. With his background and talent, Fryer has a dramatically unique perspective on inequality and
achievement, and he has something else: a seemingly counterintuitive sense that these conditions will
improve, once bad schools learn to get better. Discussing the likelihood of closing the achievement gap if
Americans have the political and organizational will to do so, Fryer said, "I see nothing but optimism."

Large educational inequality now

Belfield and Levin 7 (Clive and Henry, The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of
Inadequate Education https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1068854)

Is excellent education for all Americas children a good investment? We know that education is
expensive, but poor and inadequate education for substantial numbers of our young may have public and
social consequences that are even costlier. The contributors to The Price We Pay examine the costs of
investing in services to provide excellent education andequally important the costs of not doing so. A
persons educational attainment is one of the most important determinants of his or her life chances
in terms of employment, income, health status, housing, and many other amenities. Unlike other
attributes, such as family background and personal characteristics, educational attainment can be chosen
by the individual and influenced by public policy. In the United States we share a common expectation
that all citizens will have access to high quality education that will reduce considerably the likelihood of
later lifetime inequalities . Yet large differences in educational quality and attainment persist across
income, race, and region. Even with similar schooling resources, educational inequalities endure
because children from educationally and economically disadvantaged populations are less prepared
to start school. They are unlikely to catch up without major educational interventions on their behalf.
In the United States we typically view educational inequality as a challenging public policy issue because
of its implications for social justice.

Technological changes in economy means educational inequality stalls economic

growth
Belfield and Levin 7 (Clive and Henry, The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of
Inadequate Education https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1068858) Education is a fundamental basis of
productivity growth. Not only are educated workers more productive, but the technological changes
that generate productivity are dependent on the availability of an educated workforce both the
scientists and engineers who directly generate innovations and the workers in many related occupations
who support innovative work and create the economic and technical infrastructure on which innovation is
based. In the past, the U.S. education system produced an educated workforce adequate to maintain a
relatively high level of productivity growth, and at least the postsecondary education system was
considered the best in the world. Reflecting what has been the generally accepted view of the superiority
of U.S. postsecondary education, the 2006 report of the secretary of educations Commission on the
Future of American Higher Education stated that the American system has been the envy of the world for
years.1 Although U.S. education levels rose dramatically during the twentieth century , the education
system as a whole has continued to be highly inequitable with respect to race, ethnicity, and social
class (see especially Rothstein and Wilder, this volume). Although the chapters in this book are focused
primarily on elementary and secondary education, the higher education system is 74 1. U.S. Department
of Education (2006, p. ix). 04-0863-6-CH04 10/9/07 4:53 PM Page 74 also profoundly inequitable in the
sense that educational achievement is closely related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.2
Moreover, economic, political, social, and demographic factors are changing in such a way that in the
future the traditional educational inequality in the United States will increasingly stand in the way of
the nations ability to sustain productivity growth and compete successfully in international markets.
Marta Tienda and Sigal Alon, in their chapter in this book, argues that the current school-age population
bulge, if its members can gain access to appropriate education, offers an opportunity to overcome some
of the economic and demographic problems created by the aging of the baby boom generation. That
bulge is made up disproportionately of African Americans and Hispanics, who have in the past had
lower levels of educational attainment than whites. If this goes unchanged, integration of this bulge
into the labor force may actually result in a drop in the overall level of education in the population,
even as technological changes and developments in world markets call for greater education. Without
improvements in educational opportunities for black and Hispanic students, the bulge may be a liability
rather than an opportunity. In the past, educational inequality was a problem primarily for people who
ended up with low levels of education; increasingly it will be a problem for everyone.

Low income levels=low performance levels

Rabinovitz 16 (Jonathan, Local education inequities across U.S. revealed in new
Stanford data set http://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/29/local-education-inequities-
across-u-s-revealed-new-stanford-data-set/)

Almost every school district enrolling large numbers of low-income students has an average academic
performance significantly below the national grade-level average, according to Stanford Graduate
School of Education research based on a massive new data set recently created from more than 200
million test scores. The research also revealed that nearly all U.S. school districts with substantial
minority populations have large achievement gaps between their white and black and white and
Hispanic students. The data, which were made available online April 29, provide the most detailed
account yet of academic disparities nationwide. They comprise reading and math test results of some
40 million 3rd to 8th grade students during 2009-13 in every public school district in the country, along
with information about socioeconomic status, school district characteristics, and racial and economic
segregation. We dont administer a single standardized exam to all U.S. students, so a clear picture of
the differences in academic performance across schools and districts has been elusive up until now,
said Sean Reardon, the Stanford education professor who devised the statistical methods that make it
possible to compare the mandatory tests administered in different states. Its now much easier to
identify school districts and communities where performance is high, compare them with
demographically similar ones that do less well and try to determine whats behind the differences.
Educational inequality Reardon and colleagues already have been examining the data and identifying
key patterns in educational inequality. Among their findings: One sixth of all students attend public
school in school districts where average test scores are more than a grade level below the national
average; one sixth are in districts where test scores are more than a grade level above the national
average. The most and least socioeconomically advantaged districts have average performance levels
more than four grade levels apart. Average test scores of black students are, on average, roughly two
grade levels lower than those of white students in the same district; the Hispanic-white difference is
roughly one- and-a-half grade levels. Achievement gaps are larger in districts where black and Hispanic
students attend higher poverty schools than their white peers; where parents on average have high
levels of educational attainment; and where large racial/ethnic gaps exist in parents educational
attainment. The size of the gaps has little or no association with average class size, a districts per capita
student spending or charter school enrollment. The researchers stress that their findings do not prove
cause and effect, though they do point to promising areas for further study. The socioeconomic profile
of a district is a powerful predictor of the average test score performance of students in that district,
Reardon said. Nonetheless, poverty is not destiny: There are districts with similarly low-income student
populations where academic performance is higher than others. We can and should learn from such
places to guide community and school improvement efforts in other communities.

Education gap imposes trillions of economic cost to US economy

Auguste et al 9 (Byron Auguste, Bryan Hancock, and Martha Laboissiere, The Economic Cost of the US
Education Gap http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/the-economic-cost-of-
the-us-education-gap)
A persistent gap in academic achievement between children in the United States and their
counterparts in other countries deprived the US economy of as much as $2.3 trillion in economic
output in 2008, McKinsey research finds.1Moreover, each of the long-standing achievement gaps
among US students of differing ethnic origins, income levels, and school systems represents hundreds
of billions of dollars in unrealized economic gains. Together, these disturbing gaps underscore the
staggering economic and social cost of underutilized human potential. Yet they also create room for
hope by suggesting that the widespread application of best practices could secure a better, more
equitable education for the countrys childrenalong with substantial economic gains. How has
educational achievement changed in the United States since 1983, when the publication of the seminal
US government report A Nation at Risk2sounded the alarm about the rising tide of mediocrity in
American schools? To learn the answer, we interviewed leading educational researchers around the
world, assessed the landscape of academic research and educational-achievement data, and built an
economic model that allowed us to examine the relationships among educational achievement
(represented by standardized test scores), the earnings potential of workers, and GDP. We made three
noteworthy assumptions: test scores are the best available measure of educational achievement;
educational achievement and attainment (including milestones such as graduation rates) are key
drivers in hiring and are positively correlated with earnings; and labor markets will hire available
workers with higher skills and education. While these assumptions admittedly simplify the
socioeconomic complexities and uncertainties, they allowed us to draw meaningful conclusions about
the economic impact of educational gaps in the United States. Four substantial achievement gaps
emerged from our work (Exhibit 1). The first is the international one. As recently as the 1960s, the
United States led the world in a variety of educational outcomes. Yet the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) found that in 2006, America ranked 25th out of 30 industrialized
countries in math and 24th in science. Moreover, cross-country comparisons of US students at two
different ages910 and 15suggest that the closer they get to joining the labor force, the further they
lag behind their international counterparts in reading, math, and science. The gaps impact is startling:
if the United States had closed it by 1998 and reached the level of the top performers, such as Finland
and South Korea, the US GDP could have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher in 2008. To put the
facts another way, the gap imposes a higher recurring annual economic cost on the US economy than
the current recession does.

Income inequality is the cause of education inequality

Reardon 13 (Sean F., Professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education Senior Fellow at the Stanford
Institute for Economic Policy Research Director, Stanford Interdisciplinary Doctoral Training Program in
Quantitative Education Policy Analysis, The Widening Income Achievement Gap
https://nppsd.socs.net/vimages/shared/vnews/stories/525d81ba96ee9/SI%20-
%20The%20Widening%20Income%20Achievement%20Gap.pdf)

To understand the reasons for the growing income achievement gap, it is necessary to look at the social
history of the past 50 years in the United States. A few key trends are worth considering. First, income
inequality has risen dramatically in the last 3040 years, making the gap in income between high
income and low-income families much greater. In 1970, a family with school-age children at the 90th
percentile of the family income distribution earned 5 times as much as a family at the 10th percentile;
today, the high income family earns 11 times more than the low-income family.2 This rapid growth in
income inequality means that high-income families now have far more resources, relative to low-
income families, to invest in their children's development and schooling. Second, upward social
mobility has become far more difficult and far less certain than it was 50 years ago, partly because of
rising income inequality and partly because of declining economic growth. While the economy was
growing rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, the vast majority of children in the United States (particularly
white children) grew up in families in which they were much more economically secure than their
parents (most of whom had grown up during the Great Depression and World War II) had been. But
beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed dramatically, and upward social mobility became far
less certain. Third, the economy has become increasingly bifurcated into a low-skill, low-wage sector
(for example, service jobs and routine production jobs) and a high-skill, high-wage information sector
(for example, engineering and financial analysis). Largely gone are the manufacturing jobs that
provided a middle-class wage without a college degree. As a result, education success has become
increasingly essential to economic success (Autor, Katz, & Kearney, 2008; Murnane, Willett, & Levy,
1995). Fourth, popular notions of what constitutes education success have changed. In the last few
decades, test scores have become increasingly central to our idea of what schools are supposed to
produce. As test scores have played a more dominant role in education policy over the last decade (and
have become more important in college admissions), they have become increasingly salient to parents
concerned with their children's education success. Fifth, American families have changed in several
important ways in the last four decades. Children in high income families are increasingly likely to be
raised by two parents, both with college degrees, whereas low income children are more likely than
ever to be raised by a single mother with a low level of education (McLanahan, 2004; Schwartz & Mare,
2005). This means that family income has become increasingly correlated to other family characteristics
and resources that are important for children's development. The combination of these broad social
trends has had important consequences for children's academic success. Increased uncertainty about
children's likelihood of upward social mobility, coupled with the increased importance of education
for career security, has made parents increasingly anxious about their children's education. This has
led to greater competition among families for their children's academic success. In summary, the
growth in income inequality and in the correlation of income with other family resources means that
family resources have become increasingly unequal at the same time that families are increasingly
focused on their children's education, a constellation of trends that has led to a rapidly growing
disparity in the extent to which families invest their time and money in their children's education.
Indeed, high-income families now spend nearly 7 times as much on their children's development as
low-income families, up from a ratio of 4 times as much in 1972 (Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013).
 Inequality => Conflict
Inequality causes instability and conflict
Flaten 2012 (Economic inequality, democratization and civil conflict Measuring the long-run effects,
Ranveig Drolsum Flaten, Master Thesis at the Department of Political Science UNIVERSITY of OSLO
Spring 2012. https://havardhegre.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ranveigdrolsumflatenmathesis.pdf) [NJ]

High inequality is hypothesized to both cause regime instability and violence. Using a cross-sectional
time-series dataset consisting of 164 countries observed between 19602010, I estimate a multinomial
logit model of changes to countries regime type and conflict level. Further, I use this model to simulate the long-run
development of political regimes and civil conflict over a time-span of 40 years, taking the level of economic inequality into account. I extend a
simulation routine developed in Hegre et al. (forthcoming), where civil conflict and the political systems in the world are endogenous, and
evolve in accordance with the estimates of the multinomial logit model. The explanatory variables are assumed exogenous and kept at a
constant level. Doing this, I am able to measure the
overall effects of inequality on democratization and on conflict
incidence, by capturing the reciprocal causality between the two events, as well as the impact from
previous regime and conflict history. The analysis provides support for the hypothesis that high
economic inequality increases the amount of conflict in the long run, as well as the proportion of
years with partially democratic institutions. High inequality seems to make complete democratization
more difficult to achieve.

Inequality causes international conflict

Humphreys 2003 (Macartan Humphreys, Harvard University, February 2003. Economics and Violent
Conflict https://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Economics_and_Violent_Conflict.pdf) [NJ]

The result is a world in which conflicts are increasingly concentrated in poorer parts of the world, with
differences in income between countries in conflict and those not in conflict becoming greater now than
they have been in the past. 18 3 Is there also a relationship between wealth and inter-state war? Some international relations
theorists have argued that as states get richer they look for conquests abroad to fuel their economies. 19 But the statistical evidence for this
hypothesis is very mixed and most recent research suggests that there is no strong relationship. Nor is there a strong relationship between
short term income fluctuations the business cycle and conflict onset.20 A
long tradition in international relations theory
looks to the international distribution of poweritself often proxied by economic wealthrather than
to levels of wealth to explain stability, with some suggesting that an equal distribution of power will lead
to stability21 and others suggesting that inequality produces stability.22 However, the evidence strongly suggests that
wealthier states are less likely to go to war with each other. One possible reason for this (discussed below) is that
wealthier states are also more likely to trade with each other.
 Solves Inequality
Educational federalism solvesforces checks on state action and allows for dynamic
and increased equity in policy-making
Kurzweil 2015 (Martin A. Kurzweil, Disciplined Devolution and the New Education Federalism, 103
Cal. L. Rev. 565 (2015). Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol103/iss3/3) [NJ]

C. ABreak from the Past Race to the Top and ESEA Flexibility significantly alter the roles of federal, state,
and local governments in the policy-making structure of K12 education. The existence of this shift has
been widely recognized, though most commentators have focused on the controversial substantive
policiessuch as teacher evaluation based partly on student test results257 and participation in the
Common Core State Standards258that the federal government has endorsed and that most states have
adopted. These substantive policies are important, but they are secondary to the structural changes that
have taken place. Changes in the way that the federal, state, and local governments interact with one
another have opened the door to more dynamic and targeted policy making with greater participation
and collaboration by local stakeholders. Accordingly, the substantive changes are provisionalalthough
the overarching goals, structure, and process are established by the federal policy, the determinative
details are set by states in collaboration with their local stakeholders and other states, and are iteratively
scrutinized and revised. Most commentators who do discuss the structural impacts of the Obama initiatives have focused on whether the
programs increase or decrease federal authority over schooling. Some argue
that these new federal programs usurp state
and local governments traditional control of education policy by imposing the Obama Administrations
education preferences on the states.259 Others contend that the initiatives have devolved excessive
authority to the states, dangerously relaxing accountability for student learning outcomes, particularly
for poor and minority children.260 As discussed above,261 legal commentators have emphasized particular
aspects of the initiativesthe use of waiver,262 the significant state policy-making role,263 and
experimentalist features264without recognizing how those components fit together. In fact, the initiatives
have been neither a federal power grab nor an unaccountable devolution. And they are not simply examples of big
waiver, cooperative federalism, or experimentalism. In the new education federalism, federal, state, and local actors
participate intensely in the development and implementation of policy. The Education Department
empowers and motivates states with invitations to deviate from the default legislative scheme. Through
initial conditions and monitoring, it holds states accountable to federal goals and a commitment to
iteratively evaluate policy in collaboration with stakeholders. In short, the initiatives have transformed
education federalism from a regime of bureaucratic governance to a regime of disciplined devolution.
Historically, the Education Department has interacted with the states through a series of command-and-
control style rules regarding uses of federal funding and the features of school accountability systems.
This approach in turn promoted a compliance mentality on the part of state and local governments with
respect to the rules. But it also left important policy areas such as the creation of standards and
assessments as well as many implementation details to the states, which allowed them to avoid or
undermine the underlying goals of the federal programs.265 In the new education federalism, the
Education Department establishes general goals and default policy options that are the starting point
for state planning, rather than the final, specific process rules of the past. After states make their
proposals, the Department confirms that the process by which the states devised their plans included
meaningful collaboration with local stakeholders and enforces that expectation by delaying or denying
approval if engagement is insufficient.266 It then evaluates the state plans, pushing for justification and detail on the policies
selected and credible expectations for implementation and outcomes. If the states plans or explanations are
unsatisfactory, the Department requests revision or denies an application outright.267 Once the state
plans are approved, the Department monitors implementation. Unlike the process-focused monitoring
of the old regime, monitoring under the new education federalism focuses on whether the results of the
states initiatives advance the goals that were defined at the outset by the Department and refined in
the state plans. For example, if a state has deviated from its original plan, the Department does not
automatically view that as noncompliance, but instead seeks to understand the rationale for the change
in light of the states initial experience implementing its plan and whether the revised plan is consistent
with the Departments overarching goals.268 Additionally, to enable comparisons of state policies and
outcomes, the Department compiles and publishes the information it gains from the monitoring
process.269 The new education federalism invites states to develop comprehensive plans for education
governance. Under ESEA and NCLB, state education departments played the role of bureaucratic middle men:
they were responsible for demonstrating to the Department of Education that they were in compliance
with federal rules, which they accomplished by shifting the burden of demonstrating compliance to local
school districts. Now, state education departments are the designers of their own education policy subject
to the general goals and continuing results-oriented scrutiny of the federal government. Further, states
must collaborate with local school districts and other education stakeholders in designing education
plans. The states are no longer accountable for compliance with specific federal rules, but rather for the development and success of their
own plans in achieving broad goals. The states are also accountable to one another in a way they previously were not. The Common Core State
Standards Initiative, reinforced by state commitments in ESEA Flexibility and by the Race to the Top grants, has introduced a framework for
interstate collaboration as one of the central components of the new initiatives. Finally, the
new education federalism affects
the relationship between state and local actors. While in the past local school districts were the objects
of state and federal initiatives, they are now collaborators in the development of state plans. Further, the
differentiated accountability systems under ESEA Flexibility allow states to focus interventions on a
smaller number of districts and schools and give more flexibility in the type of intervention than the
uniform interventions prescribed by NCLB.270

The plans emphasis on co-operation helps ensure equality in education

Hammond 1998 (Linda Darling-Hammond, Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education. Brookings,
March 1, 1998. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/) [NJ]

What Can Be Done? This

state of affairs is not inevitable. Last year the National Commission on Teaching and
Americas Future issued a blueprint for a comprehensive set of policies to ensure a caring, competent,
and qualified teacher for every child, as well as schools organized to support student success. Twelve states
are now working directly with the commission on this agenda, and others are set to join this year. Several pending bills to overhaul the federal
Higher Education Act would ensure that highly qualified teachers are recruited and prepared for students in all schools. Federal
policymakers can develop incentives, as they have in medicine, to guarantee well-prepared teachers
in shortage fields and high-need locations. States can equalize education spending, enforce higher
teaching standards, and reduce teacher shortages, as Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, and North Carolina have already
done. School districts can reallocate resources from administrative superstructures and special add-on
programs to support better-educated teachers who offer a challenging curriculum in smaller schools and
classes, as restructured schools as far apart as New York and San Diego have done. These schools, in
communities where children are normally written off to lives of poverty, welfare dependency, or incarceration, already produce much higher
levels of achievement for students of color, sending more than 90 percent of their students to college. Focusing on what matters
most can make a real difference in what children have the opportunity to learn. This, in turn, makes a
difference in what communities can accomplish.
 Education Inequality UQ
States dont have the resources or capacity to address the issues that interstate disparities produce
Robinson 15 (KIMBERLY JENKINS ROBINSON, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law, Washington University Law Review,
Disrupting Education Federalism, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6144&context=law_lawreview)

The United States continues to tolerate a longstanding educational opportunity gap. Today, it relegates
at least ten million students in low- income neighborhoods and millions more minority students to
1
poorly performing teachers, substandard facilities, and other inferior educational opportunities. This
occurs in part because the United States invests more money in high-income districts than in low-
2
income districts, a sharp contrast to other developed nations. Scholars and court decisions also have documented the sizeable intrastate
3
disparities in educational opportunity. In addition, interstate inequalities in educational opportunity represent the
4
largest component of disparities in educational opportunity. The harmful nature of interstate disparities falls hardest
5
on disadvantaged schoolchildren who have the most educational needs, and states do not possess the resources and
6
capacity to address the full scope of these disparities . Furthermore, research confirms that as the gap in
wealth has grown between low-income and high-income families, the achievement gap between
children in low-income and high-income families also has widened.

The hierarchy is getting steeper good education is depended on the wealth of

parents increasing the inequality to low-income students
Marginson 16 (Simon Marginson, Director of the Centre for Global Higher Education, and leads CGHEs global higher education
engagement research programme, Higher education and growing inequality, http://academicmatters.ca/2016/01/higher-education-and-
growing-inequality/)

Turning now to higher education, we find that in the US, as the economist Joseph Stiglitz puts it, Access to good
education depends increasingly on the income, education and wealth of ones parents . This is true at
both the school and college levels. In Degrees of Inequality, Suzanne Mettler notes that in 1970, 40 per cent of US
students whose families were in the top income quartile had achieved a degree by age 24. By 2013
that percentage had risen to 77 per cent. For families in the bottom income quartile in 1970, only six
per cent achieved a degree. By 2013 after 43 years of supposed equality of opportunity that
proportion was just nine per cent. In higher education, peoples unequal capacity to pay and to
compete for selective places has been joined by increasing stratification among the institutions
themselves . The institutional hierarchy is getting steeper. Research by Scott Davies and David Zarifa in the USA and
Canada shows that institutions that begin from a position of advantage build on that to improve their relative position over time. This is what
market competition does when it is not corrected by policy. The relationship between resource concentration and
student selectivity becomes stronger over the years. This raises the question of whether degree value
is increasingly unequal in labour markets. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of institution (the so-called brand effect) from
the social and academic advantages enjoyed by the clientele of elite universities at point of entry, the effects of social background
in mediating labour market outcomes, and the effects of learning. The evidence is mixed. But a large number
of studies in the USA (and also in the UK and China) suggest that institutional brand affects degree value.
Associated with growing stratification at the top is the weak and weakening status of mass higher
education . It is being weakened because of the partial withdrawal of per-student funding from
public education, and the rising use of poor quality private for-profit higher education (heavily subsidized
by federal loans financing in the USA) and online courses, as substitutes for state-guaranteed provision. But
these inequalities no
doubt undermine the meritocratic rationale for higher education, and this contributes to undermining
support for mass higher education and the weakening of its public funding.

Minority students face a series of negative effects their school puts on them
Robinson 07 (KIMBERLY JENKINS ROBINSON, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law, Washington University Law
Review, The Case for a Collaborative Enforcement Model for a FederalRight to Education
https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/5/articles/DavisVol40No5_Robinson.pdf)

In a nation that professes a strong belief in equal opportunity,2 many of Americas public schools still
fail to offer children a high-quality education. Too often the children who receive substandard
educational opportunities are poor, minority, and urban students. Low-income and minority
schoolchildren attend markedly inferior schools relative to their more affluent and white
counterparts.3 Research undeniably demonstrates that higher teacher quality results in better student achievement, regardless of the
students background, yet numerous studies show that schools that enroll higher numbers of poor and minority
students employ less experienced and qualified teachers.4 More than fifty years and a host of
educational reform efforts have passed since Brown v. Board of Education, and yet children in poor and
disproportionately minority communities still receive vastly unequal educational opportunities.5
Disparities in financial resources for schools and school districts that affect the quality of educational opportunity exist both within states6 and
between states. Inequality between states currently represents the larger proportion of these disparities.7
The burden of interstate disparities falls disproportionately on disadvantaged students who have greater educational needs.8 Furthermore,
while urban districts have higher expenditures on average than suburban districts, urban districts spend less on programs for regular education
because they have higher costs for special education and repairs for older buildings and equipment.9 Given these disparities in educational
opportunities, it remains no surprise that the achievement of far too many low-income and minority
students remains below that of their more affluent and nonminority peers.10 The achievement gap
along racial lines persists even for students from the same socioeconomic background.11 Students in urban
districts often have lower test scores and higher dropout rates.12 Black and Hispanic students complete high school at
lower rates than white students,13 which is particularly troubling because high school typically plays a
determinative role in how individuals will integrate into the workforce and the remainder of society.14
The lower an individuals educational attainment, the more likely the student is to become
unemployed.15 Furthermore, the strong linkage between poor reading ability and crime has led some
states to determine the number of prison beds based, at least in part, on the percentage of children
who cannot read at certain elementary grade levels.16 Public concern over education in recent elections reveals that the
inadequacy of our schools has not gone unnoticed. In the 2000 presidential election, for the first time voters ranked
education as their most important priority.17 An overview of recent public opinion polls reveals that generally the public
. . . remains very concerned about the performance of American public schools and supports federal
leadership in education reform.18

Challenging current polices will help reshape the education systems which allow
minority students to better succeed and help out the economy
Blanden and McNally 15 (Jo Blanden and Sandra McNallySchool of Economics, University of Surrey and Centre for Economic
Performance, London School of Economics, Reducing Inequality in Education and Skills: mplications for Economic Growth
file:///Users/hsstudent/Downloads/EENEE_AR21.pdf)

In this paper we focus on understanding

the important dimensions of educational inequality; its impacts on
society and individuals. We also review policies to alleviate it. Empirical studies show that income inequality,
which is closely connected to educational inequality, limits growth. An explanation is limited access to credit:
when individuals cannot borrow freely against future income to invest in their human capital, the
initial distribution of resources can have large impact on the economys pattern of investment and
therefore growth. As a result, low income households that are most affected by credit constraints
underinvest in education. This can occur even with a public education system if investments in the
home matter to outcomes. We document various measures of educational inequality across countries. The distribution of
educational achievements can be measured in much the same way as income inequality, for example,
using the 90-10 ratio, standard deviation or Gini coefficient. An alternative approach, more closely
related to a concept of inequality of opportunity, is to consider inequalities between groups for
example, comparing achievements for children from different regions, socio-economic groups and
migration status because they show how education/economic outcomes are linked to characteristics
of individuals other than their effort or inherent abilities. Inequality of opportunity is particularly destructive as it
prevents individuals from reaching their potential and this is transmitted to their children (causing a lack of intergenerational mobility).
Research evidence shows that
inequality in educational outcomes is pervasive across the lifecycle and at all
stages of education, even before children start school. The difference in educational achievement
between high and low socio-economic groups at age 15 (PISA) is equivalent to between 1 and 2.5 years of schooling (lower in
Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland and higher in Portugal, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, and the Slovak Republic). Further evidence on differences
by socio-economic background can be found for adult skills in PIAAC. Differences
in literacy scores between people whose
parents were from high and low education groups (netting out various factors) are equivalent to
about 2.5 years of schooling. Conversely, most of the differences according to whether or not parents are migrants can be
accounted for by the socio-economic background of migrants and whether they speak the language of the host country. Thus, inequality
between migrants and natives has more often 3 to do with the characteristics of migrants (which vary considerably across countries) than with
migration status per se. Inequality has consequences also at the micro-level, as it prevents individuals from fulfilling their
potential in education and thus in the labour market. Researchers have investigated whether earnings returns from
education vary by social background, migration status etc. Generally differences are small so that those from disadvantaged groups would
benefit substantially if educational inequality were reduced.
We identify two approaches to reducing educational
inequality. The first is to pursue redistributive policies and remove institutional mechanisms that
discriminate against low income people (e.g. school admission rules). The second is to use the most effective
educational policies to directly improve the achievements of disadvantaged children. Policies that
disproportionately help disadvantaged children include high quality early-years provision; some
programmes to improve school resources; postponing ability-tracking to a later age; and measures to give schools autonomy such that they can
come up with a creative combination of strategies to improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged. This suggests
a direction of
travel for policy in order to pursue the combined objectives of higher economic growth and lower
inequality.

New policies need to be made to focus on he inequality schools have

Blanden and McNally 15 (Jo Blanden and Sandra McNallySchool of Economics, University of Surrey and Centre for Economic
Performance, London School of Economics, Reducing Inequality in Education and Skills: mplications for Economic Growth
file:///Users/hsstudent/Downloads/EENEE_AR21.pdf)

Who governs American schools, and with what results? That strikingly simple yet important question
has received scant attention, even as concerns about the nations students have grown. That is a stunning
oversight, given that several decades of intense American school reform efforts, focusing on specific policy
changes, have produced at best marginal gains in student achievement. During that same time, reports from
academic researchers, governments at all levels, and think tanks that inhabit all corners of the political spectrum have concluded that the
countrys education system produces neither the academic excellence nor equality of opportunity
required for its students to succeed in the rapidly changing and shrinking world. This book begins with the
premise that the structure of American education governancehighly fragmented, decentralized,
politicized, and bureaucraticcontributes to these problems by undercutting the development and
sustenance of changes needed to improve the education opportunities and academic performance of
students. Although governance reforms alone cannot help all the nations young people reach higher
levels and erase achievement gaps between advantaged students (typically white and from higher-income families)
and their disadvantaged peers (frequently racial, ethnic, or linguistic minorities and those from low-income families), it is hard to imagine much
dramatic improvement occurring without some fundamental rethinking of how the nation governs its schools. Why so little attention on
education governance, then, if it is central to constructing a system of schooling that can meet the demands of the current century? One reason
is that politicians and journalists often see governance as an arid, somewhat academic topic, better suited for ivory-tower debates or exchanges
in scholarly journals. Questions about governance tend not to lend themselves to stark narratives that pit us against them or that line up
neatly along the liberal to conservative spectrum that so many public officials and reporters use to organize the political world in their rhetoric
and their articles. In contrast, other areas with compelling storylines, such as controversies over school accountability, student testing, teacher
compensation, and the teaching of evolution, tend to fit into these more convenient narrative boxes and therefore provide much more
interesting fodder for debate. The chapters in this volume reach beyond these headline-grabbing topics to illuminate why the understudied
issue of educationgovernance should be atop the list of anyone interested in the present and future of
American education. In so doing, the book embeds specific policy issues, such as standards, teachers,
and testing, in a larger context by focusing needed attention on the governance forest without getting
lost in these policy trees.

Education inequality now

Dynarski 16 (Susan Dynarski is a professor of education, public policy and economics at the University of
Michigan, Why American Schools Are Even More Unequal Than We Thought
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/upshot/why-american-schools-are-even-more-unequal-than-
we-thought.html?mcubz=0)

Education is deeply unequal in the United States, with students in poor districts performing at levels
several grades below those of children in richer areas. Yet the problem is actually much worse than
these statistics show, because schools, districts and even the federal government have been using a
crude yardstick for economic hardship. A closer look reveals that the standard measure of economic
disadvantage whether a child is eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch in school masks the
magnitude of the learning gap between the richest and poorest children. Nearly half of students
nationwide are eligible for a subsidized meal in school. Children whose families earn less than 185
percent of the poverty threshold are eligible for a reduced-price lunch, while those below 130 percent
get a free lunch. For a family of four, the cutoffs are $32,000 for a free lunch and $45,000 for a reduced-
price one. By way of comparison, median household income in the United States was about $54,000 in
2014. Eligibility for subsidized school meals is clearly a blunt indicator of economic status. But that is
the measure that policy makers, educators and researchers rely on when they gauge gaps in academic
achievement in schools, districts and states. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, often
called the Nations Report Card, publishes student scores by eligibility for subsidized meals. Under the
federal No Child Left Behind Act and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act, districts have
reported scores separately for disadvantaged children, with eligibility for subsidized meals serving as the
standard measure of disadvantage. With Katherine Michelmore, a postdoctoral researcher at the
University of Michigan, I have analyzed data held by the Michigan Consortium for Educational Research
and found that this measure substantially understates the achievement gap. In Michigan, as in the rest
of the country, about half of eighth graders in public schools receive a free or reduced-price lunch. But
when we look more closely, we see that just 14 percent have been eligible for subsidized meals every
year since kindergarten. These children are the poorest of the poor the persistently disadvantaged.
The math scores of these poorest children are far lower than predicted by the standard measure of
economic disadvantage. The achievement gap between persistently disadvantaged children and those
who were never disadvantaged is about a third larger than the gap that is typically measured. Education
researchers often express test score differences in standard deviations, which allows for a consistent
measure of gaps across different tests, populations and contexts. Measured using that conventional
approach, the gap in math scores between disadvantaged eighth graders and their classmates in
Michigan is 0.69 standard deviations. This places disadvantaged children roughly two grades behind
their classmates. By contrast, the gap based on persistent disadvantage is much wider: 0.94 standard
deviations, or nearly three grades of learning. In fact, there is a nearly linear, negative relationship
between the number of years of economic disadvantage and math scores in eighth grade. These lower
scores do not appear to be caused by more years of disadvantage, however. When we look at third-
grade scores, nearly all of the eighth-grade score deficit is already in place. By third grade, those children
who will end up spending all of primary school eligible for subsidized meals have already fallen far
behind their classmates. What is the explanation? It appears that years spent eligible for subsidized
school meals serves as a good proxy for the depth of disadvantage. When we look back on the early
childhood of persistently disadvantaged eighth graders, we see that by kindergarten they were already
far poorer than their classmates. We can see this with national data. The Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, run by the Department of Education, tracks a sample of children who started kindergarten in
1998. Among children who were eligible for subsidized meals through eighth grade, household income
during kindergarten was just $20,000. For those who were only occasionally eligible, it was closer to
$47,000, and for those never eligible, $80,000. These data also show that persistently disadvantaged
children are far less likely than other students to live with two parents or have a college-educated
mother or father. Just 2 percent of persistently disadvantaged children have a parent with a college
degree, compared with 24 percent of the occasionally disadvantaged (and 57 percent of those who were
never disadvantaged). No one ever actively decided that eligibility for subsidized meals was the best way
to measure students economic disadvantage. The metric was widely available and became by default
the standard way to distinguish between poorer and richer children. But it was always an imprecise
measure, and we can do better at little cost. Many states now use administrative data on eligibility for
means-tested programs such as welfare benefits and food stamps to automatically qualify children for
subsidized meals in school. Since these programs have a range of income cutoffs, their eligibility flags
can be used to distinguish between children who are extremely poor and those who are nearly middle
class. The children whose families persistently receive benefits will be the neediest of all. Why does all
this matter? Many federal, state and local programs distribute money based on the share of a districts
students who are eligible for subsidized meals. But schools that have identical shares of students eligible
for subsidized meals may differ vastly in the share of students who are deeply poor. The schools with
the most disadvantaged children have greater challenges and arguably need more resources.

Ethnic and racial disparities exist in education

APA 12 (American Psychological Association, Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Education:
Psychologys Contributions to Understanding and Reducing Disparities
https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf)

Pervasive ethnic and racial disparities in education follow a pattern in which African American,
American Indian, Latinos, and Southeast Asian groups underperform academically, relative to Whites
and other Asian Americans. These educational disparities (1) mirror ethnic and racial disparities in
socioeconomic status as well as health outcomes and healthcare, (2) are evident early in childhood
and persist through the K-12 education, and (3) are reflected in test scores assessing academic
achievement, such as reading and mathematics, percentages of repeating one or more grades,
drop-out and graduation rates, proportions of students involved in gifted and talented programs,
enrollment in higher education, as well as in behavioral markers of adjustment, including rates of
being disciplined, suspended, and expelled from schools. Although the general pattern of
educational disparities is similar across these ethnic and racial minority groups, there are several
ways that disparities are accentuated in some areas for each group. Latinos are characterized by
having a relatively large representation of immigrants or children of immigrants and classified as
English Learners (EL), or whose native language is not English. The disparities for African
Americans, on the other hand, include a large discipline gap with disproportionately greater
numbers receiving behavioral sanctions in schools. There is less research on Americans Indian
and Southeast Asian groups, but the available evidence suggests that factors similar to those
affecting African American and Latinos appear to be influencing disparities associated with the
smaller ethnic and racial minority groups.

Children of immigrants face discrimination in school at personal and structural levels

Carnock 15 (Janie, policy analyst with the Education Policy program at New America, How Young
Children of Immigrants Face Discrimination At School https://www.newamerica.org/education-
policy/edcentral/early-discrimination/)

The first years of any childs education are an impressionable time. They lay the foundation for how a
student conceives of school and how he or she views his or herself in relation to the larger
community. However, many young children of immigrants who account for around a quarter of all
children under age 8 in the U.S. face discrimination at school during this formative period. This
results in a multitude of negative psychological, academic and social outcomes. And children
of immigrants in the early grades may be especially vulnerable as they are only beginning to
develop an understanding of how they fit into their family, culture, and community. Research suggests
that students who are confident in their cultural and ethnic identity can buffer the impact of
discrimination on their well-being. So, to what extent are these young children of immigrants
experiencing discrimination today? And what can be done about it? To answer these questions, a recent
report published by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), The Impact of Discrimination on the Early
Schooling Experiences of Children from Immigrant Families, examines the multi-pronged nature of
discrimination against young children of immigrants at both the personal and structural level.

According to researcher Jennifer Keys Adair, young children of immigrants can face discrimination at the
personal level from staff or peers at school. This primarily takes the form of critical comments or name-
calling about a students accent, appearance, or use of home language. Teachers may also express
impatience when these students cannot fully express themselves or take longer to formulate responses.
Such interactions are alarming since we know that all learners need a safe, stress-free emotional climate
to thrive. In addition to these direct interactions, individual teachers also discriminate by holding lower
academic expectations for children of immigrants and focusing on what Adair calls narrow learning
experiences. Such instruction does not provide students with opportunities for creativity, inquiry and
problem-solving and instead focuses on rote, simplistic tasks.At the structural level, children of
immigrants face discrimination in the form of racial and socioeconomic segregation of their schools,
diminished access to high-quality teachers and resources, low levels of parental engagement, and
disproportionate placement in special education. The report highlights several causes that lead to
discrimination, especially at the personal level. Factors include inadequate teacher preparation for
working with children of immigrants, low recruitment of culturally sensitive or bilingual educators, and
weak staff connections with immigrant families. While teacher training programs can and should
improve how they support all new teacher candidates, districts and schools need to think about ways to
support their existing teachers. Specifically, they should provide teachers with culturally and
linguistically responsive materials, curricula and professional development to affirm diversity in their
classroom, an idea that Adair emphasizes. Moreover, educators need to shift away from the deficit-
based framing that often comes with discussion of language learners. Linguistic diversity should be
treated not as an obstacle to overcome or fix but a strength to be valued. At the same time, even with
better materials and training, teachers are in a tough spot. Ideally, all teachers would create an
affirming, patient environment for children of immigrants and find the time to design colorful, culturally
responsive lessons that extend the core curriculum. But, as the report notes, teachers feel very real
pressure to drive students performance on standardized tests and their states language-proficiency
assessments. This often leads to stricter schedules and expectations to implement more efficient
lessons for language learners. Cultivating a culture of patience and creativity let alone core cross-
cultural competencies can be an uphill battle for educators responding to the demands of an
impatient and efficiency-focused system. Nonetheless, discrimination against some of our nations
youngest learners no matter how overt or subtle is unsettling. The educational system intended
to help all children flourish should not, in fact, be working against them. Schools and districts must
actively confront the discrimination children of immigrants face, embracing these learners as assets
through changes in policies and mindsets.

Low federal funding in schools effects the type of education the students receive
Semuels 16 (ALANA SEMUELS, a staff writer at The Atlantic. She was previously a national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, Good
School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-
schools/497333/)

Nationally, high-poverty districts spend 15.6 percent less per student than low-poverty districts do,
according to U.S. Department of Education. Lower spending can irreparably damage a childs future,
especially for kids from poor families. A 20 percent increase in per-pupil spending a year for poor
children can lead to an additional year of completed education, 25 percent higher earnings, and a 20-
percentage point reduction in the incidence of poverty in adulthood, according to a paper from the
National Bureau of Economic Research. Violet Jimenez Sims, a Connecticut teacher, saw the differences
between rich and poor school districts firsthand. Sims, who was raised in New Britain, one of the poorer areas of the state,
taught there until the district shut down its bilingual education programs, at which point she got a job in Manchester, a more affluent suburb. In
Manchester, students had individual Chromebook laptops, and Sims had up-to-date equipment, like
projectors and digital whiteboards. In New Britain, students didnt get individual computers, and there
werent the guidance counselors or teachers helpers that there were in Manchester. I noticed huge
differences, and I ended up leaving because of the impact of those things, she told me. Without money, theres just a domino
effect . Students frequently had substitutes because so many teachers got frustrated and left, they
didnt have as much time to spend on computer projects because they had to share computers, and they
were suspended more frequently in the poor district, she said; in the wealthier area, teachers and guidance counselors
would have time to work with misbehaving students rather than expelling them right away . Testimony
during the CCJEF trial bears out the differences between poor areas like New Britain, Danbury, Bridgeport, and East Hartford, and wealthier areas
like New Canaan, Greenwich, and Darien. Electives, field trips, arts classes, and gifted and talented programs available in wealthier districts have
been cut in poorer ones. New Britain, where 80 percent of students qualify for free or reduced lunch, receives half as much funding per special-
education student as Darien. In Bridgeport, where class sizes hover near the contractual maximum of 29, students use 15-to 20-year-old
textbooks; in New London, high-school teachers must duct tape windows shut to keep out the wind and snow and station trash cans in the
hallways to collect rain. Where Greenwichs elementary school library budget is $12,500 per year (not including staffing), East Hartfords is zero.

Educational hierarchy denies equality for students from poor backgrounds

Semuels 16 (ALANA SEMUELS, a staff writer at The Atlantic. She was previously a national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, Good
School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-
schools/497333/)

Second, research especially in

the USA suggests a declining commitment to student learning among both
students and institutions. It is difficult to pin this phenomenon down conclusively, but there is some evidence that
suggests a retreat from solid learning content and an increased focus on the selection function of
education, navigating the educational hierarchy, student consumer satisfaction, and credentialing
aspects that are highlighted in a positional market. These practices break the link between hard work,
content, and educational outcomes. This denies aspiring students from poor backgrounds a learning
technology that they can invest in, while placing greater emphasis on the institutional smartsthe
social and cultural capitalthat they do not possess. This is as fatal for equality of opportunity as
financial barriers. Third, the shape of higher education systems is being stretched verticallythe university
hierarchy is getting steeper. Worldwide there is the ever-growing emphasis on world-class universities. Every nation, it seems, now wants its
own version of the American science multiversity, the kind of institution that figures in global rankings, but is less concerned with achieving
Nordic quality in broadly accessible forms of higher education.
 Disparity UQ Achievement Gaps
State racial achievement gaps are strongly correlated with racial socioeconomic
disparities
CEPA No Date (Center for Education Policy Analysis, Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps
http://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/achievement-gaps/race/)

One potential explanation for racial achievement gaps is that they are largely due to socioeconomic
disparities between white, black, and Hispanic families. Black and Hispanic childrens parents typically
have lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment than white childrens parents.
Because higher-income and more-educated families typically can provide more educational
opportunities for their children, family socioeconomic resources are strongly related to educational
outcomes. If racial socioeconomic disparities are the primary explanation for racial achievement gaps,
we would expect achievement gaps to be largest in places where racial socioeconomic disparities are
largest, and we would expect them to be zero in places where there is no racial socioeconomic
inequality. The figure below suggests this explanation is at least partly true. Achievement gaps are
strongly correlated with racial gaps in income, poverty rates, unemployment rates, and educational
attainment. When these four factors are combined into a single index of racial socioeconomic
disparities, the correlation between state achievement gaps and state racial socioeconomic disparities
is high: for white-black gaps the correlation is 0.61-0.68; for white-Hispanic gaps it is 0.83-0.86. A large
part of the variation among states racial achievement gaps is attributable to variation in states racial
socioeconomic disparities. Nonetheless, even in states where the racial socioeconomic disparities are
near zero (typically states with small black or Hispanic populations), achievement gaps are still present.
This suggests that socioeconomic disparities are not the sole cause of racial achievement gaps.

US achievement gaps widen due to income gap and ineffective gov spending
Strauss 13 (Rebecca, Associate director of publications for the Renewing America initiative at the Council
on Foreign Relations, Remedial Education: Federal Education Policy,
https://www.cfr.org/report/remedial-education-federal-education-policy)

Averages can be misleading. The familiar, one-dimensional story told about American education is that it
was once the best system in the world but that now its headed down the drain, with piles of money
thrown down after it. The truth is that there are two very different education stories in America. The
children of the wealthiest 10 percent or so do receive some of the best education in the world, and
the quality keeps getting better. For most everyone else, this is not the case. Americas average
standing in global education rankings has tumbled not because everyone is falling, but because of the
countrys deep, still-widening achievement gap between socioeconomic groups. And while America
does spend plenty on education, it funnels a disproportionate share into educating wealthier students,
worsening that gap. The majority of other advanced countries do things differently, at least at the K-12
level, tilting resources in favor of poorer students. Historically, the role of the federal government,
which takes a back seat to the states in education, has been to try to close achievement gaps, but they
have continued to widen. Several changes in federal education policy under President Obama have
actually increased the flow of scarce federal dollars toward those students who need it less, reinforcing
inequities and further weakening overall educational performance. Reversing Americas slide in
international education rankings will require turning that record on its head. Americas relative fall in
educational attainment is striking in several dimensions. American baby boomers ages 55 to 64 rank first
in their age group in high school completion and third in college completion after Israel and Canada. But
jump ahead 30 years to millennials ages 25 to 34, and the United States slips to 10th in high school
completion and 13th in college completion. America is one of only a handful of countries whose work
force today has no more years of schooling than those who are retiring do. On international tests,
American students consistently score in the middle of the pack among advanced countries, but America
underperforms most on two measures preschool enrollment and college on-time completion. Nearly
all 4-year-olds in Japan, France, Britain and Germany are enrolled in preschool, compared with 69
percent in the United States. And although the United States is relatively good at getting high school
graduates into college, it is horrible at getting them to graduate on time with a college degree. With
more than half of those who start college failing to earn a degree, the United States has the highest
college dropout rate in the developed world. On average, money is not the problem. Given the countrys
relative wealth, per-pupil spending on elementary and high school is roughly on track with other
advanced countries. At the college level, the United States spends lavishly, far more than any other
country. The problem is that the United States is not spending its education dollars effectively. At
every point along the education track, from preschool to college, resources are skewed to wealthier
students. The wealthy inhabit an educational realm very different from what national averages
suggest. Consider these examples. If ranked internationally as nations, low-poverty Massachusetts and
Minnesota would be among the top 6 performers worldwide in fourth-grade math and science. Among
15-year-olds, Asian-Americans, who also tend to be more affluent, are the worlds best readers; white
Americans are third only to Finns and New Zealanders. In a 2012 Harvard Business School survey, high-
quality universities were rated the countrys chief competitive advantage. The worlds brightest students
clamor to attend them. But educational excellence is increasingly the preserve of the rich. Everyone
black, white, rich, middle class and poor is testing better and enrolling more in college than the
previous generation. But rich students, and particularly rich girls, are making bigger gains than
everyone else. Strikingly, these achievement gaps exist when children first begin elementary school
and are locked in place all the way through to college. Wealthy Americans have an advantage in the
admission process for elite colleges, and despite the few who may slip in on family legacy, the advantage
is largely based on academic merit. Students from families in the highest income quintile are now eight
times more likely than students in the bottom quintile to enroll in a highly selective college, one that
requires a high school transcript filled with As in advanced placement courses, SAT scores in the 700s
and a range of enriching extracurricular activities. Those who get in are doing better than ever. The best
colleges are seeing their dropout rates fall to near-zero levels, especially for women. The education they
offer is generally better than what students get at less selective schools, too. One very revealing fact is
that even for equally qualified students, academic outcomes at selective colleges are better across the
board and their graduates earn more and are more likely to progress toward an advanced degree. The
real quality crisis in American higher education where the dropout rate is sky high and climbing is
in community colleges and lower-tier public universities. They have also absorbed most of the historic
increase in college enrollment and disproportionately serve minority and low-income students. Money is
a big reason for their worse performance. At the college level, the divergence in per-pupil spending is
staggering. Since the 1960s, annual per-pupil spending at the most selective public and private colleges
has increased at twice the rate of the least selective colleges. By 2006, the funding chasm in spending
per student between the most and the least selective colleges was six times larger than in the late
1960s. In short, more money is being spent on wealthy students who have never been more prepared to
excel in college. Meanwhile, poorer students who are less prepared those who a generation ago
would not have even enrolled in college are getting a smaller slice of higher education spending.
According to a study by the demographer John Bound and his colleagues, lack of institutional
resources explains up to two-thirds of the increase in dropout rates at lower-tier colleges. Of course,
this divergence in educational investments begins long before college. Wealthy parents are piling on
cognitive enrichment activities outside of school from preschool on up, and at a rate that is leaving
everyone else in the dust. Schools could make up some of the difference by intensively investing in
poor children, and the majority of richer countries do just that spending more per pupil in lower-
income districts than in higher-income districts. But it is the reverse in the United States, in large part
because, unlike most other advanced countries, revenues for public schools continue to be raised mostly
from local property taxes. This record is a harsh indictment of the federal governments efforts to
promote greater educational equality. Out of the civil rights era of the 1960s and early 1970s sprang a
host of federal programs whose sole objective was to close achievement gaps. One is Head Start, which
now serves close to one million low-income 3- and 4-year-olds and has tried for many years, with
modest success, to make sure theyre ready for kindergarten. For K-12 public schools, the federal
government apportions money, called Title I and IDEA grants, to school districts based on the number of
low-income or special-needs students they serve. Then there is the huge Pell grant program to help low-
income students pay for college, which is the single largest component of the Department of Educations
budget. Reversing the long-term trend toward education inequality would be an impressive feat for the
Obama administration, which has tried to intelligently reform federal programs that serve low-income
students. Nonetheless, some of the biggest changes in federal funding priorities have favored wealthy
students.

US achievement gap growing due to income gap

Tavernise 12 (Sabrina, Journalist for the New York Times, Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor,
Studies Say http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-
poor-studies-show.html?mcubz=0)

Education was historically considered a great equalizer in American society, capable of lifting less
advantaged children and improving their chances for success as adults. But a body of recently published
scholarship suggests that the achievement gap between rich and poor children is widening, a
development that threatens to dilute educations leveling effects. It is a well-known fact that children
from affluent families tend to do better in school. Yet the income divide has received far less attention
from policy makers and government officials than gaps in student accomplishment by race. Now, in
analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the
achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few
decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period.
We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than
family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success
than race, said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a
study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students
had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, and is now double the testing gap between blacks
and whites. In another study, by researchers from the University of Michigan, the imbalance between
rich and poor children in college completion the single most important predictor of success in the
work force has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s. The changes are tectonic, a result of
social and economic processes unfolding over many decades. The data from most of these studies end in
2007 and 2008, before the recessions full impact was felt. Researchers said that based on experiences
during past recessions, the recent downturn was likely to have aggravated the trend. With income
declines more severe in the lower brackets, theres a good chance the recession may have widened the
gap, Professor Reardon said. In the study he led, researchers analyzed 12 sets of standardized test
scores starting in 1960 and ending in 2007. He compared children from families in the 90th percentile
of income the equivalent of around $160,000 in 2008, when the study was conducted and
children from the 10th percentile, $17,500 in 2008. By the end of that period, the achievement gap by
income had grown by 40 percent, he said, while the gap between white and black students, regardless
of income, had shrunk substantially. Both studies were first published last fall in a book of research,
Whither Opportunity? compiled by the Russell Sage Foundation, a research center for social sciences,
and the Spencer Foundation, which focuses on education. Their conclusions, while familiar to a small
core of social sciences scholars, are now catching the attention of a broader audience, in part because
income inequality has been a central theme this election season. The connection between income
inequality among parents and the social mobility of their children has been a focus of President Obama
as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates. One reason for the growing gap in
achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever
before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall
involvement in their childrens schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than
ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources. This has been
particularly true as more parents try to position their children for college, which has become ever
more essential for success in todays economy. A study by Sabino Kornrich, a researcher at the Center
for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid, and Frank F. Furstenberg, scheduled to
appear in the journal Demography this year, found that in 1972, Americans at the upper end of the
income spectrum were spending five times as much per child as low-income families. By 2007 that gap
had grown to nine to one; spending by upper-income families more than doubled, while spending by
low-income families grew by 20 percent. The pattern of privileged families today is intensive
cultivation, said Dr. Furstenberg, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. The gap is
also growing in college.
 Education = Classist

American education inequality classism

Dreier 14 (Peter, E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics, Americas Classist Education System
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/americas-rigged-education_b_5621332.html)
Americas education system is unequal and unfair. Students who live in wealthy communities have huge
advantages that rig the system in their favor. They have more experienced teachers and a much lower
student-teacher ratio. They have more modern facilities, more up-to-date computer and science
equipment, and more up-to-date textbooks. They have more elective courses, more music and art
offerings, and more extracurricular programs. They have better libraries, more guidance counselors and
superior athletic facilities. Not surprisingly, affluent students in well-off school districts have higher rates
of high school graduation, college attendance and entry to the more selective colleges. This has little to
do with intelligence or ability. For example, 82 percent of affluent students who had SAT scores over
1200 graduate from college. In contrast, only 44 percent of low-income students with the same high
SAT scores graduate from college. This wide gap cant be explained by differences in motivation or
smarts. It can, however, be explained by differences in money. All parents want what is best for their
children, but some parents and states and school districts have greater means to provide them
with educational resources. Last year, the average per-student expenditure for public K-12 schools in
the United States was $10,938, but states varied greatly in how much they invested in students, from
$19,752 in Vermont to $6,949 in Arizona. There are also huge disparities within states, between
wealthy suburban school districts and poorer urban and rural school districts. Efforts by some states
to equalize funding between affluent and poor school districts often prompted by law suits have
not significantly narrowed the per-student spending gap in part because of loopholes in the laws and
in part because of huge disparities in private fundraising for public schools. California reflects this
embarrassing aspect of Americas class system. Compared with other states, California ranks close to
the bottom in per-student spending on public education as well as student-teacher ratios, librarians,
guidance counselors, and other measures, even with the additional funding from Proposition 30.
And within California, there are still huge disparities in per-student spending between school districts,
despite the new local control funding formula adopted by the state legislature. Even if the state
government allocated exactly the same amount per student to every school district, disparities would
remain between the wealthiest and the poorest school districts. The reason is that school districts vary
widely in their capacity to supplement state funding with locally raised money. The Los Angeles
Times recently published an article that zeroed in on one aspect of Californias educational class system:
local private education foundations. In his July 12 article Private Summer Schools Prompt Debate on
Education Inequality, reporter Stephen Ceasar focused on how these foundations exacerbate the
disparities between affluent and non-affluent school districts. To illustrate how the accident of
geography and wealth shapes the educational opportunities available to students in different
communities, Ceasar looked at the growing number of summer schools sponsored by these local private
foundations. As California school districts face budget crises, many of them have downsized or totally
eliminated their summer schools. To replace publicly funded summer schools, some districts call on
their local education foundations to sponsor summer schools. But, as Ceasar noted, it is the wealthier
districts that are most likely to sponsor their own summer schools and affluent students whose
families are most likely to have the means to pay for the summer classes that provide educational
enrichment, help students make up courses they missed or failed during the academic year, and look
good on students transcripts when they apply to college. There are over 600 local education
foundations in California. They raise money from individuals and businesses to compensate for shortfalls
in state funding. According to Ceasar, these private foundations contribute to an already wide inequity
in educational opportunity by offering public school credit at a cost only some can afford. Just within
Los Angeles County, there are huge differences between wealthy communities like La Caada
Flintridge (with a median household income of $154,947 and 2.1 percent poverty rate) and San
Marino ($139,122 4.6 percent) and poorer cities like Pomona ($48,864 20.4 percent) and
Huntington Park ($36,620 27.7 percent) in their ability to raise additional money for their local
schools. As Ceasar reported in the Times, the privately funded summer school in Beverly Hills charges
$798 per course. Its counterpart in La Caada Flintridge charges $775. The Arcadia Education
Foundations summer school sets parents back $605 per course, plus a $25 registration fee. Students
from school districts with mostly low-income and working-class students arent so lucky. Their parents
dont have the income to pay the tuition required to operate summer school. Even if those communities
have a privately funded school foundation, they lack the affluent families or corporate ties to raise funds
to subsidize the cost for low-income families. The Pasadena Educational Foundation (PEF) is an
exception to this pattern. Perhaps Ceasar was unaware that for the past 11 years PEF has sponsored a
summer school for students in the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD). This summer, about 1,550
students are enrolled in the summer school, which offers a wide variety of courses for K-12 students,
including Spanish and Mandarin immersion classes, robotics, writing, cooking, chess, science, math,
history, art, music, comedy, 3D printing, and many others. High schoolers can take SAT prep classes and
earn physical educational credits as well. All courses are taught by credentialed teachers. It costs about
$495 per student to operate the summer school, but PEF charges only $395 for three courses, making up
the difference by raising more than $300,000 from private individuals and institutions. But PEF turns no
student down if his or her family is unable to afford the summer school tuition. In fact, more than one-
third of the students in the current PEF summer school are from low-income families (those eligible for
free and reduced lunch). They all receive scholarships. PEF actively recruits low-income families and
holds its summer school classes on several PUSD campuses, including several schools that serve the
poorest students. Pasadenas median household income ($68,310) and its poverty rate (12.9 percent)
fall in between the wealthiest and poorest communities. Students in PUSD (who come from Pasadena,
Altadena and Sierra Madre) are fortunate that PEF has been able to enlist the support of the wider
community for public education. Last year, PEF raised over $12 million dollars from individuals,
foundations, corporations and government for a variety of programs, including its summer school. But
despite PEFs commitment and caring, it cannot raise enough funds to compensate for the severe
funding cutbacks that have devastated California public education over the past three decades. Even
PEFs remarkable summer school falls short. One-third of its summer school students come from low-
income families, but two-thirds of PUSD students come from that economic group. The huge disparities
in funding raised by local private educational foundations provide just one example of our educational
class system. This inequality is compounded by local school booster clubs that support athletics and
other extracurricular activities through private fundraising, and local parcel taxes, which allow school
districts to supplement state funding by levying additional taxes on residential and commercial
properties. Studies reveal that Californias wealthier school districts are most likely to pass parcel taxes
(which require a two-thirds vote margin to pass) and to adopt much higher parcel taxes. Put simply,
voters in wealthier cities and suburbs have more discretionary income to spend on their local schools.
Few school districts in Los Angeles County have passed parcel taxes. In recent years, voters in some of
the largest and neediest districts, including LAUSD, Pasadena, Long Beach and Pomona, have defeated
parcel taxes, while voters in wealthier districts have overwhelmingly approved significant tax levies for
schools, including $228 per parcel in Arcadia, $330 per parcel in San Marino and $386 per parcel in
South Pasadena. Across California, districts that have passed parcel taxes provide an average of $584
per pupil, but they range from about $25 to $4,500 per student. Additionally, affluent parents are more
likely to provide their children with other educational advantages, such as first-class pre-kindergarten
classes, private SAT preparation classes, and private after-school, weekend and summer enrichment
programs (such as summer camp, dance and music lessons, and vacations abroad). All these factors
make a mockery of the idea of equal opportunity when it comes to education. If California is serious
about providing all students with the education they need to fulfill their potential and succeed in
society, it must address two kinds of educational inequities. First, it should raise the overall level of per-
student funding to at least the national average. Second, the state should significantly increase its
supplemental funding for the neediest students and school districts. Equal educational opportunity
demands that we spend more on low-income students than on students from wealthy families. Thats
the only way that we will raise the bar for all, and also narrow the gap between the haves and have-
nots. Thats an investment that will pay off for generations to come.
 Educational Inequality Bad
Educational inequality leads to public costs
Belfield and Levin 7 (Clive and Henry, The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of
Inadequate Education https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1068854)

But beyond the broader issue of fairness, such inequalities may create costly consequences for the
larger society, in excess of what it would take to alleviate the inequalities. An excellent education for all of
Americas children has benefits not only for the children themselves but also for the taxpayer and
society. A copious body of research literature has established that poor education leads to large public
and social costs in the form of lower income and economic growth, reduced tax revenues, and higher
costs of public services such as health care, criminal justice, and public assistance. Therefore we can
view efforts to improve educational outcomes for at-risk populations as public investments that may
yield benefits considerably in excess of investment costs.

Inequalities in educational opportunities are a social, economic, civic, and moral threat
Belfield and Levin 7(Clive and Henry, The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of
Inadequate Education https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1068868)

The inadequate and inequitable opportunities offered to most low income and African American and
Latino youths today are the greatest challenge facing Americas schools and social institutions, and
they pose a major threat to our country. Lack of opportunity is a social threat because inadequately
educated people are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated, become pregnant, use drugs,
experience violence, and require public assistance. It is an economic threat because it diminishes the
competitiveness of Americas current and future workforce. And it is a civic threat because a person s
ability to function productively as a civic participant, to be a capable voter, juror, and involved citizen
who feels a personal stake in society, clearly mirrors his or her educational level. Finally, the lack of
adequate and equitable educational opportunities for so many children constitutes a moral threat. In
an age when the best jobs require higher levels of skills and knowledge than ever before in history, the
fact that many students do not get the education to compete for them, simply because of their
parents skin color or income, is a blight on the moral standing of the United States.

Were taking insufficient steps toward educational equality-progress and acceleration

necessary
Belfield and Levin 7 (Clive and Henry, The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of
Inadequate Education https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1068854)

Closing the achievement gap between children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds is a long-
term challenge with long-term implications for the United States. There are reasons to be hopeful.
Progress has been made in narrowing racial test-score gaps since the early 1970s, when the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) began tracking test scores at the national level by racial
group.1 For example, the black-white reading score gap for 17-year-olds narrowed by more than 60
percent between 1971 and 1988 (although it then widened slightly), and evidence exists that the black-
white IQ gap is narrowing.2 Further, recent national data show virtually no racial differences in measured
ability among children approaching their first birthday.3 The nations long-term experience establishes
clearly that progress is possible. Now, progress needs to continue and even accelerate.

Social inequalities have a huge impact on low-income students they tend to face more
violence, and crime Murnane 13 (Alejandro J. Ganimian, Education Post-Doctoral Fellow, Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action
Lab, Social Inequality and Educational Disadvantage, https://scholar.harvard.edu/alejandro_ganimian/classes/social-inequality-and-
educational-disadvantage)
Under the direction of Greg Duncan (University of California, Irvine) and Richard J. Murnane (Harvard University), Social
Inequality and
Educational Disadvantage will explore the so-called middle ground between these claims and focus on
the impact of neighborhoods, families, and labor marketsthe environment around the schoolon schooling outcomes. These
social domains have direct effects on what and how much children learn. Children growing up in low-
income neighborhoods, for example, are much more likely to experience repeated stress from
violence and crime that may inhibit cognitive development. Rising income inequality in the United
States over the past three decades has increased the importance of understanding how these external
environmental factors impact students and schools. The disparities between rich and poor families
and neighborhoods have increased, exacerbating the differences between schools and widening the
gap in opportunities. An interdisciplinary team of more than twenty researchers will focus both on the educational performance of
disadvantaged students, as well as on the differences in outcomes between rich and poor students. Specifically, they will conduct analyses of
existing data to document educational disadvantage in the United States and the correlations between poor educational outcomes and measures
of neighborhood, family, and labor market disadvantage. The objective will be to measure educational outcomes broadly, including measures of
non-cognitive skills and behaviors as well as measures of cognitive skills and educational attainments. The investigators will also commission new
research to look at how children, schools, and school outcomes are affected by disparities in housing and community location, in family
demographics and functioning, and in employment and jobs. Findings from the project will be published in two books. The first edited by Duncan
and Murnane, Neighborhood and Family Impacts on Schools (Spring 2011), will examine how such
factors as family functioning,
neighborhood conditions, school quality, and local labor markets impact schools ability to improve
the academic achievement and educational attainment of disadvantaged students. The second book, intended
for a general audience, will focus on raising public awareness of educational disadvantage in the United States, summarize prominent research
findings, and suggest policies aimed at reducing educational inequality.

Education now key- despite efforts, education gap is wider than ever
Porter 15 (Eduardo, Education Gap Between Rich and Poor Is Growing Wider
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/economy/education-gap-between-rich-and-poor-is-
growing-wider.html?mcubz=0)

For all the progress in improving educational outcomes among African-American children, the
achievement gaps between more affluent and less privileged children is wider than ever, notes Sean
Reardon of the Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford. Racial disparities are still a stain on
American society, but they are no longer the main divider. Today the biggest threat to the American
dream is class. Education is today more critical than ever. College has become virtually a precondition
for upward mobility. Men with only a high school diploma earn about a fifth less than they did 35 years
ago. The gap between the earnings of students with a college degree and those without one is bigger
than ever. And yet American higher education is increasingly the preserve of the elite. The sons and
daughters of college-educated parents are more than twice as likely to go to college as the children of
high school graduates and seven times as likely as those of high school dropouts. Only 5 percent of
Americans ages 25 to 34 whose parents didnt finish high school have a college degree. By comparison,
the average across 20 rich countries in an analysis by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development is almost 20 percent. The problem, of course, doesnt start in college. Earlier this week,
Professor Waldfogel and colleagues from Australia, Canada and Britain published a new book titled Too
Many Children Left Behind (Russell Sage). It traces the story of Americas educational disparities
across the life cycle of its children, from the day they enter kindergarten to eighth grade. Their story
goes sour very early, and it gets worse as it goes along. On the day they start kindergarten, children
from families of low socioeconomic status are already more than a year behind the children of college
graduates in their grasp of both reading and math. And despite the efforts deployed by the American
public education system, nine years later the achievement gap, on average, will have widened by
somewhere from one-half to two-thirds. Even the best performers from disadvantaged backgrounds,
who enter kindergarten reading as well as the smartest rich kids, fall behind over the course of their
schooling. The challenges such children face compared to their more fortunate peers are enormous.
Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are seven times more likely to have been born to a
teenage mother. Only half live with both parents, compared with 83 percent of the children of college
graduates. The children of less educated parents suffer higher obesity rates, have more social and
emotional problems and are more likely to report poor or fair health. And because they are much
poorer, they are less likely to afford private preschool or the many enrichment opportunities extra
lessons, tutors, music and art, elite sports teams that richer, better-educated parents lavish on their
children. When they enter the public education system, they are shortchanged again. Eleven-year-olds
from the wrong side of the tracks are about one-third more likely to have a novice teacher, according
to Professor Waldfogel and her colleagues. They are much more likely to be held back a grade, a
surefire way to stunt their development, the researchers say. Financed mainly by real estate taxes
that are more plentiful in neighborhoods with expensive homes, public education is becoming
increasingly compartmentalized. Well-funded schools where the children of the affluent can play
and learn with each other are cordoned off from the shabbier schools teaching the poor, who are
still disproportionally from black or Hispanic backgrounds. Even efforts to lean against
inequality backfire. Research by Rachel Valentino, who received her Ph.D. in education policy at
Stanford University this year, found that public prekindergarten programs offered minorities and
the poor a lower-quality education. Perhaps pre-K programs serving poor and minority children
have trouble attracting good teachers. Perhaps classrooms with more disadvantaged children
are more difficult to manage. Perhaps teachers offer more basic instruction because
disadvantaged children need to catch up. In any event, Ms. Valentino told me, the gaps are
huge. This is arguably educations biggest problem. Narrowing proficiency gaps that emerge way
before college would probably do more to increase the nations college graduation rate than offering
universal community college, easier terms on student loans or more financial aid. If we could
equalize achievement from age zero to 14, Professor Waldfogel told me, that would go a long
way toward closing the college enrollment and completion gaps. It can be done. Australia, Canada
even the historically class-ridden Britain show much more equitable outcomes.
Executive Federalism Advantage
 Ed k2 Exec Federalism (Link/ Turns NU)
Education policy key model of Executive-State Cooperative federalism NOW fed
goalsetting and state implementation KEY
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016

Perhaps most prominently todays education federalism inheres in a mix of agreements among state
and federal executives. Although Congress critically shaped the field, it then absented itself; the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was due to be reauthorized in 2007, but Congress has not acted. Against
this backdrop, the states and the federal executive branch have together assumed control of national
policy. States have collaborated with one another through interstate agreements, and the Department
of Education (ED), in close collaboration with the White House, has embraced, further incentivized, and
remolded state collaboration in the service of a set of national goals. Although NCLB increased the
federal presence in education, imposing a set of requirements for states to receive funding under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it left the content of educational standards and assessment to
states.116 In April 2009, governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states launched an
effort to develop common proficiency standards for English language and mathematics, resulting in the
Common Core State Standards one year later.117 The adoption of these standards largely occurred
through state executive branches118 and prodded additional interstate collaboration around
implementation. 119 The development of the Common Core can thus be understood as an instance of
horizontal executive federalism consistent with trends over time in interstate collaboration .
Interstate agreements, which are generally negotiated by executive officials, have become decidedly
more national in orientation over time. Although interstate compacts and agreements have been a part
of American federalism since the founding, nearly all such agreements prior to the twentieth century
dealt with state boundary lines.120 In the 1920s, in keeping with more general enthusiasms of the day
for administrative governance, compacts began to tackle regional rather than simply bilateral issues, to
address problems that would evolve over time rather than offer one-shot resolutions, and to establish
new institutions, such as commissions or agencies, to furnish day-to-day governance.121 While the
regional consciousness underlying early twentiethcentury compacts was often opposed to
nationalism,122 the newest interstate agreements are national undertakings.123 Today, a wide range of
formal and informal interstate agreements seek to address nationwide problems through geographically
diverse participation.124 These agreements exist not only to hold off Washington as the standard
explanation would have it,125 but also to substitute for federal governance in times of federal
inaction.126 With states producing national governance through collaboration, it is unsurprising that
the federal government, and particularly the federal executive branch, would seek to piggyback on
state agreements to further national policy goals. As state executives were collaborating on the
Common Core, the federal executive branch was grappling with the non-amendment of NCLB and
concerns about enforcing federal statutory requirements that no state would be able to satisfy. Relying
on money from the Recovery Act and then its broad waiver authority under NCLB itself,127 the federal
executive responded principally by incentivizing states to adopt the Common Core standards.128 ED did
not simply bless interstate governance, but effectively required it as an aspect of participation in a
federal scheme. Although the federal executive was not responsible for the establishment of the
Common Core, then, it was largely responsible for its rapid diffusion.129 ED also stimulated additional
state collaboration through funding to consortia of states that would develop assessment systems for
the Common Core standards.130 The resulting consortiathe Partnership for Assessment of Readiness
for College and Careers (PARCC), and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortiumare interstate
organizations that each claim approximately half the states as members.131 They are also organizations
deeply intertwined with the federal executive branch. In granting funding, ED entered into a
cooperative agreement with each consortium providing for communication, coordination and
involvement with ED officials.132 Negotiation between the federal executive branch and individual
states, around the NCLB waivers in particular, has also been an important aspect of education
federalism, and it promises to become only more important as the consensus around the Common
Core frays.133 For instance, Oklahoma lost its NCLB waiver after the governor repudiated her support
for the Common Core and state membership in the PARCC consortium. State officials then entered into
discussions with ED, and the waiver was ultimately reinstated, leading one critic to cite an interesting
mix of federal influence and state persistence in resolving the intergovernmental tension over decisions
on state standards.134 This interesting mix has largely assumed the form of state-federal
coevolution, with interstate action preceding and facilitating federal executive policymaking but also
being reshaped by it.135 Todays education federalism is constituted by a web of executive
agreements among the states in the Common Core, among the states in the assessment consortia,
between the federal executive branch and each state, and between the fed executive branch and the
consortia statessuggesting that national policy will continue to be set through co-governance.
 Exec Federalism Checks Exec Power
Executive federalism checks unilateral executive power
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

These days, however, not much at all seems to come by the grace of Congress. As record levels of
polarization paralyze the House and Senate, federal legislation has become attenuated from domestic
policy concerns. Instead, executive action is critical. But this executive action is not, by and large, the
unilateral presidential intervention a glance at the newspaper would suggest. Nor is it the state-
preemptive agency action that scholars of administrative federalism study. Instead, todays executive
action entails collaboration among state and federal officials, reliance on state as well as federal
initiative, and the contestation that follows from multiple sites of power. This paper proposes a
different way of thinking about contemporary American governance, looking to an established foreign
practice. Executive federalismprocesses of intergovernmental negotiation that are dominated by the
executives of the different governments within the federal system5is pervasive in parliamentary
federations, such as Canada, Australia, and the European Union. Given the American separation of
powers arrangement, it has been thought absent, even impossible in the United States.6 But the
partisan dynamics that have gridlocked Congress and empowered both federal and state executives
have generated a distinctive American variant of the practice. Viewing American law and politics
through the lens of executive federalism brings four key features into focus. First, executives have
become dominant actors at both the state and federal levels. They formulate policy and manage
intergovernmental relations. Second, there is a substantial degree of mutuality among these executives,
much more than is suggested by the federal governments legal supremacy. Federal and state actors
turn to state law as well as federal law; in some instances, this amplifies conflict, but it also enables
officials to further policy agendas and find paths to compromise. Third, national policy frequently
comes to look different across the states as a result of executive negotiations. Some states more
strongly press a position shared by the federal executive, while others offer competing views. Finally,
relationships among the states are critical in formulating national policy. The federal executive builds on
interstate agreements and reshapes them in turn. In addition to describing American executive
federalism, this paper offers a qualified defense of the phenomenon. While enhancing the federal
executives capacity to act amid congressional dysfunction, executive federalism also entails the
multiplicity and pushback endemic to state-federal relations. Perhaps most notably, it provides a
distinct path to policymaking in a time of polarization: state-differentiated national policy. Today, for
example, marijuana is effectively legal as a matter of federal law in some states but not others; the
states are adopting different approaches to climate change regulation pursuant to a federal regulation;
and they are expanding Medicaid in a variety of ways or not at all. Executive federalism is yielding in the
U.S. something akin to Canadas checkerboard federalism or Europes differentiated integration. 7
Executive federalism also offers a much-needed forum for bipartisan compromise. Rather than require a
grand deal that satisfies an aggregate national body, executive federalism unfolds through many
negotiations among disaggregated political actors. These smaller conversations reduce the partisan
temperature and create more space for intraparty difference. The process of implementation may also
raise new issues that unsettle ideological commitments. Moreover, the most criticized aspect of
executive federalism abroadits relative lack of transparencymay be an asset. American scholars of
congressional dysfunction increasingly assail transparency as an impediment to negotiation but have not
looked beyond Congress to consider less visible venues.8 Any governance strategy that leaves Congress
on the sidelines has a clear strike against it as a matter of democratic representation. Yet, as recent
work in political theory shows, representation is a more complicated process than the laws standard
delegate models suggest. 9 Because executive federalism generates different variants of national policy,
it may stimulate deliberation grounded in concrete acts rather than abstract speech. Interactions
between states and the federal government further suggest that national representation may be
advanced outside of Washington and that constituencies may transcend territorial designations.
 Exec power k2 Trump Deal xt

Executive power crucial variable for Trump economic transactionalism

Solomon and Zaring 17 The Dealmaking State: Executive Power in the Trump Administration UC Berkeley Public Law Research
Paper No. 2921407 49 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2017 Steven Davidoff Solomon University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of
California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy David T. Zaring University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department
Date Written: February 21, 2017

The Trump administration has promised to pursue policy through deals with the private sector , not
as an extraordinary response to extraordinary events, but as part and parcel of the ordinary work of
government. Jobs would be onshored through a series of deals with employers. Infrastructure would be
built through joint ventures where the government would fund but private parties would own and
operate public assets. We evaluate how this dealmaking state would work as a matter of law. Deals
were the principal government response to the financial crisis, partly because they offered a just barely
legal way around constitutional and administrative barriers to executive action. Moreover, unilateral
presidential dealmaking epitomizes the presidentialism celebrated by Justice Elena Kagan, among
others. But because it risks dispensing with process, and empowers the executive, we identify ways
that it can be controlled through principles of transparency, rules of statutory interpretation, and
policymaking best practices such as delay and equivalent treatment of similarly situated private
parties.

Government by deal is the endpoint of Trump executive power only administrative

state check
Solomon and Zaring 17 The Dealmaking State: Executive Power in the Trump Administration UC Berkeley Public Law Research
Paper No. 2921407 49 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2017 Steven Davidoff Solomon University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of
California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy David T. Zaring University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department
Date Written: February 21, 2017

n this regard, we ultimately feel that the trend towards regulation by deal , particularly in the Trump
Administration is an inevitable result of the powerful executive and the rise of the administrative
state and the need to avoid its strictures at times. We believe that without some basic procedures, and
at a minimum transparency, regulation by deal outside the financial crisis will lack a social welfare
increasing component, the sine qua non of regulation by deals appropriateness. Instead it will simply
provide randomness and uncertainty. CONCLUSION The Trump Administration and its unique approach
to governing have created uncertainty in the parameters and strictures of the administrative state. Our
research shows however that the modus operandi of the administration governance by deal has
deep historical origins and was most recently employed on a wide-spread basis during the financial
crisis. The difference perhaps is that now dealmaking is becoming a norm outside of crisis times. This is
not unexpected. Those who have advocated for Presidential power like now-Supreme Court Justice
Elena Kagan have built the blocks for this type of governance. Indeed, governance by deal may be a
valuable way to circumvent an ossified administrative process. But as we show outside a financial crisis,
governance by deal raises issues of both transparency and due process. Even if it is a deregulatory tool,
guiding principles and court oversight are necessary to ensure that governance by deal adheres to
core principles of the modern day administrative state.
 Admin Power Checks Trump Deal

Administratvie safeguards key to check Trump dealmaking

Solomon and Zaring 17 The Dealmaking State: Executive Power in the Trump Administration UC Berkeley Public Law Research
Paper No. 2921407 49 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2017 Steven Davidoff Solomon University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of
California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy David T. Zaring University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department
Date Written: February 21, 2017

If dealmaking by the President seemed arbitrary (or at least individualistic) it also generally lacked
comment or notice as well as opacity, hallmarks of the individual state. In this regard, this type of
bespoke dealmaking can be seen as the antithesis of the administrative state and the zenith of
Presidential power which some have advocated. It even goes beyond the financial crisis dealmaking
since it is alegal not looking for a legal hook or otherwise to base Presidential action. The government
action is instead based on power rather than the law itself. B. Dealmaking In Lieu of Administration If
governance by deal in the Trump administration can be seen as idiosyncratic, outside the
administrative process in its execution in its singularity of one-off, negotiated deals, it can also be used
as a substitute for the administrative state itself. In this subsection we explore the way that the Trump
administration can avoid ordinary administrative procedure by using private channels to meet a policy
goal: the redevelopment of American infrastructure. These public-private partnerships have some
promise and bipartisan support, but are not without risks. The troubling case of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac exemplifies some of the persistent problems created by public private partnerships. The
government takeover of these two entities provides lessons for the appropriate parameters and issues
around governance by deal when it is employed. We conclude by drawing some parameters on the
frontiers of governance by deal and how it might be employed in unique and perhaps troubling ways.
 Dealmaking bad: US econ: Rentseeking 1st line

Kills US economy through rent seeking and inequality

Jansa 1/14/17 http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/raising-red-flags-trumps-brand-of-carrier-style-dealmaking-probably-wont-
work_partner/ Joshua Jansa is an assistant professor of political science at Oklahoma State University.

The wrong kind of impact Subsidies still can have an effect on economic behavior, just not in the way
they were intended, such as by encouraging rent-seeking. Critics of the Carrier deal have already noted
that Trump may have opened the federal government up to increased threats from companies to
move overseas unless they receive more incentives (aka rent-seeking). In the days following the Carrier
deal, Ford Motor (already one of the largest recipients of state-level spending) expressed a willingness
to make a deal with Trump to retain jobs scheduled to move overseas. In a first move, Ford announced
that it had canceled a planned investment in Mexico and will instead invest $700 million in its Flat Rock,
Michigan, plant. There is also some evidence that incentives can exacerbate economic inequality.
Incentives, when used to influence location decisions, tend to be awarded to the largest and wealthiest
corporations. These corporations need the money the least of all businesses and usually receive the
money for making investments they likely would have made anyway in order to remain competitive. The
result is that fewer resources are available for education, workforce training and social services. As a
result, the gap between rich and poor tends to grow. Raising red flags While it is laudable that several
hundred Indianans get to celebrate the holiday season with their jobs secure, evidence from the states
raises red flags on the viability of targeted incentives as a national policy for growth. Not only would
Trump be needing to negotiate several packages per week in order to have a noticeable effect on the
U.S. economy, doing so opens the government up to increased demands for subsidies, most likely from
the wealthiest corporations, and could exacerbate income inequality in America.
 Dealmaking bad: US econ: Rentseeking xt
Rent seeking from deals is the crucial internal link to economic collapse
Davidson 3/17/16 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-the-deal.html
Adam Davidson is an American journalist focusing on business and economics issues for National Public Radio. He was a co-founder of NPR's
Planet Money program.

Many economists and political scientists now think that the United States economy has shifted, over the
past few decades, toward one in which a higher proportion of the economy comes from so-called rents:
Wall Streets maneuvering through the regulatory process, free-trade deals whose thousands of pages
of rules wind up prescribing winners and losers. The left, right and center of the economics profession
all agree that reducing rent-seeking behavior, and improving overall growth, is essential if we want
to make America great again. But this descent into a rentier economy would only accelerate with a
mentality like Trumps in the White House. The native-born population of the United States is aging
rapidly; without immigrants the nation would quickly face a disastrous level of debt. Middle-class
workers may be struggling now in a changing economy, but a clampdown on global trade would only
make that worse. Any health care reform that revolved around the presidents ability to deal would
inherently be one more prone to corruption. In a rentier state, every ambitious person knows that the
way to become rich and powerful is to grab the sources of wealth and hold onto them, by force if
necessary. Its no accident that, around the world, rentier states tend to be run by unelected dictators
the ultimate dealmakers in chief.

Dealmaking kills US economy through rentseeking, punitive pushback and instability

Lee 12/1/16 https://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/1/13810480/carrier-deal-donald-trump Timothy B. Lee Senior correspondent
Covers technology and economics. Lead writer for Vox's New Money section.

The larger issue, though, is that governing through a series of deals creates serious perverse incentives.
If Trump starts giving corporate welfare to companies that promise not to move jobs to Mexico, well
see a flood of companies threatening to move to Mexico in hopes of getting a handout. Taxpayers
would wind up paying to save a lot of jobs that werent actually in danger in the first place. Conversely,
if Trump tries to punish companies that move jobs overseas for example, by denying them federal
contracts companies will start looking for ways to hide the fact that theyre moving jobs overseas.
An overly aggressive campaign could also put US businesses at a competitive disadvantage against
foreign multinationals that are free to locate their factories in low-wage countries, resulting in US
companies losing market share and eventually going bankrupt. What Trump needs is a policy a
consistent set of rules for how the government will treat companies employing US workers. Maybe that
means manufacturing tax breaks or higher tariffs or interest rate cuts or stronger buy American
provisions for US procurement. Or maybe none of these are good ideas and Trump should accept that
theres no good way to prevent some jobs from going overseas. But only by focusing on an overall
strategy, rather than obsessing over the decisions of particular companies, can you make intelligent
decisions about an economy as large as the United States. The problem is that this runs directly counter
to Trumps ethos as a dealmaker. Trump thinks the way you get things done is by sitting down with key
decision makers and hashing out a bargain. That works fine when youre trying to build a hotel because
there are few enough parties involved that you can sit down with all of them. But Donald Trump is trying
to influence the decisions of millions of employers across the US economy. And you can only do that
with good policies, not good deals.
 Dealmaking bad: US econ: Rule of Law 1st line
Trump transactionalism is a disaster for the US economy by tanking predictability
Bivens 12/1/16 http://www.epi.org/blog/the-moral-of-the-trumpcarrier-deal-is-clear-if-youre-useful-to-trump-he-might-be-willing-
to-throw-other-workers-overboard-to-help-you/ Josh Bivens is the Director of Research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). His areas of
research include macroeconomics, fiscal and monetary policy, the economics of globalization, social insurance, and public investment. He
frequently appears as an economics expert on news shows, including the Public Broadcasting Services NewsHour, the Melissa Harris-Perry
show on MSNBC, WAMUs The Diane Rehm Show, American Public Medias Marketplace, and programs of the BBC. As a leading policy
analyst, Bivens regularly testifies before the U.S. Congress on fiscal and monetary policy, the economic impact of regulations, and other issues.
He has also provided analyses for the annual meeting of Project LINK of the United Nations and the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) of
the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

And, the deal is a policymaking disaster. The precedent it sets is horrendous. A company announced a
plant would move. A president and vice-president-elect offered them a deal that included tax breaks to
stay. Why wouldnt every employer in the country now not publicly announce theyre moving unless
they get some government largesse? One reason why they might not is that deal making includes using
sticks as well as carrots: are we sure that Trump and Pence didnt threaten retaliation via cut-off federal
contracts or an IRS audit if Carrier left? Carrier is a major Pentagon contractor, so thats plausible. As
soon as Presidents start negotiating and making policy company-by-company in backrooms, this is a
logical potential worry. Further, the other broad outlines of the deal are that Trump and Pence agreed
to stop pushing for a tariff against imports from Mexico (which would have hurt Carrier had they moved
to Mexico and tried to export back to the United States) and promised to fast-track the push to cut
corporate taxes and regulations. If Carrier was negotiating on behalf of the entire U.S. corporate class,
well, Id say that they fleeced Donald Trump, but that would presume he was actually sincere in trying to
side with workers versus this corporate class. He wasnt. Instead, the corporate-friendly agenda he is
actually sincere about (huge tax cuts for corporations and deregulation) will deliver hundreds of billions
to corporate owners and managers, but would strip regulatory protections from millions of workers and
lead to an increased tax burden or spending cuts that reduce incomes for millions more. The tariff that
he promised on Mexican imports during the election would have provided protection for far more
workers than those still employed at Carrier. To be clearIm not a fan of this promised tariff. It seems
to me to be fighting the last war and its not smart policy. But at least it could plausibly be defended as a
way to protect manufacturing workers in the U.S. from low-wage competition. But, its now back-
burnered because a CEO promised to keep 1,000 jobs in the United States? And how long will these jobs
stay? And what are the guarantees that Carrier wont send another plant abroad? Finally, the Carrier
move was announced in March. Yet the hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax incentives the state and
Governor and Vice-President-elect Pence offered in this deal were not accepted until this week. Why the
progress now? Well, because it became a PR stake in presidential politics. To step back, theres a
reason why Presidents and Congress should make policy and not undertake company-by-company
negotiations in back-rooms. The reason is that policy sets rules and guidelines that make for a fair
economy and help the most people. So, if you think the U.S. should charge a 35 percent tariff on
imports from Mexico as a policy because it would be good for the U.S. economy, then you should do
that (I dont agree with this, as I noted above). But you shouldnt threaten a 35 percent tariff on a
particular business simply because they have become a potential PR nuisance. This is the definition of
crony capitalism. Todays deal is soft-pedaling tariffs, pledging to accelerate the coddling of
corporations through tax and regulatory changes, and giving outright cash (tax breaks) to win a PR war.
Whats tomorrows deal? Threatening company-specific regulatory scrutiny and tax audits to firms
whose executives criticize policies of Trump? Again, the lesson to American workers and companies here
is clear: if you can manage to make your cause a helpful PR stunt for the Trump administration, he just
might be willing to help you by giving a raw deal to other workers. But you better be the first in line and
useful to Trumps own political fortunes. In short, the Trump administration seems to have found
creative new ways to make the U.S. economy even more zero-sum among the bottom 90 percent
than its been in the past generation.
 Dealmaking bad: US econ: Rule of Law xt

Presidential dealmaking kills US economy by crushing the rule of law

Sunstein 2/6/17 https://fee.org/articles/the-problem-with-presidential-deal-making/ Cass Robert Sunstein is a liberal American legal
scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics

The Problem With Presidential Negotiation In the abstract, of course, no one should object if the
president is able to secure better deals for the American people. A successful negotiation is not a
command. But unlike a candidate or a president-elect, a president has coercive power. Any negotiation
is inevitably undertaken under the shadow of that awesome power. In a world of presidential deals ,
companies are going to have horrible incentives. A succession of good deals by the executive branch
might garner impressive headlines, but Hayeks analysis offers a serious warning. Exactly which
companies will end up with favorable or unfavorable deals, and why? A dealmaking executive branch,
interacting with those in the private sector along multiple fronts, will be tempted to reward its friends
and punish its enemies and it will have plenty of ways to do exactly that. In a world of presidential
deals, companies are going to have horrible incentives to curry presidential favor in countless ways,
to act strategically, and to make promises and threats of their own, so as to avoid unfavorable
treatment from government and to obtain optimal concessions from it. Thats nothing to celebrate. On
the contrary, it is a road to serfdom. One of Hayeks enduring achievements was to clarify the
importance of government neutrality and forbearance, not through anything like laissez-faire, but by
avoiding commands in favor of clear, general, stable, predictable rules on which the private sector can
rely. A Dealmaker-in-Chief might turn out, in practice, to be a Commander-in-Chief in precisely the sense
that Hayek deplored.
 Trump transactionalism = Debt Renegotiation xt
Transactional presidential power = Trump debt renegotiation
Solomon and Zaring 17 The Dealmaking State: Executive Power in the Trump Administration UC Berkeley Public Law Research
Paper No. 2921407 49 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2017 Steven Davidoff Solomon University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of
California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy David T. Zaring University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department
Date Written: February 21, 2017

The Dealmaking Governance Extreme: Renegotiating Sovereign Debt The ultimate example of
governance by deal would be to put deal making in the service of monetary policy. Here, too, the
incoming administration has made noises about doing precisely that. President Trump said during the
campaign that he would be included to look at the possibility of renegotiating the terms on which the
Treasury Department has issued sovereign debt. I could see renegotiations where we borrow at long
term at very low rates, he said during the campaign, observing that he frequently renegotiated debt
terms while in business.160 I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a
deal.161 Such a renegotiation would be unprecedented for the United States, which famously never
missed an interest payment in all its history, but sovereign debt renegotiations are, of course, common
among other countries, particularly those in the developing world.162 The idea behind the deal is that
creditors of the United States could be pushed to take write-downs on their holdings of sovereign debt,
possibly by simply forgiving some of the debt, or by agreeing to extended payment terms on already
issued debt. To be quite clear, this renegotiation would count as a default on the debt, and would
therefore be unprecedented. Any change in the payment terms of bond obligations would ordinarily be
interpreted by investors in such a way. Could the President with the assistance of the Treasury Secretary
approach sovereign debt holders and seek to change the terms on which the United States repaid its
debt? The possibility might seem farfetched, but sovereign debt restructurings are hardly
unprecedented. Scholars such as Anna Gelpern and Mitu Gulati,163 and Odette Lienau,164 for example,
suggest that they are almost normal; there are thriving New York legal practices dedicated to
representing sovereigns in debt renegotiations.165 The reasons for a renegotiations by the United
States are apparent, even if the possibility that a country with such a sterling credit rating might
consider such a step would be unprecedented. But the United States has a sizable national debt and
runs a deficit every year the result has been borrowings that now amounts to thousands of dollars for
every man, woman and child within the United States. Extending the repayment term of those trillions
certainly could not hurt. Moreover, an administration inclined to pursue this sort of debt renegotiation
might be intrigued by the geopolitical ramifications of it. Some of the largest holders of American
sovereign debt are foreign countries who might find it difficult to resist an effort to change payment
terms. China, for example, holds huge quantities of the stuff. That country might not be in a position to
resist some form of restructuring. It might be inclined to pursue restructuring in exchange for other
trade concessions. Any country like China those likely to be net beneficiaries of the terms of trade with
the United States might agree to a deal to renegotiate sovereign debt terms. It might be seen as a way
for America to even up the terms of those trade. Moreover the in real terms reduced deficit would
permit the administration to pursue things like infrastructure projects without bumping up against the
debt ceiling or a Congress unwilling to appropriate new funds for economic development.
 Debt Renegotation Kills Economy
Trump Debt renegotiation tanks the economy
Patterson 5/1/17 https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/05/01/trump-ruinous-fiscal-
fraud/Ns7Tw72FBkJqA6pE6soA6J/story.html Richard North Pattersons column appears regularly in the Globe. His latest book is Fever
Swamp. Follow him on Twitter @RicPatterson.

Trump comprehends none of this. I made a fortune by using debt, he said during the campaign, and if
things dont work out I renegotiate the debt. But, unlike a casino, the federal government cannot
declare bankruptcy. Debt held by the public stands at $14.4 trillion. Stiffing debtholders, foreign and
domestic, would throw financial markets into freefall. This raises a related problem. Much of our debt
is held by foreign creditors especially China. This could become a source of Chinese leverage in
foreign, trade and economic policy. Conversely, foreign creditors fearful of our fiscal path could sell off
US debt, increasing our borrowing costs and triggering an economic crisis.

Trump default through negotiation would tank the economy

Associated Press 5/6/16 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-trump-proposal-for-national-debt-would-send-rates-soaring/
In the event that the U.S. economy crashed, Donald Trump has floated a recovery plan based on his
own experience with corporate bankruptcy: Pay America's creditors less than full value on the U.S.
Treasurys they hold. Experts see it as a reckless idea that would send interest rates soaring, derail
economic growth and undermine confidence in the world's most trusted financial asset. The
presumptive Republican presidential nominee suggested in a phone interview Thursday with CNBC that
he would stimulate growth through borrowing. If trouble arose, he added, he could get investors to
accept reduced payments for their Treasury holdings. Trump later clarified that comment to say he
would offer to buy the bonds back at a discount from investors in hopes of refinancing them at lower
rates. "I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump told CNBC.
Such a move, never before attempted by the U.S. government, would likely spook investors whose
trust in Treasury notes keeps global financial markets operating. The need to refinance would likely
cause interest rates to spike as investors demanded a greater return for the perceived risks of non-
payment. More tax dollars would have to go toward repaying the debt. Many investors would shift
their money elsewhere. And the economy could endure a traumatic blow. "It seems Trump is planning
to try to run the country like one of his failed business ventures, and that does not bode well," said
Megan Greene, chief economist at Manulife. The move would also end a policy introduced during the
presidency of George Washington -- and celebrated in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway musical
"Hamilton"-- to pay full face value on the debts incurred by the country. The government's unfailing
payments of its debt have long pleased investors and supported the economy because the country can
borrow at lower rates than it otherwise could. "Defaulting on our debt would cause creditors to rightly
question the 'full faith' commitment we make," said Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official
in George W. Bush's administration. "This isn't a serious idea -- it's an insane idea." Trump has touted his
acumen for restructuring four of his companies under bankruptcy laws. When Trump Hotels & Casinos
finished a 2004 bankruptcy reorganization, it cut $500 million off $1.8 billion in debt and reduced the
interest rate to 8 percent from 15 percent. "I don't think it's a failure' it's a success," Trump told The
Associated Press at the time. But countries function differently from businesses. Nations usually print
their own money and service their debt through taxes, unlike corporations that can sell off assets and
equity stakes to manage debt or close up shop. Interest rates would spike if a government refused to
pay what it owed as investors priced in the risk of default and became resistant toward lending. "It
would make a bad situation worse and increase U.S. borrowing costs on its debt going forward
because we would have lost our credit rating," said Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities. Publicly held U.S. debt is $13.8 trillion, and taxpayers will devote likely $255
billion to interest payments this year. The market largely sets interest rates on the debt, based in part on
Federal Reserve policy. The yield on a 10-year Treasury note is about 1.8 percent, a figure that would
shoot up if Trump pursued this strategy. This would cause debt payments to climb at a precarious
moment for the federal budget when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs will likely increase
the need to borrow. "There is no upside," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and president of the
conservative American Action Forum. "It's a false hope."

Trump debt dealmaking spurs global economic crisis

Rampell 5/26/17 Catherine Rampell is an opinion columnist at The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-about-to-face-a-major-hostage-situation/2017/05/26/540e6898-4235-11e7-9869-
bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.98afad6d873b

A debt-ceiling showdown is fast approaching, and the health of the global financial system is at stake .
U.S. Treasury bonds are seen as the safest of safe assets; even the smallest insinuation that we might
not make good on these IOUs could set off a chain reaction of panic and chaos throughout the world.
This is precisely why the debt ceiling so often gets taken hostage, of course. Every year or two, Congress
has to raise the federal debt limit so the government can continue paying the bills it has already
incurred. And every year or two, wily, attention-seeking politicians see this as an opportunity to make
demands in exchange for their votes. The hostage-taker is sometimes the minority party and sometimes
rogue members of the majority party desperate to raise their profiles (looking at you, Ted Cruz).
Sometimes those voting against a debt-limit increase are merely grandstanding, knowing full well that
they can free-ride on the more responsible members who will vote for it. As stressful and costly as these
debt-limit showdowns have been, to date there have always been grown-ups around a hero or two to
rally the necessary votes and rescue the world from the brink of disaster. This time, though, there are a
lot of aspiring hostage-takers and precious few heroes. Technically, we already hit the limit in mid-
March, when the Treasury Department began using extraordinary accounting measures to allow the
government to keep paying its bills a while longer. This tactic had been expected to work until October
or November, when the limit would again need to be raised. In the past few days, however, Trump
administration officials have said that tax revenue has been coming in much lower than expected. This is
possibly President Trumps own fault; high earners and companies may be deferring income until next
year in anticipation of a big fat tax cut, as theyve done before. Whatever the cause, the result is that
were going to run out of money sooner than anticipated possibly as soon as late summer or early fall,
given recent comments from the White House. Already members of the House Freedom Caucus have
declared their intention to hold the debt-ceiling bill hostage unless their demands are met. They
demand that any increase of the debt ceiling be paired with policy that addresses Washingtons
unsustainable spending by cutting where necessary, capping where able, and working to balance in the
near future, the caucus, composed of far-right Republicans, said in a statement. Democrats have said
they would support a clean debt-ceiling increase, meaning they would vote for a bill that did nothing
but raise the limit. When push comes to shove, though, its not clear they have strong incentives to save
the Republican majority from its own infighting; some Democrats might believe its in their interest to
let Republicans create a crisis. Meanwhile, the White House, too, has given mixed signals on what it
wants to do about the debt limit. During the campaign, Trump was shockingly open to a federal debt
default. After all, this King of Debt has long viewed his own bills as an opening bid that he can
negotiate downward. He argued that he could do the same for the countrys debt and persuade
creditors to accept less than what theyre legally owed. I would borrow knowing that if the economy
crashed you could make a deal, he told CNBC last year.

Trump debt efforts spur US economic crisis

Heinrich 3/15/17 https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2017/3/yet-again-debt-ceiling-brinksmanship-forces-
unnecessary-costs-on-all-americans Martin Trevor Heinrich is an American politician and businessman, the junior United States Senator for New
Mexico, in office since 2013.

This time may be different, however. The unorthodox approach to governing from Trump administration
officials and consolidation of Republican control of Congress add extra doses of uncertainty into the mix.
President Trump suggested possibly renegotiating Americas debt at one point in the campaign.[2] One
of his key economic advisors, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney, has
questioned whether or not breaching the debt ceiling would be that big of a deal.[3] The longer
Republicans push our nation toward default, the higher the costs will be for Americans, the federal
government, and the economy. The Costs of Debt Brinkmanship For decades, U.S. government bonds
were seen as a risk-free asset, earning U.S. Treasuries a privileged position as the backbone of the
global financial system. Private financial institutions and foreign governments alike held U.S. Treasury
assets in reserve against riskier investment decisions. This privileged position earned Americans on net
an additional 0.3 to 0.5 percent of GDP annually, according to estimates by the McKinsey Global
Instituteequivalent to $56 to $93 billion today.[4] Permanent loss of faith. Over the past handful of
years debt ceiling politics and threats to default on U.S. creditors did real damage to Americas
reputation. In 2011, the credit rating agency Standard and Poors downgraded the U.S. credit rating to
AA+, the first time in 70 years that the U.S. did not earn an AAA rating (the highest possible rating). S&P
cited the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling as a primary factor.[5] Less
recent history is also instructive. A technical glitch prevented the Treasury from making interest
payments on $122 million of bonds for three weeks in 1979. Some investors lost faith in U.S. debt,
resulting in a permanent 60 basis point increase in interest rates on Treasuries and substantially
increasing the cost of borrowing for the federal government.[6] In the current dilemma, a U.S.
government default would not result from a technical glitch, but from Republicans willful disregard for
Americas creditworthiness. The blow to Americas reputation will not be easy to restore. In 2013,
when Congressional Republicans once again toyed with default, global investors registered the short-
term risk, but seemed largely to shrug off the prospect of the government actually missing payments. In
the future, Americans may not continue to be so lucky, particularly as perceptions of Americas
stability of governance have slipped around the world following the 2016 election. Ongoing willingness
to risk defaulting on our debt will further erode Americas creditworthiness reputation, and could
jeopardize the dollars status as the worlds preferred reserve currency. Increased borrowing costs for
taxpayers. When bondholders lose faith in the United States creditworthiness, they demand higher risk
premiums for buying American debt. Debt brinkmanship in 2011 increased the federal governments
borrowing costs by $1.3 billion in that year alone.[7] Higher borrowing costs for individuals. Interest
rates on U.S. Treasuries set the baseline for interest rates charged on a wide variety of financial
instruments. When interest rates rise on Treasuries they also rise for individuals looking to borrow
money. For example, interest rates on 30-year fixed mortgages jumped following the 2011 debt-ceiling
brinkmanship, and remained 55 basis points higher, on average, than the period preceding the event
(see Figure 1).[8] If upcoming debt brinkmanship has a similar impact, the average homebuyer could end
up paying nearly $35,000 extra on their home mortgage.[9] Increased economic uncertainty. Rising
borrowing costs and the risk of default create uncertainty in the broader market, as well. During the
2011 crisis, major indicators of consumer and business confidence fell steadily as the standoff persisted,
while both measures of market volatility and measures of policy uncertainty spiked (see Figure 2).[10]
Economists have long understood that increased uncertainty can deter investmentswhich are key to
economic and employment growth .[11] In this case, increased fiscal policy uncertainty has played a
role in corporations accumulating large stockpiles of cash holdings rather than making investments that
generate job and overall economic growth.[12] If Extraordinary Measures Run Out If the debt ceiling is
not raised by the time extraordinary measures run out, Treasury will no longer be able to pay all of its
bills. While receipts and payments fluctuate widely throughout the year, on average Treasury will need
to issue $47 billion in new debt each month in FY 2017 to meet spending obligations. On average, the
Treasury will owe $22.5 billion a month in interest payments to holders of already-issued debt in FY
2017.[13] This leaves just $24.5 billion a month for Treasury to meet all other obligations, meaning that
Treasury would default on some of the checks that it is obligated to write each month, such as payments
to: 60 million individuals receiving their earned Social Security benefits, one-third of whom count on
Social Security for 90 percent of their income.[14] More than 4 million veterans with disability benefits
and 9 million veterans who receive health care from the Veterans Administration.[15] 44 million low-
income people that rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to put food on the table
could see disruptions in benefits.[16] More than 4 million federal government employees, including
nearly 1.5 million uniformed military personnel.[17] While imposing undue hardships on millions of
people, the effect of delay or defaulting on non-interest Treasury payments would cascade
throughout the rest of the economy as affected individuals would cut back on their own spending in
response. Even a two-week delay in payments may be enough to trigger a recession , economic
models show.[18] On the other hand, prioritizing payments instead to individuals over principal and
interest payments to Treasury bondholders risks sparking another financial crisis as investors around
the world adjust to a world in which Congress throws the full faith and credit of the U.S.
government out the window.[19] Conclusion Previous debt ceiling episodes may have numbed investors
to the possibility of America defaulting on federal debt. But, given the unorthodox governing approach
of the Trump administration and concerning past statements made by Trumps top budget advisor,
markets are unlikely to remain calm for long. As extraordinary measures continue and the U.S. gets
closer to default, markets could start panicking, which will have real costs for Americans, the federal
government, and the overall economy.
 Debt xt: Eurozone
Trump debt dealmaking causes Eurozone crisis and debt explosion
James 1/26/17 https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/national-debt-and-global-order-20170126 Harold James is professor of history
and international affairs at Princeton University and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation

The nationalist thrust of Trumps inaugural address echoed the isolationism championed by the racist
aviator Charles Lindbergh, who, as a spokesman for the America First Committee, lobbied to keep the
US out of World War II. And now Trump, blaming previous US leaders for the economic hardships
confronting many Americans, has renounced the countrys historical role in creating and sustaining the
post-war order. While his objection to global America is not new, hearing it from a US President
certainly is.

Trumps vision is centred on the politics of debt. Having overseen a large debt-financed real-estate
business, his intuition is that debt renegotiation can be used to win back for America what other
countries have supposedly taken from it. He has focused on China and Germany, because they
maintain large bilateral trade surpluses with the US totaling $366 billion and $74 billion, respectively,
in 2015. Just before the inauguration, he suggested that he might impose high tariffs on imported
German cars, singling out BMW with particular relish.

With their accumulated current-account surpluses, both countries have built up large claims on the US,
in the form of government debt for China and a wide variety of securitised assets for Germany. While
Chinas foreign reserves are now rapidly falling, Germanys are rising. But, in both cases, immediately
eliminating Americas bilateral deficits would simply make Americans poorer. It would be no different
than if Greece suddenly eliminated its large deficits with the rest of Europe.

In the past, US policymakers have tried to spur domestic job creation by getting the surplus countries to
run budget deficits or loosen their monetary policy, so that they could grow faster and buy more
American goods. Former US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan took this tack in the late 1970s
and 1980s, and President Barack Obama did so again in the middle of the euro crisis that began in 2009.

This is the classic form of adjustment in the international economic system, and past US administrations
pursued this method by applying bilateral pressure, and by working through international institutions
such as the G7 and the International Monetary Fund. But these negotiations have always had rather
mixed outcomes. Inevitably, neither side is satisfied, and the process comes to be seen as flawed.

Trump thinks that this old process failed because the surplus countries cheated. According to this view,
China deliberately held down its exchange rate in the years prior to 2015, subsidised Chinese businesses,
and restricted foreign ownership rights; and Germany manipulated its currency as well, first within
Europes hard exchange-rate system after 1979, and then within the eurozone after 1999. The European
Union and the eurozone, Trump has concluded, are simply mechanisms to protect German interests and
extend German power.

There are two alternatives to the classical adjustment approach. The first, more plausible option is to
strike bilateral deals. There are some historical precedents for this, such as when Japan, in the 1980s,
voluntarily agreed to limit the number of cars it sold in the US. Consequently, Japan stopped selling
cheap cars and quickly moved up the value chain.

Then there is a more radical alternative. Trump may pursue a nationalist version of what is typically a
leftist demand: a debt jubilee or write-off. And his strategic reasoning might entail letting Chinas own
high levels of internal debt, and the unresolved debt issues in the eurozone , blow up.

That tanks the global economy

Lachman 2/11/17 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/319056-us-must-understand-that-greek-default-could-lead-
to-global Desmond Lachman is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was formerly a deputy director in the International
Monetary Fund's Policy Development and Review Department and the chief emerging market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

To date, the Trump administration has displayed a rather cavalier attitude toward the prospect of a
possible breakup of the eurozone. However, the administration should be very careful about what it is
wishing for. If the eurozone does come unstuck, we will almost certainly have a wave of sovereign
debt defaults across Europe that would shake the global financial system to its very foundation.
 Debt Signal Enough
Trump signal enough to trigger crisis
Rosenberg 1/20/17 http://www.alternet.org/economy/donald-trump-knows-nothing-about-economics Paul H. Rosenberg is
senior editor at Random Lengths News, a biweekly serving the Los Angeles harbor area.

Trump sowed massive confusion over the possibility of defaulting on the federal debt. Trump sent
shockwaves through the financial world with his May 5, 2016, interview with CNBCs Andrew Ross
Sorkin and Becky Quick. (Recapped by PolitiFact here.) When asked whether he thought the United
States should pay 100 cents on the dollar or whether the U.S. debt could be renegotiated, he began
his reply by saying, Yeah, I think look, I have borrowed, knowing that you can pay back with
discounts. And I have done very well with debt. Now, of course, I was swashbuckling, and it did well for
me and it was good for me and all that. Then he said, Now were in a different situation with the
country, seeming for a fleeting moment to acknowledge a significant difference, and then not doing so:
But I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal. And if the economy
was good, it was good. So, therefore, you cant lose. In a follow-up interview, Trump argued he had
never threatened to default. But his explanations in both interviews were so garbled that even experts
didnt know what to make of them a huge problem, given how easily a presidents words can impact
world events. To simplify the tangled explanations Trump offered, he claimed he was only saying that
government could buy back bonds at lower prices if interest rates rise, and that you [the U.S.
government] never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you. But this explanation
is hardly comforting, as Jim Paulsen, chief investment officer at Wells Capital, explained to Politico:
Weve basically renegotiated existing debt in the past and we certainly do print money, Paulsen said.
These concepts are far from odd. But to say them as a presidential candidate is what is so striking to me
and frightening. For a president to say these kinds of things publicly would have the opposite effect you
would want in that they would put the economy into recession. When PolitiFact examined the matter
shortly afterwards, more experts weighed in: Neither interview makes sense, said Neil Buchanan, a
George Washington University law professor and author of The Debt Ceiling Disasters. The
statements are neither clear nor coherent, agreed Paolo Mauro, a senior fellow at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics. Charles W. Mooney Jr., a law professor at the University of
Pennsylvania, said Trump seems to confound concepts of discount, refinance, and renegotiate just
as he does with every other concept he has ever addressed. And Brad W. Setser, a senior fellow at the
Council of Foreign Relations and the deputy assistant secretary for international economic analysis at
the U.S. Treasury from 2011 to 2015, called Trumps comments lots of very loose talk on a subject
where there shouldnt be loose talk.
 AT cant check Trump Deals
Separation of powers through administrative law can check Trump transactionalism
Solomon and Zaring 17 The Dealmaking State: Executive Power in the Trump Administration UC Berkeley Public Law Research
Paper No. 2921407 49 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2017 Steven Davidoff Solomon University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of
California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy David T. Zaring University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department
Date Written: February 21, 2017

Observers like John Yoo have worried that the president could be viewing the government as the
enemy; using deals for policymaking gets around the bureaucracy, the courts, and congress a trifecta
when it comes to matters of the separation of powers.185 This defies the current tenor of
administrative law scholarship, which argues that government actions should be transparent and subject
to public notice and inspection. Indeed, Cass Sunstein led OIRA in the wake of the financial crisis with a
push for a more thorough regulatory approach to administration.186 It is done in secret. It is negotiated
by lawyers acting in the governments interest, not necessarily the publics (though of course these
interests should theoretically align). It is done by parties who are not subject to judicial or administrative
review, let alone OIRA. This does not mean that regulation by deal is illegal under the APA or other
procedural statutes. The sine qua non of regulation by deal is finding a legal hook which does not
require an administrative comment and notice. Instead the action is done quickly and without court
oversight as a singular deal, a legal arrangement negotiated by sophisticated, outside lawyers designed
to meet the problem with a transactional approach. 3. Separation of Powers This all fits nicely within
Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeules view of the world.187 The two theorize that in a crisis power flows
without regard to law to the Executive branch by necessity.188 Neither the judiciary nor Congress are
capable of dealing with the situation effectively in large part due to the bureaucratic nature of such
solutions. In Regulation by Deal we agreed with Posner and Vermeules assessment but also noted the
statutory basis the government repeatedly cited for its actions.189 To us, it was better to say that the
government looked for statutory hooks for its actions that defied the usual dictates of administrative
law. The government wanted to show that it was acting legally even if it was not doing so in a traditional
administrative law sense, and certainly doing so without public input. Yet, outside a crisis and in the
Trump administration as it coalesces, there often appears to be less of a legal hook. Instead, it appears
that oneoff dealmaking is more about back-door terms, forceful results and unequal application of
standards, to the extent they exist at all. The legal hook is often an ex post facto justification based on
the terms reached rather than on the action itself. We also believe that there are serious legal concerns
about bedrock principles of Presidential constitutional power as a Trump administration may seek to
govern by deal. One way to think of this is through the case of Harry S. Truman and the nationalization
of the steel industry. In 1952 President Harry S. Truman ordered his Secretary of Commerce to
nationalize and operate most of the nations steel mills in order to effectively end a strike by the United
Steelworkers of America.190 The owners of the mills sued and the Supreme Court 6-3 ruled the seizure
unconstitutional and upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the seizure.191 The grounds were spelled
out in six concurring opinions. In the main opinion Justice Black held that the seizure was illegal under a
strict construction of Presidential power that [t]he President's power, if any, to issue the order must
stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly
authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here.192 This theme generally went
through all the concurring opinions though some like Justice Jackson though Trumans actions directly
contradictory to the law. Youngstown thus stands for the proposition of not only judicial review of
Presidential action, but limitations on that conduct where there is no congressional or constitutional
authorization. While Youngstown stands for the limitation of Presidential power when authority is
absent, the recent Ninth Circuity opinion on the temporary restraining order against Trumps
immigration order represents a more statutory and Constitutionalist approach.193 The opinion upheld
the temporary restraining order under the ground that it deprived various constituencies of due process
rights.194 More importantly however, the court took a broad view of standing, allowing the State of
Washington standing due to the deprivation of immigrants to its universities.195 This broad view of
standing is perhaps another way to ensure that the dealmaking of Presidents is subject to judicial
review for due process. Looking at the wider impact of such actions and broadly granting standing to
affected parties is likely to ensure not just comportment with the requisites of due process, but the
more sober principle of steadied decision making.
 !!AT States CP Solve Executive Federalism

ONLY interactive models solve dual federalism collapses into unitary executive
authority
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

Accepting that executive federalism may facilitate national representation does not mean that we
should embrace it in all of its forms. For instance, an obvious risk of executive as compared to legislative
forms of representation is that it may collapse into unilateralism, inhibiting the expression of pluralism
and deliberation alike. I have suggested that the federal system moderates this possibility, but only if
there is interaction and mutuality among state and federal officials. A critical question is thus how to
ensure co-governance by state and federal officials so that executive federalism does not become
simply federal executive governance. In the next Part, I turn to some doctrines bearing on this issue.
 AT Kills State Autonomy
Interaction through overlap bolsters state autonomy by federal executive aegis
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

Given the vague contours of federal supremacy, however, it will not always be obvious whether an
interstate compact has implications for federal supremacy. And even as the courts have broadly blessed
interstate agreements in the absence of federal approval, federal awareness of and interaction with
such interstate agreements may be salutary. In these intermediate spaces, courts might give states more
leeway to enter into interstate agreements insofar as the federal executive branch is prompting or
relying on their actionsin particular, insofar as the federal executive branch is incorporating such state
action into federal governance. This suggestion parallels the arguments I have made above for granting
the federal executive branch an additional degree of deference when it brings states into federal
regulation.302 Just as this more top-down approach to executive federalism yields cooperation,
contestation, and negotiation, so too may the more bottomup variant of executive federalism that
comes from state initiative yield these benefits. On this view, the federal executives involvement with
interstate agreements serves not so much to protect the federal interest,303 as to provide a basis for
ascertaining and grappling with such interests. The process of co-governance should force state and
federal actors alike to reconsider assumptions about state versus federal interests. If interaction and
overlap are the keys to the legitimate practice of executive federalism, as I have argued, the federal
executives engagement, even in informal ways, with interstate collaboration should not render these
agreements suspect but should help to validate them. CONCLUSION Executive federalism has come to
America, upsetting assumptions about federalism and the separation of powers alike. Today, alliances
across levels of government rival those within each level, and intergovernmental executive negotiations
establish national policy. The judiciary is being asked to invalidate key practices of executive federalism,
but courts should permit these practices insofar as they entail state-federal integration and
mutuality. Because the party system undergirds its rise, executive federalism is a form of governance
potentially well-suited to todays polarized politics. Although it poses new challenges for democratic
representation, it may yield deliberation among government officials and the broader public grounded
in concrete policies. By facilitating state- differentiated national policy, it may enable partisan
differences to be expressed concretely instead of grinding government to a halt. And by fostering
bilateral, iterative, and relatively nontransparent interactions, it may open paths to compromise that
seem out of reach in todays Congress.
 AT Coop Fism Bad Exec fism distinction

Executive federalism best EVEN IF other forms bad iterated interaction and
decentralized bargaining
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

Compromise: Disaggregated, Nontransparent Negotiation A growing body of literature searching for

solutions to political polarization in America has resigned itself to working with the parties and the
institutions we have.194 This literature departs from both proposals to fundamentally alter government
structures and proposals to fundamentally remake the parties, for instance through reforms intended to
make elected politicians more moderate. Taking our separation of powers system and polarized parties
as a given, scholars seeking ways to make governance possible among enemies, not friends,195
highlight the centrality of negotiation.196 Because this work focuses only on the federal government
and Congress in particular, however, it overlooks some of the most effective institutional environments
or structural conditions that enable effective negotiations among political leaders about national
policy.197 Scholars have long noted that bargaining is the usual mode of intergovernmental
relations.198 With states today operating as national partisan actors, such bargaining has implications
not only for federalism but also for party politics and the development of national policy. And some of
the factors that scholars of political polarization cite as critical to political negotiationsuch as repeat
play and a degree of confidentiality come more naturally to state-federal executive relations.
Compared to legislative negotiations, executive federalism has several advantages in fostering
negotiation across the political spectrum. First, as differentiated integration underscores, negotiations
may be bilateral or partially multilateral. Instead of a need for a grand compromise that satisfies an
aggregate national body, executive federalism may unfold through many smaller compromises that
satisfy disaggregated political actors.199 The sum total of these negotiations shapes national policy, but
no one negotiation does. This disaggregated quality can reduce the partisan temperature and bring
intraparty difference to the fore. Second, because it tends to arise in the process of implementing
national policy over a period of time, state-federal bargaining involves iterated interactions over both
bigger-picture issues and smaller details. Such implementation is policymaking, not mere transmission
of preexisting instructions, but it is more concrete than lawmaking, and partisan dogmas may be
unsettled as new issues arise in the implementation process. Third, federal and state executives tend to
be differently situated with respect to particular programs: the states may rely on the federal executive
for funding as the federal executive relies on the states to achieve its policy goals; or the states may rely
on federal cooperation to achieve their policy goals as the federal government relies on the states for
political capital. Such mutual reliance, but varied responsibilities and interests, may create more paths
to, and incentives for, compromise. Finally, executive negotiations may transpire in greater secrecy than
legislative deliberations that occur in the sunshine.
 AT Declaration only policy solves
Declarations arent enough executive cooperative federalism comes through
iterative policy collaboration
Bulman_Pozen 16 * Associate Professor, Columbia Law School. EXECUTIVE FEDERALISM COMES TO AMERICA Jessica Bulman-
Pozen* Forthcoming 102 VA. L. REV. (June 2016)

Concrete policies may be particularly useful in fostering dynamic relationships between government
officials and the public. Recent work has insisted that representation must be understood not only as a
matter of giving voice to preexisting constituent interests, but also of shap[ing] and reshap[ing]
political interests. 234 As compared to speech, policy choices make more visible what these political
interests entail and better organize the claims elected officials make to constituents.235 Their very
concreteness , as compared to more abstract policy discussions, may thus not only furnish a basis for
shifting alignments that underlie negotiation, as I have suggested above, 236 but may a also enhance
democratic representation, as political judgments are reflected in actions. 237
Coop Fism Advantage
Link xt
 Coop Fism Internal Link
Proposal components successfully rebalance educational federalism
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The following six policymaking areas identify how the federal governments role in education should be
expanded to ensure equal access to an excellent education: (1) Prioritizing a national goal of ensuring
all children have equal access to an excellent education and acknowledging that achieving this goal will
require disrupting education federalism;150 (2) Incentivizing development of common opportunity-to-
learn standards that identify the education resources that states must provide;151 (3) Focusing rigorous
research and technical assistance on the most effective approaches to ensuring equal access to an
excellent education;152 (4) Distributing financial assistance with the goal of closing the opportunity and
achievement gaps;153 (5) Demanding continuous improvement from states to ensure equal access to an
excellent education through federal oversight that utilizes a collaborative enforcement model;154 and
(6) Establishing the federal government as the final guarantor of equal access to an excellent
education155 by strengthening the relationship between federal influence and responsibility. As the
analysis below will show, each of these elements either suggests how to leverage existing strengths of
federal policymaking more effectively or fills in important gaps of federal policymaking and
enforcement.156 Federal education law and policy that encompasses these elements would greatly
increase federal responsibility as part of a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent
education while setting the foundation for a shoulder-to-shoulder working relationship with the
states to achieve this goal. In contrast to existing federal education policy that too often demands
much from the states but gives them relatively little,157 my proposed theory would strengthen the
relationship between increasing federal demands for reform and greater federal responsibility for
accomplishing those reforms. If federal education law and policymaking embraced each of these
elements, collectively these reforms would place primary responsibility on the federal government for
establishing a national framework for ensuring equal access to an excellent education.

Refederalization reinvigorates FUNCTIONAL state roles

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

In light of the need for additional concerted action to spark state reform of school finance systems,
some scholars and advocates are beginning to call for the federal government to leverage its influence
on states to ensure that they implement equitable school funding systems. In his 2015 book, Jack
Jennings, the founder and former CEO of the Center on Education Policy who served for more than a
quarter century as a staff director and general counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Education and Labor, identified the need for federal reform that promotes both equitable and
adequate funding as essential for continued progress in education.2 0 In addition, the Equity and
Excellence Commission recommended "bold action" on school funding reform that would, among other
things, require states to implement funding systems that provide all students the resources they need to
meet state standards; incentivize states to increase funding for low-performing, low-income and
minority students; and create federal monitoring of these new investments to ensure that they are
improving student outcomes. 21 David Sciarra and Danielle Farrie, who are leading the New Jersey
funding litigation, have made similar calls. Sciarra and Farrie, an attorney and scholar of education
finance, respectively, recently contended that federal funding should be linked to state finance reform
that is closely tied to state education standards.2 2 Michael Rebell, scholar and successful litigator of the
New York funding litigation, has also called for federal intervention to promote equitable funding
systems.2 3 Education law scholar Derek Black has proposed reforms to Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act that would incentivize states to adopt progressive funding systems that
provide greater funding to districts with substantial high-need populations and that reward fiscal
effort.2 4 A recent paper by Diana Epstein, a Senior Education Policy Analyst at the Center for American
Progress, argues that given state reluctance to provide greater aid to districts with more students with
greater needs, the federal government should incentivize states to revise their funding systems to
accomplish such reforms.25 These calls for federal influence to promote equitable and adequate school
funding systems build upon the scholarship calling for federal action that promotes greater equality of
educational opportunity .26 In this Article, I join these calls for the federal government to lead states to
reform their school funding systems. In doing so, I build upon my recent scholarship that calls for
additional federal leadership insisting that states prioritize equity and excellence in education.2 7 1
recommend that we restructure education federalism by requiring the federal government to serve as
the ultimate guarantor of equal access to an excellent education.28 My theory of education federalism
embraces federal policymaking strengths in education, such as federal research, technical, and financial
assistance, that support state and local reforms to promote equity and excellence. 29 This theory would
retain state and local control over education where states and localities possess superior policymaking
strengths, including preserving states as laboratories of reform that determine how to achieve equity
and excellence. It also would promote new forms of state and local control over education by
enhancing state and local capacity for reform. 30
Distinction vs Fism/Staes
 Competitive Fism Distinction

NEGATIVE and COMPETITIVE models of federalism fail - real federalism is determined

SUBSTANTIVELY. Their model upholds visions of federalism that are DYSFUNCTIONAL
and RACIST
Sundquist 17 Professor of Law and Director of Faculty Research and Scholarship, Albany Law School. Carleton College (BA., 1997);
Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 2002) Sundquist, Christian B. "ArticlePositive Education Federalism: The Promise of Equality after the
Every Student Succeeds Act." Mercer L. Rev. 68 (2017): 351-557.

IV. POSITIVE FEDERALISM AND PUBLIC EDUCATION POLICY The divining of the appropriate federal role
in public education has historically been rooted in a procedural vision of the negative limits of federal
action. The discussion of education federalism, therefore, has largely focused on the degree to which
federal law should influence or supersede traditional state "police powers."1 6 8 While negative
branches of federalism often purport to balance federal and state interests in an ideologically neutral
fashion, it is clear that the federalism debate is also imbued with particular substantive conceptions of
the content and preferred outcomes of permissible federal actions. The original allocation of "police
powers" to states-which established local responsibility for the health, education, and safety of
residentshas long been derided as a constitutional compromise to allow states to preserve slavery
and prevent racial progress. 169 The invocation of "states' rights" following the Brown desegregation
decree is just one example of negative federalism being utilized as a tool to resist social progress. 170
Indeed, as Professor Lisa Miller notes, "federalism in the United States was forged in part as a
mechanism for accommodating slavery , and it facilitated resistance to racial progress for blacks long
after the Civil
War." 171 Pre-war education federalism thus often strove to forestall federal intervention in state
systems of racial control in an effort to preserve educational segregation and inequality. 172 The
passage of the ESEA, in light of this history, was monumentally important in shifting the substantive
dimension of education federalism. No longer was education federalism centered on preserving states'
rights to segregate disproportionately funded public schools. Rather, education federalism in the post-
Brown and ESEA era sought to utilize the federal government's block grant powers to rectify racial and
class imbalances in public education. 173 The substantive dimension of post-Brown education
federalism, as embodied by the original vision of the ESEA, justifies federal involvement in public
education when necessary to combat both poverty and racial discrimination. 174 The substantive
dimension of modern education federalism, however, has been radically transformed through the ESSA,
NCLB, and RTT policies. Federal activism in public schools is no longer justified to the extent it reduces
class and racial disparities in education, but rather to the extent it promotes competition, choice, and
accountability. 175 The embrace of competitive federalism by modern education policy is misplaced
from a historical perspective, and represents an unconstitutional abrogation of the federal
government's responsibility to eliminate class and racial disparities in education . The promise of
Brown and of the original purpose of the ESEA cannot be realized without a reconceptualization of
education federalism as requiring positive race- and class-regarding actions by the federal
government. A. A Positive Conception of Education Federalism While negative visions of federalism long
have been wielded as a tool to de-legitimize federal efforts to combat racial and class inequality,17 6
federalism is more appropriately understood as empowering the federal government to directly respond
to social inequality. 177 Federalism should be positively conceived of as "a device for realizing the
concepts of decency and fairness which are among the fundamental principles of liberty and justice
lying at the base of all our civil and political institutions," 178 rather than a negative limit on the
government's ability to advance liberty. Traditional theories of negative federalism are roundly criticized
as being incoherent, indeterminate, and rights regressive.179 The failings of negative conceptions of
federalism can be traced in part to unstable assumptions about the policy values that should inform
federalism theory. Traditional theories of federalism recite a number of values that are purportedly
advanced by restricting federal action: the reduction of "federal tyranny," enhancing state
experimentation, improving the democratic process, advancing "liberty," and restoring the "original
meaning" of the Constitution. 18 0 And yet, scholars have demonstrated that limiting federal action
does little to advance such policy values,1 81 and instead exacerbates social inequality. 182 The
question then becomes -what constitutional values should inform education federalism policy? I posit,
perhaps unremarkably, that the first principles of our Constitution are social equality and democratic
representation. 1 83 A theory of federalism should respect these overarching aspirations of our
Constitution, while recognizing that positive federal action has historically been necessary to both
reduce inequality and enhance the democratic process.1 84 Federalism exists for this normative
purpose: to ensure equality of the people, which at times requires positive intervention from the federal
government. A positive conception of federalism, then, acknowledges the constitutional obligation of
the federal government to promote social justice and democratic fairness.18 5 B. A Positively Federalist
View for Future Reauthorizations of the ESEA A positive conception of federalism is particularly
justified when attempting to divine the appropriate federal role in public education. As discussed
previously, the primary constitutional basis for federal involvement in public education is premised on
the government's responsibility to take positive action to remedy racial and class inequalities.18 6 The
Brown constitutional doctrine and the "War on Poverty" driven by the ESEA forged an understanding of
education federalism rooted in positive social justice. It is particularly appropriate today that we restore
this fundamental understanding of education federalism, given evidence of increasing racial disparities
in public education and the noted failures of modern education federalism policy. The federal
guarantee of equal public education is critically important to the functioning of our democracy . As a
public good, education helps our society develop those "fundamental values necessary to the
transmission of our democratic society." 187 The provision of an equitable public education, devoid of
identity-based disparities, is critical to provide children with "the knowledge needed to understand and
participate effectively in the democratic process and to cultivate among children respect for and the
ability to interact with others as beings of inherently equal moral worth."1 88 Indeed, both classic and
contemporary constitutional scholars argue that equal public education should be regarded as "a
fundamental duty, or positive fundamental right because education is a basic human need and a
constituent part of all democratic rights ."1 89 The need, then, for a robust application of positive
education federalism principles in this context cannot be stronger
 Coop vs. Dual Distinction xt
There IS no dual federalism its all modalities within the cooperative model
Bulman-Pozen 14 University of Colorado Law Review 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1067 LENGTH: 6447 words ESSAY & SPEECH: UNBUNDLING
FEDERALISM: COLORADO'S LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA AND FEDERALISM'S MANY FORMS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Associate
Professor, Columbia Law School.

As we convene in Colorado on the one-year anniversary of the state's legalization of marijuana, it seems
only fitting to consider what this unfolding example may illuminate about American federalism in the
early twenty-first century. On one account, a distinctive community - the western, libertarian [*1068]
people of Colorado - has used the State's sovereign lawmaking capacity to stake out a position different
from the federal government's. And not just different - Colorado has picked a fight with Washington,
D.C., by adopting a policy that conflicts with federal law and is overtly and deliberately oppositional. This
account embraces the classic tropes of federalism: Sovereignty! Popular participation! Laboratories!
Local community! State-federal contestation! n1 On another account, however, something very
different has occurred. National organizations and individuals across the country have advanced a
national agenda in a state forum. Federal politicians and administrators have welcomed the state's
choice instead of opposing it. And Colorado's legalization of marijuana is, as a practical matter,
determining the content of federal drug law rather than standing beyond it. This account calls into
question many of the classic tropes of federalism: Out-of-state actors shaping state politics?
Intertwined state and federal authority? States as authors of federal law? It may be tempting to
choose between these stories and to proclaim American federalism either alive or dead, but there is
truth in both accounts. It was the people of Colorado - not the people of Mississippi, or North Dakota,
or the United States as a whole - who voted to legalize marijuana; and yet the vast majority of funds for
the initiative came from outside the state. n2 State and federal law now take opposing positions on
marijuana; and yet state and federal enforcement regimes are [*1069] so interwoven that state law
shapes how federal law is carried out. n3 Colorado's sovereign lawmaking has catalyzed a fight about
the United States' war on drugs; and yet this fight does not pit state against federal actors but instead
one group of both state and federal actors against a different group of both state and federal actors. n4
Recognizing that each account captures something about Colorado's legalization of marijuana suggests
a deeper poin t about contemporary American federalism. Much state activity today strains our
traditional definition of federalism as a system of coexisting state and federal governments , each
with independent government officials and a sphere of autonomous authority untouched by the
other. n5 Time and again, we see state and federal action occurring in overlapping, rather than separate,
spheres. Time and again, we see state and federal officials using their respective authority to advance
a single national agenda, rather than distinct state and federal agendas. Time and again, we see
individuals across the country participating in the politics of states in which they do not reside. These
practices need not, however, yield the conclusion [*1070] that we are living in a post-federalist era. n6
Instead, we might think more seriously about unbundling federalism. Sometimes the various attributes
we assign to states - in particular, an autonomous realm of action and officials who advance distinctive
state interests - travel together and our traditional definitions of federalism fit comfortably. But often
these attributes travel separately. State officials may assert their distinctive interests by operating
within, rather than outside of, federal administrative schemes, for example, or they may rely on their
autonomous lawmaking capacity to advance a national political platform. Unbundling federalism helps
us get purchase on these pervasive practices instead of dismissing them as not-federalism. Work in
related areas underscores that unbundling can be a rewarding move. n7 It also underscores that
"unbundling" can mean many things. Here, I use the term to indicate that a variety of attributes
associated with federalism should not be deemed necessary components of federalism as a
definitional or normative matter. Unbundling therefore prompts us to consider how American
federalism may operate even in the absence of commonly assumed features. In this short Essay, I can
only just begin to unbundle federalism, but I hope this might be a generative, or at least provocative,
start. n8 [*1071] In what follows, I pull apart two of the attributes most often ascribed to states: an
autonomous sphere of action and independent officials with distinctive interests. State officials
frequently further their particular interests and effectively oppose federal policy when they participate
in the same statutory scheme as federal actors instead of operating in a separate, autonomous sphere.
At the same time, state officials frequently rely on the autonomous legislative and executive powers
of state governments to advance a decidedly national agenda, acting in cooperation with federal
officials rather than independently of them. In each case, appreciating the contours of today's
federalism requires us to distinguish an autonomous state sphere from independent state officials and
to recognize that neither is a necessary attribute of American federalism. Once we unbundle this far,
moreover, we can appreciate that both autonomy and independence are multifarious concepts and
that today's federalism may involve varying degrees of each - or, to adapt the title of this symposium,
our unbundling of federalism may need to run "all the way down."

Co-operative federalism is entirely different need to abandon the sovereignty

framework to preserve state autonomous action
Gluck 14 Abbe R. Gluck is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School. She joined Yale Law School in 2012 pril, 2014 Yale Law Journal 123 Yale
L.J. 1996 LENGTH: 22280 words FEATURE: Our [National] Federalism

Federalists should pay attention: In the post-New Deal Era, this role for the states within federal
legislation is a primary vehicle through which states have influence on major questions of policy, and
through which state sovereign powers retain their relevance, albeit in ways different from those
contemplated by the traditional account. Current doctrine is not at all keyed in to the ways in which a
very great deal of state sovereign power - including state lawmaking and state-court jurisdiction - is
exercised as part of federal statutory implementation, and so current doctrine does nothing to protect
or effectuate that state authority. It is not that states do not retain relevance at the local level. But when
it comes to most major policy questions, Our Nationalism has become a critical generator of Our
Federalism. n1 Federalism also is a key ingredient in Our Nationalism., The modern federal regulatory
apparatus is increasingly attendant to questions of the state-federal allocation of responsibility and
also is dependent on state actors, in ways both practical and political. State implementation of federal
statutory law and the incorporation of state law within federal statutory schemes are allocation-of-
power strategies used by Congress to make federal legislation more effective; but they also restrain the
breadth of national control and make legislation more politically palatable. There is something different
about national statutory schemes when states have the primary policy and lawmaking roles -
something this Essay argues is often, indeed, "federalism." This push-pull of nation and state - both
from inside the landscape of federal statutes - is more than just an interesting theoretical observation. It
is a "law" problem. When it comes to legal doctrines to deal with this new world of statutory federalism,
ours is a sorry state of affairs. Modern state-federal relationships have given rise to many new and
difficult legal questions - ranging from those of state-versus-federal-court jurisdiction to matters of
[*1998] administrative deference, statutory enforcement, and standards of review. Such questions have
split the lower courts, have yet to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and are affecting how major
federal laws are being carried out across the country. Half the time, the courts do not even recognize
these questions as federalism questions, even though they unquestionably concern the discretion,
influence, and sovereignty of states in a national legal landscape. Robert Schapiro wrote a decade ago
that modern federalism lacks "rules of engagement." n2 We are still muddling through. This essay
makes two principal claims, both intended to provoke discussion. The first is about modern federalism's
primary domain and its source: federalism now comes from federal statutes . It is "National
Federalism" - statutory federalism, or "intrastatutory" federalism, as I have called it in the past. n3 One
reason for the lack of developed doctrines is the resistance to recognizing that this is where modern
federalism comes from and where its primary battlegrounds lie. Courts and scholars for decades have
acknowledged the prevalence of "cooperative federalism ," which of course is often generated by
overarching federal statutory schemes. n4 Even some traditional federalists have come to recognize the
state power to be gained from this interactive, rather than "separate spheres," model of state-federal
relations. n5 But even these expansive inquires have not grappled with the perhaps startling conclusion
that follows from recognizing that states today may exert their greatest powers from within these
federal statutory endeavors: namely, that this federalism's primary source is Congress. Federalism today
is something that mostly comes - and goes - at Congress's pleasure. It is a question, and feature, of
federal statutory design. Distinct from the dominant conceptions of federalism and state power, this
federalism is neither a constant presence nor an entitlement. It looks different and has various levels of
strength across a wide continuum of statutory schemes. But it has important parallels to the federalism
of the past, [*1999] particularly judicial federalism. Just as federal judges once reached for the state
common law to fill the interstices of federal law and to prevent the aggrandizement of lawmaking by the
federal judiciary, n6 Congress today reaches for the states to restrain the breadth of federal law and to
bring the states' expertise, variety, traditional authority, and sovereign lawmaking apparatus into
federal statutes. Similarly parallel, the Erie questions of our time are not, as they once were, about the
choice between state and federal common law but, rather, about how to choose between aspects of
state and federal regulatory regimes. The critical choices between state and federal law today concern
what rules of statutory interpretation, what standards of review, what administrative-law doctrines, and
what other doctrines of statutory law federal courts should apply when they are interpreting state
statutes, regardless of whether those state statutes stand alone or are the product of state efforts to
implement federal legislation. Is this federalism? Is this nationalism? It is both. The motivations are
simultaneous and in tension. It is a nationalism that often lacks nationalism's defining theoretical
feature - uniformity - and so presses us to ask what "Our Nationalism" is all about, a question that has
received scant theoretical attention. It is also a nationalism that incorporates values, like
experimentation and local variation, that are traditionally associated with federalism. We have seen this
before, in a different form: Paul Mishkin famously described the "variousness" of judge-made federal
law. n7 National Federalism recognizes that kind of state-oriented legal diversity in the federal statutes
of the modern era. Similarly, this federalism lacks the traditional appearances of federalism's defining
feature: sovereignty . And it will discomfit some, because this federalism leaves state power to the
grace of Congress. Indeed, in some ways, this is the ultimate instantiation of Herbert Wechsler's classic
theory of the "political safeguards of federalism." n8 Wechsler argued that courts need not police
federalism doctrine because the states are adequately represented in Congress. n9 National Federalism
goes further, embracing Congress as federalism's primary source and viewing Congress as having as
much, if not more, of a role to play in shaping federalism as do the courts. [*2000] But, to be clear,
National Federalism is not a federalism shorn of state sovereignty. It is true that National Federalism
emerges through congressional displacement of state law with a new, overarching federal statutory
scheme. But this federalism depends on, and strengthens, the states' continuing sovereign status in
important ways that have yet to be recognized. n10 When Congress calls on states to implement federal
law, states act in their sovereign capacities to do so: They pass new state laws and regulations, create
new state institutions, appoint state officials, disburse state funds, and hear cases in state courts - some
cases, as I shall illustrate, that have been determined to be hearable only in state courts. It is true that
this state action is not wholly separate from federal law; it is shaped by the federal statutes and states
often need permission from the federal government to begin a course of federal statutory
implementation. But that does not change the fact that, after such approval, the states' sovereign
apparatus acts in ways that are often indistinguishable from the kind of autonomy we see in
exclusively state-law domains.

Cooperative federalism is the best descriptive model

Robert A. Schapiro 2006 Toward A Theory Of Interactive Federalism" Iowa Law Review, Vol. 91
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=734644 Professor Of Law at Emory University

The attempt to define quintessentially state and federal domains has caused considerable confusion in
federalist theory, as well. Defenders of federalism cite several benefits that federalism supposedly
promotes, including efficient and responsive governance, participatory self-government, and protection
against tyranny. Critics note that federalism actually can impede the realization of these goals and can
endanger other values as well. As I will explain, the dualist project of dividing state and federal power
results in this irreconcilable conflict over the implications of federalism. Scholars have attempted to
develop coherent replacements for dualist visions of federalism, but have not succeeded. Some
prominent efforts include process federalism, which emphasizes procedural instead of substantive
protections of federalism, and empowerment federalism, which seeks to magnify state and federal
power without limiting either. As I explain, process theories merely cloak dualism in procedural garb,
while empowerment theories provide little guidance to 14 Congress or the courts in addressing state-
federal tensions that inevitably arise. A third alternative, 15 the concept of cooperative federalism,
developed by political scientists, offers a more accurate description of the actual interaction of federal
and state governments. The concept of cooperative federalism, however, has generated little
normative legal doctrine. The theory emphasizes voluntary interaction; cooperative federalism does
not prescribe the resolution of state-federal conflicts.16 This Article develops an alternative concept of
federalism that focuses on the interaction of state and national governments. In the contemporary
United States, the core achievements of federalism, I argue, result from the joint operation of state
and national authority. The key to understanding the promise of federalism lies in considering state
and national power not in isolation, but in interconnection. Dualism thus provides the wrong
conceptual framework. By focusing on defining boundaries, rather than exploiting overlap, courts and
commentators miss the full potential of contemporary federalism. The concept of polyphony, I
contend, presents a better model for understanding federalism The states and the federal government
represent independent voices of authority. However, it is the dynamic interaction among states and
the national government that forms the true sound of federalism. Unlike a purely cooperative model
of federalism, a polyphonic conception recognizes an important role for competition among states
and between states and the federal government. The relationship of the states and the federal
government may indeed be confrontational, rather than cooperative. Polyphony accepts a substantial
role for dissonance, as well as harmony. An especially significant implication of the rejection of dualism
is the transformation of the role of courts in the federalist scheme. With federalism understood as
empowering various levels of government, not protecting entrenched domains of authority, courts can
serve as agents of federalism. State and federal courts, as alternative centers of power, can cooperate
and compete 18 so as best to promote the goals of federalism. In one of the most important illustrations
of polyphonic federalism, courts can safeguard fundamental rights by applying the law of a different
jurisdiction. In a variety of areas, state courts protect federal rights, and federal courts implement state
rights. This kind of intersystemic adjudication reflects the ability of courts to realize the potential of
federalism. This Article argues that a proper understanding of federalism and of the role of the dual
judicial system in implementing federalism reveals important, untapped resources for the protection
of individual rights.

COOPERATIVE federalism is distinct their offense doesnt apply

Bulman-Pozen 14 University of Colorado Law Review 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1067 LENGTH: 6447 words
ESSAY & SPEECH: UNBUNDLING FEDERALISM: COLORADO'S LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA AND
FEDERALISM'S MANY FORMS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Associate Professor, Columbia Law
School.

Vast swaths of American federalism involve joint state-federal regulation rather than separate spheres
of state and federal action. States implement federal law in areas ranging from social welfare programs
like Medicaid, Social Security, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to environmental
programs like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act; to a variety of other schemes, such as
immigration, consumer protection, telecommunications, and financial regulation. n9 Even as the courts
have blessed such cooperative [*1072 ] federalism programs, n10 they have continued to describe
the states as sovereigns operating in an autonomous realm. n11 In the recent healthcare case, for
instance, the Chief Justice's controlling opinion insisted that "the states are separate and independent
sovereigns" while discussing Medicaid, a program in which states administer federal law, relying on
federal funds and subject to federal superintendence. n12 As scholars have noted, a vocabulary of
separateness and autonomy is inapt when it comes to cooperative federalism. Rather than view
"each jurisdiction as a separate entity that regulates in its own distinct sphere of authority without
coordinating with the other," we can only wrap our heads around cooperative federalism programs if
we accept that they entail "a sharing of regulatory authority between the federal government and the
states that allows states to regulate within a framework delineated by federal law." n13 To understand
cooperative federalism, that is , we must engage in a project of unbundling - we must pull out of our
usual federalism bundle the insistence on an autonomous state sphere. In cooperative federalism
programs, there is no autonomous state sphere, only overlapping, intertwined state and federal
domains. The absence of a separate state domain does not mean states are powerless actors.
Cooperative programs may facilitate "uncooperative federalism" as states use the power conferred on
them by federal law to push back against federal [*1073] objectives. n14 To the extent they have
distinctive interests, n15 then, states may advance those interests from within cooperative federalism
schemes rather than solely from separate spheres of autonomous state action. When Arizona recently
objected to federal immigration policy, n16 for example, its most successful opposition followed directly
from the role Congress has given states in the federal scheme. Federal law contemplates that states will
seek to determine the immigration status of individuals within their borders, and it requires the
Department of Homeland Security to respond to such state inquiries. n17 Incorporating this provision
into section 2 of its controversial law, Arizona seized on the assumed cooperation of state and federal
officials to advance a decidedly uncooperative position. n18 Notably, section 2 was the only provision of
the state law to survive a preemption challenge before the Supreme Court, suggesting that
uncooperative federalism may be not only an effective way for states to further their independent
interests but, at least in some cases, the only way. n19
 Turns DA- ONLY coop = state autonomy
Our DESCRIPTIVE claim controls the direction of the IMPACT
Gerken 13 J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale Law School ummer, 2013 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 36 Harv. J.L. & Pub.
Pol'y 941 LENGTH: 2521 words THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION--2012: THE FEDERALIS(M) SOCIETY

Those interested in state power may bristle at the notion that cooperative federalism--or even
uncooperative federalism--offers meaningful opportunities for states to exercise power. That's
because the power states wield in these regimes is the power of the servant, not the sovereign . I
certainly understand all of the attractions of the sovereignty model . But as a descriptive matter,
sovereignty is rarely, if ever, to be had in our increasingly integrated nationalized system. n6 We can
try to set some limits on the Commerce Clause or forbid commandeering, but the federal government
has too many paths for achieving its ends . If the federal government wants to invade a regulatory
sphere, it will find a way to do it. The "Rehnquist Revolution" was an effort to hold back the tide, and
recent events have reminded us just how hard the tide is to hold back. And yet States are still
powerful. They are still powerful because they play crucial roles inside the federal system , rather than
outside of it. States still matter. They matter quite a lot for environmental policy, for healthcare, for
welfare, [*944] for Medicaid, for a vast array of policies that are highly salient to their citizens.

States resist best WITHIN the system only cooperative federalism is viable
Gerken 13 J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale Law School ummer, 2013 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 36 Harv. J.L. & Pub.
Pol'y 941 LENGTH: 2521 words THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION--2012: THE FEDERALIS(M) SOCIETY

Sovereigntists tend to dismiss cooperative federalism as a sport. They think it is not "real" federalism;
it is not what the Supreme Court calls "Our Federalism." n7 To sovereigntists, the power that states
wield in cooperative federal regimes does not feel like real power. They therefore think it cannot
promote federalism's ends, that it does not allow states to play the crucial role they are supposed to
play in a democracy: challenging national power and preventing national overreach. Sovereigntists are
wrong about that. T he role that states play in so-called "cooperative federalism" regimes gives them
a great deal of power to interpret, influence, even resist federal mandates. As with health care law,
state officials regularly administer federal policy, often with politicians, governors, and state legislators
serving nominally bureaucratic roles. As policymaking insiders, state officials can resist federal policy
from within, rather than challenge it from without. And they do. There are countless examples of
state resistance and rebellion inside the federal administrative state. The term we use to describe these
regimes is cooperative federalism, but the truth is that they can be--and often are--uncooperative
federalism. Constitutional scholars typically neglect this important source of state power because they
mistakenly think that there is only one form of power: the power of the sovereign, the ability to
preside over one's own empire. They thus miss how much power is wielded by the servant when state
officials administer the federal empire, when they play the agent to the national government's principal.
And given how far the federal empire now reaches, given how much of the regulatory game is now
within Washington's ambit, it is all the more important to pay attention to the role that states play in
administering federal law. If you think that the power of the servant is not a form of power at all, then
maybe you should spend a little time talking to someone who studies administrative law or, indeed,
anyone who has written on the principal-agent problem. There is a reason why so many fields are
obsessed with the principal-agent problem. The agent is powerful despite his nominal status as [*945]
servant. The power of the servant looks different from the power of the sovereign, but it matters. That's
precisely why the phrase "the principal-agent problem" is a term so common that it doesn't require
explanation. The challenge for federalism's fans is to think about the productive possibilities
associated with the principal-agent problem, to identify the ways that the principal-agent problem is
not a problem at all. And if anyone is ready to do that, it is the people who care most about federalism.
The case for valuing this form of state power is easy to make. In their role as federal servants, state
officials enjoy all the advantages of policymaking insiders, even as they enjoy another advantage that
most federal bureaucrats do not. State officials' constituency--their power base--lies outside the
national system. They may be servants, but they are servants with two masters and thus answer to
their own people. Little wonder, then, that we see such variation in the administration of federal law.
State-level variation is present even in regulatory schemes where it seems like there is no discretion to
be had. We often talk about the power of street-level bureaucrats, the ability of even the cop on the
beat or a low-level administrator to shape policy. What we often forget is that the power of the street-
level bureaucrat is not confined to the street. I do not suggest that this form of power will seem entirely
satisfactory to those who subscribe to the sovereignty model, who believe that states should preside
over their own empires. But that is no longer the relevant question. In this day and age, the real
question is this: Given the many areas where the federal government now plays a substantial regulatory
role, should the States want to be in the game or on the sidelines? Should state officials prefer to
administer the burgeoning federal empire rather than preside over second-rate empires of their own?
So, too, if you worry about the growth of the Fourth Branch, shouldn't you be thinking creatively about
the ways that states can play the same role inside federal administration as they now play outside of it?
Think of it as the administrative safeguards of federalism. If you care about state power, it is far better
to have the administrative safeguards of federalism in play as the federal empire expands. You can, of
course, continue to insist that the federal empire ought to be radically trimmed. Good luck with that.
 Ditching Coop = more preemption
The ALTERNATIVE to co-op is MORE federal intrusion
Gluck 14 Abbe R. Gluck is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School. She joined Yale Law School in 2012 pril, 2014 Yale Law Journal 123 Yale
L.J. 1996 LENGTH: 22280 words FEATURE: Our [National] Federalism

Skeptics may be thinking that National Federalism is really just an attempt at national-law
aggrandizement, and a deceptive one at that. The Court has repeatedly worried that these statutory
schemes improperly diffuse accountability away from the federal government, n104 and I myself have
previously argued that these state-based schemes are powerful vehicles of subtle federal statutory
entrenchment. n105 But it also should be obvious that even such nationally oriented motivations
have federalism within them. The idea that some members of Congress trust their home-state
counterparts to administer federal law more than they trust the executive branch (particularly the
executive branch of the opposing party) - an idea that has some empirical support n106 - depends on
the notion that these administrators are not all equal. It is true that the localness of the way in which
these programs are encountered complicates the concerns about accountability to which National
Federalism schemes give rise. Critics may be correct that National Federalism diffuses accountability, but
maybe exclusive federal accountability is undeserved; that is, perhaps the states should be held at least
partially responsible for those aspects of the implementation that are, in fact, state programs. If
California chooses to pay doctors less in its version of Medicaid than does New York, why not hold
California accountable? With sovereignty comes responsibility. What does all of this mean for theories
of nationalism? More aptly, what is Our Nationalism? The word "federalism" comes up 610 times in the
Westlaw Supreme Court case database. The world "nationalism" comes up only thirty- [*2020] three
times, and not once in ways that concern federal statutory law or that otherwise have any relevance to
the kinds of questions posed by this essay. n107 While these statistics may be unsurprising - talk of
"nationalism" makes courts uncomfortable because of its strong connotations of centralization -
academics rarely talk about it either. n108 Whereas "federalism values" like variation and
experimentation are heavily utilized concepts, we have no common theory of nationalism. On the other
hand, the word "uniformity" comes up 1,407 times in the Westlaw Supreme Court database as a
justification for congressional policies or for certain types of judicial decisions. It may well be that
uniformity is the value most often associated with nationalism, particularly in the context of
congressional legislation. But uniformity no longer seems a useful concept to anchor theories of
nationalism when many major federal statutes give states frontline roles precisely because Congress
desires disuniform implementation of national law. Values like experimentation, variation, and
tailoring to local circumstances are also now integral components of nationalist policy making. There
is a noteworthy parallel to draw between the way in which Congress has thus expanded national power
and the way in which the federal courts did the same in an earlier era. Paul Mishkin's famous work on
the "variousness of "federal law'" made the case that, in filling gaps in federal statutes, the federal
common law work of federal courts need not be, and in fact should not be, completely "federal" in
nature. n109 Drawing instead on the traditional federalism values, including local variation and the
background norm of federal restraint, Mishkin argued that consideration of those values should drive
federal judicial decisions about when to take state law as the rule of decision - for example, applying a
state-law definition for an undefined federal statutory term. Voluntary federal judicial incorporation of
state law, Mishkin argued, helped to avoid an "unwarranted intrusion into areas traditionally and
properly regarded as state domain." n110 Following Mishkin, Carol Goldberg-Ambrose took this point
into the realm of federal-court jurisdiction, suggesting "nationalism" [*2021] reasons why Congress
might wish to create federal-court jurisdiction over certain questions, but still use state law as the
substantive rule of decision. n111 The link to National Federalism should be clear. When Congress
incorporates state law rather than creating new federal categories, or when Congress offers the states a
primary federal implementation role, it is making federal law with some self-conscious restraint and
building diversity into it. That restraint may be motivated by instrumental reasons - including a desire to
push federal law into areas of historic state dominance - or by "federalism" reasons. Most likely it is
both. Work like Mishkin's has shown the internal state-centered diversity of federal law for some time,
and National Federalism continues in that tradition. Likewise, and in connection with Goldberg-
Ambrose's work, one can see in National Federalism a motivation on the part of Congress, too, to assert
some federal control over the system but, at least sometimes, to build the states into it. It also seems
evident that we sometimes have nationalism in lawmaking without Congress or federal judge-made law
at all. This is a point that goes beyond the way that the states, as centers of political activity, influence
public debate through their positions on federal statutes in which they have no formal role. n112 John
Nugent and Judith Resnik have each written about how groups of state and even translocal actors
together play central roles in federal statutory politics. n113 States also do sometimes still act as first-
movers, performing their traditional "states as laboratories" role, in trying out controversial policies.
n114 Sometimes, such state innovation even creates what might be understood as a different kind of
"national law" - what William Eskridge and John Ferejohn have described as an informal fifty-state
convergence that makes federal legislation unnecessary. n115 Other times, those state convergences
take on a more formal character, for instance when one state models its laws on those of another. A
striking example can be found in a slew of recent state food safety laws, which condition the effective
date of the state law on the adoption of a similar law by [*2022] a number of other states. n116 State
courts also must sometimes create federal common law. n117 Another example of more formal action
exists in the adoption by many states of Uniform Laws. The Uniform Commercial Code is the most
prominent but only one of many such laws. These Uniform Laws exemplify how "national law" - law
sometimes even more uniform than federal statutory law that depends on varied state implementation
- can be created by states, without Congress. The point is not to undersell the other ways in which
states contribute to the national landscape or to minimize the continuing benefits of local governance
in areas that Congress has not entered. My argument is also in some ways the opposite of arguments by
scholars like Heather Gerken, whose important work views "federalism" as a means to a national end - a
way of churning the system to reach an "ideal" national policy solution. n118 This essay, instead, takes
continuing variety and state power as the end worth preserving and aims to convince states-rights
theorists that nationalism is one important means to it. Of course, Congress will sometimes shut off
that state variety - straight preemption is always an option. But the alternative to National
Federalism is not state autonomy; it is more Washington-controlled federal legislation. The point is
that nationalism, like federalism, now takes different forms. How "national" any federal statute is, in the
uniformity/preemption sense, will vary across the U.S. Code. It is for that reason that the details of the
federal statutory design - from which we can infer where on the spectrum Congress intends a particular
statutory scheme to lie - must now take on greater significance.
Cooperative federalism is the best descriptive model
Robert A. Schapiro 2006 Toward A Theory Of Interactive Federalism" Iowa Law Review, Vol. 91
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=734644 Professor Of Law at Emory University

The attempt to define quintessentially state and federal domains has caused considerable confusion in
federalist theory, as well. Defenders of federalism cite several benefits that federalism supposedly
promotes, including efficient and responsive governance, participatory self-government, and protection
against tyranny. Critics note that federalism actually can impede the realization of these goals and can
endanger other values as well. As I will explain, the dualist project of dividing state and federal power
results in this irreconcilable conflict over the implications of federalism. Scholars have attempted to
develop coherent replacements for dualist visions of federalism, but have not succeeded. Some
prominent efforts include process federalism, which emphasizes procedural instead of substantive
protections of federalism, and empowerment federalism, which seeks to magnify state and federal
power without limiting either. As I explain, process theories merely cloak dualism in procedural garb,
while empowerment theories provide little guidance to 14 Congress or the courts in addressing state-
federal tensions that inevitably arise. A third alternative, 15 the concept of cooperative federalism,
developed by political scientists, offers a more accurate description of the actual interaction of federal
and state governments. The concept of cooperative federalism, however, has generated little
normative legal doctrine. The theory emphasizes voluntary interaction; cooperative federalism does
not prescribe the resolution of state-federal conflicts.16 This Article develops an alternative concept of
federalism that focuses on the interaction of state and national governments. In the contemporary
United States, the core achievements of federalism, I argue, result from the joint operation of state
and national authority. The key to understanding the promise of federalism lies in considering state
and national power not in isolation, but in interconnection. Dualism thus provides the wrong
conceptual framework. By focusing on defining boundaries, rather than exploiting overlap, courts and
commentators miss the full potential of contemporary federalism. The concept of polyphony, I
contend, presents a better model for understanding federalism The states and the federal government
represent independent voices of authority. However, it is the dynamic interaction among states and
the national government that forms the true sound of federalism. Unlike a purely cooperative model
of federalism, a polyphonic conception recognizes an important role for competition among states
and between states and the federal government. The relationship of the states and the federal
government may indeed be confrontational, rather than cooperative. Polyphony accepts a substantial
role for dissonance, as well as harmony. An especially significant implication of the rejection of dualism
is the transformation of the role of courts in the federalist scheme. With federalism understood as
empowering various levels of government, not protecting entrenched domains of authority, courts can
serve as agents of federalism. State and federal courts, as alternative centers of power, can cooperate
and compete 18 so as best to promote the goals of federalism. In one of the most important illustrations
of polyphonic federalism, courts can safeguard fundamental rights by applying the law of a different
jurisdiction. In a variety of areas, state courts protect federal rights, and federal courts implement state
rights. This kind of intersystemic adjudication reflects the ability of courts to realize the potential of
federalism. This Article argues that a proper understanding of federalism and of the role of the dual
judicial system in implementing federalism reveals important, untapped resources for the protection
of individual rights.
COOPERATIVE federalism is distinct their offense doesnt apply
Bulman-Pozen 14 University of Colorado Law Review 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1067 LENGTH: 6447 words
ESSAY & SPEECH: UNBUNDLING FEDERALISM: COLORADO'S LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA AND
FEDERALISM'S MANY FORMS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Associate Professor, Columbia Law
School.

Vast swaths of American federalism involve joint state-federal regulation rather than separate spheres
of state and federal action. States implement federal law in areas ranging from social welfare programs
like Medicaid, Social Security, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to environmental
programs like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act; to a variety of other schemes, such as
immigration, consumer protection, telecommunications, and financial regulation. n9 Even as the courts
have blessed such cooperative [*1072 ] federalism programs, n10 they have continued to describe
the states as sovereigns operating in an autonomous realm. n11 In the recent healthcare case, for
instance, the Chief Justice's controlling opinion insisted that "the states are separate and independent
sovereigns" while discussing Medicaid, a program in which states administer federal law, relying on
federal funds and subject to federal superintendence. n12 As scholars have noted, a vocabulary of
separateness and autonomy is inapt when it comes to cooperative federalism. Rather than view
"each jurisdiction as a separate entity that regulates in its own distinct sphere of authority without
coordinating with the other," we can only wrap our heads around cooperative federalism programs if
we accept that they entail "a sharing of regulatory authority between the federal government and the
states that allows states to regulate within a framework delineated by federal law." n13 To understand
cooperative federalism, that is , we must engage in a project of unbundling - we must pull out of our
usual federalism bundle the insistence on an autonomous state sphere. In cooperative federalism
programs, there is no autonomous state sphere, only overlapping, intertwined state and federal
domains. The absence of a separate state domain does not mean states are powerless actors.
Cooperative programs may facilitate "uncooperative federalism" as states use the power conferred on
them by federal law to push back against federal [*1073] objectives. n14 To the extent they have
distinctive interests, n15 then, states may advance those interests from within cooperative federalism
schemes rather than solely from separate spheres of autonomous state action. When Arizona recently
objected to federal immigration policy, n16 for example, its most successful opposition followed directly
from the role Congress has given states in the federal scheme. Federal law contemplates that states will
seek to determine the immigration status of individuals within their borders, and it requires the
Department of Homeland Security to respond to such state inquiries. n17 Incorporating this provision
into section 2 of its controversial law, Arizona seized on the assumed cooperation of state and federal
officials to advance a decidedly uncooperative position. n18 Notably, section 2 was the only provision of
the state law to survive a preemption challenge before the Supreme Court, suggesting that
uncooperative federalism may be not only an effective way for states to further their independent
interests but, at least in some cases, the only way. n19
SOP impacts
 Co-op fism key to SOP: first line
Cooperative federalism crucial to separation of powers
Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS

States frequently administer federal law, yet scholars have largely overlooked how the practice of
cooperative federalism affects the balance of power across the branches of the federal government.
This Article explains how states check the federal executive in an era of expansive executive power and
how they do so as champions of Congress, both relying on congressionally conferred authority and
casting themselves as Congress's faithful agents. By inviting the states to carry out federal law,
Congress, whether purposefully or incidentally, counteracts the tendency of statutory ambiguity and
broad delegations of authority to enhance federal executive power. When states disagree with the
federal executive about how to administer the law, they force attention back to the underlying statute:
Contending that their view is consistent with Congress's purposes, states compel the federal executive
to respond in kind. States may also reinvigorate horizontal checks by calling on the courts or Congress
as allies. Cooperative federalism schemes are a more practical means of checking federal executive
power than many existing proposals because such schemes do not fight problems commentators
emphasize - a vast administrative state, broad delegations, and polarized political parties - but rather
harness these realities to serve separation of powers objectives.
 Coop Fism k2 SOP: xt
Coop federalism induces states to check executive authority solves EVEN IF they fail
Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

The Separation of Powers Through the state practices of diverging, curbing, and goading, concurrent
delegation helps safeguard the separation of powers in an era of executive dominance by checking
federal executive power, advancing congressional authority, and spurring the other two branches of the
federal government to review exercises of federal executive power. 1. Checking the Federal Executive .
- Diverging, curbing, and goading each check the power of "the most dangerous branch" over the
administrative state. The way in which states limit federal executive power is probably most apparent
with respect to curbing, which involves state interference with the executive's ability to enforce or
implement the law as it chooses. When states halted disability reviews, for instance, they thwarted the
Reagan Administration's ability to carry out the Social Security Act as it wished. Goading also limits
executive power in a straightforward manner. Here, states do not stop federal action - they force it - but
they nonetheless curtail the executive's ability to proceed as it chooses. Arizona's immigration law, for
example, would push the Obama Administration to enforce federal immigration law more aggressively
than it has elected to do. Diverging, although perhaps not immediately recognizable as a source of
checking, also constrains federal executive power in significant ways. When states diverge from federal
executive policy, they generate competition on the ground. Even if their departure from federal policy
is not motivated by a spirit of dissent, states may effectively challenge the federal executive's power
simply by modeling a different way of administering the law. When California promulgates different
emissions standards from the EPA, for instance, it deprives the latter of its monopoly on decisions about
how to carry out the law. As this suggests, from the perspective [*487] of executive power, the simple
fact that the federal executive is not the only administrator matters. Congress's concurrent grant of
authority to the states and the federal executive curtails federal executive power in the first instance.
Indeed, a state with concurrent authority may limit federal executive power even when it does not in
fact diverge from the federal executive's policy. The federal executive's control over how to enforce or
implement the law is typically an important source of power, but the grant of such authority to another
actor - even if this actor does not challenge executive branch decisions - strips the federal executive of
this unilateral prerogative. What may be most notable about the check cooperative federalism schemes
furnish on executive power is that it operates even when, perhaps especially when, Congress has
delegated broadly or crafted an ambiguous statute. When Congress enacts an open-ended provision
and grants administrative authority only to the federal executive, the latter's power is at its height. But
when Congress grants administrative authority to both the states and the federal executive, an open-
ended grant of authority may instead stimulate competition by empowering states to challenge the
federal executive. In fact, the broader the delegation, or the more ambiguous the statute, the more
room there may be for states to contest federal executive power. The Clean Air Act, for instance, confers
substantial discretion on the EPA, n102 and Presidents have consistently sought to influence the
agency's implementation of the Act's open-ended provisions. n103 But precisely because of the open-
endedness of the grant of authority to the EPA Administrator to determine whether emissions should be
regulated because "in his judgment [they] cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," n104 this grant becomes not only a source of federal
executive power but also a site of competition when California is also authorized to make a
determination pursuant to the standard. So, too, in the Social Security Act amendments of 1980,
Congress had a broad goal and granted substantial discretion to the SSA to see it through. n105 Yet
Congress empowered not only the federal agency but also the states to administer the Act. n106 While
the SSA was clearly dominant in the venture, the inclusion of the states established them as rivals in
interpreting [*488] and implementing the Act and thus limited the degree to which a broad grant of
authority enhanced federal executive power. The federal executive also typically has great discretion as
to how to enforce federal law. n107 Here, its power is not necessarily the result of a decision by
Congress to delegate broadly, but often the absence of any decision by Congress to cabin executive
discretion. n108 But Congress need not directly limit federal executive discretion for a concurrent
delegation of enforcement authority to state and federal actors to have this effect. As the Arizona
immigration litigation underscores, even when the states have a small part in the statutory scheme,
their inclusion may transform what would normally be a source of federal executive discretion into a
source of competition. Indeed, as elaborated below, n109 even ultimately unsuccessful state
attempts at diverging, curbing, and goading may check federal executive power. In resisting state
efforts to shape its own actions or to depart from its policies, the federal executive may be forced to
provide public reasons for its actions and to justify its preferred policies in a way it would not were it the
sole administrator of a given law. Because states are co-administrators, that is, the federal executive
must respond seriously to their challenges. In this sense, states check the federal executive not only by
directly limiting its power but also by refining the exercise of, and shaping the discourse around, this
power. By generating public accounting and deliberation, state checks can begin as well as end a
conversation. n110

Cooperative federalism incentivizes state restoration of Congressional authority

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Advancing Congressional Authority. - Cooperative federalism schemes do not affect the federal
executive's power in isolation, but rather vis-a-vis Congress. In some sense, any challenge to the
executive alters the balance of power among the branches of the federal government: Simply by
checking federal executive power, state administration of federal law affects the relative power of the
executive and Congress. But cooperative federalism schemes also influence the relationship between
the federal legislative and executive branches more directly, as states challenging the federal
executive through diverging, curbing, and goading tend to advance congressional authority in two
closely related respects. First, states rely on their federal statutory authority to launch their challenge.
Their role in checking federal executive power is thus surprising [*489] from the perspective of
traditional accounts of federalism. Such accounts suggest that states' strongest claims follow from their
status as separate sovereigns. Yet in cooperative federalism schemes, states effectively relinquish
arguments from their status as autonomous entities and instead make claims based on their
congressionally conferred authority. Rather than rely on their sovereign status to challenge the federal
government writ large, that is, states rely on the power granted to them by one part of the federal
government, the legislature, to contest the power of another part, the executive. Their opposition
comes from inside the federal scheme rather than from purely outside of it. Second, when state and
federal policies clash, states cast themselves as faithful agents of Congress, seeking to carry out a
statute as Congress intended, in contrast to a wayward federal executive branch. States therefore not
only owe their ability to contest federal executive policy to Congress in the first instance, but also take
up Congress's mantle as they duke it out with the federal executive, emphasizing the primacy of the
legislative branch. Their challenges thus concern the separation of powers as much as federalism. When
a state and the federal executive disagree about how to execute federal law, the state's strongest claim
of right comes from an appeal to the underlying statute. It is immaterial what is actually driving state
resistance. Just as Congress includes states in statutory schemes for many reasons not related to
checking the federal executive, so, too, state actors will fight with the federal executive for many
reasons not related to ensuring that the President is satisfying his Take Care obligation - appealing to
voter interests in the state, safeguarding budgets, generating a name for themselves in national politics.
But whatever the reason they challenge federal executive policy, it will be in state actors' interest to cast
their resistance in terms of fidelity to the statute because as a legal matter states can only trump the
federal executive by invoking Congress. They will accordingly claim fidelity in conversations with the
federal executive, in arguments to the courts or Congress, or in appeals to the public at large. When
states stopped cooperating with disability reviews, for instance, they insisted that the SSA was abusing
its statutory mandate. n111 When California has sought waivers under the Clean Air Act, it has
frequently suggested that the Act requires stronger regulation than the EPA is providing. Most recently,
as discussed below, n112 California sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that the Bush
Administration had abdicated its statutory duty to do so and the state was thus vindicating
congressional [*490] intent. n113 Arizona has similarly presented its bid to enforce federal immigration
law as vindicating congressional intent against an executive branch bent on underenforcing the law.
n114 When a state argues that it is Congress's superior agent, this forces the federal executive to do
the same. In any given case, either the state or the federal executive may in fact have a stronger claim
of fidelity. In other words, states need not actually be Congress's faithful agents. What matters is that,
with two agents, each will be pushed to claim Congress's mantle. Counteracting the tendency of federal
statutes to take on a life of their own in the executive branch, the resulting competition between
Congress's two agents can restore the focus of administration to Congress and to the initial grant of
statutory authority, a focus that is salutary even in the case of ambiguous statutes and broad delegation
by Congress. The litigation concerning Arizona's immigration law offers a vivid example of how each of
the legislature's two agents may strive to present itself as the superior agent. To stop Arizona's
challenge, the federal executive branch has sued, arguing that the state law is preempted. But this has
required the federal executive to justify its enforcement policy, and in particular the ways in which it
may not enforce the immigration laws to their fullest extent, with reference to Congress's purposes. The
resulting legal battle is a contest between the federal executive and Arizona to establish which is truer
to congressional intent. The federal executive - speaking in the voice of the "United States" as the
branch of the government responsible for litigation n115 - argues that its enforcement priorities are
consistent with Congress's purposes. n116 Arizona, meanwhile, insists [*491] that the federal executive
is betraying Congress by underenforcing the federal immigration laws. Supported by some members of
Congress and several other states as amici, the state insists that its law is true to congressional intent
and a needed corrective to a willful executive. n117 As this underscores, Congress's use of two agents in
the realm of immigration law encourages each to check the other's fidelity to Congress. To be sure, the
federal executive branch and the states are not equally empowered; states are at best junior partners in
enforcing federal immigration law. n118 But because Congress has given states a role in enforcing
immigration law, they are in a position to challenge the federal executive's exercise of its authority and
to claim to represent Congress in so doing. More generally, by giving two different actors some role in a
statutory scheme, whether or not these roles are identical or commensurate, Congress bakes
competition into the scheme. Each agent has the incentive and ability to monitor the other, and, when
they disagree, to claim that it is the superior agent of Congress. Indeed, the virtues of empowering two
agents are touted in the administrative law literature concerning overlapping delegations of power by
Congress to multiple federal administrative agencies. Here, too, commentators argue, competition can
help keep administration focused on the underlying statute. n119 But to the extent one is concerned
about the eclipse of federal legislative authority with executive authority, states may be superior co-
agents. When Congress divides authority across two or more federal agencies, these agencies answer to
two principals, Congress and the President, and the President is usually a stronger principal. One of the
President's greatest claims of authority over the administrative state is the responsibility to [*492]
reconcile overlapping and interdependent provisions of federal law, n120 and when federal agencies are
fighting, this authority is at its height. Granting two different federal executive branch actors authority
to administer a statute may therefore increase the likelihood that the President will drive agency policy.
n121 Furnishing authority to the federal executive and the states does not similarly enhance presidential
power because the states do not answer to the President. The only principal the states and the federal
executive branch have in common in such schemes (besides the ultimate principal, the people) is
Congress, so their competition revolves around Congress. There may be something particularly fitting
about the way cooperative federalism furthers congressional authority. Congress is the branch of the
federal government designed to represent state interests. n122 When states rely on powers granted to
them by Congress to champion congressional authority, the relationship comes full circle. Indeed, we
see a variation on the classic political safeguards of federalism argument: If Wechsler and his followers
suggest members of Congress use congressional authority to safeguard federalism, the argument here
suggests members of Congress, whether deliberately or incidentally, may use federalism to safeguard
congressional authority.

State prominence in cooperative federalism restores horizontal checks on executive

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Reinvigorating Horizontal Checks . - When a state and the federal executive fight and each claims
Congress's mantle, pressure mounts to settle the dispute. Sometimes, the state and the federal
executive may be able to reach consensus about how to execute the law. In other instances, the state or
the federal executive will call on an external arbiter: the courts or Congress. Concurrent delegation to
state and federal agents thus may safeguard the separation of powers not only by pushing states and
their federal executive counterparts to focus attention on Congress, [*493] but also by making it more
likely that the other two branches of the federal government will check the federal executive. a.
Courts. - Turning to the courts is one way for a state to vindicate its view of the law when it clashes
with the federal executive. In some instances, the state will not turn to the judiciary itself, but rather
force the federal executive to call on the judiciary to halt a state challenge. Which actor turns to the
courts will depend on which has the power to set the agenda absent a court ruling. When a state is
seeking a waiver to regulate differently from the federal executive and such a waiver is denied, it will be
the state that calls on the courts as allies. When a state seeks to commandeer the resources of the
federal executive through the incorporation of federal law, it will be the federal executive that turns to
the courts to vindicate its view of the statutory scheme. n123 Because of their resources, political might,
and access to information about the administration of a statutory scheme, states will be more
formidable opponents than most litigants suing the federal executive. States' role in challenging Social
Security disability reviews in court offers an extreme example. Many private parties challenged the SSA's
policy regarding continuing disability reviews, but, although the courts repeatedly held the SSA's
decisions unlawful, the agency announced a policy of nonacquiescence. n124 By bringing lawsuits on
behalf of all interested parties in the state, states were able to tame the agency's policy of
nonacquiescence in a way individual litigants could not. n125 [*494] Massachusetts v. EPA's broad
recognition of state standing further suggests that states may be able to bring lawsuits in the first
instance where private parties cannot. n126 While the Court has limited private actors' standing to
contest many executive branch decisions, state challenges to the federal executive confer a sort of
political legitimacy on judicial intervention, as the Court casts itself as a neutral arbitrator between two
political bodies. n127 Yet even as Massachusetts may suggest a broad role for states in challenging
federal executive action - and federal executive inaction - the case underscores that states are better
positioned to launch such challenges when they are granted a role in administering federal law than
when they are appealing from outside the federal scheme. Consider, by comparison to the
Massachusetts lawsuit, California's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions itself when it argued
the Bush Administration was abdicating its statutory duty to do so - a situation involving the same basic
facts and many of the same players (including California) as Massachusetts. When, for the first time in
history, the EPA rejected in full California's request for a waiver, n128 the state filed suit. Ultimately, the
dispute was resolved outside the courts when the presidency changed hands, n129 but a consideration
of how the state's lawsuit might have unfolded helps illuminate how California is uniquely positioned to
call on the courts because of the role Congress has given it. First, whereas the Supreme Court's
recognition of Massachusetts's standing was unusual - and judicial recognition of enhanced state
standing [*495] may well not persist n130 - California would necessarily have standing to challenge the
waiver denial. In Massachusetts, the Court suggested that because states have been cut out of the
federal scheme, standing was appropriate as a sort of compensation for states' powerlessness, n131 but
California's standing would follow from Congress's inclusion of the state in the regulatory scheme - in
other words, from the state's statutory authority, not its lack thereof. Second, California would be
seeking review of the agency's denial of its own ability to act, even as this question would necessarily
implicate the agency's refusal to regulate, so judicial review would not be curtailed by doctrine limiting
challenges to administrative inaction. n132 And while a court ruling for Massachusetts would only force
the EPA to reconsider its decision under a statutory standard that vests significant discretion in the
Administrator, n133 a court ruling for California would allow the state to effectively replace the EPA,
standing in for a federal agency the state deemed to be disregarding its statutory obligation. n134 The
ability of states that are included in federal statutory schemes to effectively force judicial review of
federal executive inaction is further apparent in the case of Arizona's immigration law. Here, it is the
federal executive that has sued to enjoin the state law. But as part of its preemption argument, the
executive must explain why the enforcement priorities it has established are consistent with federal law.
Typically, this sort of question is not justiciable; an agency's priorities and the manner in which it
marshals its resources to carry out federal law are issues courts usually do not evaluate. n135 These
issues effectively become justiciable, however, [*496] because Congress has given the states a role in
the federal scheme, thereby at least arguably depriving the executive branch of its monopoly over
enforcement decisions. b . Congress. - When Congress's state and federal agents find themselves at
loggerheads over the administration of a statute, they may also appeal to their principal. As suggested
above, one advantage of concurrent delegation is that each agent will monitor the other's actions and
force it to justify its preferred course in terms of the underlying statute. In other words, concurrent
delegation may be especially useful when Congress is not up to the task of monitoring its agents itself.
But that does not mean the states and the federal executive will not turn to Congress. To the contrary,
their monitoring will often lead them to seek congressional oversight or correction.

State prominence in cooperative federalism restores horizontal checks on executive

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Reinvigorating Horizontal Checks . - When a state and the federal executive fight and each claims
Congress's mantle, pressure mounts to settle the dispute. Sometimes, the state and the federal
executive may be able to reach consensus about how to execute the law. In other instances, the state or
the federal executive will call on an external arbiter: the courts or Congress. Concurrent delegation to
state and federal agents thus may safeguard the separation of powers not only by pushing states and
their federal executive counterparts to focus attention on Congress, [*493] but also by making it more
likely that the other two branches of the federal government will check the federal executive. a.
Courts. - Turning to the courts is one way for a state to vindicate its view of the law when it clashes
with the federal executive. In some instances, the state will not turn to the judiciary itself, but rather
force the federal executive to call on the judiciary to halt a state challenge. Which actor turns to the
courts will depend on which has the power to set the agenda absent a court ruling. When a state is
seeking a waiver to regulate differently from the federal executive and such a waiver is denied, it will be
the state that calls on the courts as allies. When a state seeks to commandeer the resources of the
federal executive through the incorporation of federal law, it will be the federal executive that turns to
the courts to vindicate its view of the statutory scheme. n123 Because of their resources, political might,
and access to information about the administration of a statutory scheme, states will be more
formidable opponents than most litigants suing the federal executive. States' role in challenging Social
Security disability reviews in court offers an extreme example. Many private parties challenged the SSA's
policy regarding continuing disability reviews, but, although the courts repeatedly held the SSA's
decisions unlawful, the agency announced a policy of nonacquiescence. n124 By bringing lawsuits on
behalf of all interested parties in the state, states were able to tame the agency's policy of
nonacquiescence in a way individual litigants could not. n125 [*494] Massachusetts v. EPA's broad
recognition of state standing further suggests that states may be able to bring lawsuits in the first
instance where private parties cannot. n126 While the Court has limited private actors' standing to
contest many executive branch decisions, state challenges to the federal executive confer a sort of
political legitimacy on judicial intervention, as the Court casts itself as a neutral arbitrator between two
political bodies. n127 Yet even as Massachusetts may suggest a broad role for states in challenging
federal executive action - and federal executive inaction - the case underscores that states are better
positioned to launch such challenges when they are granted a role in administering federal law than
when they are appealing from outside the federal scheme. Consider, by comparison to the
Massachusetts lawsuit, California's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions itself when it argued
the Bush Administration was abdicating its statutory duty to do so - a situation involving the same basic
facts and many of the same players (including California) as Massachusetts. When, for the first time in
history, the EPA rejected in full California's request for a waiver, n128 the state filed suit. Ultimately, the
dispute was resolved outside the courts when the presidency changed hands, n129 but a consideration
of how the state's lawsuit might have unfolded helps illuminate how California is uniquely positioned to
call on the courts because of the role Congress has given it. First, whereas the Supreme Court's
recognition of Massachusetts's standing was unusual - and judicial recognition of enhanced state
standing [*495] may well not persist n130 - California would necessarily have standing to challenge the
waiver denial. In Massachusetts, the Court suggested that because states have been cut out of the
federal scheme, standing was appropriate as a sort of compensation for states' powerlessness, n131 but
California's standing would follow from Congress's inclusion of the state in the regulatory scheme - in
other words, from the state's statutory authority, not its lack thereof. Second, California would be
seeking review of the agency's denial of its own ability to act, even as this question would necessarily
implicate the agency's refusal to regulate, so judicial review would not be curtailed by doctrine limiting
challenges to administrative inaction. n132 And while a court ruling for Massachusetts would only force
the EPA to reconsider its decision under a statutory standard that vests significant discretion in the
Administrator, n133 a court ruling for California would allow the state to effectively replace the EPA,
standing in for a federal agency the state deemed to be disregarding its statutory obligation. n134 The
ability of states that are included in federal statutory schemes to effectively force judicial review of
federal executive inaction is further apparent in the case of Arizona's immigration law. Here, it is the
federal executive that has sued to enjoin the state law. But as part of its preemption argument, the
executive must explain why the enforcement priorities it has established are consistent with federal law.
Typically, this sort of question is not justiciable; an agency's priorities and the manner in which it
marshals its resources to carry out federal law are issues courts usually do not evaluate. n135 These
issues effectively become justiciable, however, [*496] because Congress has given the states a role in
the federal scheme, thereby at least arguably depriving the executive branch of its monopoly over
enforcement decisions. b . Congress. - When Congress's state and federal agents find themselves at
loggerheads over the administration of a statute, they may also appeal to their principal. As suggested
above, one advantage of concurrent delegation is that each agent will monitor the other's actions and
force it to justify its preferred course in terms of the underlying statute. In other words, concurrent
delegation may be especially useful when Congress is not up to the task of monitoring its agents itself.
But that does not mean the states and the federal executive will not turn to Congress. To the contrary,
their monitoring will often lead them to seek congressional oversight or correction.

Cooperative federalism lets states ring the alarm to check executive tyrnanny
Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.
To put it somewhat differently, when they are included in federal schemes, states may generate
particularly effective fire alarms. n136 As many have noted, a key way in which Congress oversees
administrative action is by relying on interested parties to bring concerns to its attention. n137 For
instance, regulated parties or specialized nonprofit groups may complain to Congress about proposed
agency action, and Congress may then hold oversight hearings, threaten budget cuts, or even pass new
legislation. States charged with partially administering a federal scheme are in a particularly good
position to sound such alarms because they have the incentive, opportunity, and expertise to monitor
federal executive action - and the ability to get Congress to listen to them. First, states have a strong
incentive to monitor the federal executive branch insofar as its actions affect their own ability to carry
out desired policies. In many instances, such monitoring will simply be the byproduct of a state attempt
to administer federal law as the state would like. No extra effort on the part of the states was required
for them to notice that the Reagan Administration was conducting disability reviews in a particular way,
for California to notice that the Bush Administration was not regulating greenhouse gases, or for Arizona
to notice that the Obama Administration has not been enforcing immigration laws to their fullest
possible extent. Second, because they are embedded in the statutory scheme, states have a privileged
opportunity to monitor the federal executive and to furnish Congress with information about the
administration of a statute. For instance, Arizona's officers who are deputized to help carry out
immigration law have firsthand knowledge about how DHS enforces federal immigration law. A frequent
obstacle to effective congressional oversight of executive branch action is a lack of information. In
extreme cases, the President's control over information and assertions of privilege may limit [*497] the
ability of Congress to engage in oversight at all. n138 But even when there is not a concerted effort by
the executive to withhold information from Congress, it may be difficult for legislators to find a toehold
that facilitates effective oversight or provides a basis for corrective legislation. States are not the only
parties that can provide helpful information, but, to the extent they are embedded within a statutory
scheme, they may have a particularly good opportunity to collect information. Third, and related, states
often have expertise that helps them to monitor the federal executive and to frame information
about the administration of federal law for nonspecialist legislators. With respect to continuing
disability reviews, for instance, state officials testified repeatedly before Congress, providing legislators
with concrete information about how the program was being carried out that boosted efforts to pass
corrective legislation. n139 When California adopted regulations for greenhouse gas emissions, it could
furnish specific, expert information about how such regulations would work. n140 States may be in a
good position not only to monitor federal executive action, but also to make persuasive appeals to
Congress. One need not endorse the political safeguards of federalism theory with respect to judicial
review to appreciate that state actors may make especially strong entreaties to the members of
Congress charged with representing their interests. n141 Because of the ties that bind state actors and
their congressional representatives, state actors are likely to have their concerns taken seriously. And
when these ties are not enough, states' particular ability to appeal to the public and to harness the
power of the media helps them to get legislators' attention. States may also be able to engage a
different group of legislators than might pay attention to a particular agency's action in the normal
course. A common concern about congressional oversight is that only one part of Congress, usually a
committee or subcommittee, will monitor agency action, and this committee or subcommittee may
have different views from Congress as a whole. n142 If state actors take issue with the federal
executive's administration of the law, however, they may complain to their state representatives
regardless of what committees these individuals sit on. Particularly if many states complain, they may
therefore be able to mobilize [*498] Congress, yielding not only oversight but in some cases new laws,
such as the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. n143 In short, although state
administration of federal law does not negate the pathologies that afflict Congress, it can make
Congress more likely to pay attention, to have the information it needs, and to be motivated to
correct the administration of federal law. Cooperative federalism schemes thus may not only restore
the focus of administration to Congress but also engage Congress itself in administrative oversight.

Coop fism is JIUJITSU it uses executive power AGAINST ITSELF

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Cooperative federalism is not an ideal response to threats to the separation of powers. It is a realistic
one. In several important respects, cooperative federalism schemes seize on attributes of our
administrative state that are widely thought to undermine separation of powers values and recast
these stubborn problems as solutions. In particular, such schemes respond organically to the two
threats to the separation of powers canvassed in Part I: the rise of federal executive power in the
administrative state and the rise of political parties. A. Expansion as a Check Perhaps the most oft-cited
reason for the rise of federal executive power is the growth of the administrative state and the sheer
amount of policymaking and execution that is entrusted to the federal executive. n144 Cooperative
federalism schemes are a practical, even organic, response to this development, as states provide a
check on executive power because of, not in spite of, the growth of the federal executive branch. The
very rise of the executive branch has meant the incorporation into its operations of a variety of actors
who are not a part of it. In particular, the more Congress tasks the federal executive with
accomplishing, the more likely it is to involve the states in a statutory scheme. But even as states in
some sense become a part of the federal apparatus, they remain distinct entities, populated by actors
with interests and motivations different from those of the federal executive. n145 In this way, the
expansion of the executive branch presents a separation of powers solution even as it presents a
separation of powers problem: The federal executive may be checked from within its own domain.
n146 The fact that the federal executive's [*499] broad mandate requires co-administration with the
states positions the states to challenge federal executive power, and the broader the executive's
mandate, the more room there may be for state challenges in the realm of administration. Indeed, as
canvassed above, n147 cooperative federalism schemes may generate a particularly robust check on
federal executive power when Congress has delegated broadly to the executive. Delegation is typically
regarded as enhancing executive power. When Congress grants open-ended administrative authority to
the federal executive alone, the executive has substantial power to make policy and carry out the law as
it sees fit. But when Congress grants open-ended authority to both the states and the federal executive,
states have substantial power to challenge the federal executive. Cooperative federalism schemes can
thus transform a common source of executive power into a check on executive power. The check
furnished by states in cooperative federalism schemes is especially noteworthy from a separation of
powers perspective insofar as it not only limits federal executive power but also fosters the sort of
vigorous, visible public debate about federal law that our horizontal system of checks and balances
aspires to generate. n148 When states fight with the federal executive, they frequently appeal to the
public about whether the executive is really representing the people's will. For instance, California's
challenge to the federal executive's environmental policy and Arizona's challenge to its immigration
policy have played out not only in courtrooms, but also in media across the country. n149 Such
competition regarding federal law thus reproduces within the executive's domain benefits of divided
representation typically associated with the split of authority between the federal legislative and
executive branches. The federal executive cannot unproblematically claim to be the people's "true"
representative even within its sphere of competence, for the states speak for the people as much as it
does. This sort of "fractal [*500] separation of powers" - the recursive reproduction of separation of
powers values within the executive's domain - is possible precisely because the administrative domain
has expanded to include the states as well as the federal executive.

Coop fism restrains executive through PARTISANSHIP

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Cooperative federalism schemes also represent a practical response to the rise of executive power in
that they harness the strength of political parties to generate a continual check on the federal
executive. An important strand of recent separation of powers scholarship bemoans the way in which
partisan politics has eclipsed the branches as such in channeling political competition. n152 In particular,
commentators worry that when a single party controls Congress and the presidency, interbranch
competition dissipates and, among other things, there is no meaningful check on the executive. Those
concerned about the party substitute for powers regard polarized and cohesive political parties as a
particular threat and have put forward proposals to prevent strong parties from taking hold. n153 But
cooperative federalism may be a more practical way to stimulate competition because it follows from
strong parties instead of resisting them. [*501] Simply put, there will never be party unity between the
federal executive and all fifty states. n154 Just as political parties have overwhelmed branch affiliation,
so too have they overwhelmed the state versus national affiliation of politicians. n155 Because there will
never be unified party government between the federal executive and all of the states, however, the
rise of partisanship does not have the same consequences for the separation of powers and federalism.
They may be motivated by partisanship more than a commitment to state authority, but at least some
states can nonetheless be counted on to disagree with federal policy. n156 Even in times of unified
federal government, that is, partisan rivalry should lead Republican-dominated states to challenge
decisions of Democratic administrations, and vice versa. n157 For example, a Democratic state
legislature pushed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act when a
Republican administration refused to do so, and a state controlled by a Republican legislature and
executive has leveled the primary challenge to immigration policy pursued by a Democratic
administration. Cooperative federalism may usefully check the federal executive not only in times of
unified federal government, but also in times of divided government. One might object that this takes
the logic of checking too far. Perhaps, that is, administrative competition is a second-best option when
party unity has dampened interbranch competition, but when there is already party-based competition
between the federal legislative and executive branches, we should not layer on administrative
competition. [*502] While state challenges present costs that should not be overlooked, there are two
reasons to think that they can be salutary even in times of divided government. First, one effect of the
extreme competition that manifests in times of party division, gridlock, may push the executive to rely
on broad delegations that remain in effect from prior Congresses. While it may ramp up legislative
oversight, "Congress will have limited recourse against an opposite-party executive empowered by
broad delegations." n158 But states may have recourse. As discussed above, n159 a particular benefit of
cooperative federalism schemes is that they foster competition even when - perhaps especially when -
the executive relies on open-ended grants of authority. Including states within federal schemes thus
furnishes a check on the executive when it relies on outstanding delegations the current Congress would
curtail if it could. Second, to the extent there is competition around administration between the
legislative and executive branches in times of divided government, state-federal disagreements may
look quite different. When government divides, congressional oversight will often take the form of
broad-gauged, rhetorical battles designed to win political points, not fine-grained disputes about policy
details. When state and federal administrators disagree about how to execute federal law, their
competition may assume a more practical cast, focusing on the sorts of interstitial questions that
disputes between Congress and the federal executive elide. Cooperative federalism schemes may be a
particularly realistic response to the rise of executive power not only because such schemes seize on
the power of partisanship to check the executive, but also because strong political parties should be a
boon to such schemes themselves. As Larry Kramer has argued, the party ties that bind state and
federal politicians may make members of Congress more sensitive to state pre- rogatives. n160 On
Kramer's account, the role political parties play in buildingrelationships among politicians is what
matters: Democratic Congresspersons may be inclined to protect state prerogatives because of their
relationships with state Democratic parties, and Republican Congresspersons because of their
relationships with state Republican parties, but this should in the aggregate lead Congress to attend to
state prerogatives. If this is so, party politics may safeguard not only state autonomy, but also states'
role in administering federal law. To the extent state politicians want to administer portions of federal
law, that is, their connections to federal legislators should help insure they are included in federal
schemes. And the stronger the parties, the stronger these connections between state and federal
politicians should be, leading to cooperative [*503] federalism schemes that, in turn, introduce a check
on the federal executive into the administration of federal law.
 ONLY Coop S SOP no dual
ONLY Cooperative federalism restrains executive tyranny
Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Ever since Madison celebrated the "double security" provided by federalism and the separation of
powers among the three branches of the national government, courts and commentators have
recognized a strong analogy between the two great structural principles of our Constitution. n1 While
they also serve distinct values, n2 federalism and the separation of powers diffuse government authority
to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one actor and to encourage different
representatives of the people to monitor the exercises of power by the others. n3 The tension between
the state and federal governments, and among the federal branches, we are told, fosters democratically
accountable government. Although the overarching similarities between federalism and the separation
of powers are widely recognized, there has been little consideration of how these two structures
interact. One important account argues [*461] that the separation of powers safeguards federalism. n4
This Article suggests the reverse: Federalism safeguards the separation of powers. Much
contemporary separation of powers scholarship laments the growth of executive power and the lack of
vigorous competition between the federal executive and legislative branches. As commentators have
advanced proposals to check executive power and restore competition, they have largely overlooked
one powerful actor: the states. In recent years, states have, quite loudly in individual cases but quietly
as a matter of constitutional theory, assumed a prominent role in challenging federal executive power.
Because state challenges to the federal executive register as matters of federalism, it is easy to miss how
they also affect the separation of powers. n5 But states often resist executive power in a very
particular way - as champions of Congress, both relying on congressionally conferred authority and
casting themselves as Congress's faithful agents. Consider, for example, California's attempt to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions when the Bush Administration declined to do so. The state insisted that it was
attempting to faithfully implement the Clean Air Act and that the federal executive was abdicating its
statutory responsibility. n6 Or consider the ongoing dispute between Arizona and the Obama
Administration concerning immigration policy. Arizona has framed its opposition to federal immigration
policy as a challenge not to the federal government as a whole, but rather to the federal executive
branch in particular. The state maintains that it, rather than the federal executive, is seeking to execute
federal law as Congress intended. n7 As these examples suggest, one reason we may overlook how
federalism affects the separation of powers is that our dominant understanding of federalism obscures
key features of state challenges. Judicial opinions and legal scholarship tend to envision the states as
separate sovereigns , resisting federal action from a position entirely outside the federal government.
But a prevalent mode of federalism is cooperative federalism, in which states are charged by Congress
with administering federal law. n8 [*462] When we turn our attention to cooperative federalism , we
can see the distinctive way states may safeguard the separation of powers. Cohabiting a statutory
scheme with the federal executive, states frequently challenge not the raw exercise of federal power,
as traditional accounts of federalism would have it, but rather the faithfulness of the executive to the
statutory scheme. And, in so doing, they rely on authority granted to them by Congress. States need not
actually be Congress's faithful agents for them to claim this mantle and to force the federal executive to
respond in kind. By assigning states a role in executing federal law, Congress has - often unwittingly -
empowered them to provide the sort of check on executive power that it is often unable, or unwilling,
to provide directly. Cooperative federalism schemes are an intriguing safeguard of the separation of
powers for practical as well as theoretical reasons. As this Article explains, state administration of
federal law is a more organic means of reinvigorating the separation of powers than many existing
proposals because instead of fighting problems commentators emphasize, cooperative federalism
schemes harness these realities in the service of Madison's vision. First, cooperative federalism
schemes provide a check on federal executive power not despite the expansion of the federal executive
branch but because of it. The very growth of the federal administrative state has swept states up as
necessary administrators of federal law. The more Congress charges the federal executive with
accomplishing, the more likely it is to also give the states a role in carrying out federal law, and this
positions states to check the federal executive. Cooperative federalism may thus be a more practical
response to the growth of the federal executive branch than proposals to staunch such growth. Second,
cooperative federalism schemes seize on Congress's habit of delegating authority to the federal
executive as a means of checking executive power. Commentators lament that broad delegations
enhance executive power. But when Congress grants administrative authority to both the states and the
federal executive, the more room Congress leaves the federal executive to maneuver, the more room it
also leaves for state resistance. As this perhaps counterintuitive point highlights, Congress need not
intend cooperative federalism schemes to check federal executive power for them to have this effect;
such schemes may give Congress champions in spite of itself. Third, cooperative federalism schemes
harness partisanship to check the federal executive. Because there will never be party unity between
the federal government and all fifty states, partisan resistance to the federal executive will arise even
during periods of unified federal government. Rather than seek to mute partisanship, cooperative
federalism thus seizes [*463] on the polarization of political parties to generate a continual check on
federal executive power. For all of these reasons, cooperative federalism schemes are a notable
antidote to some pressing separation of powers concerns. Cooperative federalism incentivizes state
restoration of Congressional authority

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Advancing Congressional Authority. - Cooperative federalism schemes do not affect the federal
executive's power in isolation, but rather vis-a-vis Congress. In some sense, any challenge to the
executive alters the balance of power among the branches of the federal government: Simply by
checking federal executive power, state administration of federal law affects the relative power of the
executive and Congress. But cooperative federalism schemes also influence the relationship between
the federal legislative and executive branches more directly, as states challenging the federal
executive through diverging, curbing, and goading tend to advance congressional authority in two
closely related respects. First, states rely on their federal statutory authority to launch their challenge.
Their role in checking federal executive power is thus surprising [*489] from the perspective of
traditional accounts of federalism. Such accounts suggest that states' strongest claims follow from their
status as separate sovereigns. Yet in cooperative federalism schemes, states effectively relinquish
arguments from their status as autonomous entities and instead make claims based on their
congressionally conferred authority. Rather than rely on their sovereign status to challenge the federal
government writ large, that is, states rely on the power granted to them by one part of the federal
government, the legislature, to contest the power of another part, the executive. Their opposition
comes from inside the federal scheme rather than from purely outside of it. Second, when state and
federal policies clash, states cast themselves as faithful agents of Congress, seeking to carry out a
statute as Congress intended, in contrast to a wayward federal executive branch. States therefore not
only owe their ability to contest federal executive policy to Congress in the first instance, but also take
up Congress's mantle as they duke it out with the federal executive, emphasizing the primacy of the
legislative branch. Their challenges thus concern the separation of powers as much as federalism. When
a state and the federal executive disagree about how to execute federal law, the state's strongest claim
of right comes from an appeal to the underlying statute. It is immaterial what is actually driving state
resistance. Just as Congress includes states in statutory schemes for many reasons not related to
checking the federal executive, so, too, state actors will fight with the federal executive for many
reasons not related to ensuring that the President is satisfying his Take Care obligation - appealing to
voter interests in the state, safeguarding budgets, generating a name for themselves in national politics.
But whatever the reason they challenge federal executive policy, it will be in state actors' interest to cast
their resistance in terms of fidelity to the statute because as a legal matter states can only trump the
federal executive by invoking Congress. They will accordingly claim fidelity in conversations with the
federal executive, in arguments to the courts or Congress, or in appeals to the public at large. When
states stopped cooperating with disability reviews, for instance, they insisted that the SSA was abusing
its statutory mandate. n111 When California has sought waivers under the Clean Air Act, it has
frequently suggested that the Act requires stronger regulation than the EPA is providing. Most recently,
as discussed below, n112 California sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that the Bush
Administration had abdicated its statutory duty to do so and the state was thus vindicating
congressional [*490] intent. n113 Arizona has similarly presented its bid to enforce federal immigration
law as vindicating congressional intent against an executive branch bent on underenforcing the law.
n114 When a state argues that it is Congress's superior agent, this forces the federal executive to do
the same. In any given case, either the state or the federal executive may in fact have a stronger claim
of fidelity. In other words, states need not actually be Congress's faithful agents. What matters is that,
with two agents, each will be pushed to claim Congress's mantle. Counteracting the tendency of federal
statutes to take on a life of their own in the executive branch, the resulting competition between
Congress's two agents can restore the focus of administration to Congress and to the initial grant of
statutory authority, a focus that is salutary even in the case of ambiguous statutes and broad delegation
by Congress. The litigation concerning Arizona's immigration law offers a vivid example of how each of
the legislature's two agents may strive to present itself as the superior agent. To stop Arizona's
challenge, the federal executive branch has sued, arguing that the state law is preempted. But this has
required the federal executive to justify its enforcement policy, and in particular the ways in which it
may not enforce the immigration laws to their fullest extent, with reference to Congress's purposes. The
resulting legal battle is a contest between the federal executive and Arizona to establish which is truer
to congressional intent. The federal executive - speaking in the voice of the "United States" as the
branch of the government responsible for litigation n115 - argues that its enforcement priorities are
consistent with Congress's purposes. n116 Arizona, meanwhile, insists [*491] that the federal executive
is betraying Congress by underenforcing the federal immigration laws. Supported by some members of
Congress and several other states as amici, the state insists that its law is true to congressional intent
and a needed corrective to a willful executive. n117 As this underscores, Congress's use of two agents in
the realm of immigration law encourages each to check the other's fidelity to Congress. To be sure, the
federal executive branch and the states are not equally empowered; states are at best junior partners in
enforcing federal immigration law. n118 But because Congress has given states a role in enforcing
immigration law, they are in a position to challenge the federal executive's exercise of its authority and
to claim to represent Congress in so doing. More generally, by giving two different actors some role in a
statutory scheme, whether or not these roles are identical or commensurate, Congress bakes
competition into the scheme. Each agent has the incentive and ability to monitor the other, and, when
they disagree, to claim that it is the superior agent of Congress. Indeed, the virtues of empowering two
agents are touted in the administrative law literature concerning overlapping delegations of power by
Congress to multiple federal administrative agencies. Here, too, commentators argue, competition can
help keep administration focused on the underlying statute. n119 But to the extent one is concerned
about the eclipse of federal legislative authority with executive authority, states may be superior co-
agents. When Congress divides authority across two or more federal agencies, these agencies answer to
two principals, Congress and the President, and the President is usually a stronger principal. One of the
President's greatest claims of authority over the administrative state is the responsibility to [*492]
reconcile overlapping and interdependent provisions of federal law, n120 and when federal agencies are
fighting, this authority is at its height. Granting two different federal executive branch actors authority
to administer a statute may therefore increase the likelihood that the President will drive agency policy.
n121 Furnishing authority to the federal executive and the states does not similarly enhance presidential
power because the states do not answer to the President. The only principal the states and the federal
executive branch have in common in such schemes (besides the ultimate principal, the people) is
Congress, so their competition revolves around Congress. There may be something particularly fitting
about the way cooperative federalism furthers congressional authority. Congress is the branch of the
federal government designed to represent state interests. n122 When states rely on powers granted to
them by Congress to champion congressional authority, the relationship comes full circle. Indeed, we
see a variation on the classic political safeguards of federalism argument: If Wechsler and his followers
suggest members of Congress use congressional authority to safeguard federalism, the argument here
suggests members of Congress, whether deliberately or incidentally, may use federalism to safeguard
congressional authority.
 At t/ - coop fism helps executive

Cooperative federalism is still a check ON BALANCE

Bulman-Pozen 12 Columbia Law Review 112 Colum. L. Rev. 459 LENGTH: 21605 words ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AS A SAFEGUARD OF
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS NAME: Jessica Bulman-Pozen* BIO: * Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 2009-
2011. J.D., Yale Law School.

Political parties channel not only competition but also cooperation. The fact that all fifty states will
never be controlled by a single political party thus suggests that, at any given time, the federal executive
may forge partisan alliances with the states as well as face partisan resistance from them. This point
calls attention to a broader one that cuts to the heart of the argument of this Article. Cooperative
federalism schemes may, in some instances, not check federal executive power but enhance it. States
and the federal executive may collaborate rather than compete. Sometimes, they may even collude to
challenge congressional authority. In focusing on an overlooked way in which cooperative federalism
schemes advance the separation of powers, this Article does not seek to deny such cross-cutting
tendencies, which merit further exploration. Yet even as the above discussion of partisanship suggests
ways that cooperative federalism schemes might enhance federal executive power, it also underscores
why they should never just do that. To the extent the federal executive is able to find allies among the
states, it will also find opponents. And, for one concerned about the already-significant power of the
federal executive , the opponents should weigh in the balance more than the allies. More generally,
cooperative federalism schemes should reliably generate a check on the federal executive because of
the diversity of actors they incorporate. States have different interests and constituencies both from
the federal executive branch and from each other. Cooperative federalism thus yokes the laboratory
aspect of federalism to the administration of federal law, generating variegated competition
regarding how federal law is executed.
 SOP key to heg
Key to heg
Ikenberry 1 (G John, Prof at Georgetown University, The National Interest, Spring, Lexis)
When other major states consider whether to work with the United States or resist it,
the fact that it is an open, stable democracy matters . The outside world can see American
policymaking at work and can even find opportunities to enter the process and help shape how the overall order operates. Paris, London,
Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo and even Beijing-in each of these capitals officials can readily find reasons to conclude that
an engagement policy toward the United States will be more effective than balancing against U.S.
power. America in large part stumbled into this open, institutionalized order in the 1940s, as it sought to rebuild the postwar world and to counter Soviet
communism. In the late 1940s, in a pre-echo of today's situation, the United States was the world's dominant state--constituting 45 percent of world GNP, leading in
military power, technology, finance and industry, and brimming with natural resources. But America nonetheless found itself building world order around stable and
binding partnerships. Its calling card was its offer of Cold War security protection. But the intensity of political and economic cooperation between the United States
and its partners went well beyond what was necessary to counter the Soviet threat. As the historian Geir Lundestad has observed, the expanding American political
order in the half century after World War II was in important respects an "empire by invitation."(n5) The remarkable global reach of American postwar hegemony
has been at least in part driven by the efforts of European and Asian governments to harness U.S. power, render that power more predictable, and use it to
the
overcome their own regional insecurities. The result has been a vast system of America-centered economic and security partnerships. Even though

United States looks like a wayward power to many around the world today, it nonetheless has an unusual ability to co-opt and
reassure. Three elements matter most in making U.S. power more stable, engaged and restrained. First, America's
mature political institutions organized around the rule of law have made it a relatively predictable
and cooperative hegemon. The pluralistic and regularized way in which U.S. foreign and security policy
is made reduces surprises and allows other states to build long-term, mutually beneficial relations. The
governmental separation of powers creates a shared decision-making system that opens up the
process and reduces the ability of any one leader to make abrupt or aggressive moves toward other
states. An active press and competitive party system also provide a service to outside states by generating information about U.S. policy and determining its
seriousness of purpose. The messiness of a democracy can, indeed, frustrate American diplomats and confuse foreign observers. But over the long term,
democratic institutions produce more consistent and credible policies--policies that do not reflect the capricious and
idiosyncratic whims of an autocrat.

Empirically proven Iraq

Holt 7 (Pat, former chief of staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Between Congress and the president, a power seesaw
Christian Science Monitor, Feb 1, Lexis)

American involvement in Iraq appears to be an unresolvable dilemma: the United States can neither stay in nor get out. It cannot stay in
because the public will not support it. It cannot get out because, after four years there, the US has wrecked the country. It would be
unconscionable now simply to walk away and leave a nation of impoverished Iraqis among the ruins.
America cannot start writing
a new policy on a clean slate. But what it can do is adjust the imbalance of power between the
executive and legislative branches. Too much deference to the White House got the US into this
predicament. A more-assertive Congress might help bring about a solution, and more important,
avoid a similar situation in the future. The Iraq war represents a constitutional failure of American
government, but it was not the institutions of government that failed; it was the people who were supposed to make those institutions
work. The Constitution provides for a separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is the separation
of powers that creates the crucial checks and balances that enable one branch to keep another in
line . A good deal of the thinking that went into this structure was based on skepticism and distrust. From long experience, the framers of the
Perhaps the biggest
Constitution were skeptical and distrustful of power, and they wanted to build this into the new government.
failure with respect to Iraq was in Congress. Members were far too deferential to the White House;
they failed to question President Bush's reactions to 9/11 as they were duty-bound to do. Among Republicans on Capitol Hill, there was an
exaggerated sense of party loyalty to the president. Among both parties, there was an exaggerated sense of partisanship. The party system and
the separation of powers are incompatible. Parties do not work well without cohesion and discipline. The separation of powers does not work
well without independence. This conflict was foreseen by the framers. In one of the Federalist papers, James Madison warns against "the
The Constitution has been called "an invitation to struggle" between
pestilential influence of party animosities."
the president and Congress for the control of foreign policy. On Iraq, Congress did not accept the
invitation. Republicans reveled in Mr. Bush's popularity. Democrats were afraid of it. Only after the public began to turn
against the war did Congress began to follow. Meanwhile, the president was left unchecked. The
history of the constitutional struggle between president and Congress is a seesaw with first one
branch up and then the other. Congress probably reached its post-World War II high at the end of the Vietnam War when it used its
control of money to force the US to end its support of South Vietnam. When President Johnson left office in 1969, a congressional observer
remarked that it would take to the end of the 20th century to restore presidential powers to where Johnson found them. Bush became
president in 2001 determined to hasten that restoration. He showed his hand early when he supported Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to
name the participants in a committee studying energy policy. The war on terror provided further opportunities. By 2006, the president's end of
the seesaw was at a post-World War II high. Now there is an opposite movement propelled, as before, by an unpopular war. With respect to
both Vietnam and Iraq, Congress did not assert itself until corrective action became prohibitively difficult.
The principal lesson we
can learn from the Iraq dilemma is that Congress should join the struggle with the president earlier in
the development of a problem. It should combat the natural tendency to let the president take the
lead in foreign crises.
Climate Impact xt
 Climate link ext
Even if we pass the tipping point, cooperative federalism is crucial to adaptation
measures to solve the impact to warming
Glicksman 11 (Robert, J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, The George Washington University Law School,
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION: A COLLECTIVE ACTION PERSPECTIVE ON FEDERALISM CONSIDERATIONS, 2/1/11,
http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7584-404glicksman)

The uncertaintyabout the magnitude and distribution of the effects of climate change makes it
impossible to predict exactly what kinds of adaptive measures will be needed in different parts of the country and
when they will be needed. There seems to be a consensus among those who have focused on climate change adaptation policy that the
effort will necessarily involve federal, state, and local government participation . In an optimal world,
policymakers at different levels would coordinate their responses so that adaptation proceeds as
efficiently and effectively as possible, the burdens resulting from climate change are minimized, and the unavoidable burdens
are distributed as equitably as possible, even though climate change is likely to affect some areas of the country, such as coastal areas
vulnerable to flooding and severe storm activity, more than others. It is inevitable, however, that clashes of interest will
develop between jurisdictions when desired goods, such as potable water, are scarce or efforts by one state or locality to avoid the
undesirable aspects of climate change shift the burden of those changes to other jurisdictions. Collective action analysis can help
avoid or resolve such conflicts by assigning the authority to control the development of climate
change adaptation policy to the level of government best situated to address a problem without
exacerbating the adverse consequences of climate change for others. The conflicts are likely to arise both when states and localities fail to do
enough to anticipate and react to climate change and when they do too much. As the analysis above indicates, collective
action
analysis supports the exercise of federal power to create minimal protections against the ravages of
climate change in the face of state or local reluctance to react to its consequences. The federal role,
which would exist concurrently with the exercise of state and local power to respond to climate change, could involve providing

technical and financial assistance to state and local governments or the creation of the kinds of
cooperative federalism regulatory programs that have become entrenched in U.S. environmental law
over the last forty years. In limited contexts, collective action analysis also supports displacement of the aggressive exercise of state
and local authority to adapt to climate change in favor of exclusive federal control. These situations are most likely to involve state and local
efforts that result in interstate externalities.

Its impossible to solve climate change without a solid system of cooperative

federalism
Salkin 2010 (Patricia E. Salkin, Raymond and Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and Director of the
Government Law School, Cooperative Federalism and Climate Change: New Meaning to Think GloballyAct Locally, Environmental Law
Reporter, 2010, http://www.law.pace.edu/lawschool/files/landuse/SalkinCooprtveFederalismClmtChng.pdf)

The potential impacts of global warming and climate change are well documented in the international
scientific literature. In the United States, James Hansen, a leading National Aero- nautics and Space
Administration (NASA) scientist, warned that there is only a brief window of opportunity to meaning-
fully address this world crisis. From an international policy standpoint, it may be easy to point fingers at
other countries and stall activity until others demonstrate movement. Further, the negotiation of
traditional treaties, accords, and international diplomacy on these issues can take years to reach
realization. Nationally, the federal government has only recently acknowledged the critical importance
of more immediate action, and while much more must be done at the federal level, most state
governments have not waited, and governors have made climate change mitigation strate- gies state
priorities.2 What has been missing at the federal and state levels is recognition of the critically
important role and responsibility that local governments have to play in addressing the root causes of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- sions and the implementation of effective strategies. While the federal
government, through the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), has subtly begun to recognize
the opportunities of municipal government part- nerships, the fact remains that more must be done.
EPA recently issued for comment a report on the connections between local land use controls and
climate change in the area of land preservation,3 and there is a special area of the EPA website focused
on local government.4 EPAs Local Cli- mate Program attempts to provide local governments with the
resources and tools they will need to develop and imple- ment their own climate action plans.5 The
programs primary focus is on reducing GHG emissions, with an emphasis on promoting energy
efficiency and renewable energy. Some of the resources available to local governments include
strategy guides, training, and information from groups working in collaboration with EPA.6 In 2009,
EPA allocated $10 million to assist local governments in reducing their GHG emissions as well as other
climate change activities.7 The goal of the Climate Showcase Communities Grant program is to cre- ate
replicable models of sustainable community action that generate cost-effective and persistent
greenhouse gas reduc- tions while improving environmental . . . conditions in the community.8 Awards
are expected to be announced in the first quarter of 2010.9 The federal government must, however,
do more to incentivize increased cooperative federalism to more aggressively engage local
governments in programs and policies that are national priorities. 10 Although state governments
have, in large number, appointed task forces and study commissions on climate change and adopted
climate action plans,11 the fact remains that most of these efforts focus almost exclusively on
opportunities and recommendations for state-level agencies to improve their own actions, e.g., energy
efficiency initiatives for agencies buildings and construction projects, greening state vehicle fleets,
green procurement strategies, etc. What is missing from the majority of the states plans are goals and
strategies for the involvement of local government officials and recognition of the benefits of
municipal actions.12 The lack of focus on local governments is troubling. It will be impossible for the
United States to meaningfully respond to the complexities of climate change without a full partner-
ship between local governments and governments at other levels, since local governments possess
broad local land use planning and control authority,13 and in many states, they are on the front line
of local environmental review, conducting N ational E nvironmental P olicy A ct-type evaluations that
may include GHG emissions and carbon footprint-reduction strategies.14
 Climate Impact xt

Aggressive action on climate change is key now, even if their defense is true
Paulson 6/21 (Henry M. Paulson, Jr., former Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Paulson Institute, an independent, non-partisan
center located at the University of Chicago, The Coming Climate Crash, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?_r=0)

There is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if theres one thing Ive learned
throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too
big to manage. For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses building up in the nations financial
markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was devastating. Millions suffered. Many
still do. Were making the same mistake today with climate change. Were staring down a climate
bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear
and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked. This is a crisis we cant afford to ignore. I feel as
if Im watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the
crash coming, and yet were sitting on our hands rather than altering course. We need to act now ,
even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how
to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. Theyre right to consider the economic
implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing. The solution
can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient
response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide a carbon tax. Few in the
United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a
price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies. Its true that the
United States cant solve this problem alone. But were not going to be able to persuade other big
carbon polluters to take the urgent action thats needed if were not doing everything we can do to
slow our carbon emissions and mitigate our risks. I was secretary of the Treasury when the credit
bubble burst, so I think its fair to say that I know a little bit about risk, assessing outcomes and problem-
solving. Looking back at the dark days of the financial crisis in 2008, it is easy to see the similarities
between the financial crisis and the climate challenge we now face. We are building up excesses (debt
in 2008, greenhouse gas emissions that are trapping heat now). Our government policies are flawed
(incentivizing us to borrow too much to finance homes then, and encouraging the overuse of carbon-
based fuels now). Our experts (financial experts then, climate scientists now) try to understand what
they see and to model possible futures. And the outsize risks have the potential to be tremendously
damaging (to a globalized economy then, and the global climate now). Back then, we narrowly avoided
an economic catastrophe at the last minute by rescuing a collapsing financial system through
government action. But climate change is a more intractable problem. The carbon dioxide were sending
into the atmosphere remains there for centuries, heating up the planet. That means the decisions
were making today to continue along a path thats almost entirely carbon-dependent are locking
us in for long-term consequences that we will not be able change but only adapt to, at enormous cost.
To protect New York City from rising seas and storm surges is expected to cost at least $20 billion
initially, and eventually far more. And thats just one coastal city. New York can reasonably predict
those obvious risks. When I worry about risks, I worry about the biggest ones, particularly those that
are difficult to predict the ones I call small but deep holes. While odds are you will avoid them, if you
do fall in one, its a long way down and nearly impossible to claw your way out. Scientists have
identified a number of these holes potential thresholds that, once crossed, could cause sweeping,
irreversible changes . They dont know exactly when we would reach them. But they know we
should do everything we can to avoid them. Already, observations are catching up with years of
scientific models, and the trends are not in our favor. Fewer than 10 years ago, the best analysis
projected that melting Arctic sea ice would mean nearly ice-free summers by the end of the 21st
century. Now the ice is melting so rapidly that virtually ice-free Arctic summers could be here in the next
decade or two. The lack of reflective ice will mean that more of the suns heat will be absorbed by the
oceans, accelerating warming of both the oceans and the atmosphere, and ultimately raising sea levels.
Even worse, in May, two separate studies discovered that one of the biggest thresholds has already
been reached. The West Antarctic ice sheet has begun to melt, a process that scientists estimate may
take centuries but that could eventually raise sea levels by as much as 14 feet. Now that this process has
begun, there is nothing we can do to undo the underlying dynamics, which scientists say are baked in.
And 10 years from now, will other thresholds be crossed that scientists are only now contemplating?
It is true that there is uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of these risks and many others. But
those who claim the science is unsettled or action is too costly are simply trying to ignore the
problem. We must see the bigger picture. The nature of a crisis is its unpredictability. And as we all
witnessed during the financial crisis, a chain reaction of cascading failures ensued from one
intertwined part of the system to the next. Its easy to see a single part in motion. Its not so easy to
calculate the resulting domino effect. That sort of contagion nearly took down the global financial
system. With that experience indelibly affecting my perspective, viewing climate change in terms of
risk assessment and risk management makes clear to me that taking a cautiously conservative stance
that is, waiting for more information before acting is actually taking a very radical risk. Well
never know enough to resolve all of the uncertainties. But we know enough to recognize that we must
act now. Im a businessman, not a climatologist. But Ive spent a considerable amount of time with
climate scientists and economists who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no
debate among them that the planet is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely
responsible. Farseeing business leaders are already involved in this issue. Its time for more to weigh in.
To add reliable financial data to the science, Ive joined with the former mayor of New York City, Michael
R. Bloomberg, and the retired hedge fund manager Tom Steyer on an economic analysis of the costs of
inaction across key regions and economic sectors. Our goal for the Risky Business project starting
with a new study that will be released this week is to influence business and investor decision making
worldwide.

Warming causes full-scale nuclear conflict via miscalculation

Smith, 11 professor of Security Strategies at the Naval War College, former associate/assistant professor with the Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies (Paul, The geopolitics of climate change: power transitions, conflict and the future of military activities, Conflict, Security, &
Development,http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14678802.2011.593810

Moreover, the nexus between climate change and food security may be a key factor behind many
countries' desire to pursue geo-engineering efforts. The term geo-engineering can be defined as a broad collection of
strategies to diminish the amount of climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.102 Although geo-engineering may
provide a tempting and attractive alternative to the politically challenging process of achieving an international agreement on greenhouse gas
emission reductions, it presents its own set of challenges. For example, as climate change is expected to generate
winners and losers, the winners will obviously have objections to significant geo-engineering
interventions on a global scale. In light of geo-engineering's potential to influence agricultural patterns
and thus food security, it may engender the temptation by some countries to link the technology to
political objectives. In the hands of a single country, geo-engineering technologies might be employed in agricultural extortion
operations, in which one country threatens the agricultural capacity (and thus food security) of a neighbouring state. In more severe cases,
disagreements over geo-engineering technologies or outcomes could generate international conflict
and even warfare (to include nuclear conflict), particularly in areas with pre-existing acute antagonisms (i.e., South Asia or
Northeast Asia). Countries may view a neighbouring state's geo-engineering objectives as a direct threat to its security and seek to disrupt it (by
military or other means). In extreme cases, a
country might invoke pre-emptive war doctrines to disrupt a geo-
engineering project that it perceives as threatening to its interests. Overall, growing resource
constraints and, consequently, rising competition over resourcesincluding energy, water and foodmay
become regular features of the twenty-first century security environment. In addition, climate change
may exacerbate both the constraints over resources and the competitive posture of countries that
perceive impending shortages. In an interview conducted in March 2010, Yuriy Averyanov, a Russian Security Council staff official,
stated: climate change may give rise to new inter-state conflicts associated with the exploration and
development of energy resources, use of maritime transport routes and bio-resources.103 In this way, therefore, climate
change may be seen as an emerging proximate cause of conflict, to includein the most extreme cases limited
or full-scale wars between states, through its influence on actual or perceived resource scarcities.

Independently Co2 causes oxygen collapse extinction

Peter Tatchell, The Guardian, The oxygen crisis, 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But
little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on
effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by
over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of
the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately
threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis. I am not a scientist, but this seems a
reasonable concern. It is a possibility that we should examine and assess. So, what's the evidence? Around 10,000 years ago, the planet's forest

cover was at least twice what it is today, which means that forests are now emitting only half the
amount of oxygen. Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of
oxygen sources. The story at sea is much the same. Nasa reports that in the north Pacific ocean
oxygen-producing phytoplankton concentrations are 30% lower today, compared to the 1980s. This is a huge drop in just three
decades. Moreover, the UN environment programme confirmed in 2004 that there were nearly 150 "dead zones" in the world's oceans where discharged sewage and industrial waste, farm

oxygen starvation is
fertiliser run-off and other pollutants have reduced oxygen levels to such an extent that most or all sea creatures can no longer live there. This

reducing regional fish stocks and diminishing the food supplies of populations that are dependent on
fishing. It also causes genetic mutations and hormonal changes that can affect the reproductive capacity of sea life, which could further diminish global fish supplies. Professor Robert
Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much
more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. Further back, the oxygen levels were even greater. Robert Sloan has listed the percentage of oxygen in samples of dinosaur-era amber as: 28% (130m
years ago), 29% (115m years ago), 35% (95m years ago), 33% (88m years ago), 35% (75m years ago), 35% (70m years ago), 35% (68m years ago), 31% (65.2m years ago), and 29% (65m years

Like most other scientists they accept

ago). Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University and Professor Jon Harrison of the University of Arizona concur.

that oxygen levels in the atmosphere in prehistoric times averaged around 30% to 35%, compared to
only 21% today and that the levels are even less in densely populated, polluted city centres and
industrial complexes, perhaps only 15 % or lower. Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to
human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. The Professor of
Geological Sciences at Notre Dame University in Indiana, J Keith Rigby, was quoted in 1993-1994 as
saying: In the 20th century, humanity has pumped increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere by burning the carbon stored in coal, petroleum and natural gas. In the process, we've
also been consuming oxygen and destroying plant life cutting down forests at an alarming rate and
thereby short-circuiting the cycle's natural rebound. We're artificially slowing down one process and
speeding up another, forcing a change in the atmosphere. Very interesting. But does this decline in oxygen matter? Are there any practical
consequences that we ought to be concerned about? What is the effect of lower oxygen levels on the human body? Does it disrupt and impair our immune systems and therefore make us
more prone to cancer and degenerative diseases? Surprisingly, no significant research has been done, perhaps on the following presumption: the decline in oxygen levels has taken place over
millions of years of our planet's existence. The changes during the shorter period of human life have also been slow and incremental until the last two centuries of rapid urbanisation and

industrialisation. Surely, this mostly gradual decline has allowed the human body to evolve and adapt to lower concentrations of oxygen? Maybe, maybe not. The pace of
oxygen loss is likely to have speeded up massively in the last three decades, with the industrialisation
of China, India, South Korea and other countries, and as a consequence of the massive worldwide
increase in the burning of fossil fuels. In the view of Professor Ervin Laszlo, the drop in atmospheric oxygen has potentially serious consequences. A UN
advisor who has been a professor of philosophy and systems sciences, Laszlo writes: Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of

pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times
due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of
the Earth's atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major
cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune
system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are

likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained.

Terrorism Impact xt
 Co-op k2 solve terror

Cooperative interactions between state and federal governments are crucial to thwart
chemical, biological, and nuclear terrorist attacks
James A. Stever 2005 "Adapting Intergovernmental Management to the New Age of Terrorism" Administration & Society
http://aas.sagepub.com/content/37/4/379.full.pdf+html?ijkey=BRkcBnaKLzTNw&keytype=ref&siteid=spaas Graduate of Purdue University,
Former US Army, Professor at Cincinnati University

The requirements of controlling would-be terrorists who could misuse technology will also require a
significant reorientation in the conventional management wisdom that is currently applied to
intergovernmental relations. State and local governments will, for the first time since World War II, be
forced to orient many of their policies and priorities around security considerations. Furthermore, the
horrific chemical, biological, and radiological or nuclear technologies potentially wielded by terrorists
will also cause local governments to interact with their state governments and even the federal
government in ways unforeseen before September 11, 2001. For example, prior to the 9/11 attack,
the old IGM would not have sanctioned systematic interaction between state and local governments
and the Department of Defense. Now, such interaction is quite plausible. The pace of advancing from
the old IGM to the new can be facilitated by advancing four assumptions to guide the development of
future IGM models. These assumptions can be expressed as heuristic propositions intended to serve as
the foundation for debate and action. Here is a brief statement of the four assumptions. First, terrorist
technologies, security policy, and the military are now integral to IGM.4 Second, the development of
new IGM models should be accomplished in proactive fashion, not in reactive fashion. Third, new
values must guide post-9/11 IGM. Fourth, to produce effective, post-9/11 IGM models, it is essential to
rebuild the IGM context. The following sections elaborate on and clarify these assumptions that should
guide the next generation of IGM models.
Econ Impact
 Econ/competitiveness link

Cooperative federalism key to innovation and global competitiveness.

Katz 12 Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Adeline M. and Alfred I. Johnson Chair in Urban and
Metropolitan Policy, 2-16-12, Brookings Institution, Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-katz-http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-
katz, jj

To achieve these twin goals, the U.S. needs to restructure the economy from one focused inward and
characterized by excessive consumption and debt, to one globally engaged and driven by production
and innovation. It must do so while contending with a new cadre of global competitors that aim to
best the United States in the next industrial revolution and while leveraging the distinctive assets and
advantages of different parts of the country, particularly the major cities and metropolitan areas that
are the engines of national prosperity. This is the tallest of economic orders and it is well beyond the
scope of exclusive federal solutions , the traditional focus of presidential candidates in both political
parties. Rather, the next President must look beyond Washington and enlist states and metropolitan
areas as active co-partners in the restructuring of the national economy. Remaking the economy, in
essence, requires a remaking of federalism so that governments at all levels collaborate to
compete and work closely with each other and the private and civic sectors to burnish American
competitiveness in the new global economic order. The time for remaking federalism could not be
more propitious. With Washington mired in partisan gridlock, the states and metropolitan areas are
once again playing their traditional roles as laboratories of democracy and centers of economic and
policy innovation. An enormous opportunity exists for the next president to mobilize these federalist
partners in a focused campaign for national economic renewal. Given global competition, the next
president should adopt a vision of collaborative federalism in which: the federal government leads
where it must and sets a robust platform for productive and innovative growth via a few
transformative investments and interventions; states and metropolitan areas innovate where they
should to design and implement bottom-up economic strategies that fully align with their distinctive
competitive assets and advantages; and a refreshed set of federalist institutions maximize results by
accelerating the replication of innovations across the federal, state and metropolitan levels.

Cooperative federalism k2 export and innovation

Katz 12 Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Adeline M. and Alfred I. Johnson Chair in Urban and
Metropolitan Policy, 2-16-12, Brookings Institution, Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-katz-http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-
katz, jj

Over the past three years, a growing chorus of business leaders and mainstream economists has
embraced a post-recession growth model, a next economy, where the United States exports more
and wastes less, innovates in what matters, produces more of what we invent and ensures that the
economy actually works for working families. In summary terms, the next economy should be fuelled
by innovation, to spur growth not only through idea generation but the virtuous interplay of invention,
commercialization and manufacturing. It should increasingly be powered by low-carbon energy, to
position the United States at the vanguard of the next, innovation-led industrial revolution. It should be
driven by exports, to take advantage of rising global demand for quality products and services. And, it
should be opportunity rich, so that working families can earn wages sufficient to attain a middleclass
life. This ambitious macro vision largely comes to ground in the nations 100 largest metropolitan
areas, which already generate more than three-quarters of the nations gross domestic product. These
communities dominate economically, since they concentrate and agglomerate the innovative firms,
talented workers, risk-taking entrepreneurs and supportive ecosystems of universities, community
colleges and business associations that drive modern economies. While Washington dithers and delays,
metros and their states are embracing the next-economy model and innovating in ways that build on
their distinctive competitive assets and advantages: With federal innovation funding at risk, metros like
New York and states like Ohio and Tennessee are making sizable commitments to attract innovative
research institutions, commercialize research and grow innovative firms. With the future of federal
trade policy unclear, metros like Los Angeles and Minneapolis/St. Paul and states like Colorado and New
York are reorienting their economic development strategies toward exports, foreign direct investment
and skilled immigration. With federal energy policy in shambles, metros like Seattle and Philadelphia are
cementing their niches in energy-efficient technologies, and states like Connecticut are experimenting
with Green Banks to help deploy clean technologies at scale. With federal transportation policy in limbo,
metros like Jacksonville and Savannah and states like Michigan are modernizing their air, rail and sea
freight hubs to position themselves for an expansion in global trade. What unites these disparate efforts
are intentionality and purpose. After decades of pursuing fanciful illusions (becoming the next Silicon
Valley) or engaging in copycat strategies, states and metros are deliberately building on their special
assets, attributes and advantages, using business planning techniques honed in the private sector. The
bubbling of state and metro innovation is pervasive and viralcrossing political, regional, jurisdictional
and sectoral lines. It offers an affirmative and practical counterpoint to a Washington that has
increasingly become hyper-partisan and overly ideological and gives the next President an opportunity
to engage states and metropolitan areas as true, working partners in the quest to restructure the
economy.
Human Rights Impact
 Human Rights link xt
Cooperative federalist model crucial to legitimacy of International Human Rights
movement
Kaufman 12 Cardozo Law Review 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 1971 LENGTH: 25355 words ARTICLE: "By Some Other Means": Considering the
Executive's Role in Fostering Subnational Human Rights Compliance NAME: Risa E. Kaufman* BIO: * Executive Director, Human Rights Institute,
Columbia Law School, and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School.

ocalism in Practice: Functional and Pragmatic Concerns A second strand of interests informing the role
of the executive in state and local human rights implementation revolves around the functional
potential offered by localism in international law and human rights implementation, as well as the
pragmatic concerns and constraints regarding such implementation. A few examples illustrate the
range of positive state and local human rights-related activity. In recent years, the City Council and
Board of Alderman of Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Carrboro, North Carolina, respectively, each
approved a resolution adopting the UDHR as a set of guiding principles. n138 The Cincinnati, Ohio City
Council adopted a resolution declaring that freedom from domestic violence is a human right, grounded
in international instruments, including the UDHR, and declaring that state and local governments bear
responsibility for securing [*1999] that right. n139 The Madison, Wisconsin City Council passed a
resolution recognizing housing as a human right and calling for the creation of an affordable and
accessible housing plan and appropriate recommendations. n140 San Francisco adopted a local
ordinance implementing the human rights norms and principles of the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), requiring that government agencies and
departments in San Francisco implement the standards of CEDAW and "integrate gender equity and
human rights principles into all of its operations." n141 That ordinance has been amended to include
reference to CERD and the need to recognize intersections of race and gender discrimination. n142 The
City of Chicago approved and adopted a resolution encouraging incorporation of the principles
contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), calling for the city to "advance policies and
practices that are in harmony with the principles of the [CRC] in all city agencies and organizations that
address issues directly affecting the City's children." n143 In [*2000] New York City, the proposed New
York City Human Rights in Government Operations Audit Law (Human Rights GOAL) seeks to integrate
human rights principles of dignity and equality (based on CERD and CEDAW) into local policy and
practice by requiring that the city train its personnel in human rights, undertake a human rights analysis
of the operations of each city department, program, and entity, and create action plans for how the city
will integrate human rights principles. n144 Eugene, Oregon has declared itself a "Human Rights City"
and has adopted a human rights approach to city governance through a "Triple Bottom Line" framework
analysis, which encourages city decision-makers to take into account environmental, equity, and
economic impacts and benefits of policy proposals, budget choices, and other city projects and
initiatives. n145 The California Assembly and Senate recently passed legislation requesting the state
attorney general "publicize the text" of the ICCPR, CERD, and CAT, and requesting that state and local
officials prepare the required periodic reports for the U.N. Committees that oversee these treaties. n146
As state and local governments have increasingly engaged in human rights activities, the literature
extolling the virtues of localism has grown. Boosters of localism highlight the importance of respecting
and enabling states and localities to serve as laboratories for innovative and responsive human
rights implementation , giving content to the norms enshrined in human rights treaties and building
their legitimacy at the local level while bringing the United States into compliance with its
international human rights obligations. n147 Scholars note, too, the importance [*2001] of state and
local human rights activity as a means of norm internalization. n148 Judith Resnik, in particular, has
written extensively on the role that state and local actors play in domestic integration of international
human rights norms, and the potential for collective state and local action, particularly through what
she terms "Translocal Organizations of Government Actors" (TOGAs), to enable state and local officials
to influence national and transnational policy and to challenge the characterization of international
law as being countermajoritaria n. n149 Martha Davis describes states and localities as
" laboratories of foreign affairs, testing policies before initiating full-blown national programs," with
the hope that these programs may eventually "trickle up" to the national level. n150 Commentators,
including Catherine Powell, have likewise noted that state and local implementation can help to
overcome the "democratic deficit" of human rights treaty implementation. n151 Through more
participatory mechanisms and "cultivating and amplifying the voices of state and local government in
the implementation of human rights," such state and local action may lead Americans to grow more
accepting of human rights, thus bolstering their legitimacy n152 and enabling norm development at
the federal level . Scholars note, too, the importance of state and local engagement with human
rights as a means of contributing to the evolution and development of international norms , giving
"wider voice" and salience to their own priorities and concerns. n153 [*2002] Much of the literature in
this area focuses on the dual-pronged value of state and local efforts to implement treaties that the
United States has failed to ratify or significantly limited the scope of during the ratification process:
bolstering the legitimacy of human rights norms and facilitating their internalization. Commentators
specifically note how positive human rights activity at the state and local level can counter federal
apathy and antipathy toward ratification. n154 Thus, this scholarship typically examines the importance
of state and local action in the face of federal hostility or ambivalence to particular human rights
treaties. And, it assumes states and localities are undertaking positive human rights activity. In the realm
of human rights commitments that the United States has acceded to, Tara Melish has noted the way in
which state and local implementation is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. n155 This
principle, core to the human rights framework , embraces the importance of local decision-making
and implementation . As Melish notes, the principle of subsidiarity is foundational to international
law, and articulates the shared responsibility and relationship between international, national, and
subnational entities for the "shared project of ensuring human rights protection for all individuals." n156
The principle of subsidiarity carries two correlated duties: noninterference and assistance , with the
ultimate goal of greater interpretation and implementation of human rights at the most local level,
closest to the affected individual and community. n157 The human rights system is designed to monitor
human rights conditions and interfere only when domestic or local institutions are unable to or
ineffective at addressing human rights concerns. n158 By respecting and enabling the primacy of local
institution s, the human rights system ensures that human rights values and approaches reflect the
concerns and needs of local communities, allowing for a more "authentic," effective, and relevant
approach to rights protection. n159 This attention to local needs and interests may, somewhat
ironically, address some commentators' concerns regarding the need to protect areas traditionally
within state and local jurisdiction from the reach of international law. These concerns are exemplified
by Curtis Bradley's [*2003] challenge to the breadth of issues encompassed by international law, and in
particular human rights treaty law, noting that it overlaps and in some cases conflicts with domestic law,
thus becoming particularly worrisome when that conflict occurs at the state level. n160

Coop federalism crucial to international human rights

Kaufman 12 Cardozo Law Review 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 1971 LENGTH: 25355 words ARTICLE: "By Some Other Means": Considering the
Executive's Role in Fostering Subnational Human Rights Compliance NAME: Risa E. Kaufman* BIO: * Executive Director, Human Rights Institute,
Columbia Law School, and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School.

Medellin makes clear that, without express authorization from Congress, the President is precluded
from compelling subnational compliance with non-self-executing human rights treaties. By acting
outside of the treaty power in this way, the President risks violating core separation-of-powers and
federalism principles. n187 Yet, as in other federalism contexts, there are multiple alternative means for
the executive to promote subnational action and compliance, short of compelling it. A wide body of
scholarship discusses " cooperative federalism " and its many variations, suggesting a spectrum of ways
in which federal, state, and local governments act in partnership across a variety of fields and
interests. n188 Indeed, there are numerous examples of shared federal- [*2010] state-local
responsibility in implementing federal programs and policies and addressing federal interests and
priorities responsive to state and local concerns and needs; federal-state-local cooperation and
coordination exists in countless areas, many of which have established mechanisms and systems that
are relevant when considering the appropriate federal role in subnational human rights
implementation . Drawing on concepts of cooperative federalism and all of its variants, and
considering the unique role and interests of the federal executive in foreign relations, the particular
strengths and needs of subnational governments in complying with human rights treaty
commitments, and the normative interests in promoting uniform adherence to universal standards
while fostering innovation, there emerges a core set of functions that the executive may undertake in
seeking subnational compliance with international human rights treaty commitments. When
considering the appropriate role for the federal executive, we must be attentive to the capacity and
likelihood for state and local governments to engage in both positive and negative human rights
activity. The federal role must address both scenarios, fostering and facilitating innovation while
ensuring basic compliance.

Cooperative federalisms a prerequisite to IHR implementation

Kaufman 12 Cardozo Law Review 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 1971 LENGTH: 25355 words ARTICLE: "By Some Other Means": Considering the
Executive's Role in Fostering Subnational Human Rights Compliance NAME: Risa E. Kaufman* BIO: * Executive Director, Human Rights Institute,
Columbia Law School, and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School.

imitations on the executive's ability to compel state and local compliance with human rights treaties
notwithstanding, n241 boosters of localism articulate strong rationales for encouraging state and local
human rights activities and allowing them to flourish. n242 Pragmatic concerns, namely resource
constraints faced by state and local officials, indicate a need for resources to enable sustained human
rights activity at the local level. Thus, there appears to be a role for the federal government in
providing financial support and incentives to encourage and enable state and local governments to
undertake human rights education, monitoring, reporting, and other implementation efforts. n243 The
executive branch can take the lead in creating, championing, and administering such incentives. Many
examples of cooperative federalism involve the federal government providing funding and training to
states and localities to assist with enforcement of federal law or to implement federal policy. The
Federal Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) contracts with state and local human
rights and human relations commissions (Fair Employment Practice Agencies) to enforce federal
antidiscrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. n244 By providing funding and
training, the EEOC enables state and local agencies to manage federal claims of discrimination through
work-sharing agreements with the federal government. [*2021] Similarly, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) provides grants to state and
local human rights commissions to conduct fair housing education and outreach. n245

Cooperative federalism overcomes local resistance to human rights implementation

Human Rights Solve Extinction

Human Rights Web, 94 (An Introduction to the Human Rights Movement Created on July 20, 1994 / Last edited on January 25,
1997, http://www.hrweb.org/intro.html)

The United Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN Human Rights
convenants were written and implemented in the aftermath of the Holocaust, revelations coming
from the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the Bataan Death March, the atomic bomb, and other
horrors smaller in magnitude but not in impact on the individuals they affected. A whole lot of
people in a number of countries had a crisis of conscience and found they could no longer look the
other way while tyrants jailed, tortured, and killed their neighbors. In Germany, the Nazis first
came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came
for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me... and by
that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone. -- Martin Niemoeller, Pastor, German
Evangelical (Lutheran) Church Many also realized that advances in technology and changes in
social structures had rendered war a threat to the continued existence of the human race. Large
numbers of people in many countries lived under the control of tyrants, having no recourse
but war to relieve often intolerable living conditions. Unless some way was found to relieve the
lot of these people, they could revolt and become the catalyst for another wide-scale and
possibly nuclear war. For perhaps the first time, representatives from the majority of
governments in the world came to the conclusion that basic human rights must be protected,
not only for the sake of the individuals and countries involved, but to preserve the human race.

The protection of human rights is necessary for the survival of the species
Copelon 99(Profesor of Law at NY School of Law, 3 N.Y. City L. Rev.)
 The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the
international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority [*72] of the U.S. version of
rights, to rebuild popular expectations, and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights.
Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization
of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new
force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world,
particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human
rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-
generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for
new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-
centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. 38 Given the poverty and
inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights
framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.
 Human Rights Solve War

Human rights solve war

William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson

School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004

17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249

This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the
domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly
endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states

in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states'

that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage

human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can
significantly enhance U.S. and global security.
Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to
engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace
and the prevention of such acts of aggression. n2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S.
policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A
strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of
those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the
improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights
protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Human rights are key to national security and preventing war

William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson

School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004

17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249

One causal pathway rooted in liberal international relations theory that may explain the observed correlation
between systematic human rights violations and interstate aggression is the institutional constraint that accompanies
human rights protections. n97 Institutionalization of human rights norms has at least two powerful effects on state
behavior. First, human rights protections govern how broad a spectrum of the community has at least some voice in
the political decisions of the state. Even if the state is not a democratic polyarchy, if it provides basic protections for
the human rights of all or most citizens, then a very broad spectrum of the polity is represented in political affairs.
Freedom of thought and freedom from extrajudicial bodily harm, for example, allow citizens to develop their own
views on political issues and, often, to express those views through public channels. A wider spectrum of voices, in
turn, increases the level of political competition--one of the key structural explanations for the democratic peace--
even without the establishment of a democratic form of government. n98 Of course, in a non-democratic, but human
rights respecting state, the views of individual interests may not have a direct effect on state policy, but, arguably,
they can still increase the level of political competition by facilitating debate and the exchange of ideas.
The second effect of institutionalized protections of human rights is to set a minimum floor of treatment for all
citizens within the domestic polity. Even in a non-democracy, minimum human rights protections ensure
that [*266] rights are accorded to individuals not directly represented by the government. By ensuring a minimum
treatment of the unrepresented, human rights protections prevent the government from externalizing the costs of
aggressive behavior on the unrepresented. In human rights respecting states, for example, unrepresented individuals
cannot be forced at gunpoint to fight or be bound into slavery to generate low-cost economic resources for war, and
thus restrain the state from engaging in aggressive action. On the other hand, in a state where power is narrowly
concentrated in the hands of a political elite that systematically represses its own people, the state will be more able
to bear the domestic costs of war. By violating the human rights of its own citizens, a state can force individuals to
fight or support the military apparatus in its war-making activities. Similarly, by denying basic human rights, a state
may be better able to bear the political costs of war. Even if such a state had fair elections, denial of freedom of
thought and expression might well insulate the government from the electoral costs of an aggressive foreign policy.
n99

Human rights solve war

William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson

School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004

17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249

The social beliefs explanation begins from the proposition that individuals within human rights protecting states
share a preference for a minimum set of protections of human rights. This assumption is appropriate for two reasons.
First, according to liberal political science theory, state policy represents the preferences of some subset of the
domestic polity. n100 If the observed state policy is to protect human rights, then at least some subset of the
domestic polity must share that preference. Second, even if individuals within a domestic polity seek a variety of
differentiated ends, basic respect for human rights allows individuals to pursue--to some degree at least--those ends
as they define them. Liberal theory thus suggests that individuals within a human rights respecting state tend to
support basic human rights provisions. The next step in the social beliefs argument is to recognize that respect for
human rights has an inherently universalist tendency. n101 Unlike cultural or national rights, human rights are just
that--human. They apply as much [*267] to those individuals within a domestic polity as to those outside the
polity. Such cosmopolitan liberalism indicates that "the more people are free, the better off all are." n102 The net
result is that individuals within a human rights respecting state tend, on the average, to support the human rights of
individuals in other states as well. Given a set of universalist human rights values in states that respect human rights,
the policy articulated by the government may be one which respects human rights at home and demands their
protection abroad. This belief in a thin set of universal human rights may cause the leadership of the state to frame
its security policy around that belief structure and to refrain from aggressive acts that would violate the human rights
of citizens at home or abroad. As Peter Katzenstein argues, "security interests are defined by actors who respond to
cultural factors." n103 Acts of international aggression tend to impinge on the human rights of individuals in the
target state and, at least temporarily, limit their freedom. After all, bombs, bullets, death and destruction are not
consistent with respect for basic human rights. n104 Framed in the liberal international relations theory terms of policy interdependence, international aggression by State A
imposes costs on State B, whose citizens' human rights will be infringed upon by the act of aggression. This infringement in turn imposes costs on citizens in State A, whose citizens have a preference for the protection of the human

By contrast, a state which commits gross

rights of citizens in both states. This shared value of respect for human rights thus may restrain State A from pursuing international aggression. n105

human rights violations against its own people will not be subject to this restraint. Such violations often occur when
the government has been "captured" by a select minority that chooses to violate human rights. If the citizens
themselves are not in favor of human rights at home, they are unlikely to be committed to the enforcement of human
rights abroad. Where capture occurs, the government is not responsive to the preferences of the domestic polity. In
such cases, even if there is a strong preference among citizens to protect human rights at home and abroad, the
government is unlikely to respond to those interests and its policies will not be constrained by them.
 Human Rights Key National Security

Human rights are key to national security

William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson

School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004

17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249

Though national security has largely trumped human rights in the formulation of U.S. policy, this is not necessary,
appropriate, nor even strategic. Rather than being competing goals, human rights and national security are in fact
complementary. This section seeks to demonstrate a correlation between domestic human rights abuses and
interstate aggression in the post-Cold War period. Three basic hypotheses result:
1. States that systematically abuse human rights at home are most likely to engage in international aggression.
2. States with average or good human rights records are unlikely to engage in international aggression.
3. Human rights respecting states may still engage in international interventions (usually in conformity with
international law) at least in part to protect the human rights of citizens in a state that seriously and systematically
abuses the rights of its own citizens. n27
If this suggested correlation is accurate, a foreign policy that actively advances human rights around the world can
enhance both national and global security by decreasing the number of states likely to engage in international
aggression and the destabilizing consequences associated therewith.

Clearly, this argument is closely linked with the democratic peace hypothesis--namely that democratic states
will not go to war with one another. n28 However, it highlights as causal an often underappreciated element of the
democratic peace literature--a state's institutionalized and actual respect for its own citizens--and uses that element
to make a policy argument. The very concept of "democratic peace" is largely a short-hand reference to a number
of different traits that characterize democracies--the nature of elections, institutional safeguards, or the normative
beliefs democracies tend to hold. As Michael Doyle observes: "Liberal states, founded on such individual rights as
equality before the law, free speech and other civil liberties, private property, and elected representation are
fundamentally against war." n29 The human rights peace argument presented here draws on this element of
institutional [*255] safeguards and actual practices that protect their citizens' human rights. Such states may or may
not be democracies though they, by and large, have and uphold liberal constitutions. The claim here is that far more
important than whether a state is "democratic" is whether it protects the basic rights of all its citizens through a form
of constitutional liberalism. n30
 Human Rights Solve Genocide

Human rights key to solve genocide and millions of deaths

Paul Hoffman is the Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International. He is a civil rights
and human rights lawyer with the Venice-based law firm of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman
LLP, Human Rights Quarterly, Nov 2004, p. 932-955 (DRGCL/T056)

History shows that when societies trade human rights for security, most often they get neither. Instead, minorities
and other marginalized groups pay the price through violation of their human rights. Sometimes this trade-off comes
in the form of mass murder or genocide, other times in the form of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, or the
suppression of speech or religion. Indeed, millions of lives have been destroyed in the last sixty years when human
rights norms have not been observed.'' Undermining the strength of international human rights law and institutions
will only facilitate such human rights violations in the future and confound efforts to bring violators to justice.'
 Human Rights Solve Terror

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION THWARTS OPPORTUNITIES FOR TERRORISM

Rosemary Foot, Professor of International Relations, St. Anthonys College, Oxford, 200 3, Survival, Volume 45, No. 2, Summer, p. 173

It is a linkage that has lived on the neo-Reaganite George W. Bush administration and appeals because the human
security idea allows for connections to be made between neo-conservative and liberal rhetoric. The idea contributed
to the decision in Bushs January 2002, State of the Union Address to describe Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an
axis of evil and to the argument in the September 2002 National Security Strategy that terrorists would thrive
where there was an absence of the rule of law and a failure to protect human dignity. Thus, for the Bush
administration, human-rights concerns enter into policymaking first as a result of political, bureaucratic and
legislative commitments made in the past. And secondly, because of its acceptance latterly of the idea that gross
violations of human rights generally tend to be the mark of a state that might, wittingly or not, provide the base from
which terrorist cells can operate, or be hospitable to the establishment of links with transnational terrorism, or
through it actions foment violent unrest that spills over its borders.

Human rights key to national security prevents terrorist recruitment

MICHAEL J. O'DONNELL, Editor in Chief, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Winter 2004
24 B.C. Third World L.J. 223

The resentment and anger engendered by U.S. hypocrisy on human rights policy and corporate responsibility are
antithetical to long-term U.S. interests, and represent an immediate security threat in an age of global terrorism.
n279 As the U.S. has become entrenched in the Middle East, an area of the world currently saturated by virulent
anti-Americanism, its perception abroad has increasingly become a matter of national security policy. n280 As
one prominent human rights leader has noted, "Human rights are the foundation of national security, both
domestically and around the world." n281 Flagrant inconsistency between U.S. rhetoric and practice abroad
provides anti-American extremists and terrorists with an invaluable propaganda tool for adding angry recruits to
their ranks. n282 Because such antagonism is eminently preventable, U.S. double standards on human rights and
corporate accountability represent a clear foreign policy failure. n283

US human rights leadership is key to national security and stopping terrorism

Lorne W. Craner, Asst. Sec. Of State For Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, October 31, 2001

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2001/6378.htm
The world has changed dramatically for all of us since September 11, and some people have expressed the concern that, as a result of the attacks on America, the Bush Administration will abandon human rights and democracy

maintaining the focus on human rights and democracy worldwide is an integral

work. To those people I say boldly that this is not the case. In fact,

part of our response to the attack and is even more essential today than before September 11th. They remain in
our national interest in promoting a stable and democratic world. As Dr. [Condoleezza] Rice said only a week after
the horrific attack, "Civil liberties matter to this President very much, and our values matter to us abroad. We are not
going to stop talking about the things that matter to us, human rights, religious freedom and so forth and so on. We're going to continue to press those things; we would not be American if we did not." In practical terms, we

there is often a direct link

continue to raise human rights issues at the highest levels of governments worldwide and have made it clear that these issues remain important to us. We do so because

between the absence of human rights and democracy and seeds of terrorism. Promoting human rights and
democracy addresses the fear, frustration, hatred, and violence that is the breeding ground for the next
generation of terrorists. We cannot win a war against terrorism by halting our work promoting the universal
observance of human rights. To do so would be merely to set the stage for a resurgence of terrorism in another
generation. As Thomas Jefferson said: that government is the strongest of which everyone may feel a part. At the very least, the brutality of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the fact that it
was completely unprovoked suggest that models based on what we used to call the "rational actor" are far from fully comprehensive -- unless, of course, you are willing to take Clausewitz one step further and suggest that not only
is war politics by another means, but so, too, is terrorism. But that would be to give it a legitimacy that it clearly does not merit. Even so, what drives individuals -- not states, but men, individual, independent actors -- to assume the

cloak of moral or religious rectitude and declare holy war on a country? This is not an attack on armies, but on symbols. Obviously, we need to learn how to fight the perceptions and
misperceptions that lie behind all that better than we do. The question that we all are asking ourselves since that terrible day last month is this: how do we, who have the responsibility for promoting and protecting the values that
underpin civil society at home and throughout the world, pick our way through all the causes and effects of that and make sure that it does not happen again? Obviously, there is much we can do: in intelligence-gathering and
information sharing, in civil defense and homeland security, in diplomacy and economic leveraging, in international cooperation and coalition-building, in pressure and in force. All this the Administration is doing, and much, much
more. My point is not to venture into the realm of military strategy. That is not my responsibility in this administration. Fortunately for all of us, the President has assembled a very experienced and capable team for that. This

country is not the cause of all the problems of this world -- quite the contrary. We spend a great deal of time and effort trying to solve them. But still, we cannot be everywhere at once . We cannot solve
every regional dispute and ethnic conflict. And yet, we are the sole superpower. Our reach is global and
unprecedented. People look to us. Our power and our potential are immense. We have interests and we have
obligations to our friends and allies. As the head of the bureau charged with advising the President and Secretary
of State on human rights, I have to worry about the causes and consequences of conflicts wherever they take
place, for all of them involve human rights in one way or another -- whether in Sudan or Sierra Leone, Indonesia,
Macedonia, or the Middle East. I suspect most of you are looking to hear something about this administration's priorities within the field of human rights, especially after the September 11th attacks.
Let me begin by outlining the general principles that I think will guide us. First, over the past 20 years, both political parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- have firmly embraced the belief that America has an

obligation to advance fundamental freedoms around the world. Thus human rights have the deep and strong backing of both parties, all branches of government,
and, most importantly, the American people. This will not change. In a multilateral sense, the United States has been the unquestioned leader of the movement to expand human rights since the Second World War. We pushed it in
the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and into the conventions and treaty bodies that have ensued. And when I say "we," I do not just mean the U.S. government. For it was our people, Americans from every
walk of life, who gave the international non-governmental organization (NGO) movement so much of its intellectual force, its financial muscle, and its firm commitment to civil society. This, too, will not change. We in this

administration are conscious of our history and are proud to bear the mantle of leadership in international human rights into this new
century.

HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTION IS KEY TO FIGHTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, HERITAGE
FOUNDATION REPORTS, December 21, 2001, p. 1. (MHDRG/D737)
The advancement of human rights and democracy is important in its own right. At the same time, these efforts are
the bedrock of our war on terrorism. The violation of human rights by repressive regimes provides fertile ground for
popular discontent. In turn, this discontent is cynically exploited by terrorist organizations and their supporters. By
contrast, a stable government that responds to the legitimate desires of its people and respects their rights, shares
power, respects diversity, and seeks to unleash the creative potential of all elements of society is a powerful antidote
to extremism. I am pleased to tell you that this Administration's commitment to human rights, democracy, and
religious freedom is unshakeable. The President and other senior officials have emphasized these core principles
repeatedly in the aftermath of September 11. The President's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, at a
recent Forum on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, reiterated our commitment to promoting democracy,
noting "democratization and stability are the underpinning for a world free of terrorism."
 Human Rights Key to Democracy

Human rights key to democratization

Thomas Carothers, director, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Summer 19 94, p. 106.
(DRGCL/B1075)

In most of the countries that have undergone democratic transitions in recent years, during the generative period of
the transitions (generally the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s), the emphasis of external actors was on human
rights advocacy rather than democracy promotion per se. Therefore, just as human rights advocates should not
overlook the fact that democratization has advanced the cause of human rights in many countries, democracy
promotion proponents should not ignore the contribution of human rights advocacy to democratization.

Promoting human rights in China is a precondition for the development of democracy

and resolving regional conflicts
Samuel S. Kim, Adjunct Prof of PoliSci and Senior Research Associate at the East Asian Institute at Columbia University, 2000

In What if China Doesnt Democratize?, ed. Edward Friedman and Barrett L. McCormick. p. 155-156
To borrow from the familiar Chinese refrain"no state sovereignty, no human rights"we can say, "no human
rights, no or little chance of democratization." Viewing democratization as an ongoing and multi-stage process
rather than a natural outcome of certain social, cultural, and economic preconditions, human rights can be defined
as what David Held calls "empowering rights"73 that are integral to strategic interactions among state, society, and
international factors necessary to bring about a transition to democracy. Democracy in a minimalist procedural
senseuniversal and equal suffrage and free electoral competition cannot come about without the citizens
enjoying civil and political rights as guaranteed in the UDHR (Article 21) and the ICCPR (Article 25).

Human rights are empowering democratization in normative and substantive terms as well. There is no way or
means of "seeking truth from facts" without an opposition. International legitimation no longer rests solely on the
claims of state sovereignty by the powers that be. Increasingly, it rests on the condition of human rights, on how the
government treats its own sovereign people.74 Contrary to Deng's chaos theory, respect for human rights is not only
a more reliable guide to a peaceful transition to democracy but also for domestic stability in the multinational
Chinese state, especially for peaceful resolution of the simmering conflicts in Democratic Taiwan, Buddhist Tibet,
and Muslim Xinjiang. There is also the normative/behavioral requirement of great power status: a great power
abroad is and becomes what a great power does at home and abroad.75 In short, a China that respects human rights would
be a more democratic country, just as a more democratic China would become part of the world order solution in the
Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
 Human Rights Key to Heg

Human rights leadership key to US hegemony

Roth 2000 [Chicago Journal of International Law, "AEI conference trends in global governance: do they threaten American Sovereignty?"]
Washington's cynical attitude toward international human rights law has begun to weaken the US government's
voice as an advocate for human rights around the [*353] world. Increasingly at UN human rights gatherings, other
governments privately criticize Washington's "a la carte" approach to human rights. They see this approach
reflected not only in the US government's narrow formula for ratifying human rights treaties but also in its refusal
to join the recent treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and its opposition to the treaty establishing the
International Criminal Court unless a mechanism can be found to exempt US citizens. For example, at the March-
April 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, many governments privately cited Washington's
inconsistent interest in international human rights standards to explain their lukewarm response to a US-
sponsored resolution criticizing China's deteriorating human rights record.
The US government should be concerned with its diminishing stature as a standard-bearer for human rights. US
influence is built not solely on its military and economic power. At a time when US administrations seem
preoccupied with avoiding any American casualties, the projection of US military power is not easy. US economic
power, for its part, can engender as much resentment as influence. Much of why people worldwide admire the
United States is because of the moral example it sets. That allure risks being tarnished if the US government is
understood to believe that international human rights standards are only for other people, not for US citizens.

Decline in leadership causes nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 (WQ, p. lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United
States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more
open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world
would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership
would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid
another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership
would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
AT States CP
AT States CP/ Solvency
 Technical Assistance Deficit 1st line
The UNIQUE expertise and CAPACITY of the federal government is a prerequisite to
successful state equity reform
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Additional federal technical assistance is essential to supplement the limited capacity of some state
education agencies to implement comprehensive reform.223 As education scholar Paul Manna
insightfully noted in his comprehensive analysis of NCLB implementation: [D]espite being charged with
implementing education policy in a state, these agencies have tended to possess little expertise in
actually working on substantively important education initiatives, such as the development of
standards, curriculum, and tests. Instead, their main purpose has been to distribute state and federal
money to local communities and then monitor to ensure that those dollars have been spent
appropriately.224 Although the capacity and expertise of state education agencies has grown as they
have implemented NCLB, these agencies, along with state legislatures, may still lack the capacity and
expertise to implement a comprehensive reform agenda to ensure equal access to an excellent
education. The federal government could address this capacity gap by providing essential expertise
on effective reforms as its understanding of these issues deepens through the implementation of the
research agenda.
 Technical Assistance Deficit xt
Federal funding and technical assistance to states key to implementation
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Focusing Rigorous Federal Research and Technical Assistance on the Most Effective Approaches for
States to Provide Equal Access to an Excellent Education For the federal government to lead a
comprehensive national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education, the federal government
must provide generous support for the rigorous, objective research and effective technical assistance
state and local governments will need to reach this goal. Substantial variations exist in the educational,
economic, and administrative capabilities of states.203 One of the principal hindrances to NCLBs
success was insufficient capacity at the state and local level to implement the required changes.204
Comprehensive reforms to ensure equal access to an excellent education will demand even more from
states than NCLB. Therefore, federally supported research and technical assistance must help state and
local governments develop the capacity to implement effective reforms.205

Research and technical assistance crucial to overcome equity barriers

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Second, the federal government should provide incentives for reform by offering the states rigorous
research and high-quality technical assistance on models of funding systems that help to promote equal
access to an excellent education.' 44 This research would draw upon the superior federal research
capacity.145 Research and technical assistance also prevent the states from starting from scratch as
they search for effective reforms.146 In addition, research and technical assistance addresses the
capacity limitations that state departments of education experienced as they tried to implement the
reforms within NCLB.147

Federal technical assistance crucial to avoid state reduplication of effort and

inefficiencies
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In addition to research assistance, the federal government should offer technical assistance that
supports state efforts to ensure equal access to an excellent education. This component would
strengthen the existing federal-state relationship because the federal government offers technical
assistance on a wide variety of issues, including assistance on how to achieve the core goals of RTTT,218
early childhood education,219 and special education.220 To achieve this goal, the states may need
federal technical assistance on the most effective and efficient funding mechanisms and other reforms
and the common barriers to successful reforms. In addition, state and local governments may need
federal technical assistance regarding how to develop data collection systems that enable states and
localities to document the scope of opportunity gaps and the effectiveness of efforts to reduce those
gaps. Although NCLB provided a strong impetus for states to develop new data systems in order to
comply with the laws standards for teacher quality, this issue received less attention from states once it
became clear that those requirements would not consistently be enforced.221 Federal technical
assistance should help preclude any unnecessary diversion of resources and duplication of effort that
would occur if each state had to develop such technical expertise on its own.222
 Fed Research Solvency Deficit 1st Line
Federal government has unique data advantages for research that states cant
replicate
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

A federal research agenda also should identify the primary impediments to ensuring equal access to an
excellent education. For instance, research indicates that challenging work environments in urban
schools discourage highly qualified teachers from teaching in such schools.214 Once common
impediments are identified, research should examine the costs and benefits of potential reforms to
address these impediments. The federal government could assist states and localities as they undertake
and support research that responds to regional, state, and local conditions that present unique
challenges.215 Establishing a federal research agenda to ensure equal access to an excellent education
would capitalize on the federal governments substantial comparative advantage over states and
localities in conducting and supporting research.216 It would eliminate the inefficiencies caused by each
state conducting its own research. This research also would reduce the cost of state efforts to achieve
this goal by offering research that supplies the possible reforms for achieving this goal.217 Once this
research is disseminated, it would provide state and local governments sufficient models to consider as
they develop state- and district-specific plans of action.
 Fed Research Solvency Deficit xt
Federal research provides vital data for state program redesign for equity
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Rigorous, objective research that supports a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent
education should build on this success while also establishing an agenda that identifies the critical
research states need as they enact reforms to achieve this goal. This research would examine the most
cost-effective and efficient state funding methods that ensure equal access to an excellent
education.211 It also could propose and test funding models that states have not yet adopted. In
addition, federal research could assess school governance and funding models from other countries that
provide a more equitable distribution of educational resources.

Federal research allows unique access to comparative international data

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Additionally, federally supported research could help identify and disseminate research regarding the
essential characteristics of high-quality educational offerings. For example, scientifically based research
on such topics as the essential characteristics of a high-quality prekindergarten program should serve as
the foundation for identifying how to close opportunity gaps in prekindergarten education.212 Harvard
scholar Hirokazu Yoshikawa has found that these characteristics include involving children in planning
activities and creating low student-teacher ratios.213 In addition, the federal government should ensure
that existing rigorous research on this topic is disseminated to states so that states can avoid costly
duplication of research as they develop new programs
 AT Research Bad DA (?)
Research disads nonunique - ESRA
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Fortunately, Congress already has begun to recognize the need for rigorous educational research
through its passage of the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA).206 Congress passed ESRA in 2002 to
provide research that would assist the states in complying with NCLB. 207 ESRA created the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES) and authorized IES to engage only in research based on science.208 This
congressional requirement represents a substantial shift in how the federal government is conducting
and funding education research.209 This change has been noted as a promising development in
congressional support for education research and some believe that IES has helped emphasize evidence-
based approaches for education research that could focus attention on reforms that could be
replicated.210 The passage of ESRA indicates that Congress recognizes the need for federal support for
high-quality education research to enable the United States to reach its essential educational goals.
 Symbolism Deficit xt

Signal is crucial only fed can provide

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Inviting Incentives The first set of federal actions that influence state funding systems should invite state
reform. An invitation sends a message that the federal government is encouraging state reform of
funding systems but has not yet decided to insist on state reform. Such an invitation could most
effectively be offered in several ways. First, the federal government should increase public
understanding of this issue by focusing attention on the scope and nature of the disparities in funding
and their effects on children, families, and ultimately the nation. 142 This will require the federal
government to create and publish studies, reports, news articles, and press releases that explain in an
uncomplicated fashion where and how state funding systems are creating disparities in educational
opportunity. The importance of a clear and cohesive presentation of these issues is essential for the
American public to understand why this information is relevant and warrants a response. State school
funding systems are oftentimes complex labyrinths that can sometimes cause even the most astute
social scientist to become lost. Yet, the impacts of funding disparities on children are straightforward
and comprehensible by the American public. Historically, the federal government has established a
strong record of employing a variety of mediums to convey a message regarding reforms that are in the
national interest.143 In addition, the executive branch could undertake this effort without legislative
action and thus could initiate this critical first step at any time

Federal leadership is necessary and sufficient to transform educational disparity

debate
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Establishing equal access to an excellent education as a national priority would require federal
leadership to explain that a reexamination of the nations approach to education federalism is
warranted. Leaders would explain how education federalism has served as a barrier to past reforms164
and the reasons that restructuring education federalism must occur if the United States is ever going to
ensure equal access to an excellent education.165 This discussion should highlight federal willingness to
shoulder greater responsibility for leading the national effort to achieve this goal while emphasizing that
effective comprehensive reform must involve a shoulder-to-shoulder partnership among the federal,
state, and local governments. Fortunately, the federal government has proven its ability to herald the
importance of new educational goals and appropaches in the national interest.166 Research and history
confirm that agenda setting serves as one of the strengths of the federal government in education
policymaking.167 For instance, President Johnson successfully convinced Congress to advance equal
educational opportunity for low-income schoolchildren through the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, 168 which includes Title I, and the Economic Opportunity Act,169 which includes
programs like Head Start and Upward Bound.170 President Bush championed NCLB and its insistence on
proficiency for all children in math and reading, public reporting of testing data disaggregated by
subgroups, and a range of accountability interventions for failing schools.171 Therefore, a federal call to
implement a comprehensive plan to ensure equal access to an excellent education should build upon
the lessons learned from these and other federal reforms.
 Oversight S Deficit

Only ongoing federal oversight stops FUNCTIONAL not NOMINAL rollback

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Ongoing federal oversight of state funding systems is particularly important because state legislatures
sometimes adopt effective funding systems but then take steps to defund some aspects of the new
reforms. In 2005 the Kansas legislature adopted what is commonly referred to as "capital outlay
equalization payments" that sought to address disparities in the ability of districts to raise funds given
disparities in taxable property wealth.221 However, beginning in fiscal year 2010 the legislature ended
all equalization payments until the Kansas Supreme Court declared this action unlawful because it
"returns the qualifying districts to[]an unreasonable, wealth-based inequity. '222 Furthermore, judicial
oversight and media coverage helped to prevent the Kansas legislature from securing a lower cost study
that would have caused a leveling down of funding levels. Instead, the study confirmed the results of the
legislature's own independent consultants.2 23 As I noted in Part I.A., in February 2016, the Kansas
Supreme Court took the extreme measure of threatening closure of the Kansas schools if the Kansas
legislature did not produce a funding scheme consistent with the Court's requirements by June 30,
2016.224 Similarly, the New Jersey legislature has not fully funded its progressive funding reforms. 225
These examples suggest that ongoing federal oversight and accountability mechanisms will be necessary
to ensure that states do not backslide after they enact funding formulas that provide equitable and
excellent schools.

Federal oversight crucial for solvency - superior enforcement

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Demanding Continuous Improvement from States on Ensuring Equal Access to an Excellent Education
Through Federal Oversight that Utilizes a Collaborative Enforcement Model A federally-led effort to
ensure equal access to an excellent education should include federal monitoring of state progress. Such
monitoring would provide federal accountability for state progress, thus helping to foster
improvement.239 Oversight also would enable the federal government to identify states needs for
research, technical and financial assistance when the states fail to seek it. Effective federal monitoring
and oversight of a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education is also one of the
missing components of the current education reform agenda. This federal monitoring should focus on a
collaborative enforcement approach to resolve any disputes between the federal and state
governments regarding how states achieve this goal. In a 2007 article, I proposed a collaborative
enforcement model for a federal right to education and I envision this Articles theory adopting a similar
model.240 Under this collaborative approach, the federal government would establish a periodic,
reporting obligation on state efforts to ensure equal access to an excellent education.241 State
reporting would describe progress on achieving this goal, identify any impediments to progress, and
offer potential plans for reform. Input also would be sought from education reform organizations, civil
rights groups, and citizens so that the federal government would have a full picture of state efforts.242
A panel or commission of experts would review this information.243 Upon receiving this information,
the panel or commission would assess state reforms and provide feedback on how states could improve
their efforts.244 The panel or commission would not have authority to insist upon implementation of
these recommendations and instead would encourage states to develop their own approaches.245
Federal recommendations would merely serve as a research-based source of ideas for state reform. The
federal government also would assist states in identifying hindrances to effective reforms and provide
research and technical assistance based on successful reforms in other states.246 This federal
monitoring would draw upon the superior federal capability for enforcement of equity
requirements.247
 $$ S Deficit
Federal funding provision crucial better redistribution and overcomes local elites
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The federal government will need to provide financial assistance to states to support a national effort
to ensure equal access to an excellent education due to the substantial cost of closing opportunity and
achievement gaps.225 This financial support for education would leverage the federal governments
superior ability to redistribute resources among the states.226 This superior ability stems in part from
the federal governments capacity to spread the costs of redistribution across a wider national
constituency than state governments. In addition, business interests and the wealthy possess a greater
ability to thwart redistribution at the state level than at the federal level because they can threaten to
leave a state.227 Past experience reveals that federal resources can be an effective means for
influencing state and local education policy.228

Only way to MOTIVATE states and provide POLITICAL COVER

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

The federal financial contribution should include both incentives and assistance to address opportunity
and achievement gaps. Financial incentives will draw attention to this critical issue and motivate
states that have resisted reform , just as incentives motivated reform through RTTT.229 Financial
assistance also will expand the potential reform options beyond what states could implement with
their own state resources and will supply political cover for politicians who support reform.230 The
federal investment in efforts to ensure equal access to an excellent education could include funding
mechanisms such as competitive grants and formula grants.
 Standards Deficit
Federal leadership with state flexibility key to OTL standards
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Understanding Common OTL Standards Common OTL standards would aim to guide state efforts to
reduce substantial and impactful disparities in educational opportunity and set a floor for equal
educational opportunity, while states would retain the flexibility to ensure greater equality of
opportunity than the OTL standards demand. The states would serve as the primary architects of the
standards because this approach fosters greater cooperation in implementing the standards and
reduces criticism that the standards represent a federal takeover of education. As the standards are
being developed, the federal government could publicize research regarding the essential resources that
states must provide for students to achieve the learning benchmarks contained in the common core
standards. Common OTL standards would need to be broad enough to preserve the ability of states to
adopt a variety of educational governance, funding, and policymaking structures. Federal support for
common OTL standards should encourage state-level innovation and experimentation regarding how
each state implements the standards, thus preserving the states as laboratories for education
reform.176 The standards should eschew any suggestion that a one-size-fits-all approach should be
adopted for education.177 Moreover, decisions about how and what to teach, such as how best to
teach English language learners and whether to teach creationism within a science curriculum, should
remain within the purview of state and local control.

Federal support key to avoid state inaction because of litigation fears

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In addition, a federal effort to support adoption of national OTL standards would move beyond the
Commissions recommendation in two important ways. First, if the states agree to identify the resources
that are needed to offer a meaningful educational opportunity, they run the risk of being sued under
state constitutions for failing to provide these resources.183 Given this likelihood, federal support for
development of common OTL standards must act as a check against state incentives to set a low floor
for educational opportunity.184 Federal support for these standards would emphasize the importance
of excellence in education and the need to empower U.S. students to compete successfully with their
counterparts around the world. In contrast, states sometimes maintain a statewide or regional aim for
education and lose sight of the reality that students now compete in an international job market.
Second, my theory would draw upon the insights of states in defining essential educational resources,
but would not make each state the sole judge of its own standards, as the Commission report would
permit. Instead, the states would have to reach agreement on common standards, which inevitably
would involve a compromise on what should be included.
 Standards Deficit xt
Federal development of common OTL standards key
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Incentivizing Development of Common Opportunity-to-Learn Standards A federal effort to ensure equal

access to an excellent education should incentivize the states to develop common opportunity-to-learn
standards. Opportunity-to-learn (OTL) represent one of the critical missing elements of the current
education reform agenda. OTL standards would identify the in-school and out-of-school resources that
students should receive in order to meet rigorous achievement standards.172 The standards in most
states are the common core standards, which were developed by a group of assessment specialists and
academics in response to a request from the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National
Governors Association.173 The standards are intended to provide a clear set of math and English
language and literacy standards for kindergarten through twelfth grade that would prepare all public
schoolchildren to complete their high school education and to be ready to enroll in college or participate
in the workforce.174 OTL standards are essential for ensuring equal access to an excellent education
because, as leading education scholar Linda Darling-Hammond has noted, two decades of high
standards and testing implementation has revealed that there is plentiful evidence thatalthough
standards and assessments have been useful in clarifying goals and focusing attention on achievement
tests alone have not improved schools or created educational opportunities without investments in
curriculum, teaching, and school supports.175 I recommend the
adoption of common OTL standards to provide a mechanism for ensuring that educational
opportunities are distributed fairly so that state adoption of high academic standards can have the
intended effect of improving educational outcomes.

OTL standard development sovles by forcing states to articulate core components of

equity
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Common OTL standards would identify not only what educational resources should be offered but also
establish some standards for the quality of the resources needed to effectively implement rigorous
standards. For instance, common OTL standards could identify the essential elements of high-quality
prekindergarten education, especially given President Obamas recent focus on this issue.185 The
meaning of the phrase high-quality can differ greatly among the states and prekindergarten providers;
thus some common baseline for an understanding of high-quality should be established in common
OTL standards. Common OTL standards also might establish the necessary access to effective teachers,
educational materials, and support services. The analysis by Michael Rebell and Jessica Wolff provides
helpful examples of some of the elements that the standards should include. For instance, they
recommend that students should receive effective teachers, principals, and other personnel,
adequate school facilities, and instrumentalities of learning, including, but not limited to, up-to-date
textbooks, libraries, laboratories, and computers among other essential resources.186 Given the wide
range of resources that could be included in a common OTL standard, a thorough discussion of their
essential content is beyond the scope of this Article.
 AT State Backlash to Standards

Establishment of common core allows states to develops standards without backlash

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In its inception, the standards and accountability movement recognized that the success of academic
standards depended upon ensuring that students receive an equal opportunity to acquire the
knowledge within high standards.188 OTL standards were tested, but proved politically unsustainable, in
the mid-1990s.189 In 1994, Congress passed Goals 2000: Educate America Act and this law provided for
two options for the creation of OTL standards that established the conditions and resources needed
throughout the education system to provide students the opportunity to learn the content set forth in
voluntary national or state content standards.190 First, the National Education Standards and
Improvement Council was created to develop voluntary OTL standards.191 Second, states were
permitted to develop their own OTL standards.192 The Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994 (IASA)
also conditioned Title I funds on state development of rigorous content and performance standards.193
IASA included a requirement that state plans must describe how states will help districts and schools
develop the capacity to achieve high standards and that this plan could include OTL standards.19
These provisions were enacted because of the recognition that students could not be expected to
achieve high standards without an equal opportunity to learn the content within the standards.195
However, shortly after the passage of these laws, a Republican-controlled Congress repealed the federal
power to establish OTL standards and the mandate that states should establish such standards.196 In
contrast to the past effort, my recommendation of common OTL standards comes at a time in U.S.
history that is ripe for federal support for such standards. When OTL standards were first considered,
vigorous debates were ongoing about the content and implementation of academic standards and the
appropriate federal role regarding those standards.197 Today, although some opposition to the
common core standards has arisen regarding concerns such as the pace of implementation and federal
involvement in these standards,198 all states have adopted academic standards and the states are far
closer to adopting common academic standards than ever before.199 These common academic
standards will provide a consistent aim for education across states. This process will lay a foundation for
the states to identify what they need to provide to students to meet these standards. This common
endeavor, along with growing federal support and influence in education, should provide a more fertile
ground for federal incentives to create common OTL standards.
 States Structurally Fail
States structurally fail at education equity CP is both object fiat and doesnt solve
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Education Federalism Should Be Reexamined Because States Have Refused to Take the Necessary
Comprehensive and Sustained Action That Is Needed to Ensure Equal Access to an Excellent Education
Throughout this nations historyeven acknowledging state reforms of education and school finance
the states have not taken sustained and comprehensive action to ensure that all students receive equal
access to an excellent education.115 Redistributive goals and equity concerns are simply not consistent
state priorities for education.116 Indeed, the 2013 report from the Equity and Excellence Commission
found that: [A]ny honest assessment must acknowledge that our efforts to date to confront the vast
gaps in educational outcomes separating different groups of young Americans have yet to include a
serious and sustained commitment to ending the appalling inequitiesin school funding, in early
education, in teacher quality, in resources for teachers and students and in governancethat contribute
so mightily to these gap Furthermore, intrastate reforms cannot address significant and harmful
interstate disparities in funding.118 The limited scope of many reforms also reveals that the United
States has lacked the political will and investments in enforcement to adopt and implement the type of
reforms that would make equal access to an excellent education a reality.119 Given this generally
consistent failure to undertake comprehensive and sustained reform, the United States should not
expect different results from a system that has failed to ensure equal educational opportunity for many
generations of schoolchildren.120 Instead, an assessment of how education federalism could be
restructured to support a comprehensive national effort to achieve this goal is long overdue.Part II.F will
explain why further expansion of the role of the federal government as the guarantor of equal
opportunity represents a more fruitful avenue for reform than state level reform.

STRUCTURAL barriers preclude state solvency absent federal intervention

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Education Federalisms Insistence on State and Local Control of School Finance Systems Invites
Inequality Primary state and local control over education essentially invite inequality in educational
opportunity because of pervasive state insistence that local governments raise education funds and
state funding formulas that do not effectively equalize the resulting disparities in revenue.121 Although
some influential victories have occurred,122 school finance litigation has mostly failed to change the
basic organizational structure of school finance systems and their reliance on property taxes to fund
schools.123 Instead, this litigation at best has obtained limited increases in funding for property-poor
districts while allowing property-rich districts to maintain the same funding level or to raise their funding
rate at a slower pace.124 Recent evidence of the persistent inequalities in school funding can be found
in two distinct 2013 reports. A report from the Council on Foreign Relations found that in the United
States more is spent per pupil in highincome districts than in low-income districts.125 This stands in
sharp contrast to most other developed nations where the reverse is true.126 The Equity and Excellence
Commission report also found that [n]o other developed nation has inequities nearly as deep or
systemic; no other developed nation has, despite some efforts to the contrary, so thoroughly stacked
the odds against so many of its children.127 These disparities are due in substantial part to the
continued state reliance on property taxes to fund schools.128 As a result, state school finance systems
in the United States typically create many predominantly low-income and minority schools that
predictably produce poor outcomes because these schools typically lack both the resources to ensure
that their students obtain an effective education and the capacity to undertake effective reforms even
when these reforms are well conceived.129
 States Fail: Empirics
!!!50 years of empirics prove
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Disparities in educational opportunity along lines of class, race and neighborhood remain an enduring
characteristic of schools and districts throughout the United States.2 These disparities are shaped in
substantial part by the funding mechanisms that govern schools.3 As the recent report of the U.S.
Department of Education's Equity and Excellence Commission noted, "students, families and
communities are burdened by the broken system of education funding in America."'4 Although some
progress has been made, despite almost half a century of state school finance litigation, 5 most states
generally have not taken consistent and sustained action to adopt and maintain funding systems that
promote equal access to an excellent education. 6 Furthermore, the education reforms that have been
undertaken have not demanded sufficient changes to end the longstanding inequities in how the states
fund schools. 7 The United States should not expect these longstanding disparities and challenges to end
without a new commitment and approach to eliminating them. Even though we have learned some
important lessons from how states have implemented their education clauses, the laboratory of the
states has failed to protect the national interest in an excellent and equitable education system for all
children. Given this inconsistent and lackluster state commitment to the education finance systems that
the United States needs, the United States must look for new avenues to secure this important national
interest. Federal options for addressing spending disparities are particularly crucial because the greatest
variation in per pupil spending occurs between states, rather than within states.8 Currently, this
variation in funding between states accounts for seventy-eight percent of per pupil spending differences
and this variation represents a "historic high" and highlights the inadequacy of state reforms alone to
equalize resources. 9 Furthermore, research demonstrates that on international assessments, the
achievement of U.S. students at all income levels, including those from upper income families, lags
behind their international peers.10 Federal reforms are particularly important given the fact that
according to a 2016 review of the funding in forty-six states, at least twenty-five states have not
returned their per student general aid-the primary type of state funding for schools-to 2008 levels."
Seven of these twenty-five states have cut state general aid by ten percent or more. 2 In addition,
although most states increased general aid in 2016, twelve states reduced per pupil funding this year. 3
Insufficient financial support for public schools has remained the public's top education concern for at
least a decade. 4
 States Fail: School Finance Litigation

School finance litigation specifically proves states cant reverse inequality

Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)

Other research also confirms that many school finance systems within the United States fail to provide
an adequate and equitable distribution of education funding. For instance, a 2012 report entitled Is
School Funding Fair? A National Report Card assessed the school finance systems of all fifty states
against four fairness measures: (1) funding level-the level of state and local funding for school districts
compared to that of other states; (2) funding distribution-whether a state provides additional funding or
reduces funding to schools based on the concentration of student poverty; (3) effort-which compares
the difference between state spending on education relative to the fiscal capacity of the state based on
its per capita gross domestic product; and ( 4) coverage-the percentage of students in the state who
attend public schools.222 The resulting analysis provides a multifaceted and comprehensive assessment
of the school finance systems throughout the nation that stands in contrast to many studies that simply
use one measure of inequality. Several key findings highlight existing inequities in school finance
systems. The report notes that states have the most control over two factors-funding distribution and
effort.223 In particular, funding distribution provides the greatest insight into whether states attempt to
address the additional educational needs of lowincome students.224 On this measure, "[o]nly 17 states
have progressive funding systems, providing greater funding to highpoverty districts than to low-poverty
districts," which represents an increase from the fourteen states that were progressive in the 2010
report.225 Sixteen states have regressive systems that give less money to high-poverty districts, and
fifteen states provide the same level of funding to high- and low-poverty districts.226 This reveals that
only slightly more than one-third of the school finance systems are sending additional revenue to
address the well-documented greater needs of low-income students.227 The report also notes that
between 2007 and 2009, thirty-four states increased their effort, but that states varied widely in the
effort made to fairly fund schools.22s The report further highlights the importance of both sufficient and
progressive funding systems as an indispensable foundation for raising student achievement and closing
the achievement gaps.229 Ultimately, this research reveals that, although important reforms have
undoubtedly occurred and have improved educational opportunities for many children, these reforms
have not been consistently sufficient and comprehensive enough to end longstanding, inequitable
disparities in educational opportunity throughout the nation. Numerous scholars have noted the
insufficiency of these reforms.230 For instance, after surveying the research on the impact of school
finance litigation, education law scholar Derek Black concluded that "[t]he most accurate general
characterization of adequacy and equity litigation ... is that it has produced a net benefit, but significant
and troublesome inequalities still persist."23l Similarly, education law and policy scholar Benjamin
Michael Superfine has characterized the impact of school finance litigation as "somewhat limited" due
to the longstanding challenges facing education litigation generally, including vague legal standards,
empirical questions about central issues, and political hostility to reform.232 Further, he notes that
equalization oftentimes did not require increased educational spending and that test scores ultimately
have not improved even when spending was increased.233 Indeed, the resistance of most school
finance systems to comprehensive reform prompted leading education law scholar James Ryan to
comment recently that even when state school finance litigation has succeeded, the results have been
"modest" and "not a single suit has done much to alter the basic structure of school finance
schemes."234 Therefore, important reforms of state school finance systems have occurred that have
addressed some of the disparities in educational opportunity, but these reforms have not ended the
funding inequities that result in substandard schools for many disadvantaged schoolchildren.235 Even
though the Court in Rodriguez called for reform of the nation's school finance systems to advance equal
educational opportunity,236 the local control of education that was supposed to encourage
experimentation simply has failed to foster comprehensive and effective state efforts that eliminate
inequitable disparities in educational opportunity. Although some contend that such experimentation
and reform suggests the Court in Rodriguez correctly left this issue to the states,237 the steadfast
persistence in disparities in educational opportunity that harm disadvantaged students indicates the
Court's trust in states to end these disparities may have been misplaced. Therefore, closing the federal
courthouse door to school finance litigation has left disadvantaged schoolchildren without a means to
obtain comprehensive and lasting reform of school finance systems that continue to tolerate significant
and inequitable disparities in educational opportunity. Given the limited impact of state school finance
litigation and reform, Rodriguez remains essential to understanding how education federalism has
served as one of the hindrances to the nation's efforts to achieve equal educational opportunity.
 States Fail: Local Tax Strucutre
Tax disparities prohibit equity through state and local control
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Through this analysis, I seek to increase understanding of what makes funding systems inequitable and
inefficient. Thus, I do not dwell upon the common criticism that state funding systems rely too heavily
upon local property taxes. Disparities in funding raised from property taxes due to disparities in wealth
between districts undoubtedly cause inequities in per pupil funding and in the educational opportunities
provided to students.32 This weakness of state funding systems is well documented and has been noted
repeatedly in research and case law. 33 Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in 1973 in San Antonio
Independent School District v. Rodriguez stated that the United States should consider innovations to
school funding that encourage greater excellence and equity in education because the states "may well
have relied too long and too heavily on the local property tax." 34 Many states have reduced their
reliance on local taxes, including property taxes, since Rodriguez even while property taxes remain the
primary source of local funding for schools.3 5 In 2011-12 for example, property taxes served as eighty-
one percent of local education revenue and thirty-six percent of total revenue for public schools. 3 6 In
seven states, property taxes constituted fifty percent or more of total spending on public schools and in
twenty-eight states property taxes constituted 25 to 49.9 percent of total spending. 37 This entrenched
and longstanding reliance on local revenue necessarily causes persistent funding disparities. 38
 States Fail: local politics
Local politics prohibit
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

School finance research confirms that state funding systems are not effectively linked to the desired
educational outcomes or meeting students' needs, including successfully providing the content within
state standards. One researcher explains how funding amounts are determined by noting that "[t]he
current approach to funding public education essentially consists of two steps: determining how much
money is available each year and dividing that amount by the number of students." 88 Similarly,
education scholar Paul Hill, in his article "Spending Money When It Is Not Clear What Works," has
analyzed how funding systems for schools are developed, and highlighted the dearth of analysis of what
schools need and the costs to meet those needs. 89 Some states have made improvements in their
school funding system in past decades and have linked their formulas to state standards. 90 Yet research
reveals that most states still refuse to design, enact, and maintain funding systems that enable students
to learn the content of rigorous standards that aim to prepare students for postsecondary education
and college. 9 1 Instead, too often politics drives state funding systems in ways that benefit wealthier
districts. Politics often pushes funding systems to ensure every district gets a piece of the state aid pie,
sometimes without regard to the ability of a district to fund its schools. 92 This can occur when states
include a minimum funding amount that ensures that even districts with little need for state funding still
receive it. 93 In addition, when reforms are enacted, states sometimes maintain funding levels for
districts from a prior selected year, also known as "hold-harmless" provisions. 94 Some states also adopt
specific, but limited, provisions that solely benefit the wealthiest districts. For instance, although Arizona
does not adjust its funding formula to provide additional funds to low-income students, it does provide
an adjustment to pay for more experienced teachers who more frequently select schools with students
with fewer needs. 95 Likewise in Kansas, districts with the highest property values are authorized to
adopt a special tax that raises additional revenue for teacher; compensation given the higher housing
prices. Due to the history of housing:t discrimination in neighborhoods surrounding Kansas City, this
enables largely white neighborhoods to raise additional money to hire teachers while nearby minority
districts lack this capacity. 96 The persistent refusal of states to link funding systems to desired
educational outcomes sets up children to fail to meet state standards. This refusal can also harm
teachers whose reviews and salaries are increasingly linked to student performance on these standards.
97
 States Fail: Oversight
States cant solve oversight ineffective
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Further evidence of the lack of effective oversight of funding systems may be found in the fact that
many states lack reliable mechanisms to ensure that funds are efficiently used to increase student
outcomes. The Equity and Excellence Commission noted that "[m]ost states do not properly ensure the
efficient use of resources to attain high achievement for all students.' 24 Similarly, a 2014 report from
the Center for American Progress assessed educational outcomes relative to a district's expenditures for
more than eighty percent of all U.S. students (more than 41 million students) in over 7000 districts. 25 It
found that only Florida and Texas consistently assess the efficiency of districts and schools at producing
student outcomes. 26 This reveals a lack of attention by many states to whether their education
investments are yielding effective results. 127 The study found that over 275 districts earned a highly
inefficient rating on all of the productivity measures and thousands were found inefficient on one
measure.2 s Furthermore, in over half of the states that were analyzed, "there was no clear relationship
between spending and achievement after adjusting for other variables.' 1 29 In addition, high spending
was not consistently correlated with high achievement as the highest third in achievement only included
thirty-seven percent of the 2397 districts in the highest third for expenditures. 130 This study also found
that low productivity was not distributed equally along lines of race and class. Instead, districts with low
productivity were more likely to educate low-income students.' 3 ' Similarly, African American students
were eight times more likely to attend the least productive districts than themost productive and
Hispanic students were twice as likely to attend the least productive districts than the most productive.
13 2 Research also reveals how funds are spent inefficiently within education. 133 Paul Hill has noted
that there is a lack of knowledge about how money is currently used and how it should be used to
achieve desired outcomes. 34 Some district leaders fail to effectively link reform strategies and the
distribution of resources.' 35 Another common inefficiency is the focus on urban school systems as
providers of jobs rather than providers of education.136 Some districts also are investing resources in
reforms that have little impact on instructional practices or student achievement.' 37 Yet, scholars have
provided research and analyses that offer roadmaps for linking resources and reforms that can increase
student achievement. 38 The persistence of inequitable and inefficient funding systems confirms the
lack of effective oversight of state and district funding systems. This fact also confirms that states and
districts simply lack sufficient incentives, resources, or both to adopt more effective and efficient
practices. Part II considers some of the potential reforms that could be included within an incremental
federal strategy to influence state funding systems.
 State Autonomy =/= local control
Local controls non-existent and furthers inequity
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Local participation in the governance of school districts also is quitelow. The growing federal and state
influence over education has led somescholars to contend that local control no longer exists within
Americaneducation and, in fact, it has not existed for quite some time. 88 Educationfederalism also has
led to varying levels of local control for differentcommunities, with low-income and minority
communities oftentimesexperiencing the least local control. In low-income communities,community
participation regularly can yield little influence due to the lack of political power and financial means of
residents.89 Low-income citizensalso cannot influence local or state governments to enact favorable
policiesand reforms when these governments lack the funds for implementation.90Parents also do not
enjoy an unfettered ability to choose their childsschool.91 Although the quality of schools certainly
influences where manyfamilies purchase homes, low-income families typically lack the financialability to
choose the best schools because such schools are zoned for moreexpensive housing options.92
 State Autonomy =/= accountability
Local control doesnt improve accountability
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Local participation in the governance of school districts also fails to yield the accountability that it is
supposed to secure. Research reveals that local participation in school board elections and governance
can be quite limited.93 Typically, no more than ten to fifteen percent of voters participate in school
board elections.94 School board meetings also oftentimes experience low citizen attendance.95 Even
the structure of many school board meetings limits public discussion and often public discussion does
not influence board decisions.96 Research also has found that many who support the concept of locally
controlled school boards do not understand the functions of school boards or support the school boards
in their communities.97

Federal control improves accountability on balance

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Federal reform consistent with my theory for disrupting education federalism might diminish some
state and local accountability for education. Once the federal government takes responsibility as the
final guarantor of equal access to an excellent education and thereafter monitors state progress toward
achieving this goal, the public will begin to hold the federal government accountable for educational
disparities. This accountability is more diffuse and less effective than state and local accountability
because federal officials are more removed from state and local electorates and are held accountable
for a wider range of decisions.336 However, it is important to note two responses to this concern. First,
the public has not effectively held state and local officials accountable for closing opportunity gaps. For
that reason, adding an additional layer of accountabilityeven a diffuse layercould facilitate
achievement of this objective. Second, as noted above, this proposed theory would not remove state
and local accountability for ensuring equal access to an excellent education. Instead, state and local
officials would be charged with designing and implementing plans to achieve this goal and thus critical
aspects of state and local accountability would be preserved.337 Federal officials would be responsible
for offering some of the incentives, research, expertise, and financial support that is needed to
accomplish this objective. In these ways, my proposed theory ultimately would increase total
government accountability for achieving this goal. For these reasons, it would more effectively reap
some of the benefits that education federalism is designed to achieve.
 EdFism bad on balance
DESPITE federal failures, theyre still STRUCTURALLY better than the aff
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Some may argue that the states should bear the primary burden for ensuring equal access to an
excellent education because education remains primarily a state function. I reject this dualist
understanding of education262 while highlighting our longstanding history that reveals that the states
will not rectify opportunity and achievement gaps on their own. The federal role in education has grown
significantly in recent decades and has become increasingly influential.263 My proposed theory builds
upon the growing consensus reflected in NCLB and other federal education legislation that the federal
government should exercise a substantial role in education law and policy.264 Others may contend that
the United States should rein in the growing federal role in education. In some ways, this criticism points
to the failures of past federal initiatives as evidence that the federal governments role in education
should be curtailed. Most recently, some scholars condemn the shortcomings and implementation of
NCLB and RTTT.265 Undeniably, the federal government has undertaken a variety of unsuccessful
education reforms.266 Yet, an established track record in education over the last fifty years has given us
ample evidence to identify the strengths and weaknesses of federal education policymaking. My theory
intentionally builds upon identified federal strengths in innovative and progressive ways. In particular,
the theory builds on the foundational premise that in the face of inconsistent and overwhelmingly
ineffective state reform, the federal government enjoys a superior and more consistent reform record
on issues of educational equity.267 Education scholars Charles Barone and Elizabeth DeBray confirmed
this superior track record in stating that: Over the past half century, Congress has most frequently
sought, and in most cases successfully enacted, sweeping changes to federal law when (1) a segment of
U.S. Society was judged as having been denied equal educational opportunity and (2) states and
municipalities were unable or unwilling to remedy those inequities. In education, as in other areas, like
voting rights or retirement security for seniors, this has unquestionably been its most important and
powerful role.268 My theory builds upon this superior record in proposing a theory for disrupting
education federalism that can guide the United States toward equal access to an excellent education

EVEN IF local control has benefits, this solves better

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In noting that education federalism does not consistently yield the benefits that it is designed to secure,
I am not suggesting that it does not yield some important benefits. Certainly, the decentralized nature of
the American education system fosters some state and local experimentation and innovation, such as
curricular reform, teaching innovations, and other state and local reforms.98 One need look no further
than the effectiveness of some charter schools against great odds, or community-based reforms that
coordinate and connect the educational, health, and social service needs of children to find examples of
success that have arisen from local reforms.99 The current structure of education federalism undeniably
fosters more state and local control and accountability for state and local decisions than a completely
federalized system of education.100 These important benefits are worth preserving. However, the
inconsistency in reaping these benefits suggests that it is worth reexamining how education federalism
could be restructured to more reliably secure such benefits.
 ONLY perm solves

State deference will hamstring ANY efforts at reform NCLB proves

Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 represents the most farreaching federal legislative effort to
advance educational equity and excellence in the nation's history.2ss The founding legislation for NCLB,
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,239 focused on providing additional resources to
disadvantaged students to attempt to bridge the opportunity gap between these students and their
more affluent peers.240 Subsequent reauthorizations built upon this focus on low-income students
while also expanding federal assistance to particular populations of students, such as English language
learners.241 This federal legislation eventually embraced the standards and accountability movement
by requiring states to adopt the same rigorous academic standards for all students through the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.242 NCLB is a bipartisan congressional attempt to begin to
close both the achievement gap and the opportunity gap.243 It substantially expanded and restructured
the federal role in elementary and secondary education and, in doing so, ultimately shaped a new
education federalism.244 However, even as NCLB was reshaping education federalism, education
federalism handicapped NCLB's ability to effectively address the achievement and opportunity gaps. This
Part analyzes how education federalism hindered two key NCLB provisions: the requirement that all
states adopt challenging academic standards and the requirement that all classrooms have a highly
qualified teacher. This analysis reveals that even the most far-reaching federal effort to promote equity
and excellence in education could not escape the policymaking constraints of education federalism.

Aff is NECESSARY as well as sufficient ANY other effort will be cracked by deference
to states
Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)

Undoubtedly, no one factor can explain the failure of decades of school reform efforts. A variety of
additional factors have hindered these reforms, and the above analysis is not attempting to suggest
otherwise. Even with this essential caveat, it is important to recognize the consistent ways that
education federalism limited several reforms as scholars, educators, and policy-makers attempt to
understand why the nation continues to provide substandard educational opportunity to many
students. This understanding will provide a crucial foundation for building more effective and
comprehensive reforms in the future. Furthermore, education federalism's past hindrance of efforts to
advance equal educational opportunity raises an important question: does education federalism need to
be restructured to allow for effective federal efforts to ensure equal access to an excellent education?
This question is particularly relevant as scholars, politicians, and advocacy groups are proposing a variety
of recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.290 In a
future work, I consider this timely question. In the meantime, it is important to acknowledge the
systematic ways that education federalism hampered past efforts to ensure equal educational
opportunity as the nation considers adopting new efforts to achieve this vital national goal.
AT Federalism DA
 NU: Top level
Federal role in education has been growing
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Others may contend that the United States should rein in the growing federal role in education. In some
ways, this criticism points to the failures of past federal initiatives as evidence that the federal
governments role in education should be curtailed. Most recently, some scholars condemn the
shortcomings and implementation of NCLB and RTTT.265 Undeniably, the federal government has
undertaken a variety of unsuccessful education reforms.266 Yet, an established track record in
education over the last fifty years has given us ample evidence to identify the strengths and weaknesses
of federal education policymaking. My theory intentionally builds upon identified federal strengths in
innovative and progressive ways. In particular, the theory builds on the foundational premise that in the
face of inconsistent and overwhelmingly ineffective state reform, the

Federal role in education has been growing undermines dual federalism

interpretation
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Some may argue that the states should bear the primary burden for ensuring equal access to an
excellent education because education remains primarily a state function. I reject this dualist
understanding of education262 while highlighting our longstanding history that reveals that the states
will not rectify opportunity and achievement gaps on their own. The federal role in education has grown
significantly in recent decades and has become increasingly influential.263 My proposed theory builds
upon the growing consensus reflected in NCLB and other federal education legislation that the federal
government should exercise a substantial role in education law and policy.264
 NU: Parents Involved
NU Parents Involved decision
Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)

Parents Involved and Education Federalism The Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 can be viewed as a departure from the Court's prior interest in
preserving local control of public schools.lll In Parents Involved, the Court struck down voluntary student
assignment plans that were adopted by the school districts in Seattle and Louisville because the districts
failed to prove that the use of race was necessary and that the districts had given goodfaith
consideration to race-neutral alternatives.n2 The decision departs from past decisions' emphasis on
local control because the Court refused to defer to the decision of the school boards on their need for
the plan and the ineffectiveness of race-neutral alternatives, despite being urged to do so in numerous
briefs.ll3 The refusal to reaffirm local control may suggest that the Court's prior interest in preserving
local control may have simply represented a convenient cover for its lack of willingness to ensure
effective school desegregation,114 Indeed, elsewhere I have argued that Parents Involved merely
continued the Court's affirmation of a return to segregated schools.115

Parents involved proves theres no OVERRIDING state autonomy interest now

Robinson 13 Professor, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, The High Cost of The Nation's Current
Framework for Education Federalism, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287 (2013)

Ultimately, although one can plausibly read Parents Involved as suggesting that local control did not
serve as a paramount interest in the preceding school desegregation cases, the decision does not
disprove that local control and maintaining the existing balance of federal and state authority served as
important interests that limited the reach of school desegregation. These interests may still have guided
the Court's decisions on school desegregation from Milliken I onward. Instead, Parents Involved may
reveal that although these interests remain essential, even they must yield to other predominant
principles in a particular case.
 NU: NCLB
DOE is currently using NCLB waivers to coerce the states its just a mess
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

My theory for disrupting education federalism is particularly timely for two reasons. First, the United
States is undergoing an unprecedented expansion of the federal role in education and an accompanying
shift in its approach to education federalism. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,23
also known as the stimulus bill, authorized an unprecedented $100 billion to invest in education funding,
tuition tax credits, and college grants which President Obama trumpeted as the largest investment in
education in our nations history.24 The stimulus bill included $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top
(RTTT) program, which represented far more discretionary funding than all of Secretary of Education
Arne Duncans predecessors.25 Although RTTT has its shortcomings,26 it has sparked significant
education reform, including greater state support for the common core standards, charter schools, and
revisions to state laws regarding the use of student testing data to evaluate teachers.27 In a number of
states and districts, the two years following the creation of RTTT sparked more reform than those
locations had seen in the preceding twenty years.28 The stimulus bill built on the substantial expansion
of the federal role in education created by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).29 NCLB
represents the most expansive education reform law in the history of the United States.30 For example,
the laws far-reaching provisions required annual testing in math and reading in third through eighth
grade and once in grades ten through twelve and periodically in science.31 The law also instituted public
reporting of results of student assessments on the content of state standards, launched disaggregation
of this data for a variety of student characteristics including race and ethnicity, created accountability
interventions for Title I schools, and set minimum requirements for highly qualified teachers.32
Although NCLB also established a new federal role in education, it did not provide an accompanying new
understanding of education federalism that could help to guide this role.33 Given congressional failure
to reauthorize the law in a timely manner, the U.S. Department of Education continues to wield this
expansive federal authority through waivers of NCLB requirements if states will agree to new conditions
on the receipt of federal aid.34
 No U L ESEA

Funding leverage exists through ESEA now thats likely aff implementation
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

One of the most effective vehicles for attaching federal conditions would be a future reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act because the ESEA reaches all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. 69 Given the much-delayed recent reauthorization of the ESEA and its emphasis on
decreasing the federal presence in education, an ESEA that includes direct federal influence over state
funding is unrealistic today. Yet, the federal role in education has historically gone through cycles of
great expansion and contraction 170 that over time have resulted in a gradually expanding federal role
in education. Therefore, the recent contraction in the ESSA should not be seen as a signal that a future
expansion of the federal role, including one over state funding systems, is impossible or even unlikely.
Undoubtedly, the federal role in education today would surprise those lawmakers who passed the
original ESEA. Federal funding through ESEA could help states address a substantial component of state
funding shortfalls identified by expert analysis of state funding systems. As Part I explained, two of the
primary shortfalls of state funding for education are providing less or equal funding to low-income
students with greater needs and low funding levels.' 7 ' Federal aid could help to close these funding
gaps when combined with additional state investments in education. In addition, federal conditions on
funding could insist that states assess and explain how their funding systems are closely linked to the
state's desired education outcomes. One advantage of employing ESEA conditions to encourage states
to adopt funding systems that promote equity and excellence is that the need to reauthorize ESEA can
encourage compromise on these conditions. However, it also is possible that such conditions could stall
future ESEA reauthorizations given the recent eight-year delay in reauthorizing the statute. 1 7 2
 ESEA xt
ESEA reauthorization conditions without coercion
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Congress could add conditions to the ESEA by including a new program focused on supporting state
development and implementation of funding-- systems that advance equity and excellence. Although
this would be a part of. ESEA, it would operate as one of the many separate programs within the law. 17
4 States would have the option to reject such funding and the conditions attached to it even while
continuing to accept other programs within the ESEA, consistent with past education spending programs
and NFIB.175 Given the incentives that will exist for states to reject such funding, the funding should be
sufficiently substantial to encourage meaningful participation by the states. It is impossible to estimate
the dollar amount of such funding, but for impactful reforms of state funding systems to occur the
amount would likely need to rival, or even exceed, the funding within Title I, which in fiscal year 2015
was: $14.4 billion. 176
 Dual/ Coop Takes Out DA

Their DA relies on dual federalism which is a fiction in education

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Education Federalism Has Served as One of Several Important Roadblocks to Reforms Aimed at Ensuring
Equal Educational Opportunity As explained in the Introduction, in a 2013 article I analyzed how a
preference for local control and a limited federal role in education have functioned as one of several
critical roadblocks to three of the primary reforms that promote equal educational opportunity: school
desegregation, school finance litigation in federal court, and NCLB.101 For instance, key Supreme Court
decisions, from the 1974 decision in Milliken v. Bradley to the 1995 decision in Missouri v. Jenkins, relied
on the structure of federalism and the American tradition of local control of education as one of the
reasons for severely curtailing the authority of courts to ensure effective school desegregation.102 In so
doing, these opinions clung to a form of dual federalism that required separate spheres for certain
government functions, and thus insisted that education was solely a state and local function.103
However, dual federalism had already been eschewed in prior Court decisions that prohibited
segregated educational systems, and in federal legislation and enforcement that provided additional
federal funding for low-income students and that required equal educational opportunity for girls,
women, disabled students, and English language students.104 Similarly, the Supreme Court relied upon
education federalism as one of several justifications for rejecting a federal right to education in San
Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. 105 The Court noted that it lacked the expertise to
interfere with state and local education judgments (an objection that did not stop the Court from
deciding Brown) regarding the most effective education reforms and the connection between funding
and educational quality.106 The Courts rationale also highlighted the importance of local control of
schools and the values it brings, such as tailoring programs to students needs and experimentation.107
The Court insisted that it did not want to disturb the existing balance of power between the federal and
state governments by reaching a decision that essentially would result in striking down school finance
systems throughout the United States.108 Thus, the Courts decision privileged federalism interests over
the nations interest in equal educational opportunity and insulated school finance disparities from
federal judicial review.109 Even when Congress was adopting NCLB, which represents the most
comprehensive education statute aimed at closing achievement and opportunity gaps, the nations
longstanding approach to education federalism insisted that states decide the standards for students
and teachers.110 This congressional genuflect to education federalism resulted in many states failing
to adopt rigorous standards for either students or teachers.111
 No Spending Coercion Link

Aff doesnt violate Sebelius

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

As a threshold matter, any conditions that seek to promote equal access to an excellent education must
be adopted consistent with the Supreme Court's analysis in NFIB.' 61 In that case, the Supreme Court for
the first time struck down a component of a Spending Clause statute because it was unconstitutionally
coercive. 162 However, as I have explained in Disrupting Education Federalism, although NFIB will
inform any expansion of the federal role in education, it will not prevent such an expansion for several
reasons. 63 Even as the Court struck down the penalty on states that chose not to participate in the
Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid, the Court in NFIB reminded Congress that it could attach
conditions to new funds, in contrast to the Affordable Care Act's conditioning of old funds on new
conditions.164 Thus, even if Congress enacted new conditions that rivaled or exceeded the funding
available in Title I, the states would retain "a genuine choice whether to participate."'' 65 This remains
the core Spending Clause requirement, even as NFIB provides much-needed insight into when the states
are denied a genuine choice. In addition, NFIB struck down the Medicaid penalty because the
cumulative effect of several aspects of the penalty led it to become compulsory, including the large,
well-entrenched nature of the Medicaid program and the inclusion of new and unanticipated conditions
that threatened the loss of new and old funding.1 66 NFIB signals that Congress would need to replicate
all of these troublesome aspects to violate the Spending Clause, which seems particularly unlikely given
the comparatively small amount of funding for even the largest education program, Title I, when
assessed alongside the large amount of Medicaid funding. 167 Given the low likelihood of this occurring
postNFIB, Congress retains broad authority to pursue a comprehensive education agenda that promotes
both equity and excellence, including one that seeks to influence state funding of education.' 68 One of
the most effective vehicles

Federal authority still legitimate under Sebelius

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

I contend that both the executive branch and Congress can significantly restructure and expand their
authority over education under the Spending Clause even though the United States Supreme Court, for
the first time, has placed limitations on Spending Clause legislation in National Federation of
Independent Business v. Sebelius. 21 As Part III explains, the broad parameters established by the Court
for Spending Clause legislation in the decision would provide Congress and the executive branch ample
room to take action that would strengthen federal authority over education in ways that would not run
afoul of the Constitution. In reaching this conclusion, I agree with other scholars who contend that for
the Court to find a statute unconstitutional in the future, a statute would need to include each of the
factors that the plurality found troubling in National Federation of Independent Business rather than any
one of those factors in isolation.22
No unique Sebelius violation other ed programs determine
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In considering what NFIB will mean for education federalism, I agree with those who contend that
education programs within NCLB, as well as other major education laws, are likely to be upheld even
after NFIB. 299 As states are permitted to select which NCLB programs they want to participate in, it is
important to analyze the constitutionality of NCLB based upon the separate programs that are packaged
within the law.300 Title I represents the largest program under NCLB and cost approximately $17.114
billion for fiscal year 2011.301 For fiscal year 2011, states spent a total of $1.672 trillion and thus Title I
represents 1.02% of states budgets.302 As education law scholar Eloise Pasachoff previously noted
when she conducted this analysis, this potential loss is far closer to the potential loss to South Dakota
that the Court upheld as constitutional in Dole than to the threatened loss in NFIB. 303 In addition, NCLB
also avoids the NFIB concerns by eliminating the pre-NCLB Elementary and Secondary Education Act;
thus, new funds are not conditioned on an old program.304 Given that NCLB represents the most
intrusive and extensive federal education law in U.S. history, the strong likelihood that the largest
program within this law is constitutional under NFIB suggests that Congress is likely to retain extensive
authority to pass additional education legislation under the Spending Clause.305 Even after NFIB,
Congress enjoys ample constitutional room to leverage federal funds to institute this Articles theory for
ensuring equal access to an excellent education for several reasons. It is important to note that the
plurality found the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion to be coercive because of the combined
effect of several factors rather than any single factor.306 Thus, a fair reading of the plurality opinion
suggests that to run afoul of NFIB, a federal education program would have to take a pre-existing, large,
well-entrenched program, add new and unforeseen conditions that are so substantial as to constitute an
independent program, and present the possibility of losing all funds for both the old and new as
conditions for any state not wanting to follow the new conditions.307 The need to run afoul of multiple
concerns simultaneously will leave Congress with ample room to enact far-reaching education
legislation.

Sebelius plurality allows tied funding

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

n addition, both the plurality and the joint dissent reaffirmed the ability to attach conditions to the grant
of new funds.308 Together these opinions make clear that a new federal education program that
offered new funding in exchange for state compliance with conditions for spending those funds should
easily pass constitutional muster under NFIB. Furthermore, such a law would remain constitutional even
if the new funds and conditions build upon a preexisting federal conditional spending program. This is
permissible because the plurality and joint dissent both indicated approval for attaching new conditions
that built upon the prior Medicaid program as long as those conditions did not jeopardize the previously
authorized and accepted Medicaid funds.309

Modest spending outlays mean aff wont hit Sebelius threshold

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7
Finally, broad constitutional authority still exists for Congress to ensure equal access to an excellent
education under the Spending Clause because, as the joint dissent noted, even though education
spending is the second largest federally funded item, the total amount of all federal education programs
currently represents a relatively small percentage of all state expendituresonly 6.6% of all state
expenditures combined.310 This total amount includes a wide variety of federal education programs,
including Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This percentage pales in comparison
to the approximately 22% of total state budgets that were allocated to pre-expansion Medicaid.311
Even if the federal government adopted a generous and robust plan to ensure that all children receive
equal access to an excellent education, it seems very unlikely that its funding of one education program
would surpass the total amount that it spent on a wide variety of elementary and secondary education
programs.312 Therefore, NFIB leaves Congress ample constitutional authority to ensure equal access to
an excellent education.

Collaborative enforcement model ensures that coercive funding is the option of

absolute last resort
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In addition, the collaborative enforcement approach would view penalties as an undesirable last resort,
particularly given the additional leverage that National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
may provide states to challenge implementation of federal programs, which is discussed below.248
Instead, it would embrace flexibility in negotiating compliance with federal funding conditions when
warranted by unique state and local conditions.249 A collaborative enforcement model also would
require the U.S. Department of Education to develop systems to ensure consistency in federal oversight
so that the inconsistent enforcement that undermined NCLBs implementation, and prior authorizations
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is not repeated.250
Right Wing Populism Bad xt
 U xt

Fascism is surging dismissals underestimate the risk

McDougall 16 http://theconversation.com/no-this-isnt-the-1930s-but-yes-this-is-fascism-68867 James McDougall Associate Professor
of Modern History, University of Oxford

The spread of fascism in the 1920s was significantly aided by the fact that liberals and mainstream
conservatives failed to take it seriously. Instead, they accommodated and normalised it.

The centre right is doing the same today. Brexit, Trump and the far right ascendant across Europe
indicate that talk of a right-wing revolutionary moment is not exaggerated. And the French presidential
election could be next on the calendar.

The shock felt by status-quo liberals and the anguish experienced on the left are matched only by the
satisfaction of those on the extreme right that finally they are winning. The so-called mature liberal
democracies have long managed to marginalise them. They have long seen themselves as vilified for
speaking the common mans unpalatable truths to out-of-touch elites. Now their champions are taking
the political mainstream by storm.

The signs are there if you look for them. EPA

And amid the disbelief, heartbreak, and protest, centre-right politicians and commentators seek to
normalise and reassure. They dismiss whingers and moaners. They tell us to get over it and brush
off talk of a new fascism as unfounded scaremongering.

Even among historians, apparently as the conservative British writer Niall Ferguson condescended to
tell Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis analogies with the 1930s are made only by the easily confused.

The circumstances of society, the economy and geopolitics are so different, we are told, that todays
right-wing populism cannot be called a fascistic revival. The mainstream centre right assures us that all
will be well in the wake of Trumps election. It did the same after the UKs EU referendum, even as hate
crime figures skyrocketed. Conservative politicians continue to insist that the real news is about the
wonderful opportunities ahead.

But that is precisely where the real analogy with Europe in the 1920s and 1930s lies. The circumstances
of 2016 are indeed very different to those against which militarised party shock troops fought street
battles, and monarchists looked for a strong man to capture popular grievances and save them from
Bolshevik revolution.

But historical circumstances, like individuals, are always unique and unrepeatable. The point of
comparison is not to suggest that we are living though the 1930s redux. It is to recognise the very strong
family resemblance in ideas shared by the early 20th century far right and its mimics today.

Discussion of fascism suffers from an excess of definition. That often, ironically, allows far-right groups
and their apologists to disavow the label because of some tick-box characteristic which they can be said
to lack. But just as we can usefully talk about socialism as a recognisable political tradition without
assuming that all socialisms since the 1840s have been cut from one mould, so we can speak of a
recognisably fascist style of politics in Europe, the US, Russia and elsewhere. It is united by its espousal
of a set of core ideas.

The theatrical machismo, the man or woman of the people image, and the deliberately provocative,
demagogic sloganeering that impatiently sweeps aside rational, evidence-based argument and the rule-
bound negotiation of different perspectives the substance of democracy, in other words is only the
outward form that this style of politics takes.

More important are its characteristic memes. Fascism brings a masculinist, xenophobic nationalism that
claims to put the people first while turning them against one another. That is complemented by anti-
cosmopolitanism and anti-intellectualism. It denounces global capitalism, blaming ordinary peoples
woes on an alien plutocracy in a language that is both implicitly anti-Semitic and explicitly anti-
immigrant, while offering no real alternative economics. In the US, that was perfectly exemplified in
Trumps closing campaign ad.

Trumps view of the world.

A view of the world is presented that is centred on fears of national suicide and civilisational decline,
in which whites are demographically overwhelmed by inferior peoples, minorities and immigrants.
Today, this is the French far-rights paranoid fantasy of le grand remplacement. Geopolitics are defined
by latent religio-racial war. In the 1930s, this meant a death struggle with communism. Today, it looks
to, and feeds abundantly on, Islamist extremism and Islamic State, abusively identified with Islam as a
whole.

This is a new fascism, or at least near-fascism, and the centre right is dangerously underestimating its
potential, exactly as it did 80 years ago. Then, it was conservative anti-communists who believed they
could tame and control the extremist fringe. Now, it is mainstream conservatives, facing little electoral
challenge from a left in disarray. They fear the drift of their own voters to more muscular, anti-
immigrant demagogues on the right. They accordingly espouse the rights priorities and accommodate
its hate speech. They reassure everyone that they have things under control even as the post-Cold War
neoliberal order, like the war-damaged bourgeois golden age last century, sinks under them.
 Inequality Key xt
Inequality key to American fascism
Creamer 3/14/16 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/can-fascism-triumph-in-am_b_9456408.html Robert Creamer is
a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

Like other fascist movements, Trump says out loud and legitimates the kind of hateful, violent
language that was previously whispered only in the privacy of peoples living rooms. And like previous
generations of fascists, Trump frames his rhetoric in populist terms, while actually promoting policy
solutions that would instead benefit plutocrats like himself. And its worth noting, that while he doesnt
always use exactly the same rhetoric, Senator Ted Cruz shares many of Trumps values. Its not hard to
see why Trump has been successful in Republican primary politics. Much of the elite media and
Washington political class was blindsided by his appeal. But this is because many of them missed the
central underlying fact of American politics: normal people havent had a raise in thirty years. In the
years 1986 to 2016, the real per capita gross domestic product the best measure of the economic
property of a society increased 48 percent. But virtually every dime of that increase went to the top
1 percent and often the top .01 percent of the population. Median household incomes barely
budged. Measured in 2013 dollars, median household income was $50,488 in 1986. In 2013 it was
$51,930. There has been some fluctuation over the period. After dropping to $48,884 in 1993 the first
year of Bill Clintons presidency it increased to $56,080 in 1999. A year and a half later Clinton turned
over the Oval office to George W. Bush. Of course the economic record of Bush ended in utter
catastrophe with the Great Recession. Since then, President Obama has built the economy back with a
record 72 months of successive private sector job growth. But median household income still isnt
moving because the Republicans in Congress and the rules of the economic game still allow the
corporate establishment to hang onto most of the fruits of that growth. The iconic political result is the
middle class Iowa focus group participant who said: I havent had a raise in 30 years and all of the
growth has gone to those guys at the top, and all of the poor people at the bottom. Democrats Clinton
and Sanders have answered by pointing to the 1 percent, the corporate CEOs and the wealthy a
political message which has the advantage of being true. Trump and the Republicans have taken the
opposite tack whipping up antagonism to immigrants, lazy people who dont get a job, and
frankly anyone who is not like you. This of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. We
know empirically the effect that increasing income inequality has on political polarization. Several
years ago, political scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal published a study
showing a direct relationship between economic inequality and polarization in American politics. They
measured political polarization in congressional votes over the last century, and found a direct
correlation with the percentage of income received by the top 1 percent of the electorate. They also
compared the Gini Index of income inequality with congressional vote polarization of the last half-
century and found a comparable relationship. Economic stagnation is the breeding ground for fear,
racial hatred and extremist rhetoric. That is particularly true if other forms of social change
simultaneously cause people to fear for their personal meaning and place in the world. An increasingly
diverse America, the redefinition in relationships between men and women, gay and straight, is
frightening to some Americans. Racism is not the same thing as racial prejudice. Racism develops where
a group of peoples meaning and status in life are tied to their self-definition, as not Black, or not
Brown.. If personal meaning doesnt come from excelling in your work life, or economic success, its a
lot easier for people to be convinced that they need to define themselves through race and nationality.
It is no accident that fascism arose in Europe out of the economic depression of the 1930s, and in
South America in a period of economic stagnation.

Inequality key driver of right wing populism

Verrender 3/20/16 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-21/verrender-inequality-wont-just-affect-us-politics/7262314 Ian
Verrender is the ABC's business editor and writes a weekly column for The Drum.

Despite all the evidence of a recovery in the American economy - Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen on
Thursday delivered a relatively upbeat assessment with unemployment at 4.9 per cent, moderate
economic growth and an uptick in inflation - inequality is tearing America apart. The financial crisis
sent shock waves through middle America. Millions found themselves without a home and without work
while Wall Street emerged even richer than before as taxpayers footed the bill. In the meantime, no one
has been held to account. And the banks that were too big to fail are now even bigger. It is a different
story at the other end of the spectrum. On almost any measure, living standards for American workers
have taken a hammering. Data compiled by the Federal Reserve of St Louis show student loans, food
stamps and health insurance costs have risen sharply. Meanwhile, labour force participation, home
ownership and median family incomes have plummeted. Between 1940 and the late 1970s, US
household income grew sharply. It also was reasonably well distributed across income bands. Since
then, however, income growth has moderated and the income gap has widened dramatically. Wealth,
too, has become far more concentrated. In fact, it now is back towards the levels of the 1920s. Last
week, another concerned billionaire weighed into the debate. Warren Buffett, the "Sage of Omaha"
proclaimed that "babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history." According to
Buffett, the average American GDP per person was six times greater than in 1930. He's absolutely right.
But for all his financial acumen, he has missed the bleeding obvious. It is not average growth that is the
problem. It is the way the proceeds have flowed to the uber-rich. This is all fertile ground for someone
such as Donald Trump, a boorish, bellowing narcissist with a penchant for building tacky memorials to
his own ego. That he could end up the leader of the free world certainly is cause for extreme concern.
The insular approach from Trump - a return to protectionism and the threat of deporting a million
people - would wreak havoc with the global economy and threatens to plunge the world into a deep
recession. Sir Martin Wolf, writing in the Financial Times, argues that the genesis for the Trump
ascension and the crisis tearing apart the Republican Party can be traced back to at least the 1990s. Why
has this happened? The answer is that this is how a wealthy donor class, dedicated to the aims of
slashing taxes and shrinking the state, obtained the footsoldiers and voters it required. Trump's
supporters are angry. They are angry because for years the Republican Party has told them they should
be angry, whipping up support by pandering to base instincts. America is going to the dogs, and
someone must be to blame. Australia hasn't been much better. The rise of Hansonism in the late 1990s
should have been a low point in the national debate. Instead, both major parties shifted stance, to
accommodate the xenophobic hysteria whipped up initially against Asian immigrants and now Muslims.
And just like America, wealth and income concentration has gathered pace. A Productivity Commission
report from March 2013 noted that between 1988 and 2010, real incomes rose strongly but that the
rises were unevenly distributed. According to the report, the shift towards more casual and contractor
work crimped wealth at the lower end of the wage spectrum while greater capital growth among
wealthier households helped widen the gap. Just like America, there has been concerted pressure from
powerful vested interests pushing for greater "flexibility" in the workforce along with tax cuts for the
wealthy, which has driven national debate. Until just weeks ago, "tax reform" was synonymous with
raising or broadening a regressive Goods and Services Tax for consumers to help pay for cuts to
company tax. According to the latest data released on Friday by the Tax Office, however, it is individuals
doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to tax. Not only that, the growth in personal tax payments has
roared ahead of any increased contribution from company tax. Meanwhile, the talk out of Canberra is
that the Government will indeed deliver a cut to company tax in the upcoming budget; hardly the kind
of strategy that will help rein in a structural deficit. The business lobby rationale for corporate tax cuts is
that, eventually, the increased profits will trickle down to employees through increased wages. That's a
completely spurious argument. Why? Because executives and directors have a legal obligation to act in
the best interests of the company. That generally is interpreted as maximising returns to shareholders,
not employees. Should there be any form of wages break-out, it would therefore be incumbent for big
business to be first cab off the rank in arguing for wage restraint. So much for the trickle-down effect.
That this argument appears to be winning favour, hard on the heels of revelations about profit shifting
to low tax regimes from the very companies now arguing for tax relief, is extraordinary but hardly
surprising. Healthy, profitable businesses are essential to maintaining a prosperous economy and a
vibrant democracy. But it is the role of government to maintain a balance between competing interests,
to ensure wealth is distributed throughout a nation. Inequality breeds discontent. That, in turn, leads
to political instability and economic uncertainty which, ultimately, is bad for business.

Only reversing educational inequality can stop incipient fascism

Hopgood 11/9/16 https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/stephen-hopgood/fascism-rising Stephen Hopgood is a
Professor of International Relations at SOAS, University of London. His most recent book is The Endtimes of Human Rights (for critiques see
here), following on from Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International.

s this how it begins? With rage, with the demands of the entitled millions who feel their birthright has
been stolen, with those who claim we built this country, we fought its wars, when is it our turn?
Donald Trump is by any stretch of the imagination an awful candidate to be president of the most
powerful state on earth, a sexist, racist, impulsive narcissist who lies with abandon and hates with
fervour. His handlers dont even trust him with his own Twitter account anymore. And now he is the
standard bearer for an increasingly familiar social coalition, angry white working class men (and
women) with weak formal education and weaker job prospects, along with disaffected white middle
class conservatives, many of them religious, who are furious that they lost the culture wars. Weve seen
this coalition before: its a breeding ground for fascism . Liberals need to wise up and fast. The
International Criminal Court (ICC), global human rights, international norms? These are sideshows. The
battle is much more present and visceral than that now. It is the battle of democracy and in that
struggle, human rights are too compromised by their association with the very liberal eliteexactly the
elite that the Putin/Trump/Brexit coalition hatesto be a principal mobilizing banner. For Trumps
constituency, his obvious and stupefying flaws are irrelevant. Hes a policy-lite hand grenade intended to
spark a revolution. From his admiration for Putin to his authoritarian style, right down to the machismo,
sexual bravado and contempt for minorities, the outlook for human rights in the USlet alone
globallyunder Trump is catastrophic. For his coalition, human rights are a shell game pushed by
cosmopolitan liberals to steal the nation away from its legitimate, mainly white, heirs. Make no mistake
about it, the right is on the movein Britain, Hungary, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,
India and now, far more importantly than any of those, in the United States. If Marine Le Pen can win in
France in 2017 then fascism will truly have arrived, just seventy years after we assumed it had been
banished for good. Get those immigrants out, get those trade barriers up, put my nation first, and
forever, crush those bespectacled intellectuals, demean the unpatriotic, wrap yourself in that flag and
humiliate the non-believers. Trump even threw in a healthy dose of anti-semitism for good measure.
After Brexit, I argued that winter was coming for human rights. Well, its here. Its here because the
liberal democratic market model that has underpinned forty years of human rights growth is broken. It
is here because what was supposed to happen, trickle down affluence, never did in any meaningful
way. The age of rights, four decades of a newly potent set of claims for dignity, equal treatment and
protectionfor civility, for vibrant opposition to authoritywere built on what Trump supporters have
come to see as a lie. For them, human rights were not heralds of a new era of fair shares for all but a
way to steal the inheritance of real Americans. Of course human rights were not the drivers of this
change, they were part of its ideology. What drove it was a massive democratic experiment in which
millions of working class, largely white voters, those whose forebearsso their mythology goesbuilt
the nation, were told to hang tight while the economy was modernized. Liberalize those markets and
break that union power and we would all be free. For election after election, as millions lost out in this
vast demographic transformation, where wages stagnated or fell, and cheap and even illegal
immigration filled the service sector with low paid workers, a precariat grew whose everyday life
experience was chronic insecurity. But where illegal immigrants and the recently arrived were
disenfranchised, white working class voters and their culturally conservative fellow travellers were
citizens. They seethed. Left governments who promised a Third WayClinton and Blairfailed the
former, Right governments who did nothing to stem immigration and talked down Christian values
failed the latter. The mix of class and race was suddenly salient again, posing a major challenge for a
country with such a problematic race history as the United States. All forms of diversity were suddenly in
the crosshairs. Political entrepreneurs, Trump, Le Pen, Farage, Wilders, emerged to say: there is another
way. They were quick to identify immigrants, religious minorities, refugees, foreign aid recipients and
the liberal establishment as the problem. Their supporters know the liberal elite sees them as ignorant,
backward, an embarrassment. But with the help of Trump they found their voice, which says: you can
take control. You just have to take back power from the government and throw out the foreigners who
have stolen your jobs or are doing them in China. It was a vast conspiracy, after all. You were right. The
(white) social contract has been reneged on. And you were forced to be grateful for this, forced by the
PC police to tolerate those who attack what you stand for and trash your most cherished values. It isnt
Left vs. Right any longer... It is the out-of-touch liberal elite vs. the rest. Trumps election has changed all
of this. It isnt Left vs. Right any longer because a lot of that Lefts natural constituency has been lost
(hopefully not permanentlya ray of hopebut what a missed opportunity a Sanders candidacy was).
It is the out-of-touch liberal elite vs. the rest. And, guess what? The liberals are going to lose . Their
signature ideology, free markets and human rights, will be among the first things to go. It appeals to too
small a demographic. Why have people missed this? Because liberal elites talk to other liberal elites and
political science often cant see the wood for the trees. Trump did everything possible to lose and he still
won. Can he fix any of this? Of course not. The seismic economic shifts are impossible to reverse without
cutting off trade and growth, in which case greater fairness will come at the cost of huge economic
contraction. Let us remember hes promised tax cuts for the wealthy! Whats needed is a long-term plan
of retraining, strategic investment in education and a great deal of research and development work for
the new economy. All of which requires coordination, rather than endless bipartisan confrontation in
both political and legal systems. It will need the very same experts, whose names are now so tarnished,
to help formulate and implement the plan. These are big problems and will take a while to surface.
What of the short term? There are so many areas in which human rights will suffer, but lets highlight
three. Supreme Court appointments: one at least (with a Republican Senate likely to approve) will be
enough to repeal Roe vs. Wade, and Trump might get three during his four years. Hang in there,
Notorious RBG. Immigration: if the plan is really to deport millions of undocumented workers, then
internment camps, dawn raids by thousands of armed government officials, deaths and killings in
custody, border firefights and lacerating misery are almost inevitable. And foreign policy: Assad and
Putin know that they can crush Aleppo with impunity because President Trump is only interested in
something they also want, a massive air attack on ISIS. This isnt even to start on Trumps repudiation of
generations of US foreign policy consensus on NATO, his tendency to make unilateral demands of other
countries that he cannot possibly deliver on without negotiation and compromise, and his commitment
to torture. Trumps toxic attitudes will also surely affect the general climate for rights, for women, for
the disabled, for minorities, in a deeply negative way by legitimating discrimination. So, what is to be
done? For human rights on the global scale, fight Trump and Trumpism. Fight fascism. Stop this ill-
starred pursuit of failing global norms and institutions like the ICC, criminalizing the crime of aggression
and a Convention on Crimes Against Humanity, and go where the struggle really is, on the ground, in
national legislatures, in national courts, where there really is an us versus them. Embrace domestic,
rather than international, politics. The struggle is now about democracy, democratic organization,
reaching out, building coalitions of support that weaken the fascist base and getting into, in a serious
way, class, race and identity. You fight fascism by rebuilding support for progressive democratic politics
within national borders, not by building castles out of international normative air. It is now the national
ballot box, more than international law, where the battle for human rights must be won.
 AT alt caus racism
Inequality is the best explanation stats prove educational inequity is the
Trumpmaker
Baker 3/27/17 The Rise of Populism: The Masses Have a Case Remarks by Dean Baker Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy
Research (CEPR) Presentation at the Annual Forum World Banks Macroeconomics and Fiscal Management Global Practice March 27, 2017
http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/Remarks-World-Bank-Dean-Baker-2017-03-27.pdf

There is one final point about the relationship between the economic prospects of less-educated
workers and electoral outcomes that is worth noting. The big change in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election compared with prior elections was the huge margin that Trump held among non-college
educated whites, while carrying college educated whites by a smaller margin than prior Republican
candidates. One outcome of a relative deterioration in the prospects of less-educated workers has been
a slower rate of growth in the number of college graduates in the United States in the last four
decades.While the cause of this slowdown is debated, there is no question that the rate of increase in
the percentage of young people graduating from college has slowed markedly. If college graduation
rates for whites had continued to grow in the years since 1979 as they had done in the years between
1959 and 1979, at the time of the 2016 election we would have had 7.2 million more white male college
grads 3.2 more female college grads, with corresponding declines in the number of non-college
educated whites (Baker and Rawlins, 2017). Trump carried non-college educated white males by a
margin of 48 percentage points. He carried college educate white males by 4 percentage points. Trump
carried non-college educated women by 14 percentage points, while losing college educated women by
7 percentage points. If we assume that the voting patterns among these groups did not change, but the
educational mix of the white population changed at the same rate in the last four decades as it did
between 1959 and 1979, Clintons popular vote margin would have been 1.8 million larger, virtually
guaranteeing her a comfortable victory in the Electoral College. In short even if attitudes of less-
educated white voters were exactly the same in 2016, greater economic progress for those in the
middle and bottom would have kept Donald Trump from winning the presidency.

Best data on Trump elections proves its inequality

Baker 3/27/17 The Rise of Populism: The Masses Have a Case Remarks by Dean Baker Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy
Research (CEPR) Presentation at the Annual Forum World Banks Macroeconomics and Fiscal Management Global Practice March 27, 2017
http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/Remarks-World-Bank-Dean-Baker-2017-03-27.pdf

The U.S. case also provides a difficult challenge to those who want to argue that the issue is simply one
of resurgent racism or xenophobia. After having elected an African American president twice, we have
to believe that large segments of the white population suddenly became more worried about losing
control of the country to non-whites. The immigration story is even less plausible as an explanation in
the U.S. than Europe, as immigration has actually slowed substantially in the years since the Great
Recession. In addition to being more openly racist and xenophobic than prior Republican candidates,
Trump also distinguished himself from them in being explicitly protectionist. He put reversing bad
trade deals at the center of his economic agenda. He argued that we lost good paying manufacturing
jobs to other countries because our trade negotiators were stupid and got outmaneuvered by the
negotiators from Mexico, China, and elsewhere. He promised that he would get good trade deals by
threatening or actually imposing large tariffs. He told voters that he would bring back the millions of
manufacturing jobs that had been lost to trade. While this promise may be completely unrealistic, it
certainly seems plausible that many voters took it seriously. The key to the election was the flipping of
the Midwestern industrial states that had lost a huge percentage of their manufacturing jobs due to the
rise in the trade deficit in the last two decades. The state of Ohio, which President Obama had won by
comfortable margins twice, went to Trump by over eight percentage points. Trump also carried
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, all of which had voted Democratic in every election since 1988.
There is considerable evidence that Trump saw the greatest improvement in performance relative to
prior Republicans in areas that have fared worst in the last two decades. For example, a recent study
examined the correlation between deaths due to drugs, alcohol, and suicide, and found that the
counties with the highest rates were also the ones where Trump most over-performed relative to prior
Republican candidates (Monnat 2016). Other analyses produced similar findings correlated counties
with rising mortality rates with Trump voters in the Republican primaries (e.g. Guo 2016). Perhaps the
most compelling case against these lines was a paper by David Autor, David Dorn, Gordan Hanson, and
Kaveh Majelsi (2017) that built on their prior work analyzing the impact of imports from China on
manufacturing and total employment by commuter zone. Their analysis found a strong correlation
between the exposure to imports from China and the shift from Democratic to Republican votes in the
2016 presidential election compared with the 2000 presidential election. By their estimates, if the rise in
imports from China had been half as large as what the country actually experienced, Clinton would have
carried North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, giving her a victory in the Electoral
College.

Multiple international examples prove its inequality

Baker 3/27/17 The Rise of Populism: The Masses Have a Case Remarks by Dean Baker Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy
Research (CEPR) Presentation at the Annual Forum World Banks Macroeconomics and Fiscal Management Global Practice March 27, 2017
http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/Remarks-World-Bank-Dean-Baker-2017-03-27.pdf

There has been a major debate in the last year over the extent to which the upsurge in populist
sentiment can be attributed to economic factors, as opposed to a resurgence of racist and xenophobic
sentiment. The two cannot easily be disentangled, since many people, particularly those who are less
knowledgeable about policy, may mix motives in their minds. I dont expect that this argument can be
conclusively resolved, but there are a few simple points that can be made. First, racism and xenophobia
are not new in any of the countries which have seen an upsurge in rightwing populism. The burden on
those who would see these as the key factors behind the rise of populism, and especially right-wing
populism, is to explain why it has suddenly become such a large political force. Immigration of non-
white people to Europe is hardly a new phenomenon. The influx of refugees from Syria and other
Middle Eastern countries has been somewhat of a flashpoint, but the rise of populism preceded this
influx. The terrorist incidents in France, Belgium, and elsewhere also have fueled racist and xenophobic
attitudes, but again such incidents are not unprecedented and cannot be closely tied to the rise of right-
wing populism. Perhaps the most deadly single terrorist attack in recent decades occurred in Madrid in
2004, nonetheless right-wing populism is not a major political factor in Spain. While nowhere has been
immune from terrorist attacks, countries like Denmark and the Netherlands have seen strong upsurges
in right-wing populism with relatively few incidents. It is possible to point to political causes in these two
cases, as the social democratic parties have been proponents of cuts to welfare state benefits, whereas
populist parties have been vigorous supporters of maintaining or strengthening welfare state benefits.
This is especially notable in Denmark, where the Danish Peoples Party repeatedly threatened to
withdraw support from conservative governments if they made large cuts in health and education
funding. While racism and xenophobia were undoubtedly important factors in the recent Brexit vote,
the supporters of Brexit made explicit economic arguments to advance their case. They promised in a
national ad campaign that the money saved on the United Kingdoms contribution to the European
Union could be used to shore up the national health system (NHS) if the UK left the EU. While this was
not true, the net direct savings were trivial and in any case the UK is not facing a hard budget constraint
in its national spending (in other words, cutting back funding for the NHS was a political choice, not an
economic necessity) , it seems likely that many people believed it. It is also the case that the quality of
health care in the UK has been affected by recent budget cuts. Given these facts, it is reasonable to
believe that concern over the quality of the health care system was a major factor for many supporters
of Brexit, who tended to be older, and therefore more in need of health care, and lower income.
 Human Rights Impact xt

Brink of full global human rights rollback

Roth 17 Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world's leading international human rights
organizations, which operates in more than 90 countries. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch in 1987, Roth served as a federal prosecutor in
New York and for the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington, DC. A graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, Roth has conducted
numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world. He has written extensively on a wide range of human rights abuses,
devoting special attention to issues of international justice, counterterrorism, the foreign policies of the major powers, and the work of the
United Nations. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism

Spreading Threat and Tepid Response

Rather than confronting this populist surge, too many Western political leaders seem to have lost
confidence in human rights values, offering only tepid support. Few leaders have been willing to offer a
vigorous defense, with the notable exception, at times, of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and US President Barack Obama.

Some leaders seem to have buried their heads in the sand, hoping the winds of populism will blow over.
Others, if not seeking to profit from populist passions, seem to wish that emulation of the populists
might temper their ascendancy. British Prime Minister Theresa May denounced activist left wing
human rights lawyers who dare to challenge British forces for torture in Iraq. French President Franois
Hollande borrowed from the National Front playbook to try to make depriving French-born dual citizens
of their nationality a central part of his counterterrorism policy, an initiative he later abandoned and
said he regretted. The Dutch government supports restrictions on face veils for Muslim women. Many
European leaders now back the call of Hungarys Prime Minister Viktor Orbn to close Europes borders,
leaving refugees in the lurch. Such mimicry of the populists only reinforces and legitimizes the politicians
attacking human rights values.

Hungarian PM Orbn and his Bulgarian counterpart Borisov inspect the barbed wire fence constructed
on the Bulgarian-Turkish border, September 14, 2016.

EXPAND Hungarian PM Orbn and his Bulgarian counterpart Borisov inspect the barbed wire fence
constructed on the Bulgarian-Turkish border, September 14, 2016. 2016 Reuters

A similar trend can be found outside the West. Indeed, the rise of Western populists seems to have
emboldened several leaders to intensify their flouting of human rights. The Kremlin, for example, has
eagerly defended President Vladimir Putins authoritarian rule as no worse than the Wests increasingly
troubled human rights record. China's Xi Jinping, like Putin, has pursued the toughest crackdown on
critical voices in two decades. President Recep Tayyip Erdoan of Turkey took advantage of a coup
attempt to crush opposition voices. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt intensified the crackdown
begun after his own coup. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has openly called for summary
executions of suspected drug dealers and usersand even of human rights activists who defend them.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India tried to shut down critical civic groups as he closed his eyes to
intimidation and hate crimes by Hindu nationalist groups against religious and ethnic minorities.

Meanwhile, confident that there is little to fear in the Wests occasional protests, Syrian President Bashir
al-Assad, backed by Russia, Iran, and Lebanons Hezbollah, has shredded the international laws of war,
ruthlessly attacking civilians in opposition-held parts of the country including eastern Aleppo. Several
African leaders, feeling vulnerable to domestic or international prosecution themselves, have harshly
criticized the International Criminal Court and, in three cases, announced their intention to withdraw
from it.

To counter these trends, a broad reaffirmation of human rights is urgently needed. The rise of the
populists should certainly lead to some soul-searching among mainstream politicians, but not to an
abandonment of first principles, by officials or the public. Governments committed to respecting human
rights serve their people better by being more likely to avoid the corruption, self-aggrandizing, and
arbitrariness that so often accompany autocratic rule. Governments founded on human rights are better
placed to hear their citizens and recognize and address their problems. And governments that respect
human rights are more easily replaced when people become unhappy with their rule.

But if the appeal of the strongman and the voices of intolerance prevail, the world risks entering a dark
era. We should never underestimate the tendency of demagogues who sacrifice the rights of others in
our name today to jettison our rights tomorrow when their real priorityretaining poweris in
jeopardy.
 Extinction Impact xt
Rising America First movement creates multiple scenarios for major war
Von Der Hayden 6/12/17 http://time.com/4815170/wwii-nationalism-donald-trump-america-first/ Karl M. von der Heyden
served as the Chief Financial Officer of H.J. Heinz, PepsiCo and RJR Nabisco, where he was also CEO. He also served as an independent director
on a dozen large publicly held companies, including the New York Stock Exchange, DreamWorks Animations, AstraZeneca and Macys. His book,
Surviving Berlin, will be published on June 20.

But nothing can be taken for granted. The leadership my generation provided has faded, and each new
generation of Europeans and Americans is one step further removed from the realities and
consequences of terrible wars.

This collective tendency to forget is not a new phenomenon. After the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars,
Europe was given a new order of nation states under the Treaty of Vienna, signed in 1815. The new
order lasted relatively well, surviving the revolutions of 1848 and the subsequent Crimean and Franco-
Prussian wars. By the time World War I began in 1914, institutional and personal memories of the post-
Napoleonic order had been weakened or forgotten.

Similarly, seventy years after World War II, millions of people in the U.S. and Europe have forgotten the
lessons learned from that war and from the peace that followed. Nascent nationalist and popular
movements converged in Britain to produce a vote to leave the European Union. Similar coalitions
heavily influence the American political scene today, as they do in Poland, Hungary and even the
Netherlands. White House communications that appear to realign foreign policy put in place over the
last half-century are beginning to concern Americas allies.

I understand why the America First movement propagated by Donald Trump sounds patriotic to many
voters, as do other movements that favor isolationism. It is natural to blame others for our failure to
adjust to new technologies, to immigration and to competition from countries whose growth rates are
higher than our own. But the truth is that the "America First" movement runs the risk that it could
trigger a global decline in productivity. Free trade has benefitted the U.S, Europe and much of the rest of
the world. Many new businesses, particularly in information technology, can now start with a global
footprint on Day One instead of being confined to a local market. NATO has preserved the freedom of
the Western World from Communism. It has recently become more relevant again in view of the
Russias efforts to disrupt it.

Perhaps most worrisome is the apparent cooling of relations between European NATO allies and the
United States, which has compelled German Chancellor Angela Merkel to say, The times when we could
fully rely on others are to some extent over We Europeans must really take our fate into our own
hands.

Problems arise when we start classifying our own and other countries as winners or losers. Free
trade, immigration and the treatment of refugees will never be perfect far from it. But the
alternatives of walling off people, as well as trade, are worse. Appealing to ultra-nationalist and
xenophobic feelings is playing with fire. With easy access to weapons of mass destruction, the danger is
greater than ever.
Growing up in Germany, I saw the dangers of fascism and nationalism. I saw leaders who only made
matters worse by appealing to the majority of voters who feared minorities and foreigners.

Anyone who appreciates history would know better than to make even casual references to the
possibility of nuclear war.

I came to America as an immigrant and was able to have a successful career. My life testifies to how well
the postwar order has worked, making my dream and the dreams of my generation a reality. Todays
world cannot afford to forget the lessons learned.
 Int Link: Liberal International Order
Internal fixes key to maintain liberal international order
Niblett Jan/Feb 17 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/system/files/pdf/anthologies/2017/b0033_0.pdf ROBIN NIBLETT is Director of
Chatham House.

Still, liberal democracies cannot postpone difficult political decisions any longer. They need to fix
themselves first if they are to sustain their liberal international order. They must boost productivity as
well as wages, increase work-force participation even as new technologies eliminate old jobs, integrate
immigrants while managing aging societies, and, in Europes case, evolve from centrally funded welfare
states to more locally governed welfare societies, in which regions, cities, and other municipalities
control a greater share of tax income and so can tailor the provision of social services to local needs.
Liberal governments can rise to these challenges, whether by investing more in education, improving
physical and digital infrastructure, or modernizing regulations that stifle entrepreneurship and growth in
the service sector. These may seem like modest steps. But the appeal and, indeed, the survival of a
liberal inter-national order depend on its ability to deliver returns to the societies within it that are
superior to any alternative. If the liberal world can get itself back on track, and does not itself turn to
protectionism, it will likely find that the nonWestern rising powers, China chief among them, will want
to sustain the existing international economic order of relatively open markets and free flows of
investment. After all, only through continued integration into the global supply chain of goods, services,
people, and knowledge can emerging markets meet the aspirations of their growing middle classes. As
the scholar G. John Ikenberry noted in his 2011 book, Liberal Leviathan, the United States and China
the two powers that will most likely determine the future of world ordermay both refuse to
compromise on their core principles of domestic governance and national security, but they can best
coexist and prosper within a liberal international economic order.

Inequality spawns biggest populist threats to the liberal international order

Niblett Jan/Feb 17 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/system/files/pdf/anthologies/2017/b0033_0.pdf
ROBIN NIBLETT is Director of Chatham House.

The greatest danger comes from within. The systems leading powers are facing sustained domestic
political and economic uncertainty. More than 25 years of stagnant median wages in the United States
and parts of Europe have eroded the credibility of elites and the appeal of globalization. The opening up
of economies to ever more trade, investment, and immigration has increased total national wealth, but
it has not translated into local gains for large segments of society. The lax financial regulation that
preceded the 2008 financial crisis and the bank bailouts that followed it have shattered peoples faith in
government, and the Great Recession undermined their support for open capital markets, which
seemed to benefit only a narrow global elite. CARLO ALLEGRI / REUTERS A supporter holds up a sign as
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Sarasota, Florida,
November 2016. Trumps victory, the decision by a majority of British voters to leave the EU, and the
rise of populist parties in both the prosperous north and the poorer south of Europe represent visible
symptoms of this deep unease with globalization. So, too, does the collapse in popular support in the
United States and the EU for expanding international trade, whether through the Trans-Pacific
Partnership in the United States or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in Europe. In a
2014 Pew Research survey, 87 percent of respondents in developing economies agreed that trade
benefits the economy, whereas around half of all respondents in France, Italy, and the United States
said they believed that trade destroys jobs and lowers wages.

Populism threatens to collapse Liberal International Order

Rottgen 2/18/17 http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68041
This Western order is clearly under threat from within. In Europe, Hungary and Romania are cases in
which the rule of law is being disassembled from above. In France, right-wing populism is part of the
erosion of the internal liberal order. And in the United States, there is a presidentand thus the so-
called leader of the free worldwho has effectively labeled the political system rotten and promised a
complete overhaul, in a most illiberal and antipluralist fashion. These are examples of nationalism and
egotism and, ultimately, demonstrations of how hamstrung the liberal order has become with regard to
todays problems.

Therefore, there is a real ideological illiberal potential that must be taken seriously. The problem is not
exaggeration; the true threat is underrating the crisis and continuing with business as usual. The crisis is
real and present. A collapse of the liberal order, however, can still be prevented.

Populism turns rightward; crushes the international global order

Yahya 2/18/17 Maha YahyaDirector of the Carnegie Middle East Center
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68041

t is no exaggeration to say that populists are on the rise across the globe, elected into office by citizens
angry at the economic shortcomings of the liberal order, its exclusionary politics, and widening
inequalities. Instead of open borders and open societies, which populists present as the causes of
economic decline and rising insecurity, they seek walls that shelter identity-based communities,
whether by sect, tribe, or ethnicity. The rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State is in part a more
extreme reflection of this anger. In politics, this translates into a decline in Western support for
principles like universalism and disengagement from the responsibility to protect.

Nowhere is this crisis more palpable than in Syria, where demands for freedom have spun into a six-year
conflict and proxy wars that have generated the biggest refugee crisis the world has seen since the end
of World War II. An inability to address both conflict and crisis has exposed the costs of withdrawal by
the United States, the principle underwriter of this liberal order, and the weaknesses of the current
multilateral system of governance.

The strength of this order lies in its ability to adapt policies to address its own shortcomings. Unless like-
minded political elites, intellectuals, and citizens ferociously defend the political gains of the liberal
order and engage with its socioeconomic failures, the world may witness even greater strife and
dislocation at ever-expanding cost to lives and values.
 FW: Debate key

Resisting populist authoritarianism makes debate a crucial value

Rasmussen 2/18/17 Anders Fogh RasmussenFounder and chairman of Rasmussen Global 17
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68041

Not necessarily, but the question is whether anything good can come out of this crisis.

The liberal order is challenged today not by one but by two separate forces, one domestic and one
external. Domestically, it is challenged by populists who bring volatility to political systems; externally,
by forces that seek to undermine democracies. The Kremlins actions in Ukrainea country embarking
on reform and integration with Western Europeare an example of that. And these forces are not
operating in isolation. Russia is known to support populist parties. The consequences are dire; the world
could become defined by nativism, protectionism, and authoritarianism.

However, the key strength of the liberal way of life is that it is malleable and predisposed to generate
new ideas. Through crisis, liberal democracy has an opportunity to renew itself. Rather than coalesce
against populists and feed their rhetoric, the mainstream should engage with them. When I was prime
minister of Denmark, we shared with populists the responsibility of government. This can go a long way
toward moderating them. Another strength is free and open debate. When speaking of outside
challengers, liberals need to call out aggression when they see it and sanction the aggressors.
 AT too late
We can still save the liberal international order
Bunde 2/18/17 http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68041 Tobias BundeHead of Policy and Analysis at the Munich Security
Conference and researcher at the Centre for International Security Policy of the Hertie School of Governance

As the Munich Security Conference argues in its Munich Security Report, the world is witnessing an
illiberal moment. The three core elements of the liberal international orderliberal democracy, open
economies, and multilateral institutionsare all under pressure.

According to Freedom House, there has been a steady decline in global freedom for more than a
decade. Support for populist leaders has grown in Western societies, where many citizens doubt that
the system works for them. U.S. President Donald Trump has questioned both free trade and the value
of international organizations and U.S. alliances, signaling a clear shift from post-1945 U.S. foreign
policy. Tellingly, notions such as democracy and human rights were absent from Trumps inaugural
address. For decades, Europeans have taken for granted the role of the United States as the main
guardian of this liberal order. Judging from the discussions in Europe, including about a possible
European nuclear deterrent, this crisis is not exaggerated.

Whether this illiberal moment turns into an illiberal era will depend on how liberal democrats respond
to it. The continuous weakening of the liberal international order is far from preordained. But its demise
has become much more likely recently.

International liberal order can still be salvaged

Tempel 2/18/17 http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68041 Editor in chief of Internationale Politik and the Berlin Policy
Journal, published by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)

When the main pillar of a building is about to erode, it isnt exaggerated to assume imminent danger.
U.S. President Donald Trump and his chief ideologist, Steve Bannon, certainly think that the liberal order
is a framework for free riders, to the disadvantage of the United States. They strongly believe in the
survival of the fittest. To themas for Russian President Vladimir Putin, French National Front Leader
Marine Le Pen, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, and othersa rules-based order to the
advantage to everybody is for decadent weaklings. Welcome back, world of Thomas Hobbes.

However, erosion isnt destruction. The international liberal order is greatly weakened if the United
States, the architect of that order after World War II, no longer supports it. Trump can cause enormous
harm. But not everyone in his administration thinks that a liberal order has outlived its days, and the
president doesnt even have a majority of Americans behind him. Plus, a liberal order, a rules-based
system, and peaceful negotiations on diverging interestsin other words, the bulwark against a nasty,
brutish, and short lifestill form a revolutionary and attractive idea.
Yes, the liberal order is in imminent danger. But the jury is still out on whether Trump and his fellow
populists will prevail, or whether the world can shore up an order that is the only guarantor of security,
wealth, and freedom.
RWP = AT K
 Alts Bad xt
This is no longer a drill conceptions of resistance cant be mired in clearing space and
rethinking
Cercel 11/18/16 http://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/11/18/darker-day-notes-fascism-exception-primitive-accumulation/ Cosmin
Sebastian Cercel is Assistant Professor in Law at the University of Nottingham. His research focuses on genealogies of law and politics with
specific reference to XXth century continental legal history. He has edited with Rafa Mako and Adam Sulikowski Questioning the Past,
Resisting the Present: Law and Critique in Central Europe recently published by Counterpress. Cosmin is now writing a monograph exploring the
jurisprudential aspects raised by state communism soon to be published with Routledge (GlassHouse).

The particular historical juncture in which we find ourselves raises more than obvious concerns with
regards to the status of our polities. To be sure, things were never neat and clean, as most things are
within the capitalist horizon. Ominous signs of the looming catastrophe were already out in the open for
a long time, at least ever since the fateful 9/11 or the 2008 Wall Street stock market crash. The archive
of this blog can easily attest for these worrying trends. It was up to the attentive observer to follow and
to reflect on the historical unfolding of the state of exception[1] and of the crisis of the capital. The
conjunction between the two is crucial. On one hand the machinery of the exception sapped the
symbolic structures of the legal community that were sustaining the liberal regime of legality, while the
destructive waves of debt and dispossession were doing the real, dirty work by dissolving the material
safety nets on which the post-Cold war utopia still rested in the global North. It was all happening right
before our eyes, while we were clinging to believing that the process could be either reversed or slowed
down, and desperately projecting hopes in what seemed like promises for a halt: Syriza, the Newest
Labour, Senator Sanders. Now the rise of the right is a fact: from Putins Russia to Trumps America, all
the way through Erdoans Turkey, Temers Brazil, Orbns Hungary, Kaczyskis Poland or post-June
Britain, there is an undeniable surge of still various degrees in expedient legal and administrative
measures, racist and xenophobic attitudes, and nationalist, if not ultranationalist stands. We should
have seen this coming, but there were always mechanisms of self-delusion and panacea already in
place: after all Russia had a long history of flirting with despotism, the new Europe was simply that, a
new Europe made up of dysfunctional democracies just emerging from the totalitarian past. And
Erdoan was useful to many purposes. The problem started only when the self-styled consolidated
democracies come to reveal their connivance with this unavowable Other nested at their core and
arguably dormant for years. With it, a new line of defences, illusions and negations emerged
complicating further the picture of the present and diverting the political compass towards wild chases.
This is a time of openings, we are told, and the surge of the right is just an opportunity to be seized by
emancipatory forces, thus refusing the blackmail of the lesser evil . From the confident Lexiters to
Slavoj iek, the consensus of the most progressive, albeit less conscious, parts of the Left was to refuse
the blackmail, with the fingers crossed and a hope for the best. On sengage et puis on voit[2].
Repeating Lenin and his heroic bargain, recuperating the authentic exceptional nature of the political act
and insisting on the disruptive force of the event[3] was the thing for the accelerationists of this years
summer and fall. As one could still read in the blogosphere, we are witnessing the deepening of the
contradictions of capitalism. And again iek quoting Mao: There is great chaos under heaven the
situation is excellent. And so on, and so on We might have seen this before, with the largely
uninspired dogma of social fascism uttered in the mid-1920s, and pushing the communist sectarianism a
step further with all the known consequences. But, we are told, this time by respectable historians not
particularly interested in the Facebook and Twitter squabbles of the Left, that one should be wary of
historical parallels. The 1920s and the 1930s are historically consummated experiences, which can be
safely kept in the museum of horrors of the past in order to be carefully examined by trained and skilled
taxonomists. This thread of historical egyptianism[4] keen in looking at the past as past, and in keeping
things safe and clear in their respective definitional spheres, also warns us that fascism is a term to be
used parsimoniously. So parsimoniously that one could only uncontroversially employ it as a signifier for
a particular period of Mussolinis rule in Italy. Of course, these two matters are not necessarily related.
The leftist exhilaration at the unfolding of the dialectics and the historians prohibition from using the
past in order to read the future respond to different grammars and rationales. On one side there is a
proof of the possibility of change within the framework of a mechanism of repetition that we grew tired
and suspicious of calling democracy, while on the other there is a need of keeping at bay the heavy,
exceptional materiality of discourse production[5]. There is a moment of truth in both, in so far that we
are witnessing indeed tremendous deepening of the contradictions of the capital, and yes, there are
serious historiographical concerns about a loose use of the notion of fascism[6]. But these positions are
acting as an important deterrent for an authentic engagement with the historical meaning of our both
past and present. The tradition of the oppressed[7] teaches us that there is more than a mere
contingent and fleeting similarity between the regimes of historicity opened by the interwar experience
and the now of our situation. Putting things into an actual historical materialist perspective, one that
necessarily takes into account the ways in which the past participates in the construction of the present
would be able to offer some useful guidance on the deeper significance underlining the moment we live
in. At least it might dispel some ideological traps and relieve us of false hopes. It is in this sense, that
looking at the present moment through the lenses of the interwar fascist experience might be able to
shed some light on the dangers and pitfalls before us. Now, what historical fascism is able to reveal is
that despite its later pledges of being a movement of regeneration and national rebirth, attempting to
bring about a radically new regime of temporality, of framing new and pure values in contradistinction
to the decaying present (does this ring a bell?), is that it was haunted by a reactive ideological stand. To
put it simply, the fascism of the 1920s and 1930s was marked by its own original historical trajectory of
containing and countering the impeding revolution and keeping at bay the organized working class.
While this position might appear as an oversimplification close to that of the 1933 Commintern
definition of fascism[8], it contains an important truth that emerges in most fascists memories and
propaganda materials reminiscing the formative period of their movements and involving a whole range
of repressive actions mostly directed against the working class. This is the case of Italian Fascism, the
Nazis, the Hungarian Arrow Cross or the Romanian Iron Guard. This reactive element becomes all the
more apparent if one thinks at the legal frameworks in place of the time of their operation: state of
siege, martial law to put it briefly state(s) of exception. All these constitutional and semiotic
confusions entailed by the suspension of the law through legal means have provided the fascists with
the understanding of their actions as upholding the law and defending the status quo. This was the
essential ambiguity of historical fascism: its impossibility of taking hold meaningfully over the language
and practice of revolution. While the historical reasons for this position are certainly important, they
thoroughly exceed the scope of this intervention. Essentially they are related to the particular post-
WW1 situation and the manifold changes emerging from the collapse of the three Empires, which have
ultimately managed to block the revolutionary tides in Central Europe. What detains me here is one
aspect which I found central for grasping our present dynamics, namely the fact that historical fascism
was opposed both by a large and important even if divided Left movement which had a stronger
claim not only to the uses but also to the meaning of the revolution insofar as it defended a radical
notion of opposition to the status quo. And there was, of course, the Soviet Union, which despite its
demise from a Marxist stand, was still revered as being the country of the revolution. To be sure, there
are countless differences between the fascisms of Europe, just as there are countless differences
between the local socialist and communist movements of the 1920s and 1930s. Moreover, the fascist
movements are anything by linear in their respective trajectories. They have rapidly ascended from
being rather crude vigilante groups upholding the law and order against socialist and communist
ferment in the immediate aftermath of WW1 to being parties and movements with specific programmes
and claims to sovereign power in their own right. However, they remained tainted by this original
shortcoming, as at their very core they continued to be nothing else than the product of the marriage
between the sword and the courtroom, the usual reaction to social revolution since 1848. Fascism of the
interwar was the embodiment of the traditional arsenal of the ruling classes used from the early days of
parliamentary democracy. It was the machinery that became autonomous. However, these insights
bring comfort to no one, and they are not intended to. My point is precisely that now we do not have
anything even remotely close to the opposition the Left was able to muster. Contemporary fascism, if
one is to call it this way, is autonomous from its very beginning. It is not a reaction to any impeding
revolution, quite the contrary, it is just a step further in terms of exploitation. It is an opening in so far as
it aims to impose and force a new consensus on the new limits of accumulation. This should be
somewhat obvious and it bears a terrible testimony as to the failures of the Left in organising itself.
Let us simply recall that the enemy against the alt-right in Europe or US is aiming to fight is the so-called
cultural Marxism, the quasi-academic spectre of the nowadays defunct Marxist tradition. The assault
launched doesnt even try to conceal itself as a mimicry of social revolution, but seeks to determine how
to move beyond liberalism and unleash the forces of the capital that are kept captive by regulations of
all sorts. Interestingly enough it is with no exception, the case of members of the political and
economical elite posing as outsiders who oppose the existing status quo. With virtually no meaningful
opposition, and within the fife, drums and applauses of the most progressive forces hailing the fall of
the establishment, the fascism of nowadays, is preparing to launch its politico-legal agenda. Beyond
the cultural wars that it has started, its avowed goals are a return to the logic of the Nation-state with its
related protectionism, tighter immigration controls, policing and swift justice. The full return of the old
sovereign power. One should not be fooled about the apparent revolutionary dimension of this move: it
is not the unthinkable break with globalisation and exploitation and some return to a romantic industrial
past. While fascist movements of today are in a way forward-looking, as they seem to capture
something of a dystopian future, they are simply announcing a new dawn of primitive accumulation.
To put it simply, the ideological superstructure of the neoliberal state especially in its legal guise, with
all its convoluted arrangements of human rights law provisions and limited, yet existing, employment
law regulations acts too much as a container for the surplus value that can be extracted through more
direct means. The time has come to do away with it and muster all the extra-economic forces[9]
capable of new expropriations. Creating masses of illegal workers by shifting the rules that define the
legal status, extending the exception to the extent that whole populations become a communaut
inavouable of legal subjects, of ever-terrorised incumbents of an indefinitely precarious and revocable
mere survival[10], are some of the core features of this agenda. These notes aim at least at hinting at
one thing: the situation is both desperate and serious. As a matter of theoretical concern, I believe that
we need to move from an analysis of the present in terms of crisis, and take the full measure of the
possibility that what we are facing risks to be a major reshuffling of the relations of production.
Reflecting on the ways in which fascist ideology, the mechanisms of the exception and primitive
accumulation are put at work should become a major concern for both critical lawyers and theorists. It
might be the case that even more conscious lawyers outside the critical field would take a sobering look
at the ways in which both the professional and intellectual history of law has unwittingly been part of
this unfolding, just as the historians dealing with the dissolution of the post-fascist consensus was
anything but innocent. Politically it means that the Left needs to soon come up with something better
than the discourse of opening spaces for authentic opposition , which for all that matter was around
from the time of the Occupy to no avail, and move from catchy slogans to taking things seriously and
building a movement apt of at least proving an understanding of the seriousness of the situation.
 Anti-Populism Framework

Mobilization through debate-based demands for equality key

Greven 16 http://www.fesdc.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/RightwingPopulism.pdf Dr. Thomas Greven is Associated Professor
of political science at Freie Universitt Berlin, Senior Research Fellow of the German Institute for International Relations, Berlin, associated
researcher at the Institute for Development and Decent Work at the University of Kassel, and an independent political consultant.

Political and electoral strategies obviously have limits and especially identity issues, which are at the
core of right-wing populist conceptions of the people and of the other, are almost impossible to
address politically beyond defeating the parties which represent such ideas at the polls. However, in
light of the fact that right-wing populist parties have shown that they can at best only be temporarily
weakened by participation in governing coalitions (e.g. in Austria) at worst, they come to dominate the
government and transform the country in an authoritarian and illiberal direction as in Hungary and
Poland it is clear that it will not suffice to keep rightwing populist parties from political power, and
strategies like the use of EU sanctions also only partially address the problem. In fact, addressing
questions of identity in this sense means challenging the discursive power of right-wing populists, and
this can most likely only be achieved by political and civic education, and through debate and struggle in
the civil societies of the respective countries much like it is currently happening in Poland and
Hungary. At the same time, it seems obvious that those voters not ideologically committed to right-wing
populist ideas of identity, whose vote might be mostly a vote of protest, have legitimate issues in the
face of globalized competition, increasing social inequality etc. Many opportunities have been missed to
address these concerns; in fact, in many countries the long reign of neo-liberal policies has contributed
to the problem even in times of social democratic governance. Given the national and European
electoral cycles, it might even be too late to address the basic problems at the heart of these voters
legitimate discontent before right-wing populists gain even greater representation. Changing the course
of unfettered globalization, finding ways to socially and ecologically regulate the global economy while
addressing national inequalities and injustices (in the tax system, for example) will take time. In some
ways, political and economic trends continue to point in the opposite direction, as the discussions of TPP
and TTIP, bonuses for failed CEOs, tax havens and loopholes etc. show.
AT
 AT Vagueness / Agent CP
The proposals deliberately a BLUEPRINT that would be enacted by both executive and
legislature
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In proposing the essential elements for a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent
education, I offer a broad theory to guide future reform by Congress, the executive branch, or both. The
theory could be used to guide development of federal legislation, new initiatives by the Department of
Education, ormost likelya combination of the two. This theory is intentionally broad and does not
propose a specific statute or federal initiative because a wide variety of federal statutes and initiatives
could incorporate the elements identified here. Instead, this theory provides research and ideas that
could inform a variety of federal reforms for many years to come. As Part III.B explains, I focus on future
action by Congress and the executive branch, rather than doctrinal reform through the courts, because
the legislative and executive branch enjoy numerous policymaking strengths over courts.149
 AT Courts CP
Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Legislative and Executive Authority Provides a More Fruitful Avenue for Reform than Judicial Authority
My theory proposes a framework for how the federal legislative and executive branches could lead the
United States in a comprehensive effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education. I do not
recommend that the courts should serve as the primary focus for reform for numerous reasons. As
previously noted, federal courts frequently have relied on federalism and the interest in local control of
education as a reason for curtailing efforts that sought to advance equal educational opportunity.313
Also, as I analyzed in detail in prior scholarship, courts provide an inferior forum for education policy
reform.314 Courts have found a limited ability to institute effective school finance reform when their
decisions did not garner significant political support.315 Litigation is oftentimes slow and piecemeal and
relies on a court order before a state will initiate reform. Yet, even in the face of such an order,
legislatures can remain resistant to change.316 Once reform is initiated, court-driven reform also can be
difficult and laborious if all or even most revisions to the initial plans require court approval.317 Federal
judges often lack substantive knowledge of the complex and nuanced education issues.318
Furthermore, litigation solutions are typically driven by the evidence before the court and thus fail to
recognize the competing interests of absent affected constituencies.319

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In contrast, federal support, research, and funding for reform can provide a counterbalance to state and
local insistence on maintaining the status quo.320 A federal legislative and executive approach can offer
comprehensive solutions that incentivize actions by all of the states, a feat that a litigation effort is
unlikely to accomplish.321 In contrast to litigation that regularly requires court approval for any changes
to a remedial order, legislative or executive action can offer much-needed flexibility to revisit and refine
the legislation, regulations, or initiatives that are implemented.322 Legislative and executive action also
would benefit from the expertise of federal policymakers who have knowledge of and experience in
education and its many complexities. Federal policymakers can seek input from states, scholars, and
policymakers when additional expertise and research is needed.323 Additionally, the legislative and
executive process can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the problem, the affected
constituencies, and possible avenues for reform.324

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

Perhaps most importantly, a court-centered reform effort would undermine the collaborative
enforcement approach that is critical for sustained and continuous improvement by the states. Litigation
would introduce an adversarial nature to reform and pit the federal government against states and
localities.325 In contrast, I propose a collaborative approach in which the federal, state, and local
governments enter a shoulder-to-shoulder partnership to ensure consistent improvement through
federal assistance for state and local reforms.326 For these and other reasons,327 my theory relies
upon the legislative and executive branches as the avenues for reform. Nevertheless, my theory also
could inform judicial understanding of the need to reform education federalism so that education
federalism does not continue to serve as one of the obstacles to effective reform.
 AT: Courtscoop fed solves
The next few years make up a crucial window for setting a federal quality floor for
education, opening up new windows for cooperative federalism Congress and the
DoE are better suited to reform
Bowman 11/28/16 (Kristi L., November 28, Bowman serves as Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and
Professor of Law and is an education law scholar. She is a co-author of the 5th edition of a leading
textbook in the field. The Failure of Education Federalism, Michigan State University College of Law,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876889 cDr)

Fortunately for the children of this country, education

federalism does not fail all statessome states have robust
school finance systems and related policies that produce education of an acceptable level of quality (or higher), and do
so more or less uniformly. In other states, judicial intervention has remedied constitutionally and functionally
inadequate systems. However, as the previous section demonstrated, not all states are willing and able to
address structural problems in public education. Especially given the likely growing federal support for
school choice under the Trump Administration, it is important to consider a range of federal legal
protections that could create and maintain a meaningful federal floor of educational quality. This Section
first discusses action that Congress and the U.S. Department of Education could take, with the idea that
legislative and agency-driven reforms are theoretically easier to enact and also have the long-term
potential to be more effective in some ways than judicial reforms. That said, this Article also acknowledges that the reforms
proposed here are unlikely to be supported by the Trump Administration or the current Congress and thus may be more viable in the long-term
than in the short-term. Because judicial reforms sometimes occur when legislative and executive reforms cannot, and because judicial reforms
are more difficult to un-do, this Section then turns to the courts. Specifically, by coupling the concepts of liberty and equality, this Section
ultimately proposes a de facto federal constitutional amendment through interpretation that engages both the Equal Protection Clause and
Substantive Due Process.163 At the heart of each of the approaches considered in this section is, as law professor Kimberly
Jenkins Robinson has argued, a shift in our approach to public education from dual federalism to cooperative
federalism . Federal Legislation and Agency Action Congress has legislated about public education regularly since the 1960s, and for good
reason. As then-law professor, now California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu articulated in 2006, the Citizenship Clause is one source of
authority for Congresss involvement in education policy, and of course the Fourteenth Amendment is connected to this.164 For various
reasons, Congress seems quite willing to continue legislating about public education. Additionally as law
professor Kimberly Jenkins Robinson convincingly argues, even after the Courts 2012 decision limiting Spending Clause authority in National
Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 165 Congress retains substantial authority to legislate about
educationand the legislative and executive branch are in some ways better suited to education reform
than the judiciary . 166 Congressional Acts often go hand-in-hand with federal agency enforcement ,
and thus the U.S. Department of Education has substantial experience by this point in time interpreting and enforcing statutory and
constitutional law. This role is nothing new either in the specific context of education or in the general context of the federal government,167
and in fact federalagencies are especially important today in what law professor Karen Tani calls the age of
cooperative federalism.168 Accordingly, the combination of Congressional action and agency enforcement
can be a powerful tool in the pursuit of educational quality. Examples of that partnership include: Title IV and
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which address race discrimination169; The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 170 (repealed in 2002)
and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which establish rights for non-native English speaking students171;
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1965,172 which was superseded by the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act of 1990173; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973174; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 175
which all serve to make schools accessible to students with disabilities; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which provide for
sex and gender equity in schools; and The McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, 176 which ensures educational access for
homeless children. In short, the Department of Education is involved in enforcing a wide range of statutes, and has been
for quite some time. Of course, the
federal governments broadest regulation of education remains the 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 177 Since its enactment, ESEA has been reauthorized and amended roughly every five years.178
Although ESEA began as part of President Johnsons war on poverty, and thus provided supplemental funds for the education of students in
poverty, it has grown substantially since then. The most well known rendition of the law may be the 2001 variation, the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB).179 NCLB was notable because it required states to develop proficiency standards, test students proficiency on a regular
basis, and make regular progress towards uniform proficiency.180 The goal was noble, and the Act sought to incorporate the
current model of education federalism, dual federalism, deferring significantly to state and local
authorities. 181 However, many problems emerged , not the least of which was schools inability to make
sufficient progress toward the goal of uniform proficiency even though the states themselves
determined what was proficient.182 Had the Act been reauthorized on the usual timeline, lawmakers could have revised the
statute to include more realistic goals, but by the time the Act was reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act in December
2015,183 nearly all states seemed to need waivers to comply with NCLB so that they could continue to
receive the federal funding that makes up roughly 10% of an average school districts budget. 184 As law
professor Derek Black chronicles, under Secretary of Education Arne Duncans direction, the Department took the unprecedented step of
conditioning its granting of waivers on states adopting certain policies. 185 This approach is only permissible if the authorizing statute provides
sufficient noticewhich NCLB did not, but future iterations of ESEA could. 186 Interestingly, at the same time that NCLB unfolded nationwide,
states standards became increasingly uniform: as of 2016, 42 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the Common
Core State Standards.187 Theoretically, this may open a political window for federal involvement in establishing a
minimum quality level via the next (post-ESSA) iteration of ESEA. Before continuing this conversation, however, it is important to note
that neither the new Congress nor the new Administration seem likely to want to pursue this course of action. But, for a Congress or an
Administration so inclined, this option would be attractive because although the ESEA regulations are conditions on the receipt
of funding rather than mandates, no state has yet been able to opt out of receiving this funding and thus opt out of
abiding by these conditions.188 Even more significantly, imposing a uniform floor of educational quality in part through

national standards (opportunity-to-learn189 or otherwise) still could allow states some options , but limit the
choice to the two or three sets of standards widely-adopted nationally, assuming those are at a sufficient level.
Additionally, the enforcement would not be via lawsuit but would be through the executive branch (the Department of
Education) via the potential loss of the funds to which the policy strings were attached. 190 Funding cutoff is a tool that has given the federal
government significant and effective persuasive authority throughout history, including during the very difficult process of school desegregation
beginning in the 1960s. 191 Furthermore, such enforcement would provide political cover to state legislatures who need to raise taxes,
repurpose funding streams, or enact other understandably unpopular policies in order to comply with the conditions of receiving ESEA funding.
There are disadvantages to Congressional action and Executive enforcement, of course. If actually enforced, funding cutoffs are not particularly
helpful in a situation of constrained resources.192 A legislative policy is much easier to overturn than a judicial one, thus education would
remain politicized, albeit at a different level. Perhaps even more significantly, though, the perception that the federal government should have
an incredibly limited role in social welfare services such as education is deeply held,193 even though the U.S. is an outlier in this regard on the
global stage. Indeed, the 2015 version of ESEA (ESSA) pulled back from NCLBs highly regulatory approach, deferring more to the states.194
Relatedly, it is not unusual to hear a politician propose eliminating the U.S. Department of Education altogether, and in fact a member of
Congress introduced such a bill in February 2017. 195 Thus, while ease of statutory repeal is one disadvantage, inability to enact a
statutory reform in the first place may be an even more significant one, especially in todays political climate. Finally, the more
directive federal education legislation becomes, the closer it gets to the trigger the Court established in NFIB v. Sebilus196 when it struck down
legislation as having cross[ed] the line from coercion to compulsion. It appears highly likely that current federal education legislation remains
compliant with Spending Clause requirements, but future legislation must be mindful of this decision. 197 The impact this approach could have
for local districts is uncertain because the contours of Congressional action and executive enforcement could vary so widely. However, if any
real federal quality floor for public education is created, it would seem that states would be compelled to
assist local districts in a meaningful manner so that every school offers students an education at a
certain basic level of quality. Many schools across Michigan, and indeed across the entire country, would
benefit.
 AT: Courts CP Permutation
Courts function as a backstop, reinforcing congressional and executive action
Bowman 11/28/16 (Kristi L., November 28, Bowman serves as Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and
Professor of Law and is an education law scholar. She is a co-author of the 5th edition of a leading
textbook in the field. The Failure of Education Federalism, Michigan State University College of Law,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876889 cDr)

A Federal Amendment by Interpretation At last, this article turns to the idea of a change via federal courts. This is not a perfect
solution, so much so that it is also a last resort, although given the education policy to which Congress and the Trump Administration
seem receptive, including Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, common law change it may be the most likely vehicle for progress in the short
term. While courts are the backstop for legislative and executive (and lower court) action gone awry, unlike
legislatures they hear only issues brought to them and opine about cases and controversies. Additionally, scholars have raised important
questions about courts limited ability to produce social change.198 Finally, changing federal common law is certainly not for the faint of heart.
However, the
central benefits of this approach are that when constitutional change is accomplished, it is
applicable nationwide and profoundly difficult to undo. The conventional manner of amending the Constitution is via a
proposal from Congress to the states under Article V.199 In todays hyper-politicized environment, it is all but impossible to imagine a proposed
amendment about a social welfare issue over which states have historically had so much authority being successful via this route.200
Another way of effectively amending the Constitution, though, is through judicial interpretation.201 This
approach is far more likely to succeed than an amendment through ratification, though the chances may
still be slim. That said, the Courts jurisprudence has left a door cracked open in Substantive Due Process.202 Coupling this
interpretation with the Courts increasing use of rational basis with bite in Equal Protection (which is connected to the
slow disintegration of the scrutiny categories203) creates the potential for federal courts to reenter the education
reform arena in a meaningful way, engaging liberty and equality simultaneously. 1. Education and Liberty: Substantive
Due Process Numerous scholars have noted that the Courts decisions in Rodriguez, Plyler, Papasan, and Kadrmas have left open the question
of whether there is a federal fundamental right to an education of a minimum quality. 204 These discussions have occurred in the context of
the Equal Protection Clause and, perhaps as a result, a commonly proposed alternative in a rich resulting literature is to recognize education as
a positive federal right that would then trigger strict scrutiny. 205 Indeed, this approach is similar to the positive right approach taken both in
American states and in the international context. Interestingly, many of the Courts education cases, as law professor Kenji Yoshino notes,
involve intertwined liberty and equality claims.206 Thus, in this discussion of educational quality, it is both ambitious and practical to revisit the
discussion of education as a focus of Substantive Due Process by explicitly engaging liberty concerns. 207 As law professor Susan Bitensky wrote
in 1992, two of the Courts earliest cases involving schools, Meyer v. Nebraska208 and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 209 both based their
reasoning in part on Substantive Due Process liberty interests of parents ability to direct the education of their children.210 The architecture of
Substantive Due Process has changed considerably since the Lochner era, but Pierce and Meyer remain good law, at least for the core liberty
principles noted here. Additionally, a key Substantive Due Process consideration is tradition, and the importance
of education in states constitutions, statutes, and common law, coupled with the federal law was
enormous in Bitenskys estimation in 1992.211 It has only grown since then. If one accepts that Substantive Due
Process is a sensible forum in which to discuss education rights, the contours of a right still remain
unclear. Perhaps the most commonly suggested option is that the right would be to a minimum level of quality as discussed in Courts four
Equal Protection Clause cases mentioned above. 212 That option is a solid one, and it would enable courts to draw from state school finance
litigation interpreting state constitutions rights to education. But, that is not the only option. A variation on this approach is to define a right to
education as equating with or including a right to literacy (or, similarly, a right to numeracy).
 AT One Shot CP
ONGOING plan crucial any one shot deal will fail
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Scholars and reformers typically recommend a single-step reform for expanding federal influence over
state funding systems in ways that would reduce inequitable funding disparities. 232 However, the
challenges outlined in Part I coalesce in disparate ways in fifty funding systems throughout the United
States. Consequently, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for a single reform to lead all
states to adopt equitable funding systems that promote educational excellence.

Only a revised APPROACH can solve one shot reforms dont allow adaptation
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

In this Part, I provide a preliminary proposal for an incremental federal strategy for leading states to
adopt funding systems that promote equal access to an excellent education. I consider how the federal
government could employ incentives, conditions, and mandates within this strategy. Before assessing
the potential effectiveness of these tools, it is important to emphasize that designing and implementing
the appropriate reforms will depend in part on the effectiveness of each preceding reform. I offer these
preliminary proposals as an invitation to broader and more sustained conversation about the
appropriate array of reforms. I am confident that further revisions will be necessary to the preliminary
ideas presented here depending on how effective each reform is. Nevertheless, at the outset it is
important to consider the full array of possible reforms that will be necessary to avoid the mistake of
trying to engineer one reform that fully solves the problem, only to find that no single reform is up to
the task. It is essential to emphasize that this is an incremental approach so that lawmakers,
policymakers, and reformers do not abandon this important goal because one reform does not serve as
a cure-all to achieve it. I analyze these reforms as potential avenues for implementing the theory of
education federalism that I proposed within Disrupting Education Federalism.'39 My theory of education
federalism envisions a stronger federal. role in education that builds on research regarding the strengths
of federal law and policymaking and that creates a collaborative federal-state partnership for education.
This partnership would expand the capacity of states to serve as laboratories of innovation and reform
due to an increase in federal research, technical and financial assistance.1 40 In addition, my theory of
education federalism embraces the federal government as the ultimate guarantor of equal access to an
excellent education given the stronger federal commitment to equal educational opportunity and the
persuasive evidence that the states have not consistently prioritized this goal in their policymaking
agenda.' 4 1 In that article, I did not examine the types of reforms that could be used to implement my
proposed theory. I begin that analysis here by analyzing potential federal incentives, conditions, and
mandates.

One shot fails states retrench

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM
Third, federal incentives also should include funding available for grants that serve at least two
purposes. Federal grants could support expert analysis of state funding systems to identify the
weaknesses and strengths of the funding systems,' 48 just as experts are often employed in state
funding litigation to identify strengths and weaknesses, and recommend potential reforms. Most state
funding systems have evolved over time, and as demographics and circumstances have evolved some
legislatures may be unaware of the adverse effects of their funding systems. Federal grants could
provide the funding to pay education experts to work with states to increase understanding of funding
systems, including who is advantaged and disadvantaged by the systems, how the systems are affecting
the state economy, and the potential costs for reforms. State lawmakers and policymakers could share
this information with those living within the state so that residents understand the reasons that reforms
are being considered and eventually adopted. Federal grants also could provide compensation to
experts to recommend a menu of possible reforms, just as they do in state school finance litigation. In
addition, federal funding could reward innovation in state reform of funding systems. Such a grant
program should require submission of a highquality and comprehensive plan that is supported by
rigorous research and expert analysis. The plan should provide such analyses as: how the current
funding approach benefits and harms children; how harmful aspects of the system will be reformed to
reduce inequities and promote educational achievement and excellence; how the proposed funding
reforms are linked to desired educational outcomes, including how funding is linked to standards;
research supporting the effectiveness of the proposed reforms; a roadmap for raising any additional
necessary funding; and, accountability measures to help ensure that the money under the revised
system is well spent. The complexity that such plans would necessarily require warrants substantial
technical assistance and support from the U.S. Department of Education. The additional advantage of
grants to reward innovation in designing state funding systems is that they help to spark state and local
dialogues about existing systems. This dialogue must be informed by expert analysis regarding the ways
that each state's funding system affects state and national economic, political and national security
interests, and privileges some children while shortchanging others. Such dialogues should encourage
state lawmakers and governors to take up the mantle of funding reform. Federal grant funding that
rewards innovation would build on lessons learned from past Race to the Top (RTTT) initiatives. RTTT
sparked reform of state education laws and policies that enabled states to earn higher scores on their
Race to the Top applications. 49 However, states have begun to pull back from some of these new
reforms because of their failure to receive the anticipated funding and political opposition to the
reforms. The most notable example of this is the Common Core Standards, which states were
encouraged to adopt to strengthen their RTTT applications.150 Forty-eight states originally agreed to
adopt the Common Core Standards. 151 Since the original overwhelming support, the number of
adopting states has dropped to forty-two as opposition to the swift implementation and common
assessments has grown. 52 Those states that did not receive substantial RTTT fundingundoubtedly will
be wary of undertaking meaningful reform in the future on the mere hope of being financially rewarded
by the federal government. Furthermore, Congress appears to have grown weary of funding the RTTT
effort. In the 2015 omnibus spending bill,' 53 Congress refused to fund President Obama's proposed
$300 million for a Race to the Top-Equity and Opportunity initiative . 5 1 An additional lesson from RTTT
is that federal grants should avoid the winners-losers paradigm of competitive grant funding. This aspect
of RTTT received substantial criticism, in part because often the states that most need the assistance
lose in a competitive grant program.'55 Furthermore, the existence of rejected grant applicants can
cause a competitive grant program to lose congressional support by those within Congress who do not
like funding a program with rejected applicants or who do not receive funding for their state. 56 A
program to reward innovation in designing and implementing a state funding system that promotes
equal access to an excellent education need not produce a substantial number of rejected applicants.
Instead, funding should be available to all states that design and implement comprehensive plans with
the elements noted above. Undoubtedly, all states would not submit an effective plan, perhaps due to
political opposition from those who benefit from the status quo, or a state's unwillingness to prioritize
educational equity and excellence. Nevertheless, any state that meets the established criteria should be
rewarded for taking this important initial step. Another lesson from RTTT is that the funding should not
be given through a one-time payment or even occur only over a year or two. Such one-time payments
limit the federal government's ability to hold states accountable for the commitments that enabled
them to receive the initial grant. This reduction in federal influence should be avoided given the
historical track record of states seeking ways to take federal money while avoiding federal
reforms.'57Ultimately, RTTT has shown the importance of sustaining long-term and meaningful reforms
that are effectively implemented.15 8 Therefore, federal grant funding should be provided over several
years and include clear guidance on what conditions must be met for subsequent grant payments to be
made.

Ongoing key to reflexive adaptation

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Third, an incremental federal strategy allows for the latter stages of reforms to incorporate the lessons
learned from the preliminary ones. Federal influence over state funding systems would travel mostly
unchartered territory. NCLB again provides instructive insights on what should be avoided. NCLB
represented the first time federal law had identified the responses that districts and schools must take
when a school or district failed to reach its achievement targets. However, the reforms generally were
structured as penalties for schools and districts that did not meet adequate yearly progress. 2 77 The
interventions also created perverse incentives to lower standards and cut scores.2 78 If NCLB had
included either greater flexibility in determining the necessary interventions or a mechanism for
revisiting and changing the interventions that were not working, the statute might have achieved more
of its goals. Instead, Congress attempted to define ex ante exactly what should happen with and to a
failing school. This oftentimes was viewed as a straightjacket on schools and districts rather than a
parachute that softens the impact of new and innovative reforms. Any federal influence over state
funding systems should not attempt to solve the diverse array of funding challenges at the outset of the
reform strategy. Instead, a gradual approach that is reviewed regularly and reformed as needed should
continuously incorporate the insights and research on the impact of federal action as well as research
regarding state successes and challenges. Fourth, just as federal influence over state funding systems
would usher in a mostly novel federal role in education, most states have not yet engaged in a
deliberate effort to adopt and maintain funding systems that promote equal access to an excellent
education. Undoubtedly, trial and error will occur because each state must navigate its specific state
constitutional requirements, existing funding laws, demographics, the economy, and the political
landscape. State reforms of funding systems in response to plaintiff victories typically have taken many
years to satisfy new constitutional requirements. 279 The New Jersey funding litigation, which is viewed
as one of the most successful efforts, has required many trips to court and the legislature for well over
two decades.28 The myriad challenges of implementing an equitable funding system will endure and
thus an incremental federal strategy should build upon important lessons from state finance litigation
and allow states sufficient time to respond to new federal incentives and reforms.

Single reform fails comprehensive revision in approach key

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

It is imperative that the United States ensures that all states adopt and maintain funding systems that
provide equal access to an excellent education. Inequitable funding systems that handicap the
achievement of students and undermine the national aims of public schools must be eliminated so that
U.S. students can successfully compete in the global workforce.2 83 Scholars and reformers have
oftentimes focused on developing a single strategy for tackling this complex problem. However, a single
reform, even a multifaceted one, would be insufficient to tackle the myriad shortcomings of school
funding systems. This Article has explained why the wisest path to effective reform is an incremental
approach that gradually increases federal influence over state funding systems in ways that require
equitable and excellent schools. Over time, this approach would place growing pressure on states to
reform funding systems in ways that benefit all children and the entire nation.
 Slow bad

Delays kills solvency

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Finally, an incremental approach also would not satisfy those who seek immediate results from the
sacrifices required by substantial reforms. Evidence of the need to provide immediate benefits from
education reforms can be seen when observing the actions of educators. Superintendent of Boston
Public Schools, Thomas Payzant, once commented, Most educators would readily agree that change in
schools is a multiyear process. But the reality is that most school districts are under enormous pressure
to reinvent themselves every year, often as part of a political reaction to deal with funding realities,
disaffected parents, or demands of state and local bureaucracies.251 The need for immediate results
also is evident by the fact that reformers often promise that they will "close the achievement gap" or
make all children college-ready, despite the elusive nature of similar achievements for generations.2 2
Michelle Rhee predicted the achievement of the District of Columbia Public Schools would rise within
five years to the highest achievement in the United States.25 3 Despite ongoing reforms within
education, many reforms fail to take root and are simply replaced with new reforms when a new leader
or board takes charge.254 These and similar efforts respond to the reality that "it's difficult to get
people excited about modest, gradual improvement. And it takes courage even to try. ' 2 55 The public
also could misread an incremental federal approach to influencing state school funding as a signal that
reforming state systems is not important or impactful.
 AT Politics
Incrementalism solves the politics link
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

B. The Benefits of an Incremental Federal Strategy to Influence State School Funding Systems Although it
is important to acknowledge the costs of an incremental federal strategy to influence state school
funding systems, the benefits of such an approach outweigh its costs. The federal government has not
previously exercised substantial, direct influence over state funding systems. It undoubtedly will take a
significant amount of time for the American public to become comfortable with this new federal role,
just as it has taken decades for the federal role in education to evolve from the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to its current role in the ESSA, which is the recent
reauthorization of the ESEA. I believe that a gradual increase in federal influence over state school
funding would be more politically palatable and sustainable in the long run. Political support and
sustainability are essential for the reforms to have adequate time to yield meaningful and
comprehensive restructuring of systems that have privileged more affluent children and lacked
sufficient linkage to education goals and research for many generations. First, an incremental approach
can enable the federal government to adopt modest preliminary reforms that will limit federalism
alarms and help to avoid a backlash against federal involvement in education. In this regard, NCLB256
and the subsequent ESSA 257 provide an important cautionary tale. ESSA represents a backlash against
the substantial expansion of the federal role in education in NCLB and against Secretary Arne Duncan's
use of his authority to grant waivers to NCLB when Congress failed to reauthorize the law.258 Both the
comments of lawmakers and the structure of the bipartisan effort enacted in the ESSA reflect an
intentional effort to decrease federal involvement in education. During the congressional consideration
of ESEA reauthorization, the central question was not whether but how much Congress should reduce
the federal role in education in light of the shortcomings of NCLB .259 Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN),
who served as Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, specifically
noted the backlash against the Obama Administration's involvement in education, including its support
for the Common Core Standards and revising teacher evaluations during a statement he made on the
floor of the Senate. 260 He further noted the need to shrink the federal role in education by
commenting that the new law gets rid of the waivers the U.S. Department of Education has been using
to act, in effect, as a national school board, causing Governors to have to come to Washington and play
"Mother May I" if they want to evaluate teachers or fix low-performing schools or set their own
academic standards. And it is true that it moves a great many decisions at home. It is the single biggest
step toward local control of schools in 25 years. 261 Other senators echoed similar sentiments at the
hearings on reauthorization of the ESEA and the impact of NCLB262 or on the floor of the Senate when
debating the ESEA reauthorization. 263

Similarly, in the House, the Chair of the House Committee on Educationthe Workforce, Representative
John Kline (R-MN) emphasized in his opening remarks in a February 2015 markup of the Student Success
Act (which later became the Every Student Succeeds Act) that the bill would assist in providing all
children an effective education "by reducing the federal footprint, restoring local control, and
empowering parents and education leaders. '264 He further noted that the Secretary of Education had
"impose[d] his will on schools" and that the new bill would prevent such coercive practices. 265 He later
reemphasized the importance of reducing the federal role in education on the floor of the House by
stating, "Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of waiting for us to replace a flawed education law.
They are tired of the Federal intrusion, of the conditional waivers, and of the Federal coercion."2 66
Other congressional representatives also noted the importance of reducing the federal role in education
at the House hearings on education issues that preceded reauthorization 267 or on the floor of the
House as ESSA was debated .268 The effects of this backlash against a strong federal role in education
have continued even though the ESSA has been signed into law. Hearings continue on Capitol Hill about
the implementation of ESSA and lawmakers continue to emphasize the importance of reducing the
federal role in education. On February 10, 2016, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education, which is a subcommittee of the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce, held a hearing on "Next Steps for K-12 Education: Implementing the Promise to
Restore State and Local Control. '269 Committee Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN) opened the hearing
with these comments: After years of flawed policies and federal intrusions into the nation's classrooms,
Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act based on the principle that responsibility of K-12
education must be returned to state and local leaders. The new law repeals onerous federal
requirements and ensures im-" portant decisions affecting education - like standards, accountability,
and school improvement - are made by state and local leaders, not Washington bureaucrats .270
Congressman Rokita further noted that Congress bore responsibility to hold the Department of
Education accountable for the law's implementation and to make sure that the promise of local and
state control over education was kept.2 71 All of these congressional statements make clear that
through the ESSA, Congress has intentionally reduced federal involvement in education so that state and
local leaders will once again be the primary decision makers for education. Numerous provisions within
the ESSA also reflect the backlash against substantial federal involvement in education and a preference
for restoring state and local control. It contains several provisions that limit the role of both the
Department of Education and the Secretary of Education. The central structure of Title I, a program that
provides additional funding to children from lowincome households, provides for state plans that
determine not only the standards for student achievement but also the accountability mechanisms for
districts and schools when students do not meet state standards. 272 This system replaces the NCLB
federal accountability standards. 273 To solidify state control over standards, Congress included a
provision in ESSA that indicates that the law does not prohibit a state from revising their standards or
withdrawing from participation in the common core state standards. 274 It also forbids any federal
employee from taking action against a state that takes such action. 275 ESSA also maintains the
prohibition from past ESEAs that prevented the federal government from controlling the curriculum,
allocation of resources or program of instruction adopted by a state, locality or school. 276 A modest
and incremental increase in federal involvement in education funding should cause less backlash than
the broad expansion of the federal role in NCLB.

Implementations solves the public backlash link

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

Second, an incremental strategy would also enjoy greater political economy because it permits states to
adopt substantial but gradual reforms of state funding systems rather than completely overturning
longstanding systems overnight. As discussed in Part III below, the success and longevity of state
strategies will require increased public understanding of the adverse impacts of current funding systems
and the benefits of reform. Gradual reforms allow, the public to digest this new information and
participate in a dialogue about the most effective reforms for their state in light of the state's budget,
demographics, and constitutional provisions. This public awareness must include research and data on
how reforming state funding systems could enhance the projected economic outlook for the state and
its ability to prepare all students more effectively for the global workforce and higher education. This
information can help the residents of each state begin to embrace both a role for state government in
ensuring equal access to an excellent education as well as the policies required to effectuate that role.
Therefore, an incremental federal approach can increase the political economy of state reforms because
it will help states to gradually build the political will that is essential for sustaining long-term reform.
 AT Politics Link Turn
Plan popular
Epstein 11 (Diana, Ph.D. program in public policy analysis at the RAND Corporation in Santa
Monica, CA, Senior Education Policy Analyst at American Progress
Investing in Education Powers US Competitiveness
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2011/09/06/10376/investing-
in-education-powers-u-s-competitiveness/)

The American people understand the critical importance of investing in education. The public has
clearly expressed in nine different public opinion polls since January that it does not support cuts in
education. In a January USA Today/Gallup poll, two-thirds of Americans opposed cuts in education
more than opposed cuts to any other area including Social Security, Medicare, and national defense.
Similarly, when asked whether it was more important to reduce the deficit or prevent cuts in
education, respondents to a January CNN poll chose to preserve education by a margin of 75 percent
to 25 percent. In fact, lack of funding and financial support was cited as the biggest problem facing local
schools, according to a new poll of the publics attitudes toward public schools. People appear to be less
supportive of increasing education spending, however, if it means they would have to pay more taxes.
When asked about the level of government funding for public schools in their district, about 90 percent
of respondents to a 2011 Education Next poll felt that funding should either increase or stay the same.
Only 28 percent, though, felt that local taxes should increase to fund their district schools while 35
percent felt that local taxes should increase to fund schools across the nation. The American people are
right to want to protect education funding. The United States suffers from persistent achievement
gaps between groups of students defined by race/ ethnicity or family income. For example, on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress exam, black students scored 27 points below white
students in fourth-grade reading and Hispanic students scored 26 points below white students in eighth-
grade mathematics. Racial/ethnic and income achievement gaps run counter to Americas
commitment to an equal and just society, and lower levels of achievement are also associated with
poorer health, lower earnings, and higher levels of incarceration. Federal education programs provide
more equitable resources for students who need it mostwithout federal support, many hard-fought
gains would erode for children living in poverty. International tests demonstrate that U.S. students
have fallen behind many of their international peers. The Program for International Student
Assessment, or PISA, assesses reading, math, and science literacy among 15-year-olds in the 34 member
nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, and 31 other
countries and education systems. On the 2009 PISA exam in mathematics, the average score for U.S.
students was below the OECD average, and 17 OECD countries had higher average scores than the
United States. On the 2009 science exam, the U.S. average score was similar to the OECD average, and
12 OECD countries had higher average scores than the United States. The U.S. students scored at the
OECD average in reading, though six other OECD countries scored higher than the United States. To
achieve desired levels of economic growth and live up to our founding ideals, the United States must
increase the overall level of achievement of students in the K-12 education system and close both
international achievement gaps and the persistent achievement gaps between groups of American
children defined by ethnicity or family income.
 AT TF Slow

Still immediate benefits

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

s and reforms toward their most productive use. Finally, an incremental federal strategy to influence
state funding systems may result in more progressive and comprehensive reforms because neither the
federal reforms nor the state reforms attempt to instantly overhaul state funding systems. The federal
reforms would embrace incrementalism and would tackle various aspects of the necessary reforms over
many years. Similarly, state reforms would occur over time in ways that could increase the likelihood
that far-reaching changes are ultimately embraced that eventually make equal access to an excellent
education a reality for all children. This analysis reveals that the numerous advantages to an incremental
federal strategy outweigh the potential costs. Although a gradual approach should still reap some
significant immediate benefits, in communities where those benefits are not immediate, the increasing
focus on reform can provide leverage to pressure governors and state legislatures to act. In addition, far
more children will lose out on an equitable and excellent education if a comprehensive and relatively
quick federal approach ignites such opposition that the United States never regains its appetite to adopt
federal reforms to influence state funding systems. Therefore, even with its costs, an incremental
strategy approach remains the optimal course of action.
General AT Cap
 Modified Neolib
!!Capitalism is actively transforming through the incorporation of SOCIAL COST
accounting this is the DEMONSTRATION of capitalist SELF-REFLEXIVITY
Kimbrough 17 https://www.ml.com/articles/capitalism-and-the-rise-of-responsible-growth.html
Karin Kimbrough, Head of Investment Strategy, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management

It would be hard to overstate how much capitalism has transformed the world. In the last couple of
decades alone it has given us longer life spans, generated a global online economy, spurred countless
innovations, turned China into an economic powerhouse and connected billions of people via social
media. Indeed, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was a potent symbol of the triumph of free markets
over more repressive economic and social orders.

For all the prosperity that global capitalism has brought to so many people, though, the world remains
beset with social and environmental challenges, from income inequality to water scarcity to climate
change. Now individuals, societies and capitalists themselves are asking whether the system that won
that epic battle over values and freedom in the 20th century can fully live up to its ideals in the 21st. Can
private enterprise harness its awesome strength and innovative potential in ways calculated not just
to increase sales, grow the bottom line and reward shareholders, but also to address some of the
worlds great problems? Enter the age of responsible growth.

Of course, we have to grow, says Brian Moynihan, chief executive officer of Bank of America
Corporation. But we have to do it the right way: Our growth has to come from what we do for our
customers; we succeed when they succeed. We have to take acceptable risk. And core to responsible
growth we have to do it in a sustainable way. That gets to how we govern our activities, how we treat
our employees, our support for the communities we serve.

The Search for a Better Way

In the past, when private companies talked about helping the environment or easing poverty, peoples
immediate assumption was that you were doing charity, says Christopher M. Hyzy, chief investment
officer at Bank of America Global Wealth & Investment Management. Good deeds were gestures to be
made after counting profits and rewarding shareholders. But that calculus is changing. There is now a
growing consensus that capitalism cant just say its better it must actually be better.

Karin Kimbrough,

Head of Investment Strategy, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management

Whats behind this awakening? One clear factor is the lingering effect of the 2008 financial crisis. Nearly
a decade later, slow economic growth in much of the world has led to a conviction that traditional
laissez-faire capitalism alone may not be the panacea many predicted back in 1989 that perhaps a
greater sense of underlying purpose could lift prosperity of companies and countries alike. Theres a
sense that capitalism may have been too narrowly defined as just allowing market forces to solve
problems, says Karin Kimbrough, head of Investment Strategy at Merrill Lynch Wealth Management.
People are starting to say, No, its important for a firms identity to be holistically intertwined with how
they see their role in the community.

An Emerging Vision

Evidence is building that concern for environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices isnt just
good for the world, but good for a companys financial health enhancing returns and lowering its
stock volatility. In fact, weve found that ESG factors overall enhance rather than detract from
returns, especially for larger companies, says Savita Subramanian, head of U.S. Equity and Quantitative
Strategy at BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research. The idea that these concerns are just for tree-huggers is
simply not true.

In her recent report ESG: good companies can make good stocks, Subramanian reported that 80% of
fund managers who incorporate such factors into their investment decisions cite better returns as the
main reason.1 Among S&P Common Stock companies, those with high ESG ratings averaged 5% higher
return on total equity than did poorly rated companies.2

ESG performance can also help forecast future risks. Subramanian adds, An investor who purchased
only stocks with above-average ESG ratings would have avoided 90% of the bankruptcies weve seen
since 2008.3

This message is resonating at the top levels of corporate leadership. In 2015, global CEOs surveyed by
the Conference Board identified sustainability as one of the top five challenges they face, the first time
theyve done so since the survey started in 1999.4 In part, such concerns reflect intense and growing
interest among investors about investing in responsible companies. Once a sideline niche, widely
regarded as offering subpar returns, investments in companies that actively pursue responsible,
sustainable growth now account for some $8.72 trillion, or one in every five dollars of assets under
management in the United States.5

Great companies are getting much more strategically aligned between their ESG work and their core
business, says Jane Nelson, head of the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvards Kennedy
School of Government. Youve now got senior executives talking about this in a strategic way, whether
its the CEO at the top of the company or business unit presidents and managers at the country level and
the operational level.

Expanding the Invisible Hand

Capitalism, at its best, has always been about enlightened self-interest: hard work, ingenuity, freedom,
innovation, and taking calculated risks in exchange for the potential rewards of profit, prosperity and a
better life. Adam Smith, in his treatise The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, famously described a
butcher, a brewer and a baker using quality materials and all of their skills to produce good products at a
fair price. They were motivated not by altruism or regard for customers they didnt even know, but by
personal profit the invisible hand of self-interest.
But with todays increasing emphasis on responsible growth, Adam Smiths baker cant think only about
making the best bread though thats still paramount. Theres also the smoke from his ovens to be
considered what impact is that having on the air quality of his neighbors? What are the working
conditions for the laborers who grow his wheat or grind his flour? And what can he do as a business
owner to improve the overall quality of life in his town?

This new mission for private business should not be confused with anti-capitalism or a call for the end
of global free markets. Rather, the idea behind responsible growth is that private capital and innovative
companies have special strengths and untapped potential to change the world for the better.

People very much believe in the power of capitalism to make a difference. As a result, theyre asking
more from capitalism, not less.

Jackie VanderBrug,

Managing Director and Investment Strategist, U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management

People, particularly younger generations, very much believe in the power of capitalism to make a
difference, says Jackie VanderBrug, managing director and investment strategist at U.S. Trust, Bank of
America Private Wealth Management. As a result, theyre asking more from capitalism, not less.
Indeed, 68% of baby boomers and 83% of millennials say private businesses are better able than
governments to solve our toughest environmental and social problems, according to the 2016 U.S. Trust
Insights on Wealth and Worth survey.

If anything, Hyzy sees a dissolving of old barriers in which companies thought only about the needs of
the private sector and government only about the needs of the public sector. Today, were looking at
where those needs intersect, where they are the same, and, when it comes to addressing those needs,
where can we find the greatest efficiencies. Thats the new capitalism .

!!Ecommerce solves they cant account for NEW postfordist means of exchnge
Reiter 3/23/17 http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2017/03/23/the-benefits-of-trade-have-not-been-
universal-digital-commerce-can-change-that/ Joakim Reiter is the former deputy secretary general of
the UN Conference on Trade and Development.

rade, and its phenomenal expansion in the last two decades, has been d ecisive for lifting more than
one billion people out of poverty. Yet, judging from the current debate on global trade, this basic fact
seems to have been forgotten. Even some Western democracies, traditionally the biggest proponent of
trade, seem increasingly lukewarmin a few cases, reluctantto keeping their borders open to goods
and services.

Trade skeptics argue the benefits of trade have not been equitable. They have a point. Though some
consumers have benefited, large companies have gained the most from global integration, and account
for the vast majority of world trade. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), women and rural
communities have often been less fortunate.
However, the imbalance is not due to excessive globalization . On the contrary, those on the margins
have not been able to benefit because they lack the capacity to fully participate in global trade.

The internet and digital technologies are game-changers.

Digital trade, or e-commerce as it is usually called, is growing rapidly. Estimates show that in 2015 it
amounted to a staggering $22 trillion. Rich nations are leading the way, but others are not far behind. In
China, over 400 million people participate in e-commerceten times more than in Germany. The value
of all goods traded on Chinas Alibaba has, in the last four quarters alone, been equivalent to the GDP of
my home country Sweden.

Far more companies, especially SMEs, have also become exporters through internet-based trade,
almost accidentally. According to eBay, some 95 percent of the U.S.-based SMEs that sell their products
on eBays platforms have ended up exporting their merchandise. Of these, the majority of SMEs
exported their products to four or more continents. These companies have also faster growth and
survival rate than the national average, even higher than for traditional exporting enterprises.

The lack of borders on the internet makes it easier to overcome the many borders and other hurdles
that still apply to physical trade. And this is true for trade between countries, and equally true for trade
within countries, which matters a lot. Increased productivity and employment opportunities in rural
areas though domestic trade creates more equitable societies, reduces unsustainable pressures for
urbanization, and combats poverty. The former pig-farming village of Dong Feng in China is an excellent
example. In 2006, a young village entrepreneur established an online store to sell furniture, inspired by
Ikea. Within four years, furniture production had boomed and, with it, cotton refinement as well as
three hardware stores, fifteen logistics and distribution companies and seven computer stores. Today,
the village and its surroundings host no less than 400 online stores that sell merchandise within China
and abroad, to a value of $50 million annually.

What is more, e-commerce is already leaving its mark on global trade. Since the 2007 financial crisis,
world trade has struggled to recover. In fact, if trade continues on its current trajectory for the next few
years, this decade will have had the slowest pace of trade growth measured since World War II. There
are, however, a few exceptions to this generally bleak picture. Business to consumer e-commerce is
growing at double-digit rates and show no signs of slowing down.

Thanks to internet-related trade, there is an enormous opportunity to make tomorrows trade more
inclusive and to break the current pattern of slow overall trade growth.
But there is much to do to fully tap this potential. The gaps between rich and poor citizens, communities
and countries are still large when it comes to readiness for e-commerce. Whereas 70 percent of
consumers in United Kingdom have bought things online, only 5 percent of consumers have done so in a
number of emerging economies. And it is even less among consumers in the poorest countries.

Countries should take a number of actions to build a business environment that better utilizes the
internet and mobile communications, especially in rural communities and poorer countries. They
should, among other things, adopt policies that foster competitive ICT-infrastructure, efficient
payments solutions, modern customs, and adequate legislation on consumer protection and data.

It is doable . And the good news is, when the right conditions are in place, leapfrogging is possible. M-
Pesa, the mobile-based money transfer system, has succeeded to revolutionize financial inclusion,
especially in Kenya. Digital solutions can bring significant benefits to far more people and far more
cost-efficiently than in past. And the benefits are not limited to ICT-services, or even services at large,
but also play a critical role for the future of manufacturing and agriculture.

Global e-commerce is in its infancy, but it is already altering how countries trade with each other. It is
making traditional hurdles such as geography, size and capital-endowments far less relevant for a
countrys successful integration into world economy. It offers both new growth prospects and more
inclusivity from trade. Putting serious efforts in unleashing its full potential is a no-brainer.

Only self-reflexivity within liberalization solves its the ONLY GAME IN TOWN
Delong 17 http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/hoisted-from-the-archives-_globalization-and-
neoliberalism_-httpwwwubeduprometheus21articulosa.html J. Bradford DeLong Short Biography
Berkeley J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at U.C. Berkeley, and was Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Economic Policy of the U.S. Treasury during the Clinton Administration. He is completing
Slouching Towards Utopia?, an overly-long economic history of the world in the twentieth century.

My primary allegiance is to a fourth group--reformers, call them, who see the economy as resting on
sociological and political foundations and capable of being shaped to bring the story of globalization to
a relatively happy ending. And among the reformers there are two currents of thought that seem to me
to be well worth heeding. The best example of the first current is found by exiting my Berkeley office,
walking north ten feet, and knocking on the next office door. Barry J. Eichengreen, my Berkeley
colleague, has written two recent books: Globalizing Capital and Toward a New International Financial
Architecture. The first explains how we have arrived at the international monetary system that we have,
with its floating exchange rates and large international flows of capital. It explains why we see rapid
growth among those developing economies that convince Wall Street that they should be growing
rapidly, and brutal financial crises when those claims are shown to be unfounded or even called into
question.

The second book contains "practical" proposals for reform: recognize the compelling long-term benefits
of open capital markets, worry less about guarding against "moral hazard" (economists' term for the
skewing of expectations if a past bailout leads investors to expect that future crises will always be met
by bailouts), and establish a better safety net to catch nations falling into international financial
disarray. There are imperfect institutions that already strive to provide that kind of security for world
financial structures--chief among them the IMF. But in Eichengreen's view it has worried too much
about opening capital markets and making sure that governments that preside over financial crises are
punished and humiliated, and too little about making sure that national governments have the right
incentives in advance to diminish the damage that a panic-stricken flight of international capital might
do.

Eichengreen has more realistic expectations than do the globalizers, recognizing that the global market
economy is "the worst way of allocating resources except for all other forms that have been tried."
There are many problems that decentralized markets cannot solve, and that must be resolved by
governments if they are to be resolved at all. (A broader perspective, with more points of view but
tending toward the same lessons, can be found in Capital Flows and Financial Crises, edited by Miles
Kahler.)
 Only Game in Town xt
Globalism is still the only game in town
Delong 17 http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/hoisted-from-the-archives-_globalization-and-
neoliberalism_-httpwwwubeduprometheus21articulosa.html

In a sense the neoliberal position is a counsel of despair. Once upon a time development advisors,
politicians, economists, and others argued that social democracy was the proper road for developing
economies. A strong, active government to build infrastructure and redistribute wealth to ensure that
growth would benefit all--or so the argument went. Couple that with high investment (perhaps behind a
wall of substantial tariffs) and the private sector would flourish.

But over the past two decades cynicism has set in . A consensus has formed that outside already-
developed nations (and indeed inside some of them) an activist developmental state has entailed too
many coups, too much corruption, too many business leaders deciding that the road to profits is not
capital investment but marrying the C.F.O. to the daughter of the vice-minister of finance.

Neoliberals hope that multinational corporations, financial analysts, bond-fund managers, and bond
raters will in the end be able to apply some constructive pressure to improve the situation: better the
discipline of the world market than no discipline on less-than-fully-democratic governments at all.

This neoliberal line may sound a little to pat. But it is virtually the only game in town. Critics try to
poke holes in it, but the neoliberal stance has no serious challengers these days in policy-making. The
"dependency" arguments--that developing economies should fear and tightly manage contact with the
industrial core because it would take more than 100% of the gains from trade--have vanished. In 1960
left-wing intellectuals and politicians argued that the close economic links between Batista's Cuba and
the United States was impoverishing Cuba. Today everyone--left, right, and center--agrees that it is the
lack of close economic links with the U.S. that impoverishing Cuba.
 No Trade = Trump

Rejecting globalization causes global emulation of Trump at the national level

Seidel and Chandy 11/18/16 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/11/18/donald-
trump-and-the-future-of-globalization/ Brina Seidel Research Assistant - Global Economy and
Development, The Brookings Institution Laurence Chandy Fellow - Global Economy and Development,
Development Assistance and Governance Initiative

It is worth emphasizing that a resistance to globalization was arguably the foremost policy theme in
Trumps election campaign. In the speech announcing his presidential bid, Trump railed against the
United States existing trade agreements, threatened to slap taxes on U.S. companies investing
overseas, and pledged to build a wall to keep out migrants, whom he accused of being rapists. Trumps
plan for his first 100 days in office reaffirms the centrality of this theme, with a commitment to
renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA, abandon support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), label
China a currency manipulator, establish tariffs to discourage companies from off-shoring production and
jobs, expel more than two million migrants, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions, and build
the wall.

The first is the direct effect of the U.S. turning inward. The U.S. is the worlds largest economy,
measured in market dollars, and its third most populated. A partial withdrawal from the global economy
by the U.S. is therefore likely to register in measures of globalized stocks and flows, simply by virtue of
the countrys size.

Indeed, America holds the largest share of global trade, foreign capital stocks, and migrants. Yet, relative
to its size, America is not as globally integrated as many other countries. It is those areas where the U.S.
is most globally intertwined, as measured by the vertical axes of Figure 2, that the direct impact of a
Trump presidency on globalization could theoretically be greatest.

Figure 2: Global shares of trade, capital markets, and migration

capital-markets

Authors calculations based on Lane and Milesi-Ferretti 2014, U.N. 2015a, and World Bank 2016. Capital
stock assets include estimates of external debt, foreign direct investment (FDI), and portfolio equity
stocks. Full description of sources and methodology are available in this report.
For instance, despite the prominence of trade during the election campaign, the U.S. is a relatively
closed economy. It accounts for only 11 percent of global trade volumesfar below its 24 percent share
of global GDP. That said, this likely understates the countrys footprint in global trade given that the U.S.
imports many final goods whose production occurs along international supply chains. By contrast, the
U.S. plays a fuller role in global capital markets. Within those markets, the area that may be most
directly vulnerable to Trumps policies is outward foreign direct investment (FDI). The U.S. lays claim to
18 percent of global FDI assets. However, the U.S. is most globalized, relative to other countries, in
terms of its openness towards migrants. The country is home to 19 percent of the worlds migrant stock,
while accounting for only 4 percent of the worlds population. In fact, the U.S. is the top destination for
migrants from 60 countries. The expulsion of large numbers of migrants and greater restrictions on the
number of future entrants would directly alter this aspect of the global economy.

While the direct effects of the U.S. turning inward on global economic integration are important, they
are still likely to be relatively small in terms of the three series presented in Figure 1. Much larger effects
are possible in terms of the impact Trumps policies could have by changing the behavior of other
countries. This is the second level at which we see Trumps effect on globalization unfolding.

We may see countries retaliate against U.S. protectionist policies. This is the basis for concerns that
Trump could precipitate a trade war.

We may see countries retaliate against U.S. protectionist policies. This is the basis for concerns that
Trump could precipitate a trade war. The threat has already been made explicit by the state-sponsored
Chinese tabloid, Global Times, which proposed that China respond to aggressive trade policies by
cancelling contracts with U.S. suppliers, imposing tariffs on U.S. imports, and limiting the number of
Chinese students studying in American universities, and by French presidential candidate Nicolas
Sarkozy who has suggested that the Europe Union impose a tax on U.S. products and limit the
participation of foreign companies in EU public contracts if Trump withdraws from the Paris climate
accord.

Countries and their leaders may instead imitate Trumps policy agenda , whether in pursuit of similar
electoral success or on the basis that his election gives his anti-globalization agenda legitimacy. In the
past week, politicians from Italy, Hungary, Greece, and elsewhere have invoked Trumps victory as
justification for policies that reverse the pattern of globalization.

Failure of global growth just results in resurgence of authoritarian nativism

Taft 1/20/17 http://www.barrons.com/articles/will-trumps-ayn-rand-capitalism-work-1484931305
John Taft is CEO of Delaney Taft, focused on providing growth capital to U.S.-based businesses. He is also
the former CEO of Royal Bank of Canadas U.S. wealth management unit and former chairman of the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). Taft is a descendant of President William
Howard Taft and Sen. Robert Taft.

Tariffs and the abrogation of trade treaties have the potential to create trade wars that could more
than offset the benefits of a stimulative, reflationary fiscal policy. As Chinas President Xi told the World
Economic Forum this week, Pursuing protectionism is like locking yourself in a dark room, which would
seem to escape the wind and the rain, but also blocks out sunshine and air.

Absent increased economic growth, entitlement programs which are already unaffordable and which
Trump has said he will not cut back will become even less affordable.

The political turmoil of 2016 was a revolt against crony capitalism. More than 75% of respondents to a
survey conducted by Edelman, the global public-relations firm, believe the system is biased against
regular people and favors the rich and the powerful. They want to fire the elite that is perceived to
have enriched itself. They expect Trump and his economic team to correct what Charles Gave calls the
fatal contradiction in our capitalist system between social benefits and individual losses.

We need them to deliver. For Trump supporters, whose anger will only intensify if promised job growth
doesnt materialize in their home towns. For millennials, 72% of who believe socialism is a better system
than capitalism. As well as for the poorest members of society.

Otherwise, the slow-motion meltdown in trust and civility weve been witnessing since the financial
crisis and that channeled itself into Trumps election as president might not express itself nearly as
constructively in years ahead.

The growing storm of distrust is powerful and unpredictable, writes Richard Edelman, the chief
executive officer of public-relations firm Edelman. If faith in the system continues to fall, rising
populist movements could wreak unimaginable havoc.
 AT cap is doomed
!!Globalization inevitable they dont account for developments in supply chain
logistics
Foreign Policy Association 4/9/17 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2017/04/09/parag-khannas-
blunt-defense-of-globalization/

hanna, promoting his book Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization in a speech at the
Foreign Policy Association in New York, said globalization is not at risk of reversing course despite
recent surges in the United States and Europe of trade policies that favor national protection.

Fortunately, I have the numbers on my side, Khanna said. Im not remotely concerned about it. Im
certainly concerned about the methodologie s and the intellects, to be perfectly blunt, of those people
who are anti-globalists.

He argued that a massive increase in infrastructure investments, especially in Asian economies over the
last 25 years, is driving a transition to a supply chain world governed by trade connectivity . New
roads, railways, ports and internet cables have enabled people to become dependent on goods and
services provided from far greater distances than ever before.

And because this is happening at the same time across the world , Khanna explained, there is no one
cog in the wheel that can stop it.

The supply chain is a force thats even more powerful than states themselves , as states seek to be
part of those supply chains, he said. Ive found that whenever a country tries to stop the flow of
something, it just flows around them.

For example, the conclusion by most United States leaders to abort the Tran-Pacific Partnership, a free
trade agreement with Asian countries brokered to contain Chinas influence, will not halt regional trade.
In fact, 12 countries that formed TPP met in Chile in March, and were joined by China, to discuss future
trade cooperation.

So a trade agreement that we had conjured up to help isolate China winds up going on without us,
and with China, Khanna said.
They overinterpret POCKETS of resistance effectiveness of trade ties make continued
opening of supply chain management inevitable they cant account for the
PRISONERS DILEMMA
Schuman 7/14/16 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-14/brexit-won-t-stop-
globalization Michael Schuman is a journalist based in Beijing and author of "Confucius: And the World
He Created."

Globalizationthat irresistible force that was inevitably, inexorably making the world flatlooks to be
in retreat. Trade growth has never recovered to the levels reached before the 2008 financial crisis.
Donald Trump is fueling his presidential campaign on fear of free trade and immigration. The economic
problems of the U.S., he blasted in a June speech, are the consequence of a leadership class that
worships globalism over Americanism. Then came Brexit, the worst setback for the European Union,
that most ambitious experiment in globalization. Money manager Bill Gross said Brexit marks the end
of globalization as weve known it.

In a sense, Gross is correct. The rich West launched globalization on the ideal that nations tied together
by bonds of trade, money, and culture are less likely to destroy one another. Now those in the U.S. and
Europe who believe themselves hurt by the massive changes wrought by globalization want to reverse
it. Isolationism is being heralded as independence.

But anyone who thinks globalization is dead misreads whats really happening. While there are
pockets of resistance, much of the world is still forging tighter links between countries, companies,
and communities. Rather than retrenching, globalization is deepening and expandingwhether angry
Trump supporters or British Leave voters like it or not.

Bloomberg Businessweek Brexit/Globalization International cover image, July 18-24, 2016

Featured in Bloomberg Businessweek, July 18-24, 2016. Subscribe now.Illustration: Jeff Glendenning

This new and perhaps even more exciting phase of globalization presents serious challenges for
policymakers, especially in the U.S. and Europe. As working classessuffering from stagnant incomes
and joblessnesslash out at the free movement of money, goods, and people, their elected politicians
face pressure to detach from an increasingly interconnected world. In doing so , though, they may
cede to non-Western competitors the potential benefits these fresh linkages will create. The fate of
nations may depend on whether they continue to embrace globalization.

Thats been the case for decades. The first round of globalization was, generally, a movement from the
West to the rest. As the open exchange encouraged by the U.S.-led global economic system and
advancing technology smoothed the way for doing business on an international scale, finance and
factories flowed from the richest countries to the poorest. With them came Western doctrines (from
capitalism to evangelical Christianity) and Western culture (from McDonalds to Mickey Mouse). The
countries that took advantageChina, Japan, South Korea, and, yes, the U.S.reaped the rewards.
Developing countries alleviated poverty on an unprecedented scale, while advanced nations gained
greater economic efficiency. Countries that sat on the sidelinesRussia, much of the Middle East, and
Africaare still trying to make up lost ground.

The success of that early phase of globalization has spawned anotherone that moves in all directions.
Emerging economies are knitting closer ties among themselves as China, India, and others gain in
wealth, clout, and confidence. The World Trade Organization figures that 52 percent of developing
countries exports went to other emerging economies in 2014, up from 38 percent in 1995. Trade
between China and India was $1.7 billion in 1997. By 2014 it had ballooned to $72 billion. Indias total
trade with Africa grew more than 60 percent in only four years, to almost $48 billion in the countrys
2014-15 fiscal year.

Most of the world continues to pursue free trade, even as Trump derides the North American Free
Trade Agreement, or Nafta, as a disaster, and Brexit excises Europes second-largest economy from
the continents integrated market. China is pushing for a pan-Asia free-trade zone; the 10-member
Association of Southeast Asian Nations is forming a common market; and African countries have started
negotiating a continentwide free-trade area.

Todays globalization is also drawing in countries previously left out. Textile and apparel manufacturers
from Bangladesh, China, and Turkey invested $2.2 billion in Ethiopia last year to open factories to export
to the U.S. and Europe. The Philippines, long a laggard in a region replete with hyperconnected
economies, has become a major hub for call centers.

New institutions are forming to support these trends. In June the China-backed Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, a development organization akin to the World Bank, approved its first four loans,
totaling $509 million, for projects in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. Two months earlier,
the New Development Bankfounded by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and
headquartered in Shanghaiannounced its first loans. They totaled $811 million and will fund
renewable energy projects in the BRICS countries, except for Russia.

Companies from the emerging world are becoming more important investors as well. According to the
American Enterprise Institute, Chinese companies invested $111 billion around the world in 2015more
than 10 times the amount in 2005. The total that Indian companies have invested abroad, at $139 billion
in 2015, rose 43 percent in only five years, growing faster than the amount of foreign money invested in
India. During a June visit to China, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the two countries are jointly
undertaking investment projects worth $50 billion.
Growing antipathy toward immigrants hasnt kept people at home, either. The World Bank estimates
that the number of international migrants rose to a record 251 million last year. More than 38 percent
of them moved from a developing country to another developing country in 2013, compared with 34
percent to advanced economies.

or30_2

Illustration: Jeff Glendenning

Of course, this new globalization may encounter its share of Brexit-like setbacks. Trade among
emerging economies hasnt escaped the global slowdown. The WTO estimates that the growth of
exports among developing economies slumped to 1.3 percent in 2014, down sharply from about 33
percent only four years earlier. In some cases, the ties between nations are tightening less than they
appear. Despite the high-level friendship between China and Russia, persistent distrust has kept many of
their promises of cooperation just thatpromises. And politicians and policymakers intent on turning
back globalism can hamper progress for everyone. Trumps protectionism, if ever implemented, could
spark retaliatory measures capable of dragging down global growth. In Europe, German Chancellor
Angela Merkel is talking tough on Brexit, saying the U.K. cannot go cherry-picking what it wants and
doesnt from EU membership. The trauma of the U.K.s impending exit is expected to dampen growth
not only in Europe, but possibly around the world.

Yet the foes of globalization wont be able to stop it. Too many countries see their future as part of
something bigger. India long harbored doubts about participating in globalization, but after liberalizing
rules on foreign direct investment in June, Prime Minister Narendra Modis office tweeted that his
country is the most open economy in the world for FDI. Next door in Myanmar, military rulers gave in
to democratic reform after realizing their impoverished country could no longer remain isolated. They
hope to gain from the opportunities embedded in this latest round of globalizationnew sources of
growth, finance, and profits; new founts of information and innovation; new job creators and
consumers; and new ideas sprouting in a newly emerging global culture.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

Enter your email

Sign Up

Those who blame globalization for their problems think theyll be better off watching from the sidelines.
Trump and his supporters contend that erecting wallsliterally and figurativelywill protect U.S. jobs
and industry from an unfair global economy. But early indications say otherwise. The pounds steep
post-Brexit swoon is a signal that investors believe the U.K. is less competitive outside an integrated
Europe than within it. In Paris and Frankfurt, bankers and politicians are eager to capitalize on Brexit to
siphon off financial business from London.

Instead of pandering to isolationist forces, politicians would do better to address their very real
concerns directly. Workers displaced by free trade need more intensive training to prepare them for
new jobs. University education must become less expensive, and vocational schools more available.
Allowing labor a greater voice in corporate management will help wage earners share more equitably
in the profits globalization creates for Big Business. As the world continues to flatten, opponents of
that inevitable, inexorable change must mind the edge.

ideology irrelevant the concrete mechanics of logistics make globalization inevitable

Kipe 3/27/17 http://www.scmr.com/article/globalization_vs._protectionism_a_need_for_supply_chain_resiliency Dave Kipe is Senior-
Vice-President of Global Operations for Scholastic.

The last decade has been a march towards globalization, but recent political and economic events have
created a backlash and stirred the debate; globalization vs. protectionism. The protectionists would
argue that the worlds current financial and economic woes can be attributed to globalization,
particularly to the proliferation of free trade agreements and countries de-valuing their currencies to
gain export advantages.

Domestically in the US, the movement towards protectionism has been rooted in survival. In the early
1990s the United States accounted for 30% of manufacturing output, retaining the position as the
worlds leading industrial producer that it had held for almost a hundred years. At that time China
produced only 5% of global manufacturing output.

Today that position has completely reversed. China produces 25% of manufacturing output and the US
only 15%. These changes are just part of the reason protectionism is gaining speed, but regardless of
your political or socio-economic opinion; we as supply chain leaders need to remain resilient and
prepared for abrupt change.

Here are a few steps supply chain leaders and manufacturers can take in preparing for this change:

Evaluate your existing and future customer footprint and map it against your existing manufacturing and
supply chain capabilities. You might be surprised at the disconnect.

Re-calibrate operational costs and capital costs and completely reshape existing assumptions.

Research and examine advanced manufacturing technologies, including AI, robotics, and automation,
and interpret the impact on your infrastructure and customer service model.
Proactively try to rebuild your declining supply-chain ecosystems, but collaborate with your customers
and peers to optimize ideas and technologies.

Engineer your supply chains to be resilient to future inevitable changes and instabilities in government
regulations, trade policies, and exchange rates.

Additionally, its important that we dont paint the global supply chain with broad strokes. When we
talk about complex supply chains, we must remember how varied they can be; relative on what they
produce, how they produce, and where they produce. The variety adds complexity, and needs to be
taken fully into account in analytical terms. But supply chains also have much in common, especially
when we try to understand how they are affected by rapid change, and in this context; the movement
from globalization to protectionism.

The one constant is uncertainty. Connected international supply chains mean an end to the old
assumptions. It has been taken for granted almost since the first intellectual stirrings of economics as a
science that cutting the value of your currency makes your exports cheaper so you can sell more. But
not anymore as the last British pound devaluation has shown. In many exports, the import content is so
high it pushes up the price of the assembled final product almost as much as the currency depreciation
is supposed to cut it.

It also hints at a greater truth which is that in the modern sophisticated just-in-time world, price is
often less important than quality, design, after-sales service, speed and reliability of delivery. Socio
economic and political pressure may alter how we manage and sustain our supply chains, but in a
ferociously competitive world where over-capacity exists in most industries , it is unlikely to
overcome the law of economics.
 AT Capitalismmonolithic reps
Reject their monolithic representations of capitalismthe attempt to overthrow the
current system fractures chances for genuine institutional change
Rancire 2010 (DISSENSUS On Politics and Aesthetics. Jacques Rancire, Edited and Translated by
Steven Corcoran, 2010. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/230/Ranciere%20-%20Dissensus%20-
%20On%20Politics%20and%20Aesthetics.pdf) [NJ]

Thesis 10. The 'end of politics' and the 'return of politics' are two complementary ways of cancelling out
politics in the simple relationship between a state of the social and a state of the state apparatus.
'Consensus' is the common name given to this cancellation. The essence of politics resides in the modes
of dissensual subjectivation that reveal a society in its difference to itself. The essence of consensus, by
contrast, does not consist in peaceful discussion and reasonable agreement, as opposed to conflict or
violence. Its essence lies in the annulment of dissensus as separation of the sensible from itself, in the
nullification of surplus subjects, in the reduction of the people to the sum of the parts of the social
body and of the political community to the relations between the interests and aspirations of these
different parts. Consensus consists, then, in the reduction of politics to the police. Consensus is the 'end of politics': in
other words, not the accomplishment TEN THESES ON POUTICS of the ends of politics but simply a return to the
normal state of things - the non-existence of politics. The 'end of politics' is the ever-present shore of
politics (le bord de Ia politique), itself an activity that is always of the moment and provisional. The expressions
'return of politics' and 'end of politics' encapsulate two symmetrical interpretations that both produce
the same effect: an effacing of the concept of politics itself and the precariousness that is one of its
essential elements. The so-called return of the political, in proclaiming a return to pure politics and
thus an end to the usurpations of the social, simply occludes the fact that the social is by no means a
particular sphere of existence but instead a disputed object of politics. Consequently, the end of the
social that it proclaims is simply no more than the end of political litigation over the partition of worlds.
The 'return of politics' thus boils down to the assertion that there is a specific- place for politics. Isolated
in this manner, this specific place can be nothing but the place of the state. So, the theorists of the
'return of politics' in fact announce its extinction. They identify it with the practices of state, the very
principle of which consists in the suppression of politics. Symmetrically, the sociological thesis
announcing the 'end of politics' posits the existence of a state of the social in which politics no longer
has any necessary reason for being; whether this is because it has accomplished its ends by bringing this
state into being (the exoteric American Hegelian-Fukayama-ist version) or because its forms are no longer adapted to
the fluidity and artificiality of present-day economic and social relations (the esoteric European Heideggerian-
Situationist version). The thesis thus amounts to asserting that the logical telos of capitalism entails the
extinction of politics. It concludes, then, either by mourning the loss of politics in the face of a
triumphant, and now immaterial, Leviathan, or by its transformation into broken-up, segmented,
cybernetic, ludic and other forms that match those of the social pertaining to the highest stage of
capitalism. It thus fails to recognize that, in actual fact, politics has no reason for being in any state of
the social and that the contradiction between these two logics is an invariant given defining the
contingency and precariousness specific to politics. This is to say that, via a Marxist detour, this thesis
validates in its own way two further theses: that of political philosophy which grounds politics in a
particular mode of life and the consensual thesis that identifies the political community with the social
body, and thereby also political 43 44 DISSENSUS practice with state activity. The debate between those
philosophers who proclaim the 'return of politics' and the sociologists who profess its 'end' is
therefore scarcely more than a simple debate over the appropriate order in which to read the
presuppositions of political philosophy, for the purpose of interpreting the consensualist practice of
annihilating politics.
Misc ATs
 AT: Squo Solves funding/resource utilization
Past legislative action has been insufficient to reform unequal school finance systems
The Plan is key
Bowman 11/28/16 (Kristi L., November 28, Bowman serves as Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and
Professor of Law and is an education law scholar. She is a co-author of the 5th edition of a leading
textbook in the field. The Failure of Education Federalism, Michigan State University College of Law,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876889 cDr)

Nevertheless, scholars also have noted that these reforms should not be overstated.204 The legislative response to school
finance litigation in most states has been described as fairly tepid, and minority school districts were less likely to prevail and
faced extremely hostile legislatures when they did prevail.205 Despite several decades of school finance reform, many
school finance systems have remained quite resistant to lasting and comprehensive reform.206 One
persistent source of disparities in financing education remains the property tax,207 an approach that the Court
in Rodriguez suggested may have been used for too long.208 A recent analysis of the current reliance on property taxes reveals that forty states
use a foundation program, and five use a combination approach that typically includes a foundation component.209 The foundation
approach combines a contribution from local governments that is typically raised through property taxes as well as state funding that seeks
to make up the difference between the revenue raised by wealthy and poorer localities.210 However, this approach permits
inequalities in funding to remain because [u]sually localities can go beyond the state guaranteed amount
with additional property taxes that are unmatched by the state. 211 Research indicates that between the 199899
school year and the 200809 school year, local property taxes consistently accounted for approximately thirty-five
percent of funding for schools.212 A 2013 report from President Obamas Commission on Equity and Excellence
(the Commission) provides some of the most recent research on the nature and extent of inequitable school finance disparities within the
United States that remain even after numerous state efforts to reform school finance systems. President Obama created the Commission to
study disparities in educational opportunity and emphasized the need to focus on school finance systems and to recommend how the federal
government could assist in remedying these disparities.213 The Commission brought together many of the nations leading experts on
education finance and reform as well as business leaders and many of the nonprofit organizations that consistently work on issues of equity in
education.214 In a February 2013 report, the Commission found
that deeply entrenched inequities remain in the
nations school finance systems despite a finding by a federal commission in 1972 that the inequities and
inadequacies in the nations school finance systems were caused by outdated school finance formulas that depended
too heavily on property taxes.215 The report acknowledged that many states have decreased their reliance on property taxes and have used
the increased reliance on state funding to increase equity.216 However, the report noted that despite four decades of
reforms by federal, state, and local governments these reforms have failed to create equitable and
adequate school finance systems.217 Indeed, the Commission summarized its finding that these reforms have fallen short by
stating that: These initiatives have not addressed the fundamental sources of inequities and so have not generated the
educational gains desired. Despite these efforts and proclamations, large achievement gaps remain, and local
finance and governance systems continue to allow for, and in many ways encourage, inequitable and inadequate
funding systems and inefficient and ineffective resource utilization .218 The report further condemned
school finance systems, with only limited exceptions, for failing to link school finance systems to the cost of
ensuring that all students achieve high standards. 219 The report also confirmed that the nations
education system continues to confine poor and minority communities to the poorest-performing
teachers, poorly maintained facilities, and inferior academic opportunities and expectations.220 In light of this

unequivocal condemnation of the nations school finance systems, the report recommended a variety of reforms by the
states and the federal government that would restructure school finance systems to provide for an efficient
distribution of adequate resources that are allocated based upon students needs and that would enable all students to achieve high
standards.221 Other research also confirms that many school finance systems within the United States fail to provide an adequate and
equitable distribution of education funding. For instance, a 2012 report entitled Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card
assessed the school finance systems of all fifty states against four fairness measures: (1) funding levelthe level
of state and local funding for school districts compared to that of other states; (2) funding distributionwhether a state provides
additional funding or reduces funding to schools based on the concentration of student poverty; (3) effortwhich compares the difference
between state spending on education relative to the fiscal capacity of the state based on its per capita gross domestic product; and (4)
coveragethe percentage of students in the state who attend public schools.222 The resulting analysis provides a
multifaceted and comprehensive assessment of the school finance systems throughout the nation that stands in contrast to
many studies that simply use one measure of inequality. Several key findings highlight existing inequities in school finance
systems. The report notes that states have the most control over two factorsfunding distribution and effort.223 In
particular, funding distribution provides the greatest insight into whether states attempt to address the additional educational needs of
lowincome students.224 On this measure, [o]nly 17 states have progressive funding systems, providing greater funding to highpoverty districts
than to low-poverty districts, which represents an increase from the fourteen states that were progressive in the 2010 report.225 Sixteen
states have regressive systems that give less money to high-poverty districts, and fifteen states provide the same
level of funding to high- and low-poverty districts.226 This reveals that only slightly more than one-third of the school
finance systems are sending additional revenue to address the well-documented greater needs of low-income
students.227 The report also notes that between 2007 and 2009, thirty-four states increased their effort, but that states varied widely in the
effort made to fairly fund schools.228 The report further highlights the importance of both sufficient and progressive funding systems as an
indispensable foundation for raising student achievement and closing the achievement gaps.
 AT: NCLB
The failures of No Child Left Behind can largely be attributed to status quo education
federalism and the inability for Congress to establish a floor for education standards
or teacher qualifications
Bowman 11/28/16 (Kristi L., November 28, Bowman serves as Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and
Professor of Law and is an education law scholar. She is a co-author of the 5th edition of a leading
textbook in the field. The Failure of Education Federalism, Michigan State University College of Law,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876889 cDr)
A. How Education Federalism Influenced the Requirements for Challenging Academic Standards in NCLB: To understand how education
federalism limited NCLBs potential effectiveness, it is important to understand the key components of NCLB. NCLB
requires all states
to adopt challenging academic standards at a minimum in math, reading, and science that are applied to all
students.245 Students must be tested on their knowledge of these standards annually in grades three
through eight and once in grades ten through twelve in reading and math beginning in the 200506 school year.246 Beginning in the 200708
school year, science testing must be conducted once in each of three grade spans: grades three to five, grades six to nine, and grades ten to
twelve. 247 States
also must define cut scores that determine when students are proficient on state tests, and
those scores must be separately reported for student subgroups, including separate scores for racial and ethnic
minority students and low-income students.248 NCLB requires all schools and districts to publish annual report cards detailing graduation rates,
school performance, and whether students and subgroups of students are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of
proficiency for all students by 2014.249 NCLB also imposes accountability requirements on schools and districts that receive funding under Title
I.250 These requirements generally impose increasingly interventionist corrective action each year that a
school or a subgroup within a school did not achieve proficiency on state tests.251 Despite these reformist
requirements, the current understanding of education federalism has handcuffed the most
progressive elements of NCLB. NCLBs requirement that all students become proficient at
challenging academic standards lies at the heart of its effort to close the achievement gap. However ,
rather than propose rigorous common standards for all students, the existing structure of education federalism led
Congress to allow each state to set its own academic standards.252 Indeed, as professor of government Paul Manna
has noted, Long-standing political concerns and views of American federalism , such as the tradition of state and
local control of curriculum and teaching, kept some options such as federally developed standards and tests off the
negotiating table from the start. 253 Furthermore, the statute ensures that the Department of Education will not exert influence over
the content of the standards by specifically stating that a State shall not be required to submit such standards to the Secretary [of Education].
254 Allowing states to set academic standards provides states with an opportunity to establish rigorous
academic standards that would prepare students for success in postsecondary education, employment, and their
communities.255 Unfortunately for the nations schoolchildren, and ultimately the nation, the states did not embrace this opportunity.
Instead, many states used the flexibility within NCLB as an opportunity to lower standards to those that
were easily attainable to avoid the penalties and the reforms that would be required if students did not reach demanding
standards.256 The weak standards eviscerated the proficiency requirement and instead made proficiency
mean very little in many states.257 As a result, student proficiency on state tests did not ensure that students were well prepared
for the workforce or college.258 Even though education federalism limited Congresss ability to adopt a national standard, Congress tried to
prevent states from adopting low standards by requiring states to test a sample of students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), a standardized achievement test on reading and math for fourth and eighth graders. 259 However, this check proved insufficient to
the task.260 Most states have adopted significantly weaker standards than the NAEP standards.261 Indeed, one study found that
[e]very state, for both reading and math (with the exception of Massachusetts for math), deems more students
proficient on its own assessments than NAEP does. 262 The NAEP data also reveal that less than one-third of the
students in the United States are proficient in reading and that a similar percentage of students are proficient in math.263 Although
states continue to adjust their standards and many have committed in the last few years to adopt common standards in
response to federal money offered under President Obamas Race to the Top Initiative,264 this analysis reveals that the
congressional genuflect to education federalism eviscerated the heart of NCLB by preventing
Congress from establishing a meaningful floor for state education standards . Without any limits on the rigor of
state standards, many states chose to adopt weak academic standards. The next Subpart reveals that education
federalism also limited the effectiveness of NCLBs requirement that every classroom must have a
highly qualified teacher in districts that receive Title I funds. B. Education Federalism and the Highly Qualified Teacher
Requirement for NCLB: Research establishes that urban schools with high concentrations of low-income and
minority students typically employ less qualified, experienced, and effective teachers.265 To address this disparity,
NCLB sought to close this aspect of the opportunity gap by requiring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom for core
academic subjects in districts that accept Title I funds.266 NCLB defines a highly qualified teacher as one who holds a bachelors degree,
possesses competence in the subject that she teaches, and, obtains full state certification or passes a state licensing exam and holds a license to
teach. 267 NCLB required states to ensure that teachers in core subjects were highly qualified by the 200506 school year.268 To show
competence to teach, a new teaching applicant for an elementary teaching position must pass a state exam in math, reading, and writing.269 A
new teaching applicant for a middle school or high school position could show competence in one of three ways: pass a state exam in the
subjects he or she will teach; possess a postsecondary major or the equivalent coursework or a graduate degree in the teaching subject; or,
obtain credentialing demonstrating their knowledge.270 Veteran teachers could show competency in the same way, but NCLB also gave
veteran teachers the option to show competence by demonstrating that they met a state standard of evaluation.271 The statute does not
provide a federal minimum for demonstrating mastery in a subject. 272 Congressional
concerns regarding education
federalism limited the effectiveness of these provisions. To safeguard state control of teacher
licensure standards, Congress provided broad flexibility to states in defining a highly qualified teacher
by allowing state licensure or certification and successful completion of a state test in the relevant subject
area to establish the definition of highly qualified.273 Like the flexibility for student standards, this flexibility enabled states to
lower standards for teachers.274 In response to this flexibility, many states have developed low standards for defining what
constitutes a highly qualified teacher, particularly when they encountered implementation difficulties such as teacher shortages and
insufficient data and information to track teacher qualifications.275 Indeed, although some contend that most states adopted rigorous
standards for new teacher certification,276 other scholars allege that states have used this flexibility to ensure that definitions of quality
impose no additional burden on either existing teachers or new entrants because the definitions simply replicate preexisting certification and
licensing standards.277 This enabled states to require only minimal competence278 and to identify the largest number of highly qualified
teachers while avoiding significant repercussions for identifying substantial numbers of teachers who do not meet the requirements for being
highly qualified. 279 This research
indicates that state efforts to adopt a rigorous definition of a highly
qualified teacher represent the exception rather than the rule.
AT: Ks
 Generic Perm political deliberation
Permutation do bothpolitics exists as a paradox in which opposing views have the
ability to be deliberated, prefer a process of political deliberation via the AFF
Rancire 2010 (DISSENSUS On Politics and Aesthetics. Jacques Rancire, Edited and Translated by
Steven Corcoran, 2010. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/230/Ranciere%20-%20Dissensus%20-
%20On%20Politics%20and%20Aesthetics.pdf) [NJ]

Thesis 8. The
essential work of politics is the configuration of its own space. It is to make the world of its
subjects and its operations seen. The essence of politics is the manifestation of dissensus as the
presence of two worlds in one. Let us start with an empirical given: police interventions in public spaces consist primarily not in
interpellating demonstrators, but in breaking up demonstrations. The police is not the law which interpellates individuals (as in Louis Althusse(s
'Hey, you there!'), not unless it is confused with religious subjedion.7 It consists, before all else, in recalling the obviousness of what there is, or
rather of what there is not, and its slogan is: 'Move along! There's nothing to see here!' The police is that which says that here, on this street,
there's nothing to see and so nothing to do but move along. It asserts that the space for circulating is nothing but the space of circulation.
Politics, by contrast, consists in transforming this space of 'moving-along', of circulation, into a space for the
appearance of a subject: the people, the workers, the citizens. It consists in re-figuring space, that is in
what is to be done, to be seen and to be named in it. It is the instituting of a dispute over the
distribution of the sensible, over that nemei"n that founds every nomos of the community. This partition constitutive
of politics is never given in the form of fate, of a kind of property that destines or compels one to engage
in politics. These properties, in their understanding as much as in their extension, are litigious. Exemplary in this regard are those properties
that, for Aristotle, define the capacity for politics or the destiny of a life lived according to the good. Nothing could be clearer, so it would seem,
than the deduction made by Aristotle in Book I of the Politics: the sign of the political nature of humans is constituted by their possession of the
logos, which is alone able to demonstrate a community in the aisthesis of the just and the unjust, in contrast to the phone, appropriate only for
expressing feelings of pleasure and displeasure. Whoever is in the presence of an animal that possesses the ability to articulate language and its
power of demonstration, knows that he is dealing with a human - and therefore political - animal. 37 38 DISSENSUS The only practical difficulty
lies in knowing in which sign this sign can be recognized; that is, how you can be sure that the human animal mouthing a noise in front of you is
actually articulating a discourse, rather than merely expressing a state of being? If there is someone you do not wish to recognize as a political
being, you begin by not seeing him as the bearer of signs of politicity, by not understanding what he says, by not hearing what issues from his
mouth as discourse. And the same goes for the easily invoked opposition between, on the one hand, the obscurity of domestic and private life
and, on the other, the radiant luminosity of the public life of equals. Traditionally, in order to deny the political quality of a category - workers,
women and so on - all that was required was to assert that they belonged to a 'domestic' space that was separated from public life, one from
which only groans or cries expressing suffering, hunger or anger could emerge, but not actual speech demonstrating a shared aisthesis. And the
political aspect of these categories always consists in re-qualifying these spaces, in getting them to be seen as the places of a community; it
involves these categories making themselves seen or heard as speaking subjects (if only in the form of litigation) - in short, as participants in a
common aisthesis. It consists in making what was unseen visible; in making what was audible as mere noise heard as speech and in
demonstrating that what appeared as a mere expression of pleasure and pain is a shared feeling of a good or an evil.
The essence of
politics is dissensus. Dissensus is not a confrontation between interests or opinions. It is the
demonstration (manifestation) of a gap in the sensible itself. Political demonstration makes visible that
which had no reason to be seen; it places one world in another - for instance, the world where the
factory is a public space in that where it is considered private, the world where workers speak, and
speak about the community, in that where their voices are mere cries expressing pain. This is the reason
why politics cannot be identified with the model of communicative action. This model presupposes
partners that are already pre-constituted as such and discursive forms that entail a speech community,
the constraint of which is always explicable. Now, the specificity of political dissensus is that its partners
are no more constituted than is the object or stage of discussion itself. Those who make visible the fact
that they belong to a shared world that others do not see - or cannot take advantage of - is the implicit
logic of any pragmatics of communication. The worker who puts forward an argument about the public nature of a 'domestic'
wage TEN THESES ON POLITICS dispute must demonstrate the world in which his argument counts as an argument and must demonstrate it as
such for those who do not have the frame of reference enabling them to see it as one. Political argumentation is at one and the
same time the demonstration of a possible world in which the argument could count as an argument,
one that is addressed by a subject qualified to argue, over an identified object, to an addressee who is
required to see the object and to hear the argument that he 'normally' has no reason either to see or to
hear. It is the construction of a paradoxical world that puts together two separate worlds. Politics, then,
has no proper place nor any natural subjects. A demonstration is political not because it occurs in a
particular place and bears upon a particular object but rather because its form is that of a dash between
two partitions of the sensible. A political subject is not a group of interests or of ideas, but the
operator of a particular dispositif of subjectivation and litigation through which politics comes into
existence. A political demonstration is therefore always of the moment and its subjects are always
precarious. A political difference is always on the shore of its own disappearance: the people are always
close to sinking into the sea of the population or of the race; the proletariat is always on the verge of
being confused with workers defending their interests; the space of a people's public demonstration is
always prone to being confused with the merchant's agora and so on. The notion that politics can be
deduced from a specific world of equals or free people, as opposed to a world of lived necessity, takes
as its ground precisely the object of its litigation. It thus necessarily confronts the blindness of those
who 'do not see' that which has no place to be seen.
 Generic Perm Education Equality Good
Equal access to education is a contingent goal its compatible with other social
demands.
Weishart 14 - (Joshua E. Weishart, Visiting Assistant Professor, West Virginia University College of
Law, March 2014, "TRANSCENDING EQUALITY VERSUS ADEQUACY", DOA: 6-27-2017) //Snowball
Recall that contemporary egalitarians reject equality of results in favor of equality of opportunity because they recognize that strict equality
extinguishes liberty, fosters irresponsibility, snubs diversity, and stifles productivity. Although
equality is an important ideal, it is
not worth sacrificing other values deemed necessary for a moral and progressive society. 265 Similarly, the
leading educational equality and adequacy theorists are pluralists.266 They do not regard either equality
or adequacy as absolute principles that must be pursued at all costs. Rather, they acknowledge that there are
other competing values that should factor into the demands of educational justice. Brighouse and Swift, for
instance, consider educational equality to be "a lesser value" than two other principles: (1) in the distribution of educational resources, priority
ought to be given to the least advantaged children, and (2) "parents and children should be able to enjoy successful intimate relationships with
one another." 267 Similarly, Anderson and Satz think that educational adequacy must yield to the aims of democratic
or civic equality. Some intervention is necessary, in their view, when inequalities above the adequacy
threshold "effectively bar[] a social subgroup of citizens from aspiring to more than sufficient wealth or better
than sufficient jobs."268 Consequently, the equality and adequacy theories tolerate a certain degree of
educational inequality in capitulation to some other principle (e.g., liberty or relational equality). In adjudicating
educational obligations, courts also weigh equality or adequacy against other values-individual freedoms,
separation of powers, local control, and financial efficiencies. 269 Indeed, even courts that have recognized education
as a fundamental right consider other compelling state interests when they apply strict scrutiny.270 Therefore, in theory and in
practice, equality and adequacy function as "prima facie" principles that can be counterbalanced or
overridden by one another or by other moral principles "in particular cases." 27
 Institutions Key
Their refusal to engage with institutions nullifies their transformative politics
institutions are constantly developing based around the power relationships that
shape them. Only a politic that recognizes the capacity for the subject to have access
to the levers of power can be transformative.
Dussel, '11 (Enrique Dussel, He has acquired a doctorate in philosophy in the Complutense University
of Madrid and a doctorate in history from the Sorbonne of Paris and has been visiting professor at Notre
Dame University, Duke University, Harvard University, "From Critical Theory to the Philosophy of
Liberation: Some Themes for Dialogue", 2011)

Political action that seeks to change or transform the world inevitably confronts institutions. In a
situation of chaos or pure original dissidence (disidencia originaria), there can be no transformation or dissent. To
chaos one can only con-form, institutionalizing it toward the permanence of life by way of this
institutionalizing (instituyente) power.76 Original dissidence, on the other hand, is death and non-power, because when there
is no consensus or agreement the powers-to-posit"77 of each member oppose and cancel out one another (and it is not possible to create any
mediation to sustain life). The starting point should be some sort of consensus. The
form of the institution or consensus is
open to change, to be trans-formed through a moment of overcoming chaos with creative dissidence,
into a higher form. To trans-form or change is not simply to destroy: it is to de-construct in order to
innovate and move toward a better construction. Revolution is not only, or primarily, or principally destruction: it
means having a principle that orients the deconstruction just as much as it orients the new construction
(it is not the business of destroying everything, only that which is irretrievable). Those who lack criteria and principles for a new construction
(note that I am not saying a re-construction), are not revolutionaries but simply destructive a2`nd barbaric . It would not be
possible for millions of human beings to maintain and expand communal life without institutions.
Should we irrationally return to the Paleolithic era? No. We are dealing with the trans-formation (what Marx called Veraenderung) of those
institutions which began as lifeenhancing mediations, but which have since become instruments of death, impediments to life, instruments of
an exclusion which can be observed empirically in the cry arising from the pain of the oppressed, the ones suffering under unjust institutions.
Such entropically-repressive institutions exercise a power-over 78 their victims, whose power-to-posit79 their own mediations is negated, and
whoare thereby repressed. Strategic action can have a principle, or fundamental political postulate, much like Marx applied an economic
postulate to the economic order, denoted negatively as the realm of freedom. Marx tells us: In fact, the realm of freedom (Reich der Freiheit)
actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases80; thus in the very nature of things it
lies beyond (jenseits) the sphere of actual material production.81 This beyond (jenseits) already suggests the transcendental character of an
empirical impossibility, but which is possible as we will see as a postulate. This postulate is defined as follows: Freedom in this [economic] field
can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common
control (gemeinschaftliche), instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature. The ideal content of the postulate logically possible
but empirically impossible represents a principle for the material orientation of action. What is Marx thinking about here? I believe that he is
thinking (as he often does) of the late Kant (after the Critique of Judgment). Kant writes the following on the question of perpetual peace: It
follows that perpetual peace, the ultimate end of all international right, is an idea incapable of realisation. But the political principles which
have this aim, i.e. those principles which encourage the formation of international alliances designed to approach the idea itself by a continual
process, are not impracticable. For this is a project based upon duty, hence also upon the rights of men and states.83 Kant calls these regulative
Ideas, principles for the orientation of action. Marx knows that the realm of freedom (zero work time, a perfect economy, maximum free
time) is empirically impossible, but it allows us to orient ourselves according to the principle that in all action or institutional transformation we
bear in mind a postulate in which the workers under their common control [...] achiev[e] this with the least expenditure of energy and under
conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.84 However, all possible production not only capitalist, but also post-
capitalist must empirically exist in a feasible economy, which is to say: But it nonetheless still (immer) remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it
(jenseits) begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, 85 the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth
only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.86 If communism is the realm of
freedom,87 it is a postulate that helps to orient critical praxis and reflection. Thus, in order to understand the fetishized world, one ought
likewise to deploy the postulate of economic reason (which was only formulated later, in Capital): Let us finally imagine, for a change, an
association of free men, working with the means of production held in common (gemeinschaftlichen), and expending their many different
forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour force.88 In order to understand the concealment of meaning through
which the commodity comes to be autonomous from the value of its substance (living labor), Marx resorts to a postulate that allows him to
describe, by default, the commodity-fetish.89 But this postulate is likewise an orientation for all strategies for partial or revolutionary
transformation. Therefore, communism is not some empirical future moment in history, but rather apostulate for practical orientation whose
historical realization would be impossible. To attempt to realize such a postulate historically is to open a breach for standard90 Marxism, which
pulls the floor from under one's feet and makes all feasible political-strategic action impossible. We should proceed in politics in the very same
manner that Marx proceeded in economics: working on the level of macro-institutional feasibility. The dissolution of the state
should be defined as a political postulate. To seek to bring this about empirically leads to the anti-
institutional fallacy, and the impossibility of a critical, transformative politics. To say that we need to
transform the world without exercising power through institutions including the state (which we need
to radically transform, but not eliminate) is the fallacy into which Negri and Holloway fall. The
presently given institutions , and even the particular state as a political macro-institution, are never
perfect and always require transformation. But there are moments in which institutions become diachronically repressive in
the extreme, in their final entropic moment. Hegemony the consensus exercised over the obedient la Weber's legitimate domination91
The state machinery, in the service of the economic interests of the
gives rise to domination in the Gramscian sense.
dominant classes in the postcolonial metropolitan nations, become definitively repressive. The popular
masses92 go on gaining consciousness in proportion to level of their oppression. This accumulation of
power-to (potentia),93 which takes place partially in the exteriority of the structures of the particular
state but within the bosom of the people (which is not without its contradictions), confronts the political
institutions currently in force. It does so to trans-form them (not necessarily for reforms94, but only rarely for
revolution95), not necessarily to destroy them (though it could if required by the postulates), but to use them and transform them according to
its ends and according to the degree of correspondence to the permanence and extension of life and symmetrical democratic participation of
the oppressed people. The
anti-institutionalist believes that the destruction of the state represents an
important victory on the path to revolution. This sort of destruction is irrational. They have confused
thedissolution of the state as a postulate (empirically impossible, but functioning as a principle for strategic orientation) with its empirical
negation. How are we to understand the postulate of the dissolution of the state? Right-winged anarchism like that of Nozick proposes
the dissolution of the state or something close to under the guise of the minimal state. The unhindered market produces equilibrium,
especially in Hayek's formulation; for this, the minimal state needs only to destroy the monopolies that impede the free movement of the
market. A union seeking a wage increase is a monopoly, because it places demands on the market that do not emanate from free competition.
The duty of the state is therefore to dissolve the union. In the service of this total market definition, the process of globalization as controlled
by transnational industrial and financial capital (not with hegemony, because this was lost in the move to the last-instance use: the violent
coercion of military power), equally proposes the dissolution or weakening of the particular states in postcolonial peripheral nations. The
postcolonial state -however much it may be dominated by the private bureaucracies of the
transnational corporations which impose their own members onto the political bureaucracies of those
states (and we see, for example, a Coca-Cola distributor as president96) still represents the last possible resistance for
oppressed peoples. To dissolve or substantially weaken their states is to take away their only
possible defense. The second Iraq War represents a war against a particular postcolonial state that, however corrupt and dictatorial,
nevertheless had a certain degree of sovereignty and self-determination which interposed some resistance to the appropriation of its
petroleum by foreign companies.
 Fatalism DA
Reject their fatalistic claims of the political systemtheir myopic interpretation
undercuts a specific conception of politics that is necessary to challenge dominant
social orders
Rancire 2010 (DISSENSUS On Politics and Aesthetics. Jacques Rancire, Edited and Translated by
Steven Corcoran, 2010. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/230/Ranciere%20-%20Dissensus%20-
%20On%20Politics%20and%20Aesthetics.pdf) [NJ]

Thesis 2. What is specific to politics is the existence of a subject defined by its participation in contraries.
Politics is a paradoxical form of action. Formulations that define politics as the ruling (commandment) of
equals, and the citizen as the one who partakes in ruling and being ruled, articulate a paradox which
demands a rigorous conceptualization. If we are to understand the originality of the Aristotelian formulation, banal
representations of the doxa of parliamentary systems that invoke the reciprocity of rights and duties must be set aside. The Aristotelian
formulation speaks to us of a being that is at once the agent of an action and the matter upon which that action is exercised. It contradicts
the conventional logic of action according to which there exists an agent endowed with a specific
capacity to produce an effect upon an object, which, in its tum, is characterized by its aptitude for
receiving that and only that effect. This problem is by no means resolved through the classical
opposition that distinguishes between two modes of action, a poiesis governed by the model of
fabrication which gives form to matter, and a praxis that subtracts from this relation the 'inter-being'
(l'inter-etre)3 of people committed to political action. We know that this opposition, relaying that of zen and eu zen,
underpins a specific conception of political purity. In Hannah Arendt's work, for instance, the order of praxis is
an order of equals who are in possession of the power of the arkhein, that is the power to begin anew
(commencer): 'To act, in its most general sense', she explains in The Human Condition, 'means to take an initiative,
to begin (as the Greek word arkhein, "to begin," "to lead, " and eventually "to rule" indicates)'; she concludes 29 30 DISSENSUS this thought
by going on to link arkhein to 'the principle of freedom'.4 Thus, once a sole proper mode and world of action is defined,
a vertiginous short-cut enables one to posit a series of equations between 'commencement', 'ruling',
'being free' and living in a polis (as Arendt puts it 'to be free and to live in a polis is the same thing'). This series of equations finds its
equivalent in the movement that engenders civic equality in the community of Homeric heroes; equals they are in their participation in the
power of arkhe. The first to bear witness against this Homeric idyllic is Homer himseH. Against Thersites the 'garrulous', the one who is an able
public speaker but has no particular entitlement to speak, Ulysses reminds us of the fact that the Greek army has one and only one chief:
Agamemnon. He thereby reminds us of the meaning of arkhein: to walk at the head. And
if there is one who walks at the head,
then the others must necessarily walk behind. The line between the power of arkhein (i.e. the power to
rule), freedom and the polis, is not straight but broken. As confirmation of the point, we need only look at the way in which
Aristotle characterizes the three possible classes of rule within a polis, each of which possesses a particular tide: 'virtue' for the aristoi, 'wealth'
for the oligoi and 'freedom' for the demos. In this division, the 'freedom' of the demos comes to appear as a paradoxical
part, one that, as the Homeric hero tells us, and in no uncertain terms, has only one thing to do: stay silent and submit. In short, the
opposition between praxis and poiesis by no means enables us to resolve the paradoxical definition of the polites. As far as the arkhe is
concerned, conventional logic posits, as with everything else, the existence of a particular disposition to act that is exercised upon a particular
disposition to 'be acted upon'. The
logic of arkhe thus presupposes that a determinate superiority is exercised
over an equally determinate inferiority. For a political subject - and therefore for politics - to come to
pass, it is necessary to break with this logic.
The negs conceptualization of the AFFs democratic measure is flawedturns the K
Rancire 2010 (DISSENSUS On Politics and Aesthetics. Jacques Rancire, Edited and Translated by
Steven Corcoran, 2010. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/230/Ranciere%20-%20Dissensus%20-
%20On%20Politics%20and%20Aesthetics.pdf) [NJ]

Thesis 3. Politics
is a specific break with the logic of the arkhe. It does not simply presuppose a break with
the 'normal' distribution of positions that defines who exercises power and who is subject to it. It also
requires a break with the idea that there exist dispositions 'specific' to these positions . In Book ill of the Laws
(690e), Plato undertakes a systematic inventory of the qualifications (axiomata) required for governing and the correlative TEN THESES ON
POLITICS qualifications for being ruled. Of the seven that he retains, four are traditional qualifications for positions of authority and are based
on a natural difference, that is, the difference of birth. Those qualified to rule are those 'born before' or 'born otherwise'. This is what grounds
the power of parents over children, the old over the young, masters over slaves and nobles over serfs. The fifth qualification is introduced as
the principle of principles, the one that informs all other natural differences: it is the power of those with a superior nature, of the strong over
the weak - a power that has the unfortunate quality, discussed at length in the Gorgias, of being strictly indeterminate. In Plato's eyes, the only
worthy qualification is the sixth one: the power of those who know over those who do not. There are thus four pairs of traditional
qualifications, which are in tum subordinated to two theoretical pairs: natural superiority andlhe rule of science. The list ought to stop there.
However, Plato lists a seventh possible qualification for determining who is able to exercise the arkhe. He calls it 'the choice of God' or,
otherwise said, the 'drawing of lots'. Plato does not expand upon this, but clearly this choice of regime, ironically said to be 'of God', also refers
to the regime that only a god could save: democracy. So, democracy
is characterized by the drawing of lots, or the
complete absence of any entitlement to govern. It is the state of exception in which no oppositions can
function, in which there is no principle for the dividing up of roles. 'To partake in ruling and in being
ruled' is something rather different to reciprocity. On the contrary, the exceptional essence of this
relationship is constituted by an absence of reciprocity; and this absence of reciprocity rests on the
paradox of a qualification that is an absence of qualification. Democracy is the specific situation in which it is the absence
of entitlement that entitles one to exercise the arkh. It is the commencement without commencement, a form of rule (commandement) that
does not command. In this logic the specificity of the arkhe - its redoubling, that is, the fact that it always precedes itself in the circle of its own
disposition and exercise - is destroyed.
But this situation of exception is identical with the very condition that
more generally makes politics in its specificity possible. Thesis 4. Democracy is not a political regime. As a
rupture in the logic of the arkhe, that is, of the anticipation of ruling in its disposition, it is the very regime of
politics itself as a form of relationship that defines a specific subject. 31 32 DISSENSUS What makes possible the
metexis proper to politics is a break with all the logics that allocate parts according to the exercise of the arkh. The 'liberty' of the people, which
constitutes the axiom of democracy, has as its real content a break with the axiom of domination, that is, any sort of correlation between a
capacity for ruling and a capacity for being ruled. The
citizen who takes part 'in ruling and in being ruled' is only
conceivable on the basis of the demos as figure that breaks with all forms of correspondence between a
series of correlated capacities. So, democracy is not a political regime in the sense that it forms one of
the possible constitutions which define the ways in which people assemble under a common authority.
Democracy is the very institution of politics itself - of its subject and of the form of its relationship. Democracy, we know,
was a term invented by its opponents, by all those who had an 'entitlement' to govern - seniority,
birth, wealth, virtue or knowledge. In using the word democracy as a term of derision, these opponents
marked an unprecedented reversal in the order of things: the 'power of the demos' referred to the fact
that those who rule are those whose only commonality is that they have no entitlement to govern. Before
being the name of a community, the demos is the name of a part of the community: the poor. But the 'poor', precisely, does not designate an
economically disadvantaged part of the population, but simply the people who do not count, who have no entitlement to exercise the power of
the arkh, none for which they might be counted.
 No Link
No linkthe affirmative is a method of re-orienting current politics. Theyve
misunderstood the conception of politics
Rancire 2010 (DISSENSUS On Politics and Aesthetics. Jacques Rancire, Edited and Translated by
Steven Corcoran, 2010. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/230/Ranciere%20-%20Dissensus%20-
%20On%20Politics%20and%20Aesthetics.pdf) [NJ]

Thesis 6. If
politics is the tracing of a vanishing difference with respect to the distribution of social parts
and shares, it follows that its existence is by no means necessary, but that it occurs as an always
provisional accident within the history of forms of domination. It also follows that the essential object of
political dispute is the very existence of politics itself. Politics is by no means a reality that might be
deduced from the necessities leading people to gather in communities. Politics is an exception in
relation to the principles according to which this gathering occurs. The 'normal' order of things is for
human communities to gather under the rule of those who are qualified to rule and whose qualifications
are evident by dint of their very rule. The various governmental qualifications are ultimately reducible to
two major titles. The first returns society to the order of filiation, human and divine. This is the power of birth.
The second returns society to the vital principle of its activities. This is the power of wealth. The 'normal'
evolution of society, then, presents itself in the form of a progression from a government of birth to a
government of wealth. Politics exists as a deviation from this normal order of things. It is this anomaly
that is expressed in the nature of political subjects, which are not social groups but rather forms of
inscription that (ac)count for the unaccounted. Politics exists insofar as the people is not identified with
a race or a population, nor the poor with a particular disadvantaged sector, nor the proletariat with a
group of industrial workers, etc., but insofar as these latter are identified with subjects that inscribe, in
the form of a supplement to every count of the parts of society, a specific figure of the count of the
uncounted or of the part of those without part. That this part exists is the very stake of politics itself.
Political conflict does not involve an opposition between groups with different interests. It forms an
opposition between logics that count the parties and parts of the community in different ways. The combat
between the 'rich' and the 'poor' is one over the very possibility of splitting these words into two, of instituting them as categories that inscribe
another (ac)count of the 35 36 DISSENSUS community. Two ways of counting the parts of the community exist. The first counts real parts only -
actual groups defined by differences in birth, and by the different functions, places and interests that make up the social body to the exclusion
of every supplement. The second, 'in addition' to this, counts a part of those without part. I call the first the police and the second politics.
neg
Impact D Things
 Competitiveness
Loss of competitiveness wont allow rival powers overthrow unipolarity- their
progress is unsustainable
Salam Research Associate CFR 9 (Reihan-, Jan. 21, The American Scene, Robert Pape Is Overheated,
http://www.theamericanscene.com/2009/01/21/robert-pape-is-overheated)

Pape spends a lot of time demonstrating that U.S. economic output represents a declining share of
global output, which is hardly a surprise. Yet as Pape surely understands, the more relevant question is
how much and how readily can economic output be translated into military power? The European
Union, for example, has many state-like features, yet it doesnt have the advantages of a traditional
state when it comes to raising an army. The Indian economy is taxed in a highly uneven manner, and
much of the economy is black the same is true across the developing world. As for China, both the
shape of the economy, as Yasheng Huang suggests, and its long frontiers, as Andrew Nathan has long
argued, pose serious barriers to translating potential power into effective power. (Wohlforth and
Brooks give Stephen Walts balance-of-threat its due.) So while this hardly obviates the broader point
that relative American economic power is eroding that was the whole idea of Americas postwar
grand strategy it is worth keeping in mind. This is part of the reason why sclerotic, statist economies
can punch above their weight militarily, at least for a time they are better at marshaling
resources. Over the long run, the Singapores will beat the Soviets. But in the long run, were all dead.
And given that this literature is rooted in the bogey of long-term coalition warfare, you can see why the
unipolarity argument holds water. At the risk of sounding overly harsh, Papes understanding of
innovativeness based on the number of patents filed, it seems is crude to say the least. I
recommend Amar Bhids brilliant critique of Richard Freeman, which Ill be talking about a lot. Pape
cites Zakaria, who was relying on slightly shopworn ideas that Bhid demolishes in The Venturesome
Economy. The global diffusion of technology is real, and if anything it magnifies U.S. economic
power. Ah, but were talking about the prospect of coalition warfare! The global diffusion of
technology is indeed sharply raising the costs of military conquest, as the United States discovered in
Iraq. The declining utility of military power means that a unipolar distribution of military power is
more likely to persist. And yes, it also means that unipolar military power is less valuable than it was in
1945.

No internal link to hegemony economic competitiveness isnt key to global

leadership
Ferguson 2003 Prof Financial History @ NYU What is Power? International Relations: No.2, Spring
But GDP doesnt stand for Great Diplomatic Power. If the institutions arent in place to translate
economic output into military hardwareand if the economy grows faster than public interest in
foreign affairsthen product is nothing more than potential power. America overtook Britain in terms
of GDP in the 1870s, but it was not until the First World War that it overtook Britain as a global power.
In any case, national growth rates in the next 20 years are unlikely to match those in the past three
decades. Depressed Japans will almost certainly be lower, while growth in the United States might
conceivably be higher, if there is any truth to the claim that U.S. productivity was permanently increased
by the investments in information technology during the 1990s. And China will have trouble sustaining
average annual growth rates of more than 5 percent in the coming decades. Already the Asian
behemoth is suffering some serious social growing pains as market forces rend asunder what was once a
command economy. Before 1914, Russia had the fastest growing economy in Europe. But the ensuing
social polarization was the main reason Russia collapsed in 1917.

US will inevitably loose economic leadership- shifting towards China and India
Catherine Rampell NYT- March 24, 2011, The World Economy Shifts Eastward,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/the-world-economy-shifts-eastward/?src=busln

William Easterly points us to a provocative new paper by Danny Quah on how the center of the world
economy is shifting eastward. Professor Quah, an economist at the London School of Economics, has
calculated the average location of economic activity across geographies on Earth through the last few
decades, and found that it has been moving further east: [I]n 1980 the global economys centre of
gravity was mid-Atlantic. By 2008, from the continuing rise of China and the rest of East Asia, that
centre of gravity had drifted to a location east of Helsinki and Bucharest. Extrapolating growth in
almost 700 locations across Earth, this article projects the worlds economic centre of gravity to locate
by 2050 literally between India and China. Observed from Earths surface, that economic centre of
gravity will shift from its 1980 location 9,300 km or 1.5 times the radius of the planet. Heres an
animated look at this economic migration: Black dots represent the worlds actual economic center of
gravity, shown every three years from 1980 to 2007. Red dots represent projections for every three
years thereafter until 2049. Professor Easterly, an iconoclastic development economist at New York
University, argues that Westerners should not get hysterical (as he assumes they will) in response to
this map. After all, he says, growth is not a zero-sum game. Rather, the enrichment of our trading
partners means that there are more customers to buy American products. China and India may be
claiming a larger share of economic activity, but that doesnt mean the raw amount of economic activity
in the United States will fall as a result. The overall pie just gets bigger. That may be true. But to the
extent that economic dominance corresponds to greater political power as well, there may be more
for Americans to worry about as the economic center of gravity shifts closer to China.

US economic model doomed

Arvind Subramanian- Sr Fellow, Petersen Institute (Center for Global Development) Sept/Oct 2011,
The Inevitable Superpower, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68205/arvind-
subramanian/the-inevitable-superpower?page=show

Can the United States reverse this trend? Its economic future inspires angst: the country has a fiscal
problem, a growth problem, and, perhaps most intractable of all, a middle-class problem. Repeated tax cuts and
two wars, the financial and economic crisis of 2008-10, the inexorable growth of long-term
entitlements (especially related to health), and the possible buildup of bad assets for which the government
might eventually be responsible have created serious doubts about the U.S. public sector's balance
sheet. High public and private debt and long-term unemployment will depress long-term growth. And
a combination of stagnating middle-class incomes, growing inequality, declining mobility, and, more
recently, falling prospects for even the college educated has created big distributional problems. The middle
class is feeling beleaguered: it does not want to have to move down the skill ladder, but its upward prospects are increasingly limited by
competition from China and India. The United States' continued strength comes from its can-do attitude about fixing its economic problems
and its confidence that sound economic fundamentals can ensure its enduring economic dominance. Most notably, the United States affords
unique opportunities for entrepreneurship "because it has a favorable business culture, the most mature venture capital industry, close
relations between universities and industry, and an open immigration policy," according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, an academic
consortium that studies entrepreneurial activity worldwide. In a 2009 survey, GEM ranked the United States first in the world in providing such
opportunities. Nearly all the major commercially successful companies that have made technological breakthroughs in the last three decades --
Apple and Microsoft, Google and Facebook -- were founded and are based in the United States. In fact, it was by finding new and dynamic
sources of growth in the 1990s that the United States was able to head off the economic challenge posed by that era's rising power, Japan.
Today, optimists argue that the United States can replicate that experience with China. It is true that if the U.S. economy were to grow
consistently at a rate of 3.5 percent over the next 20 years, as it did in the 1990s, investor sentiment and confidence in the dollar as a reserve
currency could be buoyed. But some key differences today should dampen any such hope. The United States headed into the 1990s with far
less government debt than it will have in the future. In 1990, the ratio of public debt to GDP was about 42 percent, whereas the COB's latest
projected figure for 2020 is close to 100 percent. The external position of the United States was also less vulnerable two decades ago. For
example, in 1990, foreign holdings of U.S. government debt amounted to 19 percent; today, they are close to 50 percent, and a majority are in
China's hands. In the 1990s, the country was also considerably further away from the date at which it would have to reckon with the cost of
entitlements. And then there is the United States' beleaguered middle class. Over
the last 20 years, several related
pathologies that have squeezed the American middle class, such as a stagnating median income, have
become more entrenched and more intractable. Even a 3.5 percent growth rate, which would be well above
current expectations, may not be adequate to maintain confidence in the U.S. model, which is based on the
hope of a better future for many.
 Economic Decline

08 proves collapse wont cause conflict disproves diversionary theory, internal

repression, and great power war
Drezner, Professor International Politics at Tufts University, 14 (Daniel, January, The System Worked:
Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession World Politics, Vol 66 No 1, ProjectMuse)

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great Recession on
cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted
that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced
genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflictwhether
through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in
the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate

data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that the average
level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.43 Interstate violence in
particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled
countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta

Themnr and Peter Wallensteen conclude: [T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the

past five years.44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that the crisis has
not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been
expected.45 [End Page 134]

Causality no ongoing conflict can be explained by economic decline

Barnett, Senior Managing Director Enterra Solutions LLC, 9 (Thomas, August 24, The New Rules:
Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis World Politics Review,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/4213/the-new-rules-security-remains-stable-amid-
financial-crisis)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary
predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global
economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how

globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the
international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by
GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and
Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia
(where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the
Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two
breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides

the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one
the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up,

side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And
with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-
into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset
of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we
find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything

No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last
beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: *

year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); *The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); *Not a single

state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); *No
great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that
diplomacy); *A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any

rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments
of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and
investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on
public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by

Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the
the crisis.

economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and
trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but

there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward
free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing
disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as

the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke

disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day,

major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -
- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing
in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial
markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on --

Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of
please!

America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any
time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.

Robustness only our evidence accounts for every economic variable

Drezner, Professor International Politics Tufts University, 12 (Daniel, January, October, The Irony of
Global Economic Governance: The System Worked Council on Foreign Relations International
Institutions and Global Governance)

In looking at outcomes, the obvious question is how well the global economy has recovered from the 2008 crisis.
The current literature on economic downturns suggests two factors that impose significant barriers to a strong recovery from the Great Recession: it was triggered by a

financial crisis and it was global in scope. Whether measuring output, per capita income, or employment, financial crashes trigger
downturns that last longer and have far weaker recoveries than standard business cycle downturns.10 Furthermore, the global nature of the
crisis makes it extremely difficult for countries to export their way out of the problem. Countries that have
experienced severe banking crises since World War II have usually done so when the global economy was largely unaffected. That was not the case for the Great Recession. The global

economy has rebounded much better than during the Great Depression. Economists Barry Eichengreen and Kevin ORourke have
compiled data to compare global economic performance from the start of the crises (see Figures 1 and 2).11 Two facts stand out in their comparisons. First, the percentage

drop in global industrial output and world trade levels at the start of the 2008 financial crisis was
more precipitous than the falloffs following the October 1929 stock market crash. The drop in industrial output was
greater in 2008 nine months into the crisis than it was eighty years earlier after the same amount of time. The drop in trade flows was more than twice as large. Second, the post-2008 rebound

global industrial output is 10 percent higher than when the

has been far more robust. Four years after the onset of the Great Recession,

recession began. In contrast, four years after the 1929 stock market crash, industrial output was at only two-
thirds of precrisis levels. A similar story can be told with aggregate economic growth. According to World Bank figures, global economic output
rebounded in 2010 with 2.3 percent growth, followed up in 2011 with 4.2 percent growth. The global growth rate in 2011 was 44 percent higher than the
average of the previous decade. Even more intriguing, the growth continued to be poverty reducing.12 The World Banks latest figures suggest that despite the 2008 financial crisis, extreme
poverty continued to decline across all the major regions of the globe. And the developing world achieved its first Millennium Development Goal of halving the 1990 levels of extreme

cross-border flows did not dry up after the 2008 crisis.

poverty.13 An important reason for the quick return to positive economic growth is that

Again, compared to the Great Depression, trade flows have rebounded extremely well.14 Four years after the 1929 stock market crash, trade flows were
off by 25 percent compared to precrisis levels. Current trade flows, in contrast, are more than 5 percent higher than in 2008. Even compared to other postwar recessions, the current period

The growth in world

has seen robust crossborder exchange. Indeed, as a report from CFRs Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies concluded in May 2012,

trade since the start of the [current] recovery exceeds even the best of the prior postwar
experiences.15 Other cross-border flows have also rebounded from 20082009 lows. Global foreign direct investment (FDI) has returned to robust levels. FDI inflows rose by 17
percent in 2011 alone. This put annual FDI levels at $1.5 trillion, surpassing the three-year precrisis average, though still approximately 25 percent below the 2007 peak. More generally, global
foreign investment assets reached $96 trillion, a 5 percent increase from precrisis highs. Remittances from migrant workers have become an increasingly important revenue stream to the
developing worldand the 2008 financial crisis did not dampen that income stream. Cross-border remittances to developing countries quickly rebounded to precrisis levels and then rose to an
estimated all-time high of $372 billion in 2011, with growth rates in 2011 that exceeded those in 2010. Total cross-border remittances were more than $501 billion last year, and are estimated
 A general assumption in public opinion research is that
to reach $615 billion by 2014.16 Another salient outcome is mass public attitudes about the global economy.

during a downturn, demand for greater economic closure should spike, as individuals scapegoat
foreigners for domestic woes. The global nature of the 2008 crisis, combined with anxiety about the
shifting distribution of power, should have triggered a fall in support for an open global economy.
Somewhat surprisingly, however, the reverse is true. Pews Global Attitudes Project has surveyed a wide spectrum of countries since 2002, asking people about their

opinions on both international trade and the free market more generally.17 The results show resilient support for expanding trade and

business ties with other countries. Twenty-four countries were surveyed both in 2007 and at least one year after 2008, including a majority of the G20 economies.
Overall, eighteen of those twenty-four countries showed equal or greater support for trade in 2009 than two years earlier. By 2011, twenty of twenty-four countries showed greater or equal
support for trade compared to 2007. Indeed, between 2007 and 2012, the unweighted average support for more trade in these countries increased from 78.5 percent to 83.6 percent.
Contrary to expectation, there has been no mass public rejection of the open global economy. Indeed, public support for the open trading system has strengthened, despite softening public

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great
support for free-market economics more generally.18

Recession on crossborder conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the
financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.19 Whether
through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power
conflict, there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in
conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder.
The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. A fundamental conclusion from a recent report by the Institute for Economics and Peace is that the
average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.20 Interstate
violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisisas have military expenditures in most sampled countries.
Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence
that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.21
 Warming

Theres no impact models only tell 1 side of the story.

Lomborg 8 (Bjorn, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at the
Copenhagen Business School, Warming warnings get overheated, The Guardian, August 15, 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange)

These alarmist predictions are becoming quite bizarre, and could be dismissed as sociological oddities , if it
weren't for the fact that they get such big play in the media. Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a
global warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a
"catastrophe" and the beginning of the "extinction" of the human race. This is simply silly . His
evidence? That 4C would mean that all the ice on the planet would melt, bringing the long-term sea
level rise to 70-80m, flooding everything we hold dear, seeing billions of people die. Clearly, Tickell has maxed
out the campaigners' scare potential (because there is no more ice to melt, this is the scariest he could ever conjure). But he is wrong. Let
us just remember that the UN climate panel, the IPCC, expects a temperature rise by the end of the
century between 1.8 and 6.0C. Within this range, the IPCC predicts that, by the end of the century, sea levels will rise
18-59 centimetresTickell is simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400. Tickell will undoubtedly claim that he was talking about what
could happen many, many millennia from now. But this is disingenuous. First, the 4C temperature rise is predicted on a century scale
this is what we talk about and can plan for. Second, although sea-level rise will continue for many centuries to come, the models unanimously
show that Greenland's ice shelf will be reduced, but Antarctic ice will increase even more (because of increased precipitation in Antarctica) for
the next three centuries. What will happen beyond that clearly depends much more on emissions in future centuries. Given that CO2 stays in
the atmosphere about a century, what happens with the temperature, say, six centuries from now mainly
depends on emissions five centuries from now (where it seems unlikely non-carbon emitting
technology such as solar panels will not have become economically competitive). Third, Tickell tells us how the
80m sea-level rise would wipe out all the world's coastal infrastructure and much of the world's farmland"undoubtedly" causing billions to
die. But to cause billions to die, it would require the surge to occur within a single human lifespan. This
sort of scare tactic is insidiously wrong and misleading , mimicking a firebrand preacher who claims
the earth is coming to an end and we need to repent. While it is probably true that the sun will burn
up the earth in 4-5bn years' time, it does give a slightly different perspective on the need for
immediate repenting. Tickell's claim that 4C will be the beginning of our extinction is again many times beyond wrong and misleading,
and, of course, made with no data to back it up. Let us just take a look at the realistic impact of such a 4C temperature rise. For the Copenhagen
Consensus, one of the lead economists of the IPCC, Professor Gary Yohe, did a survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a
temperature rise over this century of about approximately 4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as temperatures rise,
more people will die from heat, but fewer from cold ; agricultural yields will decline in the tropics, but
increase in the temperate zones , etc. The model evaluates the impacts on agriculture, forestry, energy,
water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease. The bottom line is
that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is about 0.25% of global GDP).

Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070, when the damages will begin to
outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This is
simply not the end of humanity . If anything, global warming is a net benefit now; and even in three
centuries, it will not be a challenge to our civilisation. Further, the IPCC expects the average person on earth to be 1,700%
richer by the end of this century.
Reject try or die framing - atmospheric science proves none of their studies have
predictive validity.
Sadar 15 (Anthony J., Prof @ Geneva College specializing in Earth and Environmental Science,
Statistics, Air Pollution Meteorology and Engineering, Why the former Ice Age became global warming,
then climate change, Washington Examiner 7/7/14, http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-coming-
ice-age-became-global-warming-then-climate-change/article/2550565)

Today, it is fashionable to expect disaster from too much warmth. So the smart money is on promoting
dire predictions and consequences of rising thermometers, even in the face of no global warming for
more than 15 years. From my own 35 years of experience in the atmospheric science profession as an
air-pollution meteorologist, air quality program administrator and science educator, I can attest the fact
that long-range, global climate-change outlooks are nothing but insular professional opinion . Such
opinion is not worthy of the investment of billions of dollars to avoid the supposed catastrophic
consequences of abundant, inexpensive fossil fuels and, subsequently, to impoverish U.S. citizens
with skyrocket energy costs. I have conducted or overseen a hundred air-quality studies, many using
sophisticated atmospheric modeling. Such modeling comparable to or even involving the same
models as those used in climate modeling produced results for relatively short-term, local areas
that, although helpful to understanding air quality impact issues, were far from being able to bet
billions of taxpayer dollars on. Yet similar climate models that imagine conditions for the entire globe
for decades into the future are used to do just that bet billions of taxpayer dollars. Bottom line,
nobody can detail with any billion-dollar-spending degree of confidence what the global climate will
be like decades from now . But, its easy to predict that, given enough monetary incentive and the
chance to be at the pinnacle of popularity, some climate prognosticators and certainly every
capitalizing politician will continue to proffer convincing climate claims to an unwary public.

Adaptation solves.
Goklany 11 (Indur M., science and technology policy analyst for the US Dept of the Interior, Misled
on Climate Change: How the UN IPCC (and others) Exaggerate the Impacts of Global Warming
December 2011, http://goklany.org/library/Reason%20CC%20and%20Development%202011.pdf)
A third approach would be to fix the root cause of why developing countries are deemed to be most at-risk, namely, poverty. Sustained
economic growth would, as is evident from the experience of developed countries, address virtually all problems of poverty, not just that
portion exacerbated by global warming. It is far more certain that sustainable economic growth will provide greater benefits than emission
reductions: while there is no doubt that poverty leads to disease and death, there is
substantial doubt regarding the reality
and magnitude of the negative impact of global warming. This is especially true as assessments often
ignore improvements in adaptive capacity. Of these three approaches, human well-being in poorer countries is likely to be
advanced most effectively by sustained economic development and least by emission reductions. In addition, because of the inertia of the
climate system, economic development is likely to bear fruit faster than any emission reductions. These figures also indicate that the compound
effect of economic development and technological change can result in quite dramatic improvements even over the relatively short period for
which these figures were developed. Figure 5, for instance, covered 26 years. By contrast, climate change impacts analyses
frequently look 50 to 100 years into the future. Over such long periods, the compounded effect could well be spectacular.
Longer term analyses of climate-sensitive indicators of human well-being show that the combination of
economic growth and technological change can, over decades, reduce negative impacts on human
beings by an order of magnitude , that is, a factor of ten, or more. In some instances, this combination has
virtually eliminated such negative impacts. But, since impact assessments generally fail to fully account
for increases in economic development and technological change, they substantially overestimate
future net damages from global warming . It may be argued that the high levels of economic development depicted in Figure 6
are unlikely. But if thats the case, then economic growth used to drive the IPCCs scenarios are equally unlikely, which necessarily means that
the estimates of emissions, temperature increases, and impacts and damages of GW projected by the IPCC are also overestimates. B. Secular
Technological Change The
second major reason why future adaptive capacity has been underestimated (and
the impacts of global warming systematically overestimated) is that few impact studies consider secular
technological change. 25 Most assume that no new technologies will come on line, although some do assume
greater adoption of existing technologies with higher GDP per capita and, much less frequently, a modest generic improvement in productivity.
26 Such an assumption may have been appropriate during the Medieval Warm Period, when the pace of technological change was slow, but
nowadays technological change is fast (as indicated in Figures 1 through 5) and, arguably, accelerating. 27 It is unlikely that we will see a halt to
technological change unless so-called precautionary policies are instituted that count the costs of technology but ignore its benefits, as some
governments have already done for genetically modified crops and various pesticides. So how much of a difference in impact would
consideration of both economic development and technological change have made? If impacts were to be estimated for five or so years into
the future, ignoring changes in adaptive capacity between now and then probably would not be fatal because neither economic development
nor technological change would likely advance substantially during that period. However, the
time horizon of climate change
impact assessments is often on the order of 35100 years or more. The Fast Track Assessments use a base year of
1990 to estimate impacts for 2025, 2055 and 2085. Over such periods one ought to expect substantial advances in
adaptive capacity due to increases in economic development, technological change and human capital.
As already noted, retrospective assessments indicate that over the span of a few decades, changes in economic
development and technologies can substantially reduce, if not eliminate, adverse environmental
impacts and improve human well-being, as measured by a variety of objective indicators. 41 Thus, not
fully accounting for changes in the level of economic development and secular technological change
would understate future adaptive capacity, which then could overstate impacts by one or more orders
of magnitude if the time horizon is several decades into the future. The assumption that there would be little or no improved or new
technologies that would become available between 1990 and 2100 (or 2200), as assumed in most climate change impact assessments, is clearly
nave. In fact, a comparison of todays world against the world of 1990 (the base year used in most impacts studies to date) shows that even
during this brief 20-year span, this assumption is ingvalid for many, if not most, human enterprises. Since 1990, for example, the portion of the
developing worlds population living in absolute poverty declined from 42% to 25%, and in sub-Saharan Africa Internet users increased from 0
to 50 million, while cellular phone users went from 0 per 100 to 33 per 100.
 Terror

No lone wolf terror

Becker, 12/14/14 [The Foreign Policy Essay: Wolves Who Are Lonely By Michael Becker Sunday,
December 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Michael Becker is a Ph.D. student in political science at Northeastern
University. His research focuses on international security, conflict, and terrorism. He can be reached at
becker.m@husky.neu.edu.http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/12/the-foreign-policy-essay-wolves-who-
are-lonely/]

But much of the fear surrounding lone wolves is unwarranted and based on ignorance of how they operate. My

-actor terrorists tend to conform to certain distinct patterns that can be useful in preventing
research shows that lone

attacks
future lone wolves are not nearly as threatening as either their name or the
. Perhaps more important, my findings indicate that

hype around them suggest. Becker photoThe concern about lone-wolf terrorism pervades much of the U.S. national security establishment. President Obama, former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and current DHS

Secretary Jeh Johnson, among others, have cited lone wolves as one of the gravest potential threats to U.S. security. They point to the rise of social media and terrorist propaganda, like the sophisticated videos produced by the Islamic State, and express concern that socially isolated

It is true that lone-wolf terrorism against the United States has become more
individuals can become radicalized with troubling ease.

common in the past several years . And several lone-actor attacksincluding the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead, and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which killed 13have had deadly and

tragic consequences. Concurrently, there has been little success in terms of identifying a lone wolf profile. They can be young or old; black or white; radical Islamists, right-wing extremists, anti-Semites, militant environmentalists, or of another ideological persuasion altogether. Given

I recently undertook an analysis of 84 lone-wolf attacks that occurred in

the diversity of their backgrounds, how can such a protean enemy be countered?

the United States between 1940 and 2012 in an effort to identify patterns in the targets that lone wolves chose. I came away with several findings that

First, similar to our recent experience with the Ebola outbreak, the fear of the thing is
have important national security implications.

usually worse than the thing itself. Few lone-wolf attacks in the United States actually kill anyone, and
many others only succeed in killing one person the lone wolf himself Many lone wolves : (they are almost invariably men).

are incompetent loners with no experience discharging a bomb or firearm; oftentimes they exhibit
behavior that, in retrospect, is more bizarre and sad than frightening Take Dwight Watson, a.k.a. the .

Tractor Man. In 2003, Watson drove his tractor to Washington, D.C., and threatened to blow up
explosives After two days, he surrendered unceremoniously and it was revealed that he never
near the National Mall.

had any weapons Part of the reason for the low casualty rate in lone-wolf attacks is that unlike
at all.

groups such al-Qaeda that have significant resources at their disposal and, even more important, a
sophisticated division of labor lone wolves have to do all the work of terrorism themselves finding a
,

target, planning an attack, gathering supplies, doing reconnaissance, actually carrying out the attack,
and possibly executing an escape plan This disadvantage is reflected in the weapons most lone wolves .

choose: firearms. Globally most terrorist attacks are bombings , at the organizational level, , but lone wolves mainly choose guns. In part, this is because guns can more easily be

a lone gunman
attained than bombs in the United States, but lone wolves preference for firearms obtains globally as well, suggesting it is driven by their lack of facility with explosives. And while still potentially able to cause multiple casualtiesis

likely to produce fewer fatalities Another significant characteristic of lone wolves is

than a well-made and well-placed bomb.

their limited ability to select meaningful targets The expertise needed to conduct a successful attack .

on a hardened targetnot an easy taskis reflected in the targets most lone wolves choose and how
they conduct themselves Lone wolves tend to choose unhardened, undefended targets
. like college campuses, churches, and local

suspect that this tendency is due to two factors: the more

government buildings. Only rarely do they opt for significant or symbolic targets like the National Mall. I

personal motives thatalongside their political ideologiesinform lone wolves violent tendencies;
and the desire to carry out a successful attack The targets lone wolves choose tend to , a task made easier by choosing a softer target.

be congruent with the ideologies that they say motivate them: so anti-abortion lone wolves go after clinics or doctors
who perform abortions, while right-wing extremists target government buildings and officials. What is even more striking is that these small-ball targets tend to be found in or near places well known to perpetratorsthe square in their hometown, the synagogue they pass on their way to

What should all these patterns mean to counterterrorism officials? They

work, etc. Their daily routines, in other words, are usually the scene of the crime.

indicate most notably that lone wolves are not as fearsome as they are often made out to be. Lone
wolves are only rarely deadly. What is more, when they do manage to kill people, their
incompetence and reliance on firearms usually limit the number of deaths . As a result, policymakers concern about
lone wolves is probably overblown, and the allocation of resources for counterterrorism purposes should take account of this. In some sense, this requires us to learn to live with the existence of lone-wolf terrorism.

Even if the threat were more severe, there are too many potential targets and too many potential
lone wolves to expect law enforcement to monitor, detect, and interdict them all.
Uncoop Fism Good DA: Shells
 Shell: Stem
Successful pushback now state reassertion through UNCOOPERATIVE federalism
Lengell 9/15/14 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-time-may-be-right-to-salvage-states-rights/article/2553246 Sean Lengell
is a Congressional Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. A native of Illinois who spent much of his life in the Tampa, Fla.., area, Lengell
previously covered Congress for the Washington Times and local news for the Tampa Tribune.

States have more leverage ... than they think they do. They bow to the stick more quickly than I
think is necessary at times, said Mike Maharrey of the 10th Amendment Center. There is a lot of
disaffection from across the political spectrum, left to right, in feeling that Congress is not going to get
anything done, the president is not going to get anything done, so we need to figure out some other
mechanism to get things done. And if theres more success at the state level, then I think that
momentum will grow. Obamacare is the latest and biggest fomenter of state resistance, but it is far
from being the only one. Common Core academic standards in public schools are being fought tooth
and nail. Republican governors and congressional conservatives say the program is a straitjacket and an
improper takeover of local schools. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a Republican, sued the
administration in August, accusing the Education Department of illegally dangling $4.3 billion in grants
and policy waivers in front of the states to bait them into adopting the programs uniform testing
standards. Jindal said, The federal government has hijacked and destroyed the Common Core initiative.
[It] is the latest effort by big government disciples to strip away state rights and put Washington in
control of everything. T he Supreme Court turbo-charged state resistance to federal intrusion .
Justices last year struck down a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, throwing out a requirement
that states with histories of discrimination against minority voters secure prior federal permission for
proposed changes to their election laws. Many of the states affected immediately proposed or passed
voter identification laws and other election changes that likely would have been blocked before the
courts ruling.

Cooperative federalism undermines uncooperative federalism FIGHTING is best

Leonard 10 NAME: Elizabeth Weeks Leonard* BIO: * Visiting Professor of Law, University of Georgia; Professor of Law, University of
Kansas. Copyright (c) 2010 Hofstra Law Review Association Hofstra Law Review Fall, 2010 Hofstra Law Review 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 111 LENGTH:
30105 words NEW DIRECTIONS IN AMERICAN HEALTH CARE: INNOVATIONS FROM HOME AND ABROAD: ARTICLE: RHETORICAL FEDERALISM:
THE VALUE OF STATE-BASED DISSENT TO FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM

The dual sovereignty scholarship recognizes the value of dissent, especially state-level dissent, within
the federal system. n61 Dissent "contributes to the marketplace of ideas, engages electoral minorities[,]
... and facilitates self-expression." n62 The Framers envisioned friction, clashes, and jarring as part of the
constitutional design. n63 States may act as lobbyists and litigants, challenging federal policies and laws.
n64 Objections may be voiced by states qua states, n65 or by states as spokespersons for individuals.
n66 Cooperative federalism, by contrast, envisions the federal government and states working
together as partners to address common problems or implement legislation. n67 States serve as
supportive allies, freely and voluntarily, albeit often with strong encouragement, implementing federal
policies. n68 Conditional spending programs, n69 such [*123] as Medicaid, are prime examples of
cooperative federalism. n70 Under its spending power, Congress entices states to enact laws or
implement programs by conditioning federal funding on states' compliance with broad federal
requirements, n71 even though the federal government cannot directly regulate states or
"commandeer" state regulatory authorities to implement, administer, or enforce federal programs. n72
ACA employs several cooperative federalism strategies, including conditional spending, conditional
preemption, grants, and contracts, to engage state cooperation in implementing the massive package of
health care reforms. n73 Uncooperative federalism focuses on the power that states wield precisely
because of their subservient posture vis-a-vis the federal government. n74 The theory emphasizes the
"power of the servant" and "the ways in which integration can serve as a distinct source of strength."
n75 Lacking adequate financial resources or regulatory reach to implement comprehensive programs,
the federal government often [*124] depends on states to implement and administer federal policies.
n76 Because Congress cannot simply mandate states to administer federal programs, it must offer
carrots, such as conditional funding or block grants, or sticks, such as conditional preemption or threats
to usurp state implementation. n77 In so doing, the federal government cedes considerable power and
discretion to states. For example, under Medicaid, states must comply with broad federal requirements
but otherwise are free to tailor their state plans to meet their citizens' particular needs, still receiving
federal matching dollars for every state dollar spent. n78 Even though the federal government
ultimately holds the threat of revoking federal funds or taking over state programs, financial, political,
and practical realities may render that threat an empty one. n79 States' power as servants also derives
from their integration into federal program implementation. n80 State regulators and policymakers
have regular interaction with federal authorities in administering complex, cooperative programs. State
actors may develop subject-matter specialization within certain areas, such as environmental or health
policy, which transcends federal and state lines of authority. n81 A related source of power derives from
the fact that states serve two masters: the federal government and their state constituents. n82 Voters'
dissenting views give states the political will and capital to challenge federal policies. Bulman-Pozen and
Gerken conclude that uncooperative federalism can be useful within a well-functioning federal
system. n83 Friction between the federal government and states fosters a rich dialogue, clarifies
accountability, and encourages political participation. n84 Doctrinal implications of the uncooperative
federalism theory suggest that commandeering, which is considered unacceptably intrusive on state
autonomy to Box 1 adherents, perhaps should be allowed or encouraged under Box 2 because it
engenders dissent. n85 Uncooperative federalism, like state autonomy or dual sovereignty, prefers
narrow preemption but not because state power should be interpreted as broadly as possible but,
[*125] rather, as a way to create larger overlapping spheres of federal and state regulatory authority
thereby ensuring ongoing conflict and jarring . n86
 Immigration Impact
UNCOOPERATIVE federalism crucial to state autonomy in IMMIGRATION
Hu 12 Copyright (c) 2012 Regents of the University of California UC Davis Law Review December, 2012 UC Davis Law Review 46 U.C. Davis L.
Rev. 535 LENGTH: 38814 words ARTICLE: Reverse-Commandeering NAME: Margaret Hu* isiting Assistant Professor, Duke Law School.

he next wave of immigration federalism laws marked a change of course, in that new federal
immigration laws now responded to the growing patchwork of state immigration laws by requiring the
states to participate in the enforcement of federal law. In the early 1990s, [*565] Congress enacted the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which required states to
screen the identity and immigration status of those receiving federal benefits. n113 After the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) increasingly encouraged state and local police to engage in third-party immigration screening as
well where, for example, an individual was booked in jail or detained at a local facility. n114 Over time,
therefore, federal immigration policy has moved away from its former status as an exclusively federal
foreign affairs and regulation of commerce matter. n115 The result has been the "domestication of
immigration." n116

The federal government's encroachment upon the states' historic police power through the
domestication of immigration policy weakens the federal government's argument that it is defending
its exclusive power to control immigration under the Supremacy Clause. Conversely, the cooperative
nature of immigration enforcement activities between the federal and state governments weakens a
state government's argument that this domestication is a form of commandeering or a Tenth
Amendment violation of state sovereignty. n117 Nevertheless, this contested boundary is becoming
the target of increasing controversy, as witnessed by recent legal challenges. Multiple state and local
jurisdictions are increasingly rejecting f ederal proposals for further cooperation in federal
immigration enforcement efforts. n118 As this movement of "uncooperative federalism " n119
grows into a new wave of immigration [*566] federalism, it is likely that state and local
governments will raise anti-commandeering principles under the Tenth Amendment as a method to
challenge this encroachment by the federal government into states' historic police powers.

At the same time, states and local governments have not been passive spectators to the recent
evolution, or devolution, of federal immigration law. As noted above, IRCA was a federal response to
state efforts to discourage the hiring of undocumented illegal immigrants by sanctioning employers who
hired such immigrants. In recent years, state and local governments have once again begun asserting
their right to shape and enforce immigration policy at the state and local level through a remarkable
growth of laws and ordinances, many of which can be viewed as encroachments upon the federal
government's exclusive power to control immigration. n120
[INSERT PROGRESSIVE FEDERALISM SANCTUARY CITIES IMPACT]
Banking Regs Impact
 Financial Regs Impact

UNCOOPERATIVE federalism crucial to giving teeth to financial regulations

Widman 10 Legal Director, Center for Justice & Democracy. Former law clerk to the Hon. Theodore H.
Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York. J.D., cum laude, New York University, 2002;
B.A., Northwestern University, 1996 Copyright (c) 2010 Yale Law & Policy Review Yale Law & Policy
Review Fall, 2010 Yale Law & Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165 LENGTH: 19721 words ARTICLE:
Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a Revitalization of State Enforcement
Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer Product Safety and Improvement Act of 2008

Congress Returns to State Enforcement Powers Congress considered the state enforcement power in
recent high-profile consumer protection bills besides the CPSIA. n214 Unlike the previous incarnations
of cooperative federalism regimes, the new crop of state enforcement powers tends to represent
isolated areas of state authority within a predominantly federal regulatory structure. Given the states'
traditional jurisdiction over health and welfare and the history of consumer protection actions by state
attorneys general, these recent legislative proposals have the " uncooperative federalism " effect of
increasing the tension between states and federal agencies and thereby strongly discouraging political
or otherwise arbitrary agency inaction. Like the consumer protection failures of the last decade, the
recent financial crisis spurred an extensive regulatory overhaul of the financial sector. Representative
Barney Frank, the Democratic Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced
legislation that reforms many consumer protection areas in the financial sector. n215 Testimony
directed toward rectifying particular financial agency abuses, such as nonenforcement, focused on
expanding state enforcement powers and limiting preemption of state law. n216 The final bill
embraced state enforcement powers. n217 C. The Web Approach A state enforcement power is
sometimes created in exchange for the absolute preemption of state laws, as in the proposed Data
Accountability and Trust Act of 2009, n218 and the Fair Credit and Reporting Act of 2003. n219 Such
compromises have become more common, perhaps as preemption has become more of [*208] a
political tool. n220 However, by preempting state experimentation with stricter legislation, Congress
forgoes a celebrated benefit of federalism: states' acting as innovative laboratories. The CPSIA, by
contrast, addresses consumer protection through a web of accountability-and federalism-promoting
mechanisms. n221 Do the CPSIA and the Wall Street Reform Act signal a new congressional approach to
administrative law? Both of these overhauls were prompted by underenforcement. Both strengthen
consumer protection by expanding the state enforcement power, seemingly echoing the Court's
expressions of expanded avenues of judicial review of some types of agency inaction. n222 Unlike
previous legislation, however, the CPSIA did not expand the state enforcement power [*209] while
simultaneously strengthening preemption, or as part of a larger state implementation program. Instead,
the state enforcement power in the CPSIA is a distinct power, allowing for a particular
"uncooperative " role for the states. n223 Through their enforcement powers, the states are
encouraged to monitor agency inaction, serving as a check against political or otherwise arbitrary
nonenforcement. The " uncooperative federalism" model is uniquely suited to rectify recent abuses
of agency authority and general agency weakening. Unlike earlier conceptions of cooperative
federalism , this newer model is instead born from the tension-creating mechanisms of concurrent
enforcement powers.

Banking Regulation stopping another financial crisis their evidence is hype

Krugman 8/3/14 Paul Robin Krugman is an American economist, Professor of Economics and
International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-financial-reform-
is-working.html?_r=0

But what about the administrations other big push, financial reform? The Dodd-Frank reform bill has, if
anything, received even worse press than Obamacare, derided by the right as anti-business and by the
left as hopelessly inadequate. And like Obamacare, its certainly not the reform you would have devised
in the absence of political constraints. But also like Obamacare, financial reform is working a lot better
than anyone listening to the news media would imagine. Lets talk, in particular, about two important
pieces of Dodd-Frank: creation of an agency protecting consumers from misleading or fraudulent
financial sales pitches, and efforts to end too big to fail. The decision to create a Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau shouldnt have been controversial, given what happened during the housing boom.
As Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve official who warned prophetically of problems in subprime
lending, asked, Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? He
went on, The question answers itself the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into
taking these products. The need for more protection was obvious. Of course, that obvious need didnt
stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, financial industry lobbyists and conservative groups from going all
out in an effort to prevent the bureaus creation or at least stop it from doing its job, spending more
than $1.3 billion in the process. Republicans in Congress dutifully served the industrys interests, notably
by trying to prevent President Obama from appointing a permanent director. And the question was
whether all that opposition would hobble the new bureau and make it ineffective. At this point,
however, all accounts indicate that the bureau is in fact doing its job, and well well enough to inspire
continuing fury among bankers and their political allies. A recent case in point: The bureau is cracking
down on billions in excessive overdraft fees. Better consumer protection means fewer bad loans, and
therefore a reduced risk of financial crisis. But what happens if a crisis occurs anyway? Continue reading
the main story undefined Comments Share your thoughts Share your thoughts The answer is that, as
in 2008, the government will step in to keep the financial system functioning; nobody wants to take the
risk of repeating the Great Depression. But how do you rescue the banking system without rewarding
bad behavior? In particular, rescues in times of crisis can give large financial players an unfair
advantage: They can borrow cheaply in normal times, because everyone knows that they are too big to
fail and will be bailed out if things go wrong. The answer is that the government should seize troubled
institutions when it bails them out, so that they can be kept running without rewarding stockholders or
bondholders who dont need rescue. In 2008 and 2009, however, it wasnt clear that the Treasury
Department had the necessary legal authority to do that. So Dodd-Frank filled that gap, giving
regulators Ordinary Liquidation Authority, also known as resolution authority, so that in the next crisis
we can save systemically important banks and other institutions without bailing out the bankers
Bankers, of course, hate this idea; and Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell tried to help their
friends with the Orwellian claim that resolution authority was actually a gift to Wall Street, a form of
corporate welfare, because it would grease the skids for future bailouts. But Wall Street knew better. As
Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points out, if being labeled systemically important were actually
corporate welfare, institutions would welcome the designation; in fact, they have fought it tooth and
nail. And a new study from the Government Accountability Office shows that while large banks were
able to borrow more cheaply than small banks before financial reform passed, that advantage has now
essentially disappeared. To some extent this may reflect generally calmer markets, but the study
nonetheless suggests that reform has done at least part of what it was supposed to do. Did reform go
far enough? No. In particular, while banks are being forced to hold more capital, a key force for stability,
they really should be holding much more. But Wall Street and its allies wouldnt be screaming so loudly,
and spending so much money in an effort to gut the law, if it werent an important step in the right
direction. For all its limitations, financial reform is a success story.

Extinction
Washingtons Blog 14 Washingtons Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and
actionable information. We at Washingtons Blog have an insatiable curiosity for new discoveries, new
information and new insights. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/war-2.html

Reagans head of the Office of Management and Budget David Stockman is posting pieces warning
of the dispute between the U.S. and Russia leading to World War 3. Investment adviser Larry Edelson
wrote an email to subscribers entitled What the Cycles of War are saying for 2013, which states:
Since the 1980s, Ive been studying the so-called cycles of war the natural rhythms that predispose
societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war. Im certainly not the
first person to examine these very distinctive patterns in history. There have been many before me,
notably, Raymond Wheeler, who published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a
period of 2,600 years of data . However, there are very few people who are willing to even discuss the
issue right now. And based on what Im seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge . Former
Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner who has made some big accurate calls, and counts
major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients says there will
be a major war, which will drive the Dow to 5,000. Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a
war is epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East. Economist and investment manager
Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic
crisis : The next thing the government will do to distract the attention of the people on bad
economic conditions is theyll start a war somewhere . If the global economy doesnt recover,
usually people go to war. Martin Armstrong who has managed multi-billion dollar sovereign
investment funds wrote in August: Our greatest problem is the bureaucracy wants a war. This will
distract everyone from the NSA and justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction for the
economic decline that is coming. Armstrong wrote a piece this month entitled, Why We will Go to War
with Russia, and another one saying, Prepare for World War III.
 Environment Impact
Uncooperative federalism key to promote federal accountability on ENVIRONMENT
Widman 10 Legal Director, Center for Justice & Democracy. Former law clerk to the Hon. Theodore H. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge,
Southern District of New York. J.D., cum laude, New York University, 2002; B.A., Northwestern University, 1996 Copyright (c) 2010 Yale Law &
Policy Review Yale Law & Policy Review Fall, 2010 Yale Law & Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165 LENGTH: 19721 words ARTICLE:
Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer
Product Safety and Improvement Act of 2008

( Un)cooperative Federalism The state enforcement power can counter the increasing influence of the
executive branch on the regulatory agenda and can ensure stronger enforcement. n52 The early
environmental administrative regimes commonly provided for state enforcement. Federal laws such as
the Clean Air Act allowed the states to create and enforce their own regulations under State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), which were subject to approval by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). n53 Other laws, such as the Clean Water Act, gave states the authority to [*177] amend or
reverse federal permitting decisions. n54 The superfund law allows for state enforcement of clean-up
standards. n55 This model became known as "cooperative federalism." n56 The cooperation often
consisted of parallel state administrative regimes with local expertise working under the auspices of the
federal agency. The state regimes would issue permits, investigate violations, and issue sanctions, but
with varying degrees of federal oversight. The goal of the pollution control statutes, and of the scholars
who champion cooperative federalism, is that states support and aid the federal government by
providing necessary local information and expertise. Cooperative federalism also requires states to
obtain federal approval before exercising their authority and receiving federal funds to implement their
programs. Cooperative federalism in environmental laws has experienced its share of problems over
the decades, including overfiling, n57 capture, n58 and judicial limitations on citizen suits. n59 Congress
appears to have embraced cooperative federalism, but not because of its ability to check under-
responsive agencies by creating federal-state tension. n60 More commonly, benefits of cooperative
federalism are described as [*178] allowing for local, targeted solutions within a common regulatory
framework; increasing manpower; and allowing for policy experimentation. n61 However, cooperative
federalism has its limits. While shared enforcement can offer more manpower and local expertise,
something more might be needed to increase the accountability of federal agencies. According to
"uncooperative federalism," a new understanding of federal-state relations, states can and should
challenge federal decisions. n62 This " uncooperative " function of cooperative federalism merits
scholarly attention, especially given the current state of agency accountability and aggressive agency
preemption. Incorporating this tension between the states and the federal agencies into a new
regulatory framework that focuses on shared enforcement powers can help to make agencies more
accountable for inaction. n63

[INSERT US ECO impact]

 Climate Impact
Uncooperative federalism BEST for addressing climate CONFLICT spurs positive
action
Osofsky 11 https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062/Issue%202/OSOFSKY-Diagonal_Federalism.pdf sociate Professor,
University of Minnesota Law School; Associate Director of Law, Geo- graphy & Environment, Consortium on Law and Values in Health,
Environment & the Life Sciences and Affiliated Faculty, Geography and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota

Cooperativeness, like the other dimensions, serves as just one factor in a regulatory scheme, and may
vary at different stages. As I have described in depth in the preceding companion article, California's
waiver request and the EPA's denial have formed a part of conflicts over the appropriate role of states in
motor vehicle emissions regulation. n219 However, the Obama Administration EPA's reconsideration of
both the granting of the waiver and the results thereof, in tandem with harmonization efforts with
respect to fuel economy standards, have created a cooperative diagonal scheme. n220 Recent
federalism scholarship explores the complex mix of cooperation and conflict that arises in a variety of
contexts, including with respect to climate change. n221 Cooperative federalism's greatest advantage
as a basis for climate change regulation is its ability to create coordinated multiscalar action in which
each actor provides its unique contribution. A number of scholars and policymakers have taken
significant steps to sketch a framework for cooperative action. They are exploring the nuances of how
collaboration might work among specific entities in particular policy areas. This analysis makes clear that
cooperative approaches, if crafted well, incentivize action while making room for innovation. For
instance, a Center for Progressive Reform study by William Andreen and others presents how localities,
[*286] states, and the federal government can work together on this problem. n222 Alice Kaswan has
also published an interesting cooperative federalism proposal bringing together these three levels of
government, and Holly Doremus and W. Michael Hanemann have argued that the Clean Air Act provides
a cooperative federalism model that could be used in crafting effective climate change legislation. n223
Some dynamic environmental approaches combine cooperative federalism with other theories. For
example, Brad Karkkainen's analysis of information-forcing environmental regulation brings together
cooperative federalism and new governance approaches to consider how "properly structured, penalty
default rules might be used to induce meaningful participation in locally devolved, place-based,
collaborative, public-private hybrid, new governance institutions, aimed at integrated, adaptive,
experimentalist management of watersheds and other institutions." n224 This particular combination of
cooperative federalism and new governance approaches allows for innovative structures that
encompass the multidimensionality of these problems. However, other dynamic federalism scholars
have questioned the extent to which cooperative models can capture the disagreement over climate
change policy choices , and as a result, a stream of scholarship focusing on uncooperative federalism
has emerged . This scholarship includes those directly terming their model "uncooperative," such as
Karen Bridges, Kirk Junker, and Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Heather Gerken. n225 But the literature also
contains work like that of Ann Carlson and Robert Schapiro, which incorporates conflict in the dynamics
they highlight. n226 In addition, some scholars, such as William Buzbee, Ann Carlson, Robert Glicksman
and Richard Levy, Alexandra Klass, and Bejamin Sovacool have looked at these questions of cooperation
and conflict in a preemption context, arguing for the important complementary role that state and local
efforts and state court common law litigation play in the broader environmental regulatory picture.
n227 Overall, this scholarship dealing with the [*287] limits of cooperative models explores the way in
which disagreement over time should be brought into a federalist regulatory scheme. This scholarship
on conflict within federalism highlights two potential difficulties facing cooperative schemes. First,
conflict exists . As Robert Schapiro has noted, cooperative schemes may struggle at times to address
differences adequately and to include all relevant actors. n228 Certainly, in the U.S. climate change
context, states have and continue to vary greatly in how they want to approach the problem, as
represented by the states on both sides of Massachusetts v. EPA. n229 Second, and at least as
importantly, conflict has value. Regulatory schemes that include opportunities for dissent, such as
through citizen suit provisions, can potentially incorporate divergent views more effectively, as well as
make sure that pressure remains on policymakers to think through tough issues. n230 In two recent
high-profile examples of conflict over motor vehicle emissions regulation--Massachusetts v. EPA and
the California CAA waiver dispute--the change in presidential administration during their ultimate
resolution helped to shape more rigorous national approaches. These approaches will continue to
evolve as the Obama Administration develops its regulatory approach more fully over time in
collaboration with California and automobile companies and attempts to navigate the intense partisan
politics of climate change. n231 However, as these examples illustrate, the Obama Administration will
often need a mix of cooperation and conflict in this evolution over time to achieve effective multiscalar
climate regulation; the conflict helps to air differences and to create pressure for action , while the
cooperation allows for coordination and collaboration. In sum, an effective diagonal strategy could be
developed further through a combination of approaches skewed in any of the four dimen [*288] sions.
The key to creating the needed crosscutting interactions is to ensure that incentives for a variety of
skews exist in a situationally appropriate fashion. Part IV examines what those incentives might be in the
context of the Obama Administration's approach to motor vehicles regulation. It builds upon this Part's
assessment of where skews lie in each of these dimensions to examine future possibilities for diagonal
strategies in this area.

[INSERT CLIMATE IMPACT]

Uncoop Fism Good xt
 Xt Federalism U: Education

DeVos allows resurgent education federalism

Boehm 1/19/17 http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/19/federalism-in-the-age-of-trump-three-are Eric Boehm is a reporter at
Reason.

The appointment of Betsy DeVos, a champion for school choice and charter schools, as the next
secretary of education is meant to indicate a clean break from the Obama administration on policy for
schools, but there will be challenges on that front too. Unwinding federal education mandates like
Common Core and No Child Left Behind are unlikely to be much easier than hacking away at the
Affordable Care Act. In place of major federal action to implement new policy, then, the new
Republican-controlled government might want to take a page out of their pocket constitutionsthe
page with the Tenth Amendment printed on it. When the federal government struggles to find
solutions, states can lead the way on these, and other, important issues. The biggest policy debates
facing America in 2017 will not be solvedor at least not solved bestby monolithic decision-making
in the White House and the halls of Congress. Letting states sort out thorny issues provides other
advantages too, like the fact that it is relatively easy for individuals and businesses to voluntarily exit
from states that make poor policy choices. To get a sense of how state governments can improve the
prospects for liberty, both with and without help from the feds, Reason surveyed a group of wonks
toiling to change policies in state capitals from coast to coast. This is what federalism in the age of
Trump could look like. No Child Left Behind, the federal law that increased spending for schools in
exchange for more testing to track student learning, turned 15 this month. It's old enough to be high
school sophomore, but it's hasn't earned good grades. By the end of the 2014 school year, 100 percent
of all American students were supposed to meet the standards outlined by the Bush era law. Schools
that failed to meet those goals were supposed to face consequences like restructuring. Most of that
hasn't happened. States lowered standards to make sure that more students could meet them and the
Obama administration issued blanket waivers for the schools in states that adopted a new set of federal
teaching guidelines called Common Core. The problems with No Child Left Behind illustrate two of the
biggest problems with the current status of public education . First, it was a one-size-fits-all solution
that, second, funded education infrastructureschool buildings, administrators, and teachersinstead
of funding students. Yet the past decade-and-a-half has seen an upwelling of innovative education
policy ideas from the state level, including expansions of charter schools, voucher programs, and
education savings accounts. Many of those reforms have been focused on giving families a choice when
it comes to public education, particularly for students trapped in failing schools for no reason other than
their ZIP code. DeVos, in her home state of Michigan, has a long history of fighting for those kinds of
reforms. In 2000, she was heavily involved in an unsuccessful effort to remove the state constitution's
ban on voucher programs via ballot initiative, and since then she has backed efforts to expand public
charter schools there. In her new federal post, she could help nudge states towards reform, says Ben
DeGrow, director of education policy for the Michigan-based Mackinac Center. That's where
conservatives and libertarians find themselves walking a bit of a policy tightrope. Federal interventions,
like No Child Left Behind, in state education policy has not worked, DeGrow says, but school choice
activists should resist the urge to call for more federal action to implement policies they like. At best,
DeVos should work to peel back layers of federal regulation and encouragenot mandatestates to
move in a direction that favors choice for parents and students. Of all the things on this list, this is the
area where the greatest potential exists for the federal government to simply get out of the way and let
the states experiment with new ideas. "She can use the bully pulpit to make arguments for why students
and parents should have choice and can really be a champion for that," DeGrow says. Beyond making
arguments, DeVos and the Republican Congress could enact small changes to a federal college savings
program, allowing another state-level reform to take off in a big way.
 U: Uncooperative federalism

States reasserting themselves across the policy spectrum

Scott 13 http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-fragmented-united-states-of-america.html Dylan Scott -- Staff Writer. Dylan
graduated from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University in 2010. While there, he won an Associated Press award for Best
Investigative Reporting for a series of stories on the universitys structural deficit. He then worked at the Las Vegas Sun and Center for
Education Reform before joining GOVERNING. He has reported on the Supreme Courts consideration of the Affordable Care Act and various
education reform movements in state and local government.

On other issues, states have rebuffed federal policy or preempted it. The Real ID Act of 2005,
mandating state adoption of what is effectively a national identification card, has been foiled in the last
decade by states refusing to comply with its federal requirements. More than 40 states have agreed to
adopt the Common Core State Standards for K-12 education, which involve new curricula and
assessments developed by state policymakers, in part because they didnt want another federal
education regime after the failure of No Child Left Behind. The distribution of medical marijuana in 17
states, paired with outright legalization in Colorado and Washington, is a clear flouting of the federal
Controlled Substances Act. Such assertiveness or outright defiance by the states is a dramatic shift
from the assumptions of federal preeminence that have prevailed during most of the years since the
enactment of comprehensive social legislation during the 1960s, which included the passage of the Civil
Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Medicare. Some would place the beginning of the erosion of the
federal model in the Reagan administration, which introduced the waiver concept to state-federal
programs such as Medicaid.
 Link: Fed INACTION key
Federal INACTION key to states rights
Lengell 9/15/14 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-time-may-be-right-to-salvage-states-rights/article/2553246 Sean Lengell
is a Congressional Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. A native of Illinois who spent much of his life in the Tampa, Fla.., area, Lengell
previously covered Congress for the Washington Times and local news for the Tampa Tribune.

Big national legislation such as Obamacare now meets with wildly different responses from state to
state, with some, such as Maryland, embracing the law while others, such as Texas, thumbing their
noses at it. Polarization in Washington led to increasingly bodacious laws that didnt have sound
bipartisan support, and as a result felt more intrusive, said Posner, who directs George Mason
Universitys graduate public administration program and its Centers on the Public Service. Whatever
powers and flexibility states have gained has been largely because national government is too divided
and politically distracted to legislate stronger solutions , Posner adds. It hasnt been because [states]
have come in with strong arguments on their behalf. Its more by default than anything else, he said,
adding that federal-state tension could get worse because of the two sides increasingly strained
relationship. Were not deliberating about federalism, its just happening, he said. That for me is
troubling. The system ought to be smarter than that and more strategic. With Washington gridlocked ,
its up to the states to restore the balance of power, Ivory said. In any partnership that gets out of
balance, its incumbent upon the other partners to say, Weve got to sit down and have a partnership
meeting, and weve got to get this back into balance. You cant simply ignore it and hope that it gets
better.

STATE self-assertion key FEDERAL solutions fail, making the STATUS QUO a better
SPUR to action
Freedman 13 http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_3_federalism.html Adam Freedman covers legal affairs for Ricochet. His latest
book is The Naked Constitution: What the Founders Said and Why It Still Matters. He is working on a book about states rights.

Breaking Washingtons coercive hold on states is the holy grail of federalism . The most
straightforward approach would be shrinking the federal budget, cutting federal taxes proportionately,
and letting state and local governments decide what to do and how to pay for it. Today, such a proposal
would be regarded as a Tea Party fantasy, but not long ago, it was championed by liberal icon Daniel
Patrick Moynihan. Toward the end of his career, the late New York senator, having seen New York
consistently run a negative balance of payments with the federal government, suggested letting states
keep more of their own money. Less activism in Washington in return for more revenue at home, for
whatever active measures recommend themselves to the state or municipality in question, Moynihan
proposed in a 1999 report for the Kennedy School of Government. Unfortunately, federal programs
have strongly entrenched constituencies that would object loudly to having their federal funding
yanked, even if it was replaced by state dollars. The federal government need not balance its budget
and can, in any event, print money. Why take a chance on being funded by your home state, which has
far less fiscal flexibility? Besides, proposals to abolish federal programs are vulnerable to cheap but
effective demagoguery: if you dont like the federal Department of Education, youre anti-education.
The next best alternative, from a federalists perspective, is to give states a way to opt out of federal
programs, or at least to opt out of federal micromanagement. For instance, New Jersey congressman
Scott Garrett, a Republican, introduced legislation this past March that would allow states to decline
federal transportation funding without being penalized. Under the current system, a federal fuel tax is
collected at the gas pump and then sent to Washington, where Congress and the Department of
Transportation decide how much each state gets back in transportation grants and under what
conditions. Nowadays, the conditions include such absurdities as the Department of Transportations
Livability program, which tells towns where to build bike paths and recreational trails. Garretts bill
would let a state keep the roughly 18 cents per dollar collected in federal fuel taxes and use that money
according to the wishes of the states voters. Education is another area targeted by the new federalists.
Utah congressman Rob Bishopa Republican, a former high school teacher, and the founder of the
Tenth Amendment Task Forceargues that weve tried everything except giving schools the freedom
to be different. In the last Congress, Bishop introduced the A-PLUS Act, which would let states receive
federal education grants without having to submit to federal micromanagement; the states would
merely enter into broad performance agreements with the Department of Education. An alternative
measure introduced by Garrett would give each state the power to opt out of federal education
programs entirely and receive a tax credit equivalent to its share of federal education funding. The
credit would flow through to the states taxpayers, leaving states and school districts free to impose
additional taxes to fund their own education priorities. Other creative solutions are percolating up from
the House backbenches. Under legislation sponsored by Texas Republican John Culbertson, when a state
rejects a federal grant, the unused money would have to be used to reduce the federal deficit, rather
than to subsidize other states. And some House Republicans have called for eliminating Medicaids
current funding systemin which the feds match whatever each state spends, so long as the state
adheres to federal requirementsand replacing it with block grants with few strings attached. Block
grants dont have to be partisan poison; in fact, Democrats pioneered them in the 1960s for health and
crime-prevention programs. The states themselves retain considerable power to resist Washington
above all, by challenging federal laws that exceed Congresss enumerated powers. For 60 years after
the New Deal, Congress justified legislation with no clear basis in the Constitution by citing its
constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce , and the Supreme Court agreed. But that
changed under the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. Today, federal legislation under the Commerce
Clause must actually target economic activity with a plausible relationship to interstate commerce.
And it doesnt count if the legislation simply forces citizens to engage in commerce, as the Court held in
its 2012 Obamacare decision. (Alas, Congresss taxing power was invoked to save the individual
mandate.) With increasing vigor, states are testing the boundaries of Congresss jurisdiction under the
Commerce Clause. Take the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, the brainchild of activist Gary Marbut. The
law declares that guns that are manufactured in Montana and remain within the state arent subject to
federal regulations, including registration requirements. The act, which is being tested in a pending
federal lawsuit, has inspired copycat laws in seven other states and pending bills in 24 others. Legislators
have applied the firearms strategy to other productsfor example, lightbulb freedom statutes that
would allow the intrastate manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs, despite federal mandates to
switch to compact fluorescents. States are also exercising their right to withhold their assistance in
implementing federal policies. For example, 13 have adopted laws prohibiting state and local officials
from carrying out the Affordable Care Act. These laws rely on a 1997 Supreme Court decision, Printz v.
United States, that established that Congress cannot commandeer a states administrative
machinery in the service of federal law (in that case, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). But
the tradition of state resistance goes back much furtherall the way to the Virginia and Kentucky
Resolutions of 1798, which proclaimed the right of states to interpose their authority to block the
hated Alien and Sedition Acts. Those resolutions were invoked in the nineteenth century when some
northern states refused to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act. Finally, states are beginning to explore
interstate compacts as a way of casting off unwanted federal mandates. The Constitution envisions
interstate compactsregulatory agreements among statesand there are more than 200 currently in
force, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In 2010, future senator Ted Cruz,
writing for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, encouraged states to enter into a compact exempting
themselves from Obamacare. In 2011 and 2012, seven states approved a draft compact in which the
member states would assume responsibility for regulating health care. In order to trump federal law, an
interstate compact must be approved by Congress, seemingly a tall order in the era of divided
government. But at some point, even congressional Democrats may recognize that their constituents
are calling for more local control over their lives and pocketbooks. A reinvigorated federalism would
transfer todays most polarizing issues to the state capitols, where a more pragmatic brand of
governing still obtains. Not only is that what the Constitution provides for; it might just be good for
the Republic.

Federal FAILURE is reviving federalism NOW

Lengell 9/15/14 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-time-may-be-right-to-salvage-states-rights/article/2553246 Sean Lengell
is a Congressional Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. A native of Illinois who spent much of his life in the Tampa, Fla.., area, Lengell
previously covered Congress for the Washington Times and local news for the Tampa Tribune.

Posner predicts the U.S. could evolve into what he thinks of as a European Union model, with a weak,
or at least weaker, central power and strong states. Were kind of evolving into that kind of union,
and its because of the bitter partisanship and the fact that national leaders want to get stuff done
but they cant get the whole loaf, so theyll take a loaf that applies to some states but not all, he said.
Greve said if the push back continues , a better comparison would be with the way the United States
was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Then, states such as Wisconsin, Minnesota and New
York embraced liberal Progressive Era ideals, such as the aggressive regulation of industry, while other
states did not. With no federal mandates, the states were free to chose their own paths. Such a setup
helped block aggressive federal intervention , Greve said, because there were enough states at all
times that said no, we could not care less what the pro-federal government states say, the answer is
no, we wont play. If states do successfully win back authority from the federal government, he
adds, it will be because theyve lost their fear of Washington, not because Washington decided to
relinquish any control. Democratic administrations and presidents and, so far, a Democratic Congress
have no way of breaking through this, because they have to insist that their programs be obeyed,
Greve said, and there will be a sufficient number of states that say to hell with that and fight
back . "
GRIDLOCK and FAILURE key to state reassertion
Scott 13 http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-fragmented-united-states-of-america.html Dylan Scott -- Staff Writer. Dylan
graduated from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University in 2010. While there, he won an Associated Press award for Best
Investigative Reporting for a series of stories on the universitys structural deficit. He then worked at the Las Vegas Sun and Center for
Education Reform before joining GOVERNING. He has reported on the Supreme Courts consideration of the Affordable Care Act and various
education reform movements in state and local government.

Without strong federal policies, states have become more active and divergent . Less than five months
after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut enacted comprehensive gun control
legislation. At the same time, 1,300 miles south and an ideological world away, Mississippi lawmakers
considered a bill that would explicitly prohibit state officials from enforcing any new federal gun
regulations. That last measure proved unnecessary. After months of controversy and extensive debate,
Congress did not muster the votes to pass any federal law at all. The same kind of split prevails on gay
marriage. Last year, North Carolina joined more than 30 other states that have explicitly outlawed same-
sex marriage. In just the past three months, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota have legalized it,
joining nine other states and the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court is currently deciding how far
to wade into the gay marriage dispute -- or whether it should wade in at all. A third case: Voters in
Colorado and Washington state chose to fully legalize marijuana in last Novembers election. On the
same day, voters in Arkansas handily defeated a proposal to allow the drug even for medicinal purposes.
The use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law; the Obama administration hasnt taken a
position on last falls actions but has made it clear that federal regulations will not be enforced. This is
more than just party polarization. It is part of a tectonic shift away from federal authority and
toward power in the states . While the divided Congresses that have followed the 2010 Tea Party
insurgency have been among the least productive in U.S. history, rife with partisan bickering and a
chronic inability to compromise, robust action is common at the state level . Connecticuts quick and
seamless movement from tragedy to statute is one of countless examples. In turn, ideologues and
interest groups increasingly view states as the most promising venues for policymaking. Why waste
your time in Washington -- where you might pass a watered-down, largely impotent bill if youre lucky
-- when you can head to Austin or Sacramento and advance your agenda intact and with relative
ease? And while states pass legislation with an almost industrial efficiency, America, as is often noted
these days, is becoming a more and more splintered nation. Red states are redder; blue states are
bluer. Take a look at a U.S. map colored by state party control. In the upper right-hand corner down to
the Mid-Atlantic, its all blue. In the South and across the Great Plains, you see a blanket of red. That
crimson sea begins to break at the Rocky Mountains until you reach a stretch of blue along the West
Coast. In a way, we are returning to our roots as a loose confederation of culturally and geographically
distinct governments. States led by Democrats are moving toward broader Medicaid coverage, stricter
gun laws and a liberalized drug policy. Theyve legalized gay marriage, abolished the death penalty and
extended new rights to undocumented immigrants. Republican strongholds are working quickly to
remove government from the business sphere -- reducing taxes, pushing anti-union right-to-work laws
and rebelling against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Theyre also pressing forward on some of their most
valued social issues, promoting pro-life abortion policies and protecting the rights of gun owners. The
divisions generate fundamental questions about the nature of federalism. The sweeping national
interventions of the New Deal and the comprehensive federal social legislation of the 1960s have been
replaced by a more decentralized approach to governance. States are openly defying federal law and
resurrecting the concept of nullification. These are not merely legal or rhetorical exercises. They are
fostering real change and real consequences for average Americans. If one bill thats currently
pending in the Mississippi legislature is upheld by higher courts, the state will have effectively outlawed
abortion altogether. In New York, meanwhile, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has introduced legislation that
would make abortions easier for women in his state to obtain. Income taxes may go up this year in
California and Massachusetts; several Republican governors say they want to abolish income taxes
completely. Illinois will insure nearly 1 million additional people next year by expanding its Medicaid
program under the federal health law, while Texas is expected to leave up to 2 million people without
coverage because Gov. Rick Perry has steadfastly refused to do the same. Polarization has resulted in
this changing relationship between the states and the federal government. Theres a clear connection,
says Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University. Its leading to gridlock at the federal
level , which in turn is leading to many issues being decided at the state level because the federal
government seems to be incapable of deciding anything. Thats the hydraulics of political power.
Power always seeks an outlet, agrees Heather Gerken, a law professor at Yale University. When
Congress is no longer doing anything, people are going to go to the states and localities.

ONLY defiance solves federal action cant work

Boldin 9/24/13 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/state-and-local-action-a-successful-strategy-for-defending-the-
constitution/ Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center. Michael has a full
schedule working as senior editor of the Centers website, writes a regular column, fields media interviews, and travels the country (when
invited, of course) to speak to crowds about sticking to the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Several modern examples exist that demonstrate the effectiveness of this tactic. Remember the
federal push for national ID cards during the Bush Administration? It was marginalized and put on the
back-burner because of massive state-wide opposition mounted against the invasive measure.
Remember marijuana prohibition? It is still around, but states have changed their laws undermining
federal prohibition. In some states, marijuana laws have been nullified for all practical purposes .
There are budding nullification efforts on issues such as Obamacare, federal gun control, NSA spying,
industrial hemp production, and many others. Reviving this idea can save the country , but only if we
fully capitalize upon it f or all its worth. Sitting around and waiting for the Constitution to enforce itself
has not exactly worked very well. If anything, the lack of action has emboldened politicians to become
even more corrupt. Washington D.C. is committing nothing short of an all-out assault on the document
right now. From the NDAA, to the Patriot Act, to illegal foreign wars, to attacks on journalists and
whistleblowers, this was against the Constitution is being waged against our basic freedoms and
rights. It must be tolerated no longer! The Constitution is only what we make of it. If we do not act, it
becomes little more than old parchment with ornate writing. But when we do act, its words can become
the foundation on which a free, prosperous nation rests.
 Uncoop > Coop

Only CONFLICT works the WORST solution is UNIFORM POLICY

Buzman-polen and Gerken 9 law professors, YALE LAW SCHOOL
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=fss_papers B ulm a n-P o z e n, J e s sica a nd Ge rk e n, H e a
the r K ., " U nc oope r a t iv e F e de r al i s m " (2009). F a c u l t y Sc h o l a r s h ip Ser ie s . P a pe r 345. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . yale .
e du/f s s_p a pe r s/345,

Another advantage associated with th e power of the servant is that it enables state officials to set the
agenda . The great challenge for most dissenters is to get those in power to address thei r concerns.
Ignoring dissent is often the most effective way to undermine it. When states challenge federal
policies in areas where they are autonomous sovere igns, they are in roughly the same position as
individual dissentersoutsid e the systemthus making it easy for federal officials to pursue a strategy
of avoidance. 108 A state may enact policies that exemplify its dissenting views, but the less the effects
of those policies are felt elsewhere, the easier it is for federal officials simply to ignore the challenge.
That means that the more rigid th e bounds between state and federal policymaking, the less effective a
states resistance is likely to be. Avoidance is more difficult when st ates are engaged in
uncooperative federalism because states are administering federal law. The absence of uniformity ,
coupled with the risk that other states will demand similar exemptions, is likely to put pressure on the
federal government to react. Variation, after all, can be administrativ ely costly. Moreover, federal
officials may find it irksome to see federal funds being used to thwart a statutory mandate rather than
to serve it. Modus vivendi is less palatable when funded out of your own pocket. We thus would expect
the federal government to respond in some way to a states challeng e. It might override the state,
tolerate its position, or adopt the states prefer red policy. The key is that the federal government will
be pressured to engage the states position. And engagement is at least a partial victory for any
dissenter

CONFLICT GOOD within co-op federalism only FIGHTS promote accountability

Buzman-polen and Gerken 9 law professors, YALE LAW SCHOOL
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=fss_papers B ulm a n-P
o z e n, J e s sica a nd Ge rk e n, H e a the r K ., " U nc oope r a t iv e F e de r al i s m " (2009). F a c u l t y
Sc h o l a r s h ip Ser ie s . P a pe r 345. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . yale . e du/f s s_p a pe r s/345,

. Accountability It might seem surprising that we list accountability as one of the benefits associated
with uncooperative federalism. After all, one of the more serious worries about cooperative federalism
is that it blurs the lines of accountability, preventing citizens from knowing whom to blame for an
unpopular policy. Accountability is considered a particularly powerful argument against commandeering
(something we think a strong commitment to uncooperative federalism would favor 113 ). On this
account, when the state-federal relationship is cooperativewhen the state and fe deral government
are in agreement about the regulatory questionit may be fair to censure both state and federal
officials for any problems that arise. Wh en state officials disagree with their federal counterparts,
however, the acco untability problem is worrisome. The Supreme Court in New York v. United States ,
for instance, maintained that having states carry out federal policies with which they disagreeprecisely
what uncooperative federalism involvesw ould result in state officials wrongly bear[ing] the brunt of
public disapproval of federal policy. 114 Given how little most voters know about discrete policy
issues, 115 we are skeptical that accountability arguments deserve as much weight as they have been
given. Political accountability depe nds almost entirely on voters reliance on broadly defined partisan
heuristi cs, not fine-grained policy judgments. 116 Indeed, the extant research has prompted Neil Siegel
to conclude that while high-information voters should be able to identify the right culprits, low-
information voters may be largely beyo nd judicial or political help on the accountability front. 117 We
thus think that accountability in this context is mostly an elite affair , depending largely on what Jerry
Mashaw calls soft law bureaucrats policing themselves based on shared professional norms, with
nudges from outside advocacy groups and policymakers. 118 Uncooperative federalism, of course,
offers significant advantages in promoting this sort of bureaucratic accountability because it takes
place in the regulatory arenas where state administrators are integrated with fede ral ones. Professional
peer pressure depends on the ties that bind burea ucrats to one another. When state bureaucrats are
embedded within the federal system, they are able to develop those professional ties while still being
able to rely on a separate power base. State administrators may therefore be less inhibited than their
federal counterparts in challenging existing practi ces. But they should still be better situated to push
those challenges than bureaucrats outside the system. 119 Even when we can look to voters to hold
officials accountable for their missteps, it is still not clear that unc ooperative federalism (or, more
accurately, joint regulation) falls short on the ac countability measure. To the contrary, when state and
federal officials disagree, joint regulation offers at least three accountability-promoting devices:
information, access, and allies. First, disagreement within a joint re gulatory regime can provide a useful
information-enforcing device. Accounta bility, of course, requires accurate information. In a complex
regulatory world, it is often difficult to discern who is responsible for a problem even when the states
and federal government regulate independently. When state an d federal officials are at loggerheads,
116 . For an intelligent summary of the political scienc e literature on this point, which dates back at
least to V.O. Key, see David Schleicher, Irrational Voters, Rational Voting , 7 E LECTION L.J. 149, 153, 155-
57 (2008) (reviewing C APLAN , supra note 115). 117 . Siegel, supra note 28, at 1632. 118 . Jerry L.
Mashaw, Structuring a Dense Complexity: Accountability and the Project of Administrative Law , I
SSUES IN L EGAL S CHOLARSHIP , Mar. 2005, art. 4, at 6-7, http://www.bepress.co m/ils/iss6/art4/. 119 .
Joint regulation, of course, also casts stat e policymakersthat is, legislators and members of the
executive branchin the role of the bureau crats. It is an open question whether the professional
networks that typically develop among bureaucrats with similar training and backgrounds would extend
to state politicians. Nonetheless, at the very least we would expect the repeated contacts fostered by an
in tegrated regulatory scheme to help these state officials challenge federal administrators.
uncooperative federalism 1291 joint regulation imposes the rough equiva lent of joint and several
liability upon them. The advantage to this strategy, at least in theory, is that it creates an incentive for
defendants to play the blame game among themselves, using their resources to get the goods on each
other. When state and federal officials disagree, dual regulation is the political cognate to joint and
several liability; it should create an incentive for state and federal officials to disseminate information
about who is to blame for a problem. This means that the people with the most information about who
is responsibleand the greatest ability to get that information outwill be hard at work educating
voters. 120 Second, accountability is not simply about knowing who is responsible, but also being able to
appeal to them. And interposing the state between the people and the federal government may bolster
this aspect of accountability by offering more access points for indivi duals who oppose federal policy
they can petition not only the federal govern ment, but also state officials. Having more access points
may not matter as mu ch if both the states and federal government are committed to the sa me project.
But where, as with uncooperative federalism, state and fede ral officials disagree , citizens and public
interest groups ought to be able to find someone to help them push their cause. This brings us to a
third, related pointone that we explain in greater detail in Part III. Forcing state officials to
participate in a federal scheme they oppose may generate more allies for the citizens who oppose
the scheme . If states can simply opt out of a program with which they disagree, they may not have
much incentive to devote the re sources needed to mount an effective challenge to federal policy .
121 When state officials fear that they will suffer the political consequences of carrying out a policy that
runs contrary to their constituents interests, they have a gr eater incentive to play the contrarians role.
Those who favor the autonomy model of state dissent are absolutely correct that sometimes it takes
a government to check a government. 122 But it may be that federal-state integration , rather than
autonomy, creates more incentives for state governments to chec k the federal government . When a
state finds itself entangled with unpopular federal policies, citizens demanding federal accountability
may suddenly fi nd themselves with a rather powerful ally.

Uncooperative disagreement is the only way to generate MATERIALLY MEANINGFUL

federalism
Buzman-polen and Gerken 9 law professors, YALE LAW SCHOOL
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=fss_papers B ulm a n-P
o z e n, J e s sica a nd Ge rk e n, H e a the r K ., " U nc oope r a t iv e F e de r al i s m " (2009). F a c u l t y
Sc h o l a r s h ip Ser ie s . P a pe r 345. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . yale . e du/f s s_p a pe r s/345,

2. Dissenting by Deciding Another key difference between uncooperative federalism and the political
safeguards of federalism is that only th e former deploys policymaking as a tool to contest federal
authority. As one of us has written at length, the great advantage to casting dissent in terms of a
governance decisiondissenting by decidingis that it allows dissenters to offer up a real-life
instantiation of the yale law journal 118:1256 2009 1294 their view. 125 California, for instance, can
show how strong environmental regulations work in practice. Michigan and Wisconsin can demonstrate
that welfare to work is a viable option. The opportunity to dissent by deciding gives uncooperative
federalism an advantage over the political safeguards model. Real-world examples are quite useful in
policy debates . After all, anyo ne pushing for change must always deal with the central question: will
the new id ea work? It is not hard to imagine why federal legislators and administrat ors would be
nervous about switching to a new, untried policy in place of the current regime. In lieu of the necessarily
abstract arguments that challengers typica lly deploy, a state can make its case by putting its ideas
into practice , rema pping the politics of the possible. An autonomy model, of course, allows states to
do the same. The key difference is that uncooperative federalism allows th e state to build that
competing model within the federal framework . Because st ate administrators can show their federal
counterparts precisely how the ne w scheme works in practice, they can provide important
reassurance and guid ance to federal legislators who are considering whether to change gears. We also
suspect that this unusual form of dissent will create opportunities for debate over issues that may be
neglected under the political safeguards model. This is because debates among those charged with
administering federal programs are likely to look di fferent from those that typically occur among
partisan officials. Uncooperativ e federalism will often be directed toward interstitial, secondary
implemen tation questionsthe sorts of issues that do not lend themselves to the type of grand,
thematic debates that are typically aired when a statute is being passed. Consider the welfare example
discussed above. State officials could and did lobby federal legislators to change welfare policy. But
Wisconsin and Mich igan advanced that challenge by creating their own competing regula tory schemes
and showing how they worked in practice. Dissent ing by deciding enabled state officials to focus on
the details that are often lost in nation al debates, showing how broad polemics translate into concrete
regulations. The debates generated by uncooperative federalism may also be less abstract than those
that take place in advance of a statutes passage, as they will be in formed by facts on the ground and
information about how the policy works in practice . 12
 K2 Immigration I/L xt

State SELF-ASSERTION over federal failure key to immigration federalism

Scott 13 http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-fragmented-united-states-of-america.html Dylan Scott -- Staff Writer. Dylan
graduated from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University in 2010. While there, he won an Associated Press award for Best
Investigative Reporting for a series of stories on the universitys structural deficit. He then worked at the Las Vegas Sun and Center for
Education Reform before joining GOVERNING. He has reported on the Supreme Courts consideration of the Affordable Care Act and various
education reform movements in state and local government.

Supporters of a revised immigration law remain hopeful for federal action during the 113th Congress.
But the resulting legislation, if it passes, will likely be an undesirable compromise for both parties, a
vanilla law that really pleases no one . If you want ideological purity, look a few miles away to
Democratic Maryland, where Gov. Martin OMalley and his legislature have in the past year legalized
gay marriage, cracked down on guns, passed a DREAM Act that eases access to education for
undocumented immigrants and eliminated the death penalty. Or go to Republican Mississippi, where
the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, abortion is being made extremely difficult and residents have one
of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Its still possible to achieve philosophical cohesion within a
single-party state, and there are more of them than ever . If you want to change policy, look to the
states. Thats where the action is these days.

Key to IMMIGRATION specifically

Elias 13 Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law. J.D. 2009, Yale Law School; M.A. 2006, Oxford University; B.A. 1998,
Oxford Universit http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/6-Elias.pdf

( Re)defining immigration federalism as the engagement by national, state, and local governmental
actors in immigration regulation, recognizes states and localities potential to engage both in anti-
unauthorized-immigrant rulemaking and in the promulgation of laws designed to foster immigrant
inclusion. As this Article will demonstrate, such a broad definition is necessary to accurately capture
the new direction of immigration federalism in the aftermath of Arizona and Whiting , wherein
immigrant- exclusionary rulemaking is broadly constrained, whilst immigrant-inclusionary lawmaking is
not. This broad definition of immigration federalism also implicitly acknowledges that allowing the
immigration debate to play out at multiple levels may provide an opportunity for a variety of different
legislative and regulatory outcomes. 27 Immigration rulemaking , the enforcement of those rules, and
dissent from those rules now implicate an increasingly complicated patchwork of federalstate, state
local, and in some instances even federal local or federalstatelocal relationships. As I discuss infra , in
recent years, despite well-established doctrine mandating federal primacy, states have acted either
under the supervision of the federal government, concurrently with the federal government, in
competition with the federal government, or in dissent from the federal government to both ex clude
immigrants and to include them. 28 Moreover, the engagement by state and local governmental actors
in immigration regulation does not necessarily involve state and local authorities acting in uniform ways
to cooperate and coordinate their actions with those of the federal government. 29 The new
immigration federalism , in the post- Arizona legal landscape, may thus involve differentiated
dissenting or uncooperative rulemaking by states and localities, 30 whether with respect to
immigrant-exclusionary measures such as laws directing local police officers to

crackdowns on immigration are form OVERCOOPERATION link only goes OUR WAY
Young 13 http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2857&context=tlr Alston & Bird Professor, Duke Law School.
r Ene s t A. Y oun g , A R e se a r c h Agen d a f o r U n co o p er a t i v e F e der a l is ts , 48 T ul s a L . R e v . 427 (2012)

What About Overcooperative Federalism ? States will not always resist enforcing federal law. In fact,
they may sometimes wish to enforce federal law more aggressively than do federal officials. We
might de- scribe this phenomenon as " overcooperative federalism." l27 What happens when states
exercise the "power of the servant" to be overzealous, rather than shirking their duty? As the
distinguished federalism scholar Shel Silverstein put it, "some kind of help is the kind of help that
helping's all about. And some kind of help is the kind of help we all could do without ." 1 2 8 Recent
disputes over state efforts to enforce federal immigration laws illustrate this point. Federal law
sharply limits the number of legal immigrants who may come to the United States and prohibits them
from working legally if they do come to our country. 1 2 9 But the federal Executive has generally
exercised considerable discretion concerning the rigor with which these laws are enforced and the
federal resources devoted to such en- forcement.130 In recent years, however, a number of states have
displayed an interest in playing an enforcement role in this area. 1 3 1 Sometimes, the states have
followed the tra- ditional pattern of cooperative federalism. Federal law presently allows states to enter
into agreements with federal immigration authorities whereby states exercise delegated nforcement
authority under federal supervision.132 But some states have attempted to enforce federal
immigration laws outside this explicit delegation of federal authority, without direct federal
supervision.133 Most prominently , Arizona and several other states have enacted state law
prohibitions that largely mirrored federal immigration laws and charged state executive officials with
far-reaching authority to enforce those prohibi- tions. 1 3 4 Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down much of the Arizona statute in Arizona v. United States, 1 3 5 that decision seems unlikely to end
the national debate over state enforcement of restrictions on illegal immigration.136 Other examples of
potentially overcooperative federalism exist that may have a dif- ferent valence politically. State
attorneys general frequenty sue to enforce federal law on behalf of their citizens, providing a level of
enforcement beyond that achieved by federal governmental enforcement standing alone. 137 State
attorneys general may also use their investigatory powers under state law to bring violations of federal
law to light and pres- sure federal regulators to act.138 As Attorney General of New York, for example,
Eliot Spitzer famously exposed abusive practices on Wall Street in the face of perceived abdi- cation by
the federal Securities Exchange Commission. 1 3 9 Any of these activities may well be unwelcome to
federal regulators in particular circumstances
 K2 Environmental policy xt

State dissent best promotes eco-policy through ADAPTATION and INNOVATION

Romo 14 arlos R. Romo is an environmental and natural resources attorney in the Austin office of
Baker Botts L.L.P. He has a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and a B.A. in Public Policy
from Stanford University
http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/George%20Washinton%20Journal%20Environm
ental%20%20Energy%20Law%202014%20%28with%20Romo%20HF%20Article%29%20-Final.pdf

A. The State-Centered Dissents Role in Technological Innovation and Diffusion Because states have
traditionally been viewed as the natural locus for policy innovation and diffusion, 189 states may also be
the best entities for promoting technological innovation and diffusiontwo core aspects of
technological develop- ment. 190 Consistent with the theory of uncooperative feder- alism, however,
it may be state dissent in the implementation of federal regulation that pushes innovation in and
diffu- sion of environmental technology . Conversely, the desire to encourage technological innovation
may be an additional motivation for states to reject federal intervention. Using the theoretical
underpinnings of uncooperative federalism and the case study of produced water recycling, there are
two key roles for the states in promoting technological innovation through uncooperative federalism:
dissenting by deciding and promoting the states agenda. 191 1. Dissenting by Deciding, or Learning by
Doing As Professors Bulman-Pozen and Gerken note, uncooperative federalism imagines that states
using their own regulatory schemes as a means to influence federal policy. 192 Indeed, dis- sent
through decision is happening with states encouraging produced water recycling. 193 Using the
flexibility currently afforded to states under EPAs hands-off regulation of pro- duced water reuse, states
are beginning to address oil and gas water management issues. 194 Indeed, Professor Wiseman has
noted that states new regulation of innovative HF technolo- gies is a regulatory adaptation. 195 This
adaptation includes rafting state policies and incentives both to promote tech- nological innovation and
to adopt existing technologies. 196 From an economic and technological demand perspective, produced
water recycling is likely to generate technological innovation as a result of the significant costs that
operators and producers of oil and gas internalize. 197 Still, Texas is an example of how states can
promote technological innovation. For example, Texass specific regulations oriented at mobile
produced water recycling technologies have promoted the development of this technology. 198 When
these regulations were adopted in 2006, the mobile produced water recycling sector was in its infancy.
199 However, Texas rules were flex- ible in allowing operators to use pilot projects to demonstrate the
viability of projects and in comparison to states that failed to address produced water recycling directly,
Texas specific rules encouraging new technologies provided nec- essary transparency to industry to
allow for deployment of various technologies. 200 Now, because of its demonstrated application in
Texas, hydrocarbon wastewater recycling is firmly established in many other parts of the U.S. and the
world. 201 Further, Texas has adapted its regulations to pro- mote on-lease recycling operations
targeting the encourage- ment of reuse of water by operators in future HF operations, which is an
emerging use of recycled water. 2. Diversity of State Approaches Professors Adelman and Engel note
that the ability of states to adopt tailored policies to their jurisdictions can promote technology
innovation in the context of climate change policy. 202 For example, they note that different states
have encouraged varying renewable energy innovation based on the particular renewably energy
sources available in any given state. For example, California may encourage solar innova- tion, while
Texas can focus on wind and West Virginia on clean coal. 203 Similar variation in technological
innovation in produced water recycling is currently occurring at the state level. 204 Wyoming
regulations can specifically encourage technolo gies focusing on discharges for irrigation and agricultural
use, while Pennsylvanias de facto zero discharge policy may encourage reuse in HF and Colorado can
distinguish between CBM-produced water reuse and HF reuse with shale. 205 Indeed, Wyoming strongly
resisted EPAs proposed development of ELGs for the CBM sector out of fear that regional
determinations of best-professional judgment would be displaced by EPA national standards. 206 In
produced water recycling context, local water rights issues, water availability, and potential reuses are
paramount. 207 As Wyoming noted in response to EPAs plan to develop ELGs for CBM: For an effluent
guideline to be appropriate and useful, the pollutant source must have some common pollutants or
characteristics for which a standard treatment technology would always be effective and necessary. Our
experience has been that CBM produced water quality varies greatly by location and depth to the coal
seam. In some areas the water is relatively uncontaminated and may be discharged directly without
treatment. In other areas there may only be a problem with iron which can be removed with aera- tion.
Sometimes salinity or sodium are problems, in which case ion exchange or reverse osmosis treatment is
appropri- ate treatment. 208 Thus, local conditions may dictate which approach will be most useful to
particular states, both in the CBM sec- tor and broader shale extraction category. States are uniquely
positioned to promote a variety of technology innovations tailored to particular regions. 209
 K2 Environmental policy: innovation
Uncooperative federalism best for environment promotes key tech innovations
Romo 14 arlos R. Romo is an environmental and natural resources attorney in the Austin office of
Baker Botts L.L.P. He has a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and a B.A. in Public Policy
from Stanford University
http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/George%20Washinton%20Journal%20Environm
ental%20%20Energy%20Law%202014%20%28with%20Romo%20HF%20Article%29%20-Final.pdf

Recent legal scholarship on environmental federalism pro- vides a framework for examining proposed
EPA regulation of produced water recycling. Only a small portion of this litera- ture, however, examines
the potential for state resistance to federal regulation to prompt technological innovation . 26 This
Article accordingly explores state approaches to produced water recycling as a case study to
demonstrate how uncoop- erative federalism promotes innovation and diffusion of new
technologies. 27 It highlights the types of regulatory frame- works states have adopted to encourage
recycling of produced water and analyzes how proposed federal regulation under the CWA may stymie
this needed progress . It then suggests how similarly uncooperative approaches could address other
environmental challenges and proposes a framework for identifying those areas best suited to this
approach The Article proceeds in five parts. Part I provides general background on the key legal
considerations supporting the use of produced water recycling. Part II discusses the vari- ous state
regimes that have emerged to regulate the indus- try and the ways in which these approaches have
adapted o encourage water reuse. Part III highlights EPAs proposal to regulate produced water
treatment under the CWA. Part IV reviews some of the new perspectives on environmental federalism,
providing insight into how federalism scholars would view EPAs proposed regulation of this sector.
Finally, Part V analyzes produced water recycling as a case study in uncooperative federalism and,
building from this case study, offers a predictive framework for other environmental chal- lenges that
would benefit from a similar approach. The paper concludes that technological innovation may be a
key, under- explored benefi t of uncooperative federalism and suggests that EPA should carefully
consider states roles when deter- mining how to regulate this sector under the CWA and when
contemplating heightened federal regulation in other areas with regional dynamics such as
conservation of endangered species and climate change adaptation

Uncooperative state dissent CRUCIAL to environmental policymaking

Romo 14 arlos R. Romo is an environmental and natural resources attorney in the Austin office of
Baker Botts L.L.P. He has a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and a B.A. in Public Policy
from Stanford University
http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/George%20Washinton%20Journal%20Environm
ental%20%20Energy%20Law%202014%20%28with%20Romo%20HF%20Article%29%20-Final.pdf

Persistent Remnants of Dual Federalism Federalism scholars have noted that attempts to move beyond
traditional dual federalism conceptions of proper federal and state jurisdiction have been
unsuccessful. 171 For instance, Professor Schapiro recognizes that the states dis- sonance is a key
component of any new theory of federalism and his vision of a polyphonic federalism is perhaps the
most descriptive of both the existing dynamic between state and federal actors and the dissension
among the states in implementing federal regulation. 172 Others have argued that a bimodal
framework that acknowledges the interaction between states and federal regulators but adopts
remnants of the dual federalism is more representative. 173 The irony of the movement to adopt a
dynamic theory of federalism is that, while it purports to be a more accurate description of how federal
state relations work in practice, it largely overlooks the substantial tension between state and federal
actors in implementing environmental regulation. In the case of Professor Engels approach, the benefits
of dynamic federalism may only be successfully harnessed if a preemption presumption is adopted. 174
Professor Engel notes that the current preemption doctrines used by the courts must be changed if
states are to have sufficiently free reign to develop policy solutions. 175 The fact remains that
significant tension still exists between states and federal regulators in the arena of envi- ronmental
regulation. 176 Even under pollution control laws presented as pillars of cooperative federalism ,
there has been significant discord in recent years between states and EPA over state flexibility to
implement the Clean Air Act. 177 For example, Texas and Utah have both fiercely fought EPA approvals
and disapprovals of state implementation plans in both the Fifth Circuit and Tenth Circuit. 178 This type
of state dissent is one manifestation of what scholars have termed uncooperative federalism . C.
Uncooperative Federalism Within the new environmental federalism field, there is increasing
recognition that state dissonance is a powerful force worthy of further theoretical and practical
explora- 171. See Schapiro, supra note 165, at 248 (2005) (noting that [s]cholars have at- tempted to
develop coherent replacements for dualist visions of federalism, but have not succeeded.). 172. Id. at
249. 173. See Blake Hudson, Reconstituting Land-Use Federalism to Address Transitory and Perpetual
Disasters: The Bimodal Federalism Framework, 2011 BYU L. Rev. 1991 (2011). 174. See Engel, supra note
164, at 16263. 175. Id. at 163. 176. Id. at 18081. 177. Id. 178. Texas v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 690
F.3d 670, 670 (5th Cir. 2012) (example of a state successfully challenging a SIP disapproval on the
grounds that EPA ignored discretion granted to Texas under its delegated authority under the CAA); U.S.
Magnesium, LLC v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 690 F.3d 1157, 1157 (10th Cir. 2012) (upholding EPAs
disapproval of Utahs affirmative de- fense for shutdowns and maintenance). tion. 179 As Professors
Bulman-Pozen and Gerken emphasize, states can resist federal policy changes even in traditionally
cooperative federalism regimes in which states are servants implementing federal regulation and
policy. 180 Imagining a continuum to describe the ongoing dialogue between states and the federal
government over national policy, Professors Bulman-Pozen and Gerken explain the role of uncoopera-
tive federalism: At one end are the polite conversations and collaborative discussions that cooperative
federalism champions. Unco- operative federalism occupies the remainder of this spec- trumfrom
restrained disagreement to fighting words. Some state contestation is interstitial, occurring in the gaps
left open, deliberately or accidentally, by federal policymak- ers. Other state challenges assume a
stronger form, the insti- tutional equivalent of civil disobedience. 181 Proponents of uncooperative
federalism have noted that there may be various benefits that stem from state-centered dissent. 182
These include promoting the administrative safe- guards of federalism, the states agenda, and
accountabil- ity. 183 But scholars also note that there is a need for more doctrinal and empirical analysis
to more completely map out the value states play in resisting federal policy. 184 The follow- ing Part
uses the regulation of produced water as a possible case study and posits a potential additional
justification for state dissonance, particularly in the environmental field: the promotion of innovative
technology

Best data proves state friction and dissent best for guiding environmental policy
Romo 14 arlos R. Romo is an environmental and natural resources attorney in the Austin office of
Baker Botts L.L.P. He has a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and a B.A. in Public Policy
from Stanford University
http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/George%20Washinton%20Journal%20Environm
ental%20%20Energy%20Law%202014%20%28with%20Romo%20HF%20Article%29%20-Final.pdf

ditional Environmental Arenas Where Uncooperative Federalism May Encourage Technological

Innovation This Article examines produced water recycling as one exam- ple of where uncooperative
federalism can prompt techno- logical innovation. Drawing on the experience from the produced water
recycling sector, there is a need for further exploration of other areas where this benefit could emerge.
There may be three primary characteristics of an environ- mental issue where an uncooperative
approach will encour- age technological innovation: (1) a large number of similar sources; (2) where
local conditions and legal issues predomi- nate; and (3) where innovative technological solutions are
economically incentivized. 227 Within the oil and gas sec- tor, the regulation of air emissions from oil
and gas sources may be an example of where an uncooperative federalism approach could yield
technological innovation. 228 VI. Conclusion The effect of environmental policies on the development
and spread of new technologies may, in the long run, be among the most important determinants of
success or fail- ure in environmental protection. 229 The important role that technological innovation
plays in environmental protection highlights why it is necessary to more closely examine the influence
of federalism on technological innovation. The technological development and regulation of recycling
pro- duced water is an important example of this phenomenon. 230 Emerging technologies to recycle
and reuse oil and gas waste- waters have prompted states to review relevant regulations to ncourage
these promising new methods that reduce water consumption and oilfield wastes. 231 Proposed EPA
regulation of wastewater treatment from CBM and shale gas extraction under the CWA is premised in
part under a theory of federalism, focusing on the lack of con- sistency and accountability in state
regulatory frameworks for 231. See, e.g., Governors Marcellus Shale Advisory Commn, Report 108 (July
22, 2011), available at http://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/MSAC- FinalReport.pdf. the
management of produced water. 232 This Article suggests, however, that diverse state policies may
have one underappreci- ated environmental advantage: encouragement of technological innovation.
The continued exploration of this unconventional method of wastewater management highlights the
potential environmental benefits of uncooperative federalism.
 K2 Environmental policy fed accountability

Uncooperative federalism best promotes accountability and STRICTER environmental

standards
Gerken 5/20/9 J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-environmental-
policy-and.html

Yesterday, according to the New York Times, President Obama "announced tough new nationwide
rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards." Although the New York Times acknowledged
that the federal government was "embracing standards California has sought to enact for years," it
focused largely on national politics and failed to describe the important role that California has played in
pushing the national debate on these issues. Here's what's interesting and counterintuitive about the
story: California was able to push national change not because it possesses independent regulatory
power, but because it plays a subsidiary role in helping administer a larger federal scheme. California,
in other words, had power because it was a servant to the federal government. In a forthcoming article
in the Yale Law Journal, Jessica Bulman-Pozen and I argue that California's efforts are an example of a
larger phenomenon that is underappreciated among law professors: " uncooperative federalism," a
term we use to describe the power states wield because they are federal servants. Uncooperative
federalism is a common phenomenon in federal environmental law and elsewhere. States like
California have used their power as federal servants to nudge, cajole, push, even force the federal
government to engage with them, sometimes even to change its positions. Sometimes states take
advantages of the ties that exist between federal and state officials who work together. Other times
they take advantage of the fact that the federal government needs them to carry out its programs.
Some states rely on persuasion; others rely on outright defiance. In doing so, they enjoy a power that
dissenters outside the system do not possess: these states can't be ignored, precisely because it is a
federal scheme they are administering. Legal scholars tend to ignore this power. Instead, they offer
two quite distinct visions of federal-state relations. The first and most traditional depicts states as rivals
and challengers to the federal government, roles they play because they are independent sovereigns,
making policy separate and apart from the federal system. The competing vision is offered by scholars
of c ooperative federalism . As the moniker suggests, these scholars argue that in most areas state
serve not as autonomous outsiders, but supportive insiders -- servants and allies carrying out federal
policy. But legal scholars have not connected these competing visions to consider how the state's status
as servant, insider, and ally might enable it to be a sometime dissenter, rival, and challenger.
 K2 state climate action xt

Federal inaction spurs state fill-in

Pietro Nivola 2010; Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution, http://www.the-american-
interest.com/articles/2010/03/01/rebalancing-american-federalism/

But wait. In confronting the most formidable challenge of the day, global climate change , which
policymakers have been the true leaders, those in the states or those in Washington? As Barry G. Rabe,
a political scientist at the University of Michigan, first reported in an impressive book published in 2004,
the states had jumped way out ahead of the Feds.9 Observers of environmental policy today need to
catch up with that inconvenient truth: At the end of 2008, a majority of states28 out of fiftyhad
adopted renewable energy mandates to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. The nations leading producer
of wind power is Texas (thanks in large part to a renewable portfolio standard signed into law in 1999 by
then-Governor George W. Bush). California, followed by some other states, has adopted automotive
tailpipe emission standards far tougher than any regulatory targets enacted by Congress (like those of
the deeply flawed Corporate Average Fuel Economy regime). Currently, 23 states have begun banding
together to form three multi-state regional zones for carbon-trading. At least one of these compacts,
the so-called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) organized by ten states in the Northeast, is a
model cap-and-trade program. Unlike the recent bills being contemplated on Capitol Hill, RGGI comes
replete with an auction system for carbon allowances and a relatively stiff price per ton of carbon. Back
to the Laboratories The amount of creative state-level innovation going on in the environmental field
seems counterintuitive: In a world of freeriders, what could possess so many states to join a race to the
top? The simple answer is that, during periods of relative Federal inaction, the states in modern times
have tended to compensate. But whatever the full story is, the effect extends beyond climate and
clean air policy: In several other significant areas, too, state experimentation has been more interesting
in some respects than what Congress has put on offer.
 K2 Climate: Mass v epa module

Uncooperative federalism model crucial to EXTENDING Mass v EPA

Widman 10 Legal Director, Center for Justice & Democracy. Former law clerk to the Hon. Theodore H. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge,
Southern District of New York. J.D., cum laude, New York University, 2002; B.A., Northwestern University, 1996 Copyright (c) 2010 Yale Law &
Policy Review Yale Law & Policy Review Fall, 2010 Yale Law & Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165 LENGTH: 19721 words ARTICLE:
Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer
Product Safety and Improvement Act of 2008

Massachusetts v. EPA In 2007, the Supreme Court issued a decision that radically altered standing
doctrine: Massachusetts v. EPA. n182 Finding that the states and cities bringing the suit had standing to
challenge the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Court went on to allude to an
imbalance in administrative law. n183 The Court also found that greenhouse gases from new vehicle
emissions were indeed covered under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA was required either to regulate
them or offer a reasonable argument for why it would not do so. n184 It is clear the Court expanded
state standing to challenge agency inaction in this case. n185 In affording a "special solicitude" to
Massachusetts, the Court acknowledged that the state had relinquished "certain sovereign
prerogatives" to the federal government. n186 This transfer of power requires the federal government
[*202] to protect the states by regulating air pollutants that endanger the health and welfare of the
states' citizens. The absence of regulation at the federal level creates a procedural right n187 to
challenge agency action as arbitrary and capricious - a means of vindicating "Massachusetts' stake in
protecting its quasi-sovereign interests." n188 It is important for the state to be able to challenge the
decisions of federal agencies not to promulgate regulations, especially in the area of consumer
protection. Scholars have argued that that right realizes public goods, n189 promotes a more balanced
view of federalism, n190 and checks excessive preemption. n191 Other scholars have pointed out the
connection between preemption and expanded state standing, arguing that by aggressively preempting
state common-law remedies as well as state statutes, the agencies themselves may have given rise to
the state's injury and therefore the ability of the state to challenge agency inaction. n192 Whatever the
precise benefits, expanded state standing is an important response to the recent weakening of agencies
as well as the federalization of consumer protection. [*203] It is also noteworthy that the Court chose to
focus on a state's standing to challenge an agency's decision not to regulate rather than more traditional
administrative law doctrines such as the level of deference to afford such a decision. n193 The Court
underscored exactly the types of federalism concerns raised by agency inaction - in particular, the
inadequacy of federal oversight of federal agencies - rather than avoiding the federalism concern and
instead focusing on a more administrative-oriented correction through greater scrutiny of agency
action. n194 This language in the opinion connects the Court and Congress in their attempt to find a
federalism balance in administrative law, and reflects the uncooperative federalism impulse
specifically . n195 However, Massachusetts v. EPA is only one recent case, and it is unclear how any
new standing rule will be applied in the future. n196
Upholding Mass v EPA biggest internal link to climate
Galoerub 11 (*Josh, "US Supreme Court RUling Highlights the Importance of EPA Climate RUles," Clean Energy,
blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/06/20/us-supreme-court-ruling-highlights-the-importance-of-epa-climate-rules/)

The Environmental Protection Agency is imbued with significant authority to limit climate pollutants,
according to the United States Supreme Court, but it must remain vigilant against political pressure
lest we lose our best defense against the growing levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier today
the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its 2007 ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause global climate change. Unlike
the 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, however, todays decision does have a downside. The Court
also determined that because EPA has the authority to control GHGs, a lawsuit against major carbon
emitters, which asked a federal court to establish GHG emission limits, cannot proceed. While the
immediate outcome of this case is disappointing, it highlights and affirms the broad authority that EPA
has to slow global climate change, it sends a warning to certain politicians that gutting EPAs authority
could backfirein the form of more, not less regulationand it should serve as a reminder that
advocates for action on climate change must continue to provide support for EPAs ongoing
rulemakings. Todays ruling comes from a lawsuit filed in 2004. At that time, eight states, New York
City, and several private, not-for-profit land trusts sued the five largest carbon dioxide emitters in the
country: American Electric Power, Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Cingergy Corporation and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. The plaintiffs argued that these five polluters collectively emitted 650
million tons of carbon dioxide annually, accounting for 2.5 percent of all human emissions or 25% of
emissions from the electric power sector. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs urged that federal common
law provided them with protection from the harms associated with climate change, for example, rising
sea levels, increased risk of severe weather events, and human health threats. Common law is the law
that is not written into statutes and constitutions, but is slowly developed over the course of time,
tracing civil customs through court decision. Based on this source of law, the plaintiffs argued that the
court should fashion specific carbon emission limits to stop the power companies from contributing to
climate change. The Supreme Court today ruled that the states, New York City and the land trusts could
not bring their lawsuit under the federal common law because Congress empowered EPA to take
responsibility for regulating climate change. To use the legal terminology, the Court decided that any
arguments under the common law are displaced by the Clean Air Act, which gives EPA authority to
regulate GHGs and limit climate change. The obvious downside of this ruling is that the plaintiffs lost
their case, meaning that one tool for slowing climate changefederal common lawis no longer
available. But this decision also has far reaching positive implications. During the administration of
President George W. Bush, EPA argued that it did not have authority to regulate GHGs. In 2007 the
Supreme Court ruled that EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs. That ruling was controversial to
some, including justices on the Supreme Court. There was a very real possibility that in todays ruling,
the Court would undermine EPAs authority. Instead, the ruling strongly and explicitly supported EPAs
legal mandate to limit GHGs. In fact, in unanimous agreement, the Supreme Court explained that EPAs
authority to regulate GHGs is the reason that the common law argument fails. The unanimity of this
logic is important because in 2007 four justices (Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) all disagreed, saying
that EPA did not have authority to regulate GHGs. In todays ruling the same justices concurred that
common law was not a valid tool specifically because Congress empowered EPA, rather than courts, to
take the lead in GHG regulation. Justices Alito and Thomas made a special note in which they said that
they were not necessarily agreeing that EPA has authority to regulate GHGs, but since none of the
parties to the case argued otherwise, they would accept EPA authority only for the sake of argument.
Notably, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia did not qualify their opinions in the same way,
suggesting that they now agree with EPAs authority. Regardless of the opinions of each justice
individually, this case directly and strongly supports EPAs authority over GHGs and reaffirms the 2007
case of Massachusetts v. EPA . The fact that the Supreme Court relied exclusively on EPA authority
means that if members of Congress succeed in their attempts to de-fund or de-authorize EPAs efforts to
slow climate change, then these anti-EPA officials may find that they have hurt their position more than
they have helped it. Critics would like to prohibit EPA from carrying out the suite of climate safeguards
that EPA is currently developing. Ironically, if these critics succeed in their efforts, then the basis of
todays Court ruling fades. If Congress removes EPAs GHG authority, then EPA rules will no longer
displace the federal common law and courts may be authorized to issue their own rulings. Utilities and
anti-EPA members of Congress must prefer consistent rules coming from EPA than disparate and
unpredictable rules coming individually out of different courts across the county. Utilities like certainty.
The degree of certainty that EPA provides is much higher than the patent uncertainty that utilities would
face if EPA lost its authority and courts took on the responsibility to protect individuals from a changing
climate. And make no mistake about it, as the impacts of a changing climate grow it will be impossible
for courts to legally abstain from filling the void that would open if EPA could not address greenhouse
gas pollution. Perhaps the most important implication of todays ruling in American Electric Power v.
Connecticut is not that EPA has authority, or even that the utilities would be best served by supporting
said authority, but that EPA is the single most important battleground in the effort to achieve
significant GHG reductions and slow the changing climate. We have seen that Congress does not have
the political will to take on climate change, and the courts are not fully equipped or permitted. Only
EPA is clearly authorized and sufficiently expert . EPA has proposed a number of rules that would help
slow GHG emissions, from the Best Available Control Technology Tailoring Rule to the New Source
Performance Standards for new and existing power plants. These rules are a start, but they are not a
solution. There must be strong support for the rules that exist and will soon be proposed, but there
must also be continued pressure on EPA to progress beyond these early steps. EPA, like Congress, is
subject to political whims and political pressure. For instance, EPA recently announced that it would
delay until September the New Source Performance Standards that should be proposed in July. Not only
must we remain dedicated to helping EPA develop strong and protective rules, we must also remain
focused on reminding EPA that these rules cannot wait. If nothing else, the United States Supreme
Court has sharpened this focus and highlighted that at least for now EPA is the best hope for
combating climate change.
 K2 disaster response

Disaster management is screwed by COOPERATIVE federalism

Wells 7 noch H. Crowder Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law.,
http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=facpubs

How is it that the federal government can possess yet credibly claim (at least superficially) to be
deprived of the very power that it needs to act in disaster response and relief situations? One would
think that the inher- ent contradiction in such a state of affairs makes obvious the flaw in the federal
government's arguments. Much of the answer to this conundrum lies in the system of " cooperative
federalism " upon which our disaster re- lief and preparedness programs are built. Unlike traditional
dual federal- ism, which envisions distinct spheres of authority, cooperative federalism involves a
system in which the federal, state, and local governments share authority . This scheme of governance
aims to carry out federal policy and gives state and local governments some minimal federal guidance
while al- lowing them the adaptability to implement programs as they see fit. 8 While cooperative
federalism offers great flexibility and benefit to all involved, it is also subject to manipulation and abuse
by federal officials. With programs created under this system, federal officials can pay lip ser- vice to
federalist principles while nevertheless retaining (or consolidating) substantial power and imposing
substantive policy on other governmental entities. Because such programs are thought of as
"federalist," problems that arise can then be blamed on states or localities rather than seen as missteps
of the federal government. The aftermath of the Katrina relief effort reveals such manipulation by
federal officials-e.g., in their claims to have been hamstrung by federalism when they actually had
substantial au- thority to act. Given this potential for manipulation, society should be wary of calls by
federal officials for substantial centralization of authority simply because "federalism" failed. Decisions
to alter the federal govern- ment's role in disaster relief and response should occur in the context of a
concrete assessment of the Katrina relief effort's flaws rather than in re- sponse to vague assertions of
failed principles

Cooperative federalism crushes disaster responses blame shifting and covert

centralization
Wells 7 noch H. Crowder Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law.,
http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=facpubs

As with the other problems identified above, these are not issues that inherently result from the lack of
centralized authority, but rather from human error associated with implementation of a system built on
federalism. Nothing suggests that jettisoning the existing framework of federalism is necessarily the
correct remedy to such problems. The Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina does,
however, highlight some of the potential perils of cooperative federalism programs. On the one hand,
having multiple levels of government provide disaster relief and response services may be both
necessary and beneficial in that it provides a protective redundancy. n95 But such benefits do not
always occur. Critics of cooperative federalism programs argue that their format of "shared political
responsibility" make it increasingly difficult for citizens to "finger the culprits for government ... train-
wrecks ." n96 In a sense, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible, and it becomes difficult
to know which government officials are at fault for problems that result from cooperative federalism
programs. As a result, officials can more easily shift blame - a phenomenon that was reflected in the
federal government's response to Katrina. The cooperative federalism at the core of disaster relief
and response efforts allowed the federal government to focus blame elsewhere rather than on its own
failings. Although ultimately unsuccessful on many levels, the White House succeeded in convincing the
House and Senate to pass legislation giving the President authority over the National Guard in certain
circumstances involving natural disasters. n97 There is little evidence that such a law is necessary or
justified by the events that unfolded during Katrina. In fact, most of the investigatory findings suggest
the opposite. But the Bush administration was able to point to Governor Blanco's refusal to voluntarily
allow federal military officials to command Louisiana National Guard troops to bolster its claim that
federalism hindered the federal government's response. n98 Despite the fact that myriad other
problems [*144] led to the ineffective military response, including poor preparation and execution by
federal officials, the ability to legitimately claim that federalism was at fault eased the bill's passage
through Congress. The events of Hurricane Katrina may also reflect the concerns of those who fear that
cooperative federalism programs will concentrate authority in the federal government. n99 There is
little question that state and local governments implement national policy regarding disaster response
and rescue. In fact, the federal government makes clear the importance of having a national policy, n100
especially via such tools as the NRP. To be sure, states and localities have some discretion to implement
that plan, but conditional funding grants require fairly rigid adherence to federal standards. n101
Furthermore, state and local authorities had little input into the original development of the NRP.
n102 As the federal government increasingly focused disaster response on terrorism after 9/11, n103
coupled with its enlarged law enforcement and surveillance powers generally, one could rightfully
wonder whether concerns regarding federal concentration of power had merit.
Case Neg
 No Spillover to Coop Federalism

Aff author says no federalism spillover

Robinson 15 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting
Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959 (2015). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7

In offering a theory for how education federalism should be restructured to strengthen the federal role
over education, and thus reduce reliance on states to ensure equal access to an excellent education, I
build upon Yale Law Professor Heather Gerkens argument that federalism theory should eschew
advancing a single theory for all occasions because [b]oth in theory and practice . . . there are many
federalisms, not one.39 She astutely contends that scholars developing and critiquing federalism
theory should consider the appropriate balance of institutional arrangements for a specific
context .40 Therefore, my theory for how education federalism should be restructured does not
attempt to propose a federalism theory for other policymaking arenas such as environmental law or
healthcare policy. Instead, it solely proposes a shift in the balance of federal, state, and local authority
in order to strengthen the federal role in ensuring equal access to an excellent education while
preserving the aspects of state and local autonomy over education that do not undermine equal access
to an excellent education.
 Aff TF Long

Autor concedes TF is long

Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

These and similar efforts respond to the reality that "it's difficult to get people excited about modest,
gradual improvement. And it takes courage even to try. ' 2 55 The public also could misread an
incremental federal approach to influencing state school funding as a signal that reforming state
systems is not important or impactful.

Nevertheless, it is important to resist promises of a quick fix of state school funding systems that would
only engender backlash when quick results are not forthcoming. In reality, funding mechanisms are
deeply entrenched within state education systems and they have created longstanding beneficiaries
who will vehemently oppose change. Therefore, the initiation of any federal involvement in
encouraging state reform of their funding systems must acknowledge that relatively slow but steady
progress will provide the only means for lasting change.
 AT Populism 1st line

Redistribution INCREASES support for rightwing populism

Beauchamp 3/13/17 https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism Zack writes
about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that,
contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum

On November 20, less than two weeks after Donald Trumps upset win, Bernie Sanders strode onto a
stage at Bostons Berklee Performance Center to give the sold-out audience his thoughts on what had
gone so disastrously wrong for the Democratic Party. Sanders had a simple answer. Democrats, he said,
needed to field candidates who would unapologetically promise that they would be willing to stand up
with the working class of this country and ... take on big-money interests. Democrats, in other words,
would only be able to defeat Trump and others like him if they adopted an anti-corporate, unabashedly
left-wing policy agenda. The answer to Trumps right-wing populism, Sanders argued, was for the left to
develop a populism of its own. Thats a belief widely shared among progressives around the world. A
legion of commentators and politicians, most prominently in the United States but also in Europe, have
argued that center-left parties must shift further to the left in order to fight off right-wing populists
such as Trump and Frances Marine Le Pen. Supporters of these leaders, they argue, are motivated by a
sense of economic insecurity in an increasingly unequal world; promise them a stronger welfare state,
one better equipped to address their fundamental needs, and they will flock to the left. [Its] a kind of
liberal myth, Pippa Norris, a Harvard political scientist who studies populism in the United States and
Europe, says of the Sanders analysis. [Liberals] want to have a reason why people are supporting
populist parties when their values are so clearly against progressive values in terms of misogyny, sexism,
racism. The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states
tend to have stronger far-right movements. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic
security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and immigration or, more precisely, it
doesnt do it powerfully enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what its in their wallet
and more about who may be moving into their neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs. THE
DATA ACTUALLY SUGGESTS COUNTRIES WITH MORE ROBUST WELFARE STATES TEND TO HAVE
STRONGER FAR-RIGHT MOVEMENTS. Take Britains Labour Party, which swung to the populist left by
electing Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist who has proposed renationalizing Britains rail system, as its leader in
2015. The results have been disastrous: the Brexit vote in favor of leaving the European Union,
plummeting poll numbers for both Corbyn and his party, and a British political scene that is shifting
notably to the right on issues of immigration and multiculturalism. The US faces even sharper pressures,
as much of the public sees social spending in highly racialized terms a phenomenon without
parallel in the rest of the Western world. A more populist Democratic platform might rally more voters
to Trump, as many whites will see it as a giveaway to undeserving minorities. Illegal immigrant
households receive far more in federal welfare benefits than native American households, Trump
wrote in a 2016 Facebook post. I will fix it.
European data proves leftwing econ cant resolve right populist impulses
Beauchamp 3/13/17 https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism Zack writes
about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that,
contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum

This creates a puzzle: Why did voters who by and large benefit from social democracy turn against the
parties that most strongly support it? Its a hard question to answer if you believe people cast their
ballots principally on the basis of their perceived economic interests. European social democrats have
been proposing ideas that more objectively speak to the material interests of voters, particularly in the
working class, for decades. In virtually every country in Western Europe, however, it hasnt been enough
to help the parties maintain their historic levels of public support. Ironically, that could be because the
European left is the victim of its own success. Ronald Inglehart, an eminent political scientist at the
University of Michigan, argues that the combination of rapid economic growth and a robust welfare
state have provided voters with enough economic security that they could start prioritizing issues
beyond the distribution of wealth issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and, most crucially,
immigration. So its not that European social democrats failed to sell their economic message, or that
economic redistribution became unpopular. Its that economic issues receded in importance at the
same time as Europe was experiencing a massive, unprecedented wave of nonwhite, non-Christian
immigration. That, in turn, brought some of the most politically potent nonmaterial issues race,
identity, and nationalism to the forefront of Western voters mind. How comfortable were they,
really, with multicultural, multifaith societies? The traditional social democratic message didnt really
speak to these cultural anxieties. But the rights did. Social democracy failed to stop the far right Jean-
Marie (L) and Marine Le Pen, two generations of French far-right leaders. (Javier Zarracina/Vox) In 1972,
right around when Europes social democrats were reaching their continent-wide apex, French firebrand
Jean-Marie Le Pen founded a new political party called the Front National (FN). It was a populist party,
one that argued that ordinary people were being exploited by a corrupt class of cosmopolitan elites.
They were also authoritarian, constantly warning of the dangers of crime and the need for a harsh state
response. In 1984, the FN had an electoral breakthrough, winning about 11 percent of the French
national vote in the European Parliament elections. It had done so through a pioneering strategy of
attacking nonwhite immigration without overtly making arguments for white Christian superiority a
kind of racism-without-racism that appealed to voters fears about cultural change (and, later,
terrorism) without making the kind of nakedly racist arguments that had been delegitimized by the
Nazis. This was the birth of the modern far right a continent-wide political movement that reinvented
white identity politics for the post-Hitler age. In 1986, Jrg Haider a firebrand who once praised Hitler
for having a "proper employment policy" took over Austrias Freedom Party (FP), transforming it
into a xenophobic party along the FNs lines. In 1999, the FP came in second in Austrias parliamentary
elections, joining a government led by the center-right Peoples Party. In 2001, a Dutch sociology
professor named Pim Fortuyn launched a new political movement oriented entirely around opposition
to Muslim immigration. By 2002, Fortuyns new party, the Pim Fortuyn List, was second in the national
polls momentum halted only by Fortuyns assassination at the hands of a left-wing extremist. These
parties had no unified economic message. Some, like the FN, developed something called welfare
chauvinism an economic platform fairly similar to that of social democrats, but paired with an idea
that immigrants should be excluded from receiving these benefits. Others, like the FP, took a line more
similar to Europes conservatives, arguing for cuts to government spending and taxes. This difference on
economics didnt really seem to affect their successes . Research by Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, a professor
at the University of Bergen, finds European voters views on immigration policy were a near-perfect
predictor of their likelihood of supporting their countrys far-right party. Views on the welfare state, by
contrast, werent especially correlated with likelihood of supporting the far right, as you can see on the
below chart: (Javier Zarracina/Vox) What this suggests, then, is that a partys stance on economics isnt
very important to right-wing populist voters. People choose to back those parties because they want
someone to shut down immigration and restrict the rights of Muslims, not because of those parties
stances on trade or welfare spending.

Racism turns populism racist white people get madder at plan

Beauchamp 3/13/17 https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism Zack writes
about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that,
contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum

The bigger issue is that Americas welfare state is weak for the same fundamental reason that Donald
Trump captured the Republican nomination in the first place: racial and cultural resentment. That
profoundly complicates efforts to make left-wing populism successful in America. In 2001, three scholars
at Harvard and Dartmouth Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote found that the
higher the percentage of black residents in a state, the less its government spent on welfare payments.
Javier Zarracina/Vox This, they hypothesized, was not an accident. People are only willing to support
redistribution if they believe their tax dollars are going to people they can sympathize with. White
voters, in other words, dont want to spend their tax dollars on programs that they think will benefit
black or Hispanic people. The United States is marked by far more racial division than its European
peers. Poverty, in the minds of many white Americans, is associated with blackness. Redistribution is
seen through a racial lens as a result . The debate over welfare and taxes isnt just about money, for
these voters, but rather whether white money should be spent on nonwhites. Hostility between races
limits support for welfare, Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote conclude flatly in the paper. Now, its been a
decade and a half since this paper was published, so its possible the evidence has shifted. I called up
Sacerdote to ask him whether any subsequent research has caused him to change his mind. His answer
was firmly negative. Its almost sad that its held up so well, he told me. Another study, by Korea
Universitys Woojin Lee and Yales John Roemer, used data from the American National Election Studies
(ANES) to identify the percentage of white voters who express high levels of racial antagonism in the
United States. They then use this to build a statistical model of American elections that, roughly,
attempts to measure what percentage of the Republican and Democratic vote can be attributable to the
parties differing opinions on racial, economic, and other issues and to what extent racial attitudes
negatively impact white voters views of economic redistribution. Lee and Roemer found that if racism
played no role in determining whom Americans voted for, and people voted only on the basis of other
cultural and economic preferences, the Democratic vote share between 1976 and 1992 would have
increased dramatically. The average national income tax rate, they estimate, would be 11 to 18 points
higher, as voters would be more willing to use taxes to finance a European-style welfare state. Voter
racism, they conclude, pushes both parties in the United States significantly to the right on economic
issues. The upshot is that a significant shift to the left on economic policy issues might fail to attract
white Trump supporters, even in the working class. It could even plausibly hurt the Democrats
politically by reminding whites just how little they want their dollars to go to those people. One can
only imagine what Trump would tweet. Indeed, this kind of politics not-so-subtly manipulating racial
grievances to undercut support for social spending has been practiced by Republicans and
conservative Democrats for decades. Ronald Reagan, for example, famously used the specter of the
welfare queen an (implied) black woman who lived lavishly by manipulating the welfare system
as a rationale for his budget cuts. What Reagan had succeeded in doing was tarnishing liberalism as a
giveaway to people of color, Ian Haney Lpez, a professor at UC Berkeley who studies race and
American politics, says. Investment in our cities, investment in our schools, investment in social welfare
programs, all of that was branded as giveaway to undeserving minorities. The uncomfortable truth is
that Americas lack of a European-style welfare state hurts a lot of white Americans. But a large number
of white voters believe that social spending programs mostly benefit nonwhites. As such, they oppose
them with far more fervor than any similar voting bloc in Europe. In this context, tacking to the left on
economics won't give Democrats a silver bullet to use against the racial resentment powering Trump's
success. It could actually wind up giving Trump an even bigger gun . If Democrats really want to stop
right-wing populists like Trump, they need a strategy that blunts the true drivers of their appeal and
that means focusing on more than economics.
 AT Populism xt
Econ improvement improve far right outcomes - Arzheimer study
Beauchamp 3/13/17 https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism Zack writes
about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that,
contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum

Kai Arzheimer, a professor at Germanys University of Mainz, studied data on working-class voters, the
traditional base of social democratic parties, between 1980 and 2002. He found that the stronger the
welfare state, the bigger the gains for far-right parties among the working class. The top third of
countries that is, the ones with the largest welfare states saw roughly four times the rate of far-
right support among the working class as the countries in the bottom third did. You see a similar sort of
pattern inside countries. Right-wing populists typically have gotten their best results in wealthier areas
of countries that is, with voters who experience the least amounts of economic insecurity. ts
important to bear in mind that the rise of the far right isnt solely, or even mostly, the result of social
democratic decline. The far right has pulled in some working-class voters, but most of its supporters are
petty bourgeoisie (like shopkeepers) or low-educated, fairly high-income people (like successful
plumbers). Swaying these voters through economic proposals will be difficult. They [social democrats]
shouldnt be purely focused on winning back the voters who went to the radical right, because when
push comes to shove, a significant part of that electorate is deeply nativist, Cas Mudde, a scholar of the
European far right at the University of Georgia, tells me. They want a party that is nativist; the only way
to win them back is pretty much by becoming radical right or radical right-light. Or, as Arzheimer put it
in an interview: I cant really believe that it is possible to beat the populists in terms of populism.

Election data proves econ redistribution doesnt check right populism

Beauchamp 3/13/17 https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism Zack writes
about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that,
contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum

You might expect things to be a bit different in the United States. The American welfare state has always
been weaker than its counterparts around the West. Correspondingly, you see the highest rates of
inequality in the developed world, with 3 million American children living on less than $2 a day and a
health care system that ranks dead last in the respected Commonwealth Funds measures of
performance among 11 developed countries. Its a level of material suffering that, you might think,
should be to be fertile ground for left-wing populism. The working class of this country is being
decimated. That's why Donald Trump won, Bernie Sanders said in his Boston speech. We need all of
those candidates and public officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy. That is the fight of
today. Theres at least suggestive evidence, as my colleague Andrew Prokop writes, that Sanders
misread the election results that embracing left-wing populism wont, in fact, win over Trump
voters. Take a look at results from several pivotal Senate races. In two Midwestern states, Wisconsin
and Ohio, Democrats ran Sanders-esque populists former Sen. Russ Feingold and Gov. Ted
Strickland, respectively. Both lost by a wider margin than Hillary Clinton did in their state. By contrast,
the Democratic candidates who most outperformed Clintons statewide results Missouris Jason
Kander and Indianas Evan Bayh ran as economic centrists.

CULTURE not ECONOMIC INEQUITY drives right populism -Norris and Inglehardt study
Florida 3/27/17 https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/what-is-really-behind-the-populist-surge/519921/ Richard Florida is a co-
founder and editor at large of CityLab and a senior editor at The Atlantic. He is the director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of
Toronto and Global Research Professor at New York University.

It seems something has gone awry in the West. The question of whats fueling this populist uprising
often centers on the issue of economic anxieties, but political scientists Ronald Inglehart of the
University of Michigan and Pippa Norris of Harvards Kennedy School of Government have arrived at
another answer. Anatomy of a movement In a detailed study, the researchers take close look at the
rise of populism across Europe and the United States. They follow the political theorist Cas Mudde in
defining populists has sharing three key characteristics. They are anti-establishment, having faith in
plain talkers and ordinary people as opposed to the corrupt establishment of business,
government, academia, and media. They are authoritarian, favoring strong leaders over democratic
institutions and traditions. They are nativist, putting their nation first. Across Europe, the share of votes
going to populist parties has more than doubled since the 1960s from 5.1 percent to 13.2 percent by
2012; the share of seats held by populist parties has tripled from 3.8 to 12.8 percent over the same
period. The chart below shows the steady uptick in the share of the vote held by populist parties on
both the right and the left. (Inglehart and Norris) The conventional wisdom, propagated by punditry, is
that populism is the product of the deteriorating economic conditions, deepening inequality, and rising
economic anxiety among the blue-collar working class. Once-high-paying manufacturing jobs have
disappeared as a consequence of automation and outsourcing to lower-wage locations like China and
Mexico. According to this account, the collapse of manufacturing and the rise of the knowledge
economy give populist movements an opportunity to turn economic insecurity into political
advantagethe classic winners vs. losers framework. But thats not the story Inglehart and Norris
advance. They argue that populism is the result of a burgeoning cultural backlash against modern
values of globalism, multicultural tolerance, and openness to diversity. Echoing themes political
theorist Benjamin Barber outlined three decades ago in his 1992 Atlantic story Jihad versus McWorld,
this is a cultural recoil against the cosmopolitan globalist one-two punch of open societies and
open borders. (Inglehart and Norris) Inglehart and Norris analysis takes a close look at these two
theories of the recent growth of populismeconomic insecurity versus cultural backlashusing data on
250 political parties in Europe from 2002 to 2014. The evidence for economic insecurity, they find, is
limited, inconsistent and mixed: If populism was truly driven by economic fears, they reason, populist
candidates should be drawing votes from those who are suffering the most: unskilled workers, the
unemployed, those with lower levels of education, and less advantaged groups in cities and urban
centers. That is not the case. While populist parties get somewhat more support from the white working
class, they do not draw much from other hard-hit groups, especially those in urban areas. Indeed,
support for populism is much stronger among relatively more affluent and educated groups, particularly
the petite bourgeoisie of small business owners (which Marx long ago predicted). Economic issues and
interests have taken a back seat to cultural animosities and conflicts. Furthermore, economic issues
have declined in importance to voters, as cultural issuesaround womens rights, abortion, same-sex
marriage, and gay rightshave risen to the fore. Not to mention, class voting in general has declined
from the 1950s and 1960s, when the working class was a bulwark of support for the political left. By the
1980s and 1990s, class voting had fallen to its lowest levels ever in most European nations. After running
several statistical models using the European Social Survey data from 2002 to 2014, the researchers
conclude that cultural values, combined with certain demographic characteristics, best explain the rise
and extent of populism in Europe. Indeed, the rise in populist support tracks five key cultural values,
according to their research: anti-immigrant sentiment, authoritarianism, mistrust of global national
governance, and right-wing ideological self-placement. Support for populism is concentrated among
white people, older people, men, religious people, and the less educatedgroups that feel most
threatened by the shift to more open cosmopolitan values. [T]he combination of several standard
demographic and social controls (age, sex, education, religiosity and ethnic minority status) with cultural
values can provide the most useful explanation for European support for populist parties, they write.
(Inglehart and Norris) Populism is driven by the reaction against two groups in particularaffluent and
educated urban cosmopolitans who are the bearers of liberal or progressive values, and immigrants who
speak different languages and have different religions. The combination of the two work together to
create and reinforce the belief that traditional norms and values are being eradicated from modern
societies. These findings are in line with Ingleharts longer running interest in and research on the rise
of post-materialist politics , which basically finds that cultural and values-related issues have
replaced materialistic, economic interests as the key lines of cleavage in politics today. The electoral
success of these parties at the ballot box can be attributed mainly to their ideological and issue appeals
to traditional values, they write. The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a
wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western
societies.

US populism is cultural not economic

Florida 3/27/17 https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/what-is-really-behind-the-populist-surge/519921/ Richard Florida is a co-
founder and editor at large of CityLab and a senior editor at The Atlantic. He is the director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of
Toronto and Global Research Professor at New York University.

American populism as cultural backlash These findings are reinforced by a separate study of the rise of
Donald Trump by Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell of the Gallup Organization. Economic
insecurity per se cannot explain Trumpism: His supporters in particular are more affluent and work in
industries that are less exposed to trade. In fact, places with more manufacturing as a share of jobs
provided less support for Trump. At the individual level, Trump support is concentrated among older (45
years of age or older) whites with less education (non-college degrees). Across metropolitan areas, it is
stronger in older, whiter communities that are more segregated and more racially isolated. All these
findings line up with Inglehart and Norris cultural backlash theory. While populists may tend to be
majority white, but do not need to be: Cultural backlash can cut across racial and ethnic lines. Rob Ford
in Toronto for example, drew his support from a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial coalition of
working-class whites and new immigrants who were also angered by the cosmopolitan values of an
urban elite. This cultural recoil is not just the product of angry people; it has a strong geographic or
place-based component. As Bill Bishop pointed out more than a decade ago, America and other
advanced societies have been going through a big sort, where people move to places that reinforce
their perspectives. Those with cosmopolitan values head to cities, while those with traditional, family-
values settle in suburbs and rural areas. The two increasingly separate worlds magnify the political
divide and fuel the rise of populism. This cultural backlash perspective helps us understand why Trump
and other populists are on the rise when their policiesto eliminate health care, shred the social safety
net, and cut taxes on the richbenefit the winners from globalization and work against the economic
interests of the working class. It is because economic issues and interests have taken a back seat to
deeply entrenched cultural animosities and conflicts. Thomas Franks 2004 book-turned-adage Whats
the Matter with Kansas? can now be said to be Whats the matter with America? The surge in global
populism is not reducible to economics. It is about racism, sexism, homophobia, and cultural
backwardness. It is revengenot of the economically insecure, but of the cultural left-behinds. The
solutions that progressives and pundits are fixated on, such as reducing inequality or creating more
middle-class jobs, will be insufficient to stem its rising tide. Political attitudes are shaped by more than
peoples pocketbooksgroups and places voting to restore a fading social order will vote against their
future economic interests precisely because theyre looking backwards.
 Neg AT Debt Default
Their scenario was all talk Mnuchin would never do it
Pianin 3/2/17 http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/03/02/Trump-Could-Face-His-First-Fiscal-Crisis-Over-Raising-Debt-Ceiling
Washington Editor and D.C. Bureau Chief Eric Pianin is a veteran journalist who has covered the federal government, congressional budget and
tax issues, and national politics. He spent over 25 years at The Washington Post.

He said during his Senate confirmation hearing that while defaulting on Americas debts would have
grave worldwide economic consequences, I do not believe that breaching the debt ceiling will
automatically or inevitably lead to that result. Thats because Mulvaney and other conservatives
contend that the government can prioritize its payments, with the biggest and most important
creditor getting paid first while others would have to wait.

However, Mnuchin, the former Goldman Sachs banker and billionaire hedge fund manager, doused the
concerns of lawmakers that Trump and Mulvaney might play games with the debt during his
confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee in January.

It was then that Mnuchin told Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) that he agreed 100 percent that Trump must
never again question Americas willingness to stand by its debt obligation.
 Government Involvement Fails/Democracy Insufficient
Increased government involvement failsthey arent a method of democratic politics
Gilbert 2009 (Jeremy, "Deleuzian Politics? A survey and Some Suggestions", New Formations, EBSCO)
The key question which emerges here is one of the most vexed and contentious in the field of studies of Deleuzian politics: namely,
Deleuze and Guattaris attitude to democracy. While it is quite possible to read in their work an advocacy of that plural radical democracy
which Laclau and Mouffe have also famously advocated,80 it is equally possible to read in Deleuze an aristocratic distaste for democracy
which he shares with Nietzsche and much of the philosophical tradition. This is the reading offered by Phillipe Mengue, and it is not difficult
to understand his argument. Democracy necessarily implies government by majorities , and as we have seen,
majority is, for Deleuze and Guattari, a wholly negative term. Deleuzes express distaste for opinion, for discussion, his consistent
emphasis on the value of the new, the creative and the different, all seem to bespeak an avant-
gardism which is ultimately inimical to any politics of popular sovereignty. On the other hand, as Paul Patton
has argued in response to Mengue,81 most of Deleuzes anti-democratic statements can easily be read as
expressions of distaste with the inadequacy of actually-existing liberal democracy, informed by the
desire for a becoming-democratic which would exceed the self-evident limitations of current arrangements. Taking this
further, I would argue that if any mode of self-government emerges as implicitly desirable from the perspective developed by Deleuze and
Guattari, then it would clearly be one which was both democratic and pluralistic without being subject to the existing limitations of
representative liberal democracy. Deleuzes earlier work may occasionally be characterised by a Nietzschean aristocratic tone. However,
where he expresses anti-democratic sentiments in his work with Guattari, these only ever seem to spring from a commitment to that
Marxian tradition which understands liberal democratic forms to be deeply imbricated with processes of capitalist exploitation.82 When
weighing up the legacy of this tradition today, it is worth reflecting that the degradation of actually existing democracy
under neoliberal conditions in recent decades, especially in the years since the fall of the Berlin wall, has lent much
weight to the hypothesis that a democratic politics which has no anti-capitalist dimension can
only ultimately fail, as the individualisation of the social sphere and the corporate control of
politics progressively undermine the effectiveness of public institutions. From such a perspective, the
problems with existing forms of representative democracy are several. Firstly, in ceding legislative
sovereignty to elected bodies for several years at a time, they rely on the artificial stabilisation of
majorities of opinion along party lines which do not actually express the complexity of popular
desires in any meaningful way. While it is clearly true that democracy as such necessarily demands the temporary organisation of
molarities for the purpose of taking collective decisions, the existing set of relationships between individuals and
parties does not enable these molarities to emerge with sufficient intensity to effect major change:
for example, despite the vehemence of anti-war opinion in the UK in 2003, the government was
effectively at liberty to pursue the invasion of Iraq, safe in the knowledge that this intensity would
disperse before the next general election. At the same time, these relationships do not enable the
emergence of sites of engagement and deliberation which would enable new ideas and practices to
emerge, simply delegating political engagement to a class of professional politicians, journalists,
and policy-specialists whose job is not to innovate, invent and transform existing relations of
power, but to maintain them, and the arrangements which express them. Most crucially, they do not
enable the new forms of collective becoming which a more participatory, decentralised,
molecular democracy would facilitate, preventing any meaningful institutional expression of those
new forms of dynamic, mobile, cosmopolitan collectivity which globalisation makes possible. Instead
they seek to actualise that potential only in the politically ineffectual forms of a universalised
liberalism or banal forms of multiculturalism, two complementary grids which are imposed upon global
flows within the parameters of either the nation state or legalistic supra-national institutions.84 The drive to find new forms of
participative democracy which characterises the leading-edge of contemporary socialist practice,85
and which has informed not only the politics of the social forum movement86 but more broadly the
entire history of radical democratic demands (including, for example, the Chartists demand for annual parliaments, or the
Bolshevik cry for all power to the soviets), surely expresses just this desire for democratic forms not stymied by the apparatuses of
majority and individualisation.
 Current Structures Solve/SQUO Solves
Status-quo localism-based education policies solve
Robinson 2015 (Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Disrupting Education Federalism, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959
(2015)., pp. 967-972. Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7) [NJ]

A. The Benefits of the Current Structure of Education Federalism Historically, the hallmarks of education federalism within the
United States have been decentralized state and local control over public schools and a limited federal
role.41 The constitutional foundations for this approach lie in the omission of education from the purview of federal authority and the Tenth Amendments
reservation of state authority in all areas that the Constitution does not assign to Congress.42 However, education federalism has undergone three substantial
transformations in recent decades. First, the federal role in education has grown exponentially from its original
narrow role. After Brown v. Board of Education, 43 Congress passed several statutes that fostered federal
responsibility for equal educational opportunity, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.44 In the last two decades, Congress has expanded the federal role to encourage higher
standards and greater accountability for the education of all children, most recently through NCLB and
its waivers and the RTTT program.45 Indeed, the current reach of federal influence in education extends
from the classroom to the state capitol. Second, state control over education has risen substantially over
the last half century or more of school reform. School finance litigation and reform encouraged centralization of education authority with
state officials who eventually became the primary funders of public schools.46 States currently contribute 45.2% of school funding

and local government provides 44.6%.47 The federal government provides 10.2% of funds for education48
and this represents an increase in federal education funding over the last decade, although not a steady
increase.49 The increase in the state proportion of funding led to an increase in state authority over schools.50 State-created standards and tests also have
expanded state influence over the curriculum.51 Finally, the third trend necessarily follows from the first two trends. The rise in federal and state

authority over education has led to a substantial decrease in local control of schools for the last half
century.52 Local authority over education is primarily focused on the daily administrative responsibilities for running schools.53 Most local school boards also
may raise funds for public schools through property taxes.54 The nations current approach to education federalism has been

praised for its ability to reap several benefits. For instance, some find this approach superior based upon
Justice Brandeiss view that state and local governments may serve as experimental laboratories that can help to solve the nations economic and social
challenges.55 States
and localities have adopted a diverse array of governance structures for education that
are designed to respond to state and local interests and preferences.56 This decentralization also allows
state and local governments to adopt a variety of curricula, teaching, and learning approaches.57 Some
also praise the current structure of education federalism for its ability to produce the most effective
outcomes. For example, proponents of localism, such as legal theory and local government scholar Gerald Frug, contend that local decision
making can produce more effective policy reforms because those most affected by the decision shape
the reform.58 Others contend that a decentralized approach to education is more effective at identifying the most successful educational methods given the
existing uncertainties regarding how best to educate children.59 Localism also can create an efficient allocation of goods and services.60 Efficiency results from the
ability of local governments to compete for citizens by offering an attractive array of public services.61 Within education, when localities offer diverse learning
options, some citizens can shop for the best schools or relocate so that their children can attend schools that most effectively serves their educational needs.62
Additionally, state and local control over education is commended for its ability to foster greater accountability to citizens.63 Individuals exert greater influence
over local government policy than federal or state government. 64 Local control can enable parents to become involved in and
influence their childs education and school.65 Parents regularly interact with and monitor their childs school and this involvement can
improve student performance.66 This involvement also can foster a stronger community as parents interact with other parents and their children.67 Finally, the

tradition of local control of education remains an important value for many within the American
public.68 Many view state and local control over public elementary and secondary education as a
central component of state and local government.69 While public opinion polls reveal an increasing
comfort with federal involvement in education, the polls continue to indicate that Americans
generally prefer state and local control over education.70 This preference influences the avenues for reconstructing education
federalism that I explore. In addition,
state and local authority over education has resulted in diversity in education
governance that influences how the federal government can impact education.71
 Co-operative Federalism Fails/Plans Method Insufficient
Co-operative federalism failsthe Flint water crisis proves
Konisky 2016 (David Konisky, editor of Failed Promises, discusses the effectiveness of the federal
governments environmental justice policies and response. Feb. 12, 2016.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/blog/flint-federalism-and-environmental-justice-united-states) [NJ]

Three decades of social science research has demonstrated a clear pattern of income and race-based
disparities in the distribution of environmental risks in the United States. Poor and minority communities tend to live
in closer proximity to various types of noxious facilities and contaminated sites, and more often reside in areas with higher pollution burdens.
The unfolding public health crisis in Flint, Michigan is a stark reminder that such disparitiesoften referred to as violations of environmental
justiceare not merely a thing of the past. The circumstances that resulted in the contamination of Flints drinking water supply with lead are
particularly egregious. A financial crisis prompted Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to appoint an Emergency Manager with near complete
control of the city, including its drinking water system. When problems with Flints drinking water began to emerge, following an ill-conceived
and poorly-managed decision to switch the source of the citys water supply, the response from state officials was dismissive. Despite repeated
efforts by local residents, public health officials, and scientists to raise red flags, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) not
only failed to prioritize the issue, but agency officials continued to declare the water safe despite mounting evidence of levels of lead that far
exceeded national standards. No longer having the authority to govern their own city, Flints poor, black, and Democratic-voting majority held
little sway with the Republican state administration, and the problems spiraled to the point of crisis. In
recent weeks, attention in
the Flint case has turned to the assignment of blame. Federal and state officials and politicians are
pointing fingers at each other, and several high-ranking government managers have already resigned or
been forced from their positions. In the months and years to come, investigations will provide some
answers as to what exactly went wrong in Flint. As with most crises of this scale, there will likely be ample blame to go around.
The Flint crisis threatens to put a dark stain on the EPAs recent efforts to restart its environmental justice agenda. For the better part of two
decades, environmental justice has been a backburner issue at the EPA. A number of administrative efforts adopted by the Clinton
Administration in the mid-1990s, including an executive order that required federal agencies to incorporate environmental equity
considerations into their decision-making, have proven mostly symbolic. Recognizing the failure of past policy, the EPA during the Obama
Administration has prioritized the issue. Under the leadership of former Administrator Lisa Jackson and now current Administrator Gina
McCarthy, the EPA developed Plan EJ 2014, which is a comprehensive strategy to incorporate environmental justice into the agencys programs,
policies, and activities. Plan EJ 2014 set outs important new policy and technical guidance regarding federal permitting, rulemaking, and
enforcement. In addition, the agency has made efforts to strengthen technical and organizational capacity in low-income and minority
communities, to provide legal assistance to agency decision-makers on how to better use their existing discretion under environmental
statutes, to develop informational tools and other resources to improve internal decision making, and begun to reform the EPA Office of Civil
Rights to remedy its implementation of Title VI. These efforts are substantial and reflect a genuine attempt by the agency to make
environmental justice considerations a routine component of agency decision-making. Notwithstanding the substantial merits of Plan EJ 2014,
and the genuine effort of the EPA to give greater weight to environmental justice in both the substance and process of agency decision-making,
the Flint case highlights a substantial weakness in the EPAs new strategy. Plan
EJ 2014 delineates new policies and
procedures in federal decision-making, but it does not compel or even strongly encourage state agencies
to do the same. This is a significant flaw, given that the U.S. environmental protection is based on a
model of cooperative federalism in which the federal government (i.e., the EPA) generally sets
standards, but then delegates implementation (e.g., writing permits, performing compliance
inspections, penalizing violations) of these standards to the states. This is the structure of laws such as
the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is the law at
issue in the Flint case. Federal promises to deliver on environmental justice, therefore, are likely to fall well short of achieving their
objectives without a strong commitment by state agencies to also prioritize the issue. This clearly was not the case in Flint. State officials in the
governors office and the MDEQ appear to have callously ignored growing and unambiguous evidence that this poor, African-American
community was facing unnecessary and severe risks from a contaminated water supply. EPA efforts to prod the state were also rebuffed and
met with misinformation. Although the EPA could, and, in retrospect, should have done more to publicly-disclose the extent of the lead
contamination in Flint, the MDEQ was the agency on the frontlines and had the primary responsibility to take corrective action. For
its part,
the EPA must push states to do more. For the cooperative federalism model to work effectively, the EPA
must engage in more vigorous oversight of state agencies, and not just after problems are discovered.
Yet, the EPA has been scolded for decades by policy analysts, government auditors, and even its own
Inspector General for its weak and inconsistent oversight efforts. Absent strong oversight, states have
enormous discretion in how they choose to implement our nations pollution control laws. Some states
use this discretion to establish strong environmental protection programs, while others choose a laxer
approach. The situation in Flint is a tragic reminder of what can happen when states are left to choose their own path. If the EPAs new
strategy on environmental justice is going to be effective, it must find a way to induce states to do more to protect vulnerable communities.

Their co-operative federalism model failsconflicts over state and national interests
would hinder co-operation
Kurzweil 2015 (Martin A. Kurzweil, Disciplined Devolution and the New Education Federalism, 103
Cal. L. Rev. 565 (2015). Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol103/iss3/3) [NJ]

The proliferation of these devolutionary approaches to progressive policy making also bears risks, however.
Most notably, devolving policy-making authority to states without sufficient accountability for their
adherence to federal goals may result in inadequate implementation of the federal policy. That risk is
particularly salient when the federal government seeks to provide a benefit or protect vulnerable
populations that lack political power in the states. For instance, resistance by Republican-led states to the ACAs Medicaid
expansion came at the expense of providing medical coverage to uninsured individuals.87 Further, without strong federal involvement, states
may end up regulating in a way that is in their narrow self-interest but contrary to the broader national interest. For example, devolution raises
the classic concern of a race to the bottom in the provision of social services or regulation of corporate or environmental practices.88
Moreover, although the aforementioned examples of creative policy making serve as an important counterpoint, many state and local
Transferring policy-making responsibility from
government agencies are themselves organized as hidebound bureaucracies.89
the federal bureaucracy to a state or local bureaucracy may result in the same rule-based, compliance-
focused governance. Although disaggregating policy making may result in more differentiation by
jurisdiction, the same problems of uniformity, inflexibility, and street-level arbitrariness may persist
within each jurisdiction. Relatedly, national political disputes are increasingly replicated at the state or
even local levels, further rendering the devolutionary strategy simply a microcosm of the traditional
federal structures dysfunction.90 Furthermore, state and local officials may lack the resources,
perspective, or expertise to address particularly challenging problems. Resource constraints may result
from limited appropriations, an overly broad or burdensome portfolio of responsibilities, or both.
Moreover, state and local officials are likely to be focused on the design and effects of policy in their
jurisdictions, but what makes sense locally may not make sense nationally, because of either externalities or
aggregation problems. In addition to concerns about conflicting local and national incentives, state and local
officials may have little awareness of successes or failures outside their jurisdiction and therefore be
unable to learn from those experiences. And while policy expertise can be built through experience, the
distribution of talent is such that there are undoubtedly state and local offices struggling with policy
problems for which they lack expertise.
DA Links
 Politics Links: Midterms
Kills incumbent lawmakers
Robinson 16 Kimberely Jenkins Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 2016 No QUICK Fix FOR EQUITY AND
EXCELLENCE: THE VIRTUES OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS IN EDUCATION FEDERALISM

An incremental federal strategy to influence state funding systems undoubtedly inflicts costs. First, if an
incremental approach to federal influence upon state education funding is adopted, states and districts
committed to retaining their current systems would gain ample time to develop strategies for avoiding
federal incentives and circumventing federal mandates, just as states, districts, and families
implemented such strategies after the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Brown v. Board of Education
I and H}.233 Beneficiaries of the current funding systems oftentimes have been successful in resisting
comprehensive reforms for decades. This is evidenced by the limited reforms enacted by most
legislatures, even in the face of a plaintiff victory in school finance litigation against the state.2 1 4
Furthermore, districts that are primarily urban and minority have rarely been able to succeed in school
funding litigation and have encountered more strenuous and lengthier legislative delays than victorious
white districts.2 35 The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provides anecdotal evidence that states may
adopt delay tactics when implementing federal legislation. NCLB allowed schools to establish their own
timetable for how they would accomplish 100 percent student proficiency by 2014.36 Some states
required significant annual gains, while other states predicted large gains close to 2014.237 Although
state leaders defended the plans with large, late gains as recognizing the time that reform may take,
others contended that such plans were simply waiting for the NCLB requirements to be revised.2 38
States also were criticized for selecting a high number for the number of students that must be present
for a student subgroup to be counted for school accountability measures (also known as the "n size"),
given that privacy concerns could not justify setting this number at 45, 50, or 75 students as some states
did.23 9 Such actions indicate that states can develop creative measures to circumvent federal funding
conditions while still accepting federal funds.

In addition to local and state-level resistance to reform, it would not be surprising if campaigns are
mounted against those federal lawmakers who vote in favor of meaningful federal reform. This
opposition could be met with evidence regarding the greater benefits that will accrue from providing all
students equal access to an excellent education and the costs of the current disparities in educational
opportunity. However, the electorate often votes contrary to national interests when potential reforms
threaten their benefits from the status quo. Therefore, federal lawmakers must be prepared to respond
effectively to scare tactics and to wealthy donors that oppose reform.