WIND TURBINE TAX CREDITS (Economic Policy)

Questions

Negative Rebuttals

Affirmative Rebuttals

There is currently no federal support for small wind systems. Meanwhile, residential solar systems, which
serve the same market as small wind, receive a 30% investment tax credit.

The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) applies only to large utility-scale wind projects, not to small wind
turbines. Federal support would help broaden the industry on a national scale

Small-Wind Turbines are…

• Purchased by individuals looking to stabilize and reduce their energy costs.
• 100% pollution- and greenhouse gas-free.
• Manufactured almost entirely on U.S. soil and lead the world market share.
• The most cost-competitive renewable technology in its market.
• In demand. But their high upfront costs have been a real barrier for the homeowners
And small businesses wishing to install them.
• Suitable for about 15 million homes and 1 million businesses in America with an acre
or more of property.
The wind energy industry encompasses more than just large, utility-sized turbines; wind
energy comes in small packages as well. A typical residential wind energy system might
be 1-10 kW, measuring perhaps 10-25 feet in diameter, mounted on an 80-foot tower.
Such a system is suitable for meeting the electricity needs of a household, farm, or
small business. Turbines as small as 400 watts, with rotors only 46 inches in diameter,
may be employed for specific purposes such as pumping water (for stock or irrigation)
or running lights and appliances in a home, recreational vehicle, or even a boat.
Wind energy may be set up as a stand-alone system, used to complement a solar
photovoltaic (PV) system, or be interconnected with the utility grid.

On Friday, Oct. 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

of 2008, H.R. 1424 was passed which included a new federal-level
investment tax credit (ITC) for qualified small wind turbines. The ITC
is worth up to $4,000 and available for units installed through 2016.
The U.S. small wind industry projects that the enactment of this
federal credit, combined with a forthcoming equipment certification
program, will provide thousands of new jobs and could foster U.S.
market growth of more than 40 percent annually.

"Cutting edge small wind systems can play an important role in our
efforts to expand the production of clean, homegrown energy," said
Senator Ken Salazar. "These tax credits will provide America's
consumers, small business owners, and farmers and ranchers the
opportunity to bring down their energy costs, while helping to advance
us toward an energy independent future."

Senator Salazar of Colorado and Congressman Earl Blumenauer of

Oregon, long-time champions of renewable energy, played a key role in
fighting for legislation such as H.R. 1424 to be passed. Upon
realizing small wind was not included in similar 2005 legislation,
both Salazar and Blumenauer separately introduced bills into their
respective House governments. Working alongside Salazar and
Blumenauer, Andy Kruse, co-founder of Southwest Windpower, worked hard
to bring this legislation to life and make small wind more accessible
to the general public.

"Since working with me on the Rural Wind Energy Development Act in

2007, through the passage of the credit as part of the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act last week, Andy Kruse and Southwest
Windpower have done a tremendous job demonstrating the many benefits
of small wind," said Blumenauer. "With this tax credit in place, more
consumers around the country will be able to generate their own clean,
renewable energy while at the same time reducing their energy bills."

The new tax credit reduces the cost of residential scale wind
generators making the technology more accessible for consumers. This
includes Southwest Windpower's Skystream 3.7. Launched in late 2006,
Skystream is the first fully integrated backyard-sized,
grid-connected, wind turbine designed for residential use. Depending
on the wind resource, Skystream generates between 30-80 percent of the
power required by a typical home. Early adopters have reported a
savings of more than 50 percent on their energy bills.

"With the new federal tax credits and several State incentives
programs, small wind is now an increasingly more affordable solution
for consumers who want to reduce their environmental impact and their
energy bills," said Kruse.

For years, Kruse and other industry leaders and organizations such
as the American Wind Energy Association, have advocated for a 30
percent federal investment tax credit for small wind systems, 100 kW
and smaller, to put the industry on equal policy footing with the
solar photovoltaic (PV) industry, as the two technologies share the
same market. This also gives consumers a choice of technologies
depending on their wind and solar resources. The broad legislation
passed last Friday also extends and expands a similar credit for the
solar industry. Residential and commercial solar PV installations can
receive a 30 percent credit, for residential applications and uncapped
for commercial uses.

MINNESOTA SHOULD INCREASE TOBACCO TAX (State and Local)

Questions

Negative Rebuttals

The smoking tax increases also bring problems such as smuggling, gang activity and the shuttering of small
retailers.
Some say such estimates are usually wrong. "Evidence shows the revenue increase is not as much as you'd
expect because of erosion in taxable sales," Stenson says.

That's because states often fail to fully take into account money lost from tax avoidance.

Since 2000, 42 states have raised cigarette taxes, according to the Washington-based Federation of Tax
Administrators. The leaders now are Rhode Island at $2.46 a pack and New Jersey at $2.40.

The more important numbers for California are from its border states. In Nevada, the tax is 80 cents a pack.
In Arizona and Oregon, it is $1.18 a pack. That means many of the state's 4 million smokers would be
buying cigarettes over the state line. "People are always going to seek out low-cost cigarettes," says Patrick
Fleenor, chief economist at the Tax Foundation in Washington.

That can hurt California retailers, says Charles Janigian, president of the California Association of Retail
Tobacconists.

Janigian says the increase would force small retailers, particularly cigar and pipe shops, out of business.
Smokers could save by going across the state line. On the Internet they could buy a 10-pack carton for
$34.70 less than what they'd pay in California.

"I call it the doomsday scenario," he says.

"It would drive more and more business to the Internet and to mail-order companies outside the state of
California who are not required to collect and pay tax," Janigian says.

There is another risk when one state's prices are much higher than others'.

A 2004 report by the agency then known as the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, said tax increases on cigarettes open up a lucrative black market to nasty groups looking for
ways to fund their activities.

"As cigarette taxes increase, so do the incentives for criminal organizations, including terrorist
organizations, to smuggle cigarettes into and throughout the United States," the GAO report said.

Steve Remige, president of the union that represents Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies and
investigators, says a big tax increase would allow cigarette smuggling to become a new profit source for
violent gangs. That is why his organization opposes the tax increase.

"This is going to make tobacco products in general an avenue for crime," he says. "It will be another burden
on law enforcement."

Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy have joined forces to establish a new government program to
finance children's health insurance. They propose to fund the program by increasing federal cigarette taxes
from 24 cents to 67 cents per pack - an increase of 43 cents. The Hatch-Kennedy tax promises to raise $30
billion over five years, with $20 billion to go for children's insurance and $10 billion for deficit reduction.

But the Hatch-Kennedy tobacco tax would not achieve its goal of paying for children's insurance and would
hurt those it is intended to help. Here's why.
A False Promise. By promising to pay for children's health insurance with cigarette tax money, Hatch and
Kennedy make a promise to children they cannot keep. How can the government guarantee an adequate
supply of smokers to support children's health insurance in the future? The percentage of Americans who
smoke already has declined dramatically.

• From 1965 to 1990 the average annual rate of people who smoke declined 2.4 percent for men and
1.5 percent for women.

• The percent of teens age 12 to 17 who smoke declined from 25 percent in 1974 to 9.8 percent in
1994.

• Overall, smoking declined from 42.3 percent of the adult population in 1965 to 25 percent in 1993.

That's good news for Americans' health, but it's bad news for those who want to rely on cigarette taxes to
guarantee health insurance coverage for children.
Targeting Vulnerable Populations. The most disturbing problem with the Hatch-Kennedy tax is that it
discriminates against low-income and minority populations. According to the 1991 National Health
Interview Survey, smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, have less than a high school education
and be black, American Indian or Alaska Native. [See Figure I.] For that reason, a tax on tobacco is perhaps
the most regressive of taxes - even more regressive than taxes on beer, wine or gasoline. A study by KPMG
Peat Marwick found that:

• Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes.

• By contrast, families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.

• As a percent of income, lower-income families bear almost five times the burden of high-income
families. [See Figure II.]

A direct correlation also exists between education and smoking. According to the National Center for
Health Statistics:
• 47.2 percent of black males with less than 12 years of education smoke, while only 16 percent of
those with more than 16 years of education smoke.

• Among white males, 39.7 percent of those with less than 12 years of education smoke, as
compared to 14.1 percent with more than 16 years.

A Tax Hike Could Lead to Increased Crime. Supporters of the Hatch-Kennedy tobacco tax argue that a
hike will create an incentive to help vulnerable populations kick the habit. But empirical data show that
cigarette tax increases have not deterred a majority of smokers. According to a study published in the
American Journal of Public Health, cigarette tax increases from 1955 to 1988 caused the average smoker to
reduce consumption by about three packs per year (2.4 percent). So what happens to the majority of
smokers who don't quit or cut their smoking in half in response to cigarette tax increases? They either pay
more for their cigarettes or turn to the black market, as Canadian smokers did.
The Canadian Experience. In 1991, Canada introduced a $5 per pack ($3.72 in U.S. dollars) tax on
cigarettes. What did Canadian smokers do? A great number of them avoided paying the new cigarette tax
and instead purchased their cigarettes from smugglers. According to a 1994 article in the Journal of the
American Medical Association:

• An estimated 30 percent of cigarettes smoked in Canada were smuggled in and sold for about half
the price of legal cigarettes.

• About 80 percent of those illegal cigarettes were manufactured in Canada, legally exported to the
United States and then returned illegally.
In addition, cigarette smuggling became attractive to organized crime and increased the danger to law
enforcement officials. It also created a hardship for the owners of small stores who relied on cigarette
revenue. As a result, Canada eventually was forced to cut its cigarette tax in order to collect revenues.
Smokers Already Pay Their Way. One argument for higher cigarette taxes is that smokers increase costs
to the health care system, draining public money that could be targeted toward other populations - such as
children. But the truth is that smokers already pay their own way, according to a 1989 study conducted by
Willard Manning of the Rand Corporation, Joseph P. Newhouse of Harvard University and other health
economists and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors estimated a
number of the costs associated with smoking such as the need for medical care, higher premiums for life
insurance and the increased possibility of a fire or an auto accident. While factors such as increased
medical care and life insurance premiums raise the social costs of smoking, the study also factored in
decreased life expectancy, which lowers costs that arise from Social Security and Medicare.

According to the Rand study's authors, the combined 1989 federal and state tax of 37 cents per pack was
more than double the 15 cents direct cost of smoking. Even after adjusting for inflation, the direct cost of
smoking - 21 cents per pack in 1995 dollars - falls well below the 1995 average total of 63 cents per pack in
federal and state taxes. Since smokers continue to overpay their incremental costs, an additional tax is
unfair.

Better Ways to Provide Health Insurance. Before creating a new health insurance program for children,
Congress can take two easy steps to solve most of the problems.

Make taxes fairer. The government subsidizes health insurance for employees by excluding it from income.
The self-employed and employees who do not receive health insurance through an employer should also
receive a subsidy - perhaps through a system of tax credits.

Allow everyone a Medical Savings Account. Parents need a way to pay for health insurance during job
transition. Making personal Medical Savings Accounts available to a wider segment of the population
would help by giving people a source of funds to pay for children's medical care and to pay health
insurance premiums during job transition.

Affirmative Rebuttals

A ballot measure in California calling for a 300% increase in the tobacco tax is the latest in a national trend
to stamp out smoking by making it too costly.

California's tax increase would go further than other states by creating the highest levy on cigarettes in the
nation.

Experts say tax increases in other states have reduced smoking and increased revenues.

"After significant tax increases, revenue rises, consumption falls, perhaps most among young people, and
evasion increases," says Brian Stenson, deputy director of the Rockefeller Institute of Government in
Albany, N.Y.

The California proposal, identified as Proposition 86 on the November ballot, would increase the tax on
cigarettes to $3.47 a pack from the current 87 cents. Similar increases would apply to cigars and other
tobacco products. That would send the average price of a pack of cigarettes from $4 to $6.55, says the
California Department of Health Services.

Paul Knepprath, lobbyist for the American Lung Association of California, says the goal is worthy. "Taxing
tobacco will reduce smoking. That's been proved in every state that's raised tobacco taxes," he says. "It
makes it more difficult for people to smoke and purchase cigarettes."
The initiative would also raise an estimated $2 billion or more a year in new revenue. That money would
go toward health causes, including direct aid to hospitals.

NATIONWIDE DRIVING AGE CHANGED TO 18 (Public Welfare)

Questions

If we were to raise the minimum national driving age, shouldn’t we attempt to make a maximum driving
age to ensure that the roads are safe from elderly and teenage drivers alike?

Negative Rebuttals

Age doesn’t determine maturity, especially when you’re only talking about a difference of two years.

It would make more sense to have teens take Driver’s Education and get their permit at age 13 and then get
their license at age 16. Therefore, it would be required to have at least 3 years of provisional driving before
you can get your license. The driving tests could also be harder to ensure that teens know how to control
their vehicles in various driving conditions. This would acquaint teenagers with the rules of the road and
make them more accustomed to driving. Teens would be more likely to demonstrate safe driving skills
when they have a licensed driver assisting them for at least 3 years. Teenage drivers will gain more
experience at a younger age and still be able to get their license at age 16.

Teen driver’s aside, it is reasonable to suggest that many adults who have had their driver’s license for
years are not knowledgeable enough on how to drive a car. They may be traffic regulation experienced, but
what about actually using the vehicle? During the driver education process we should include how to
handle a car under different conditions -- road conditions for rain, snow, ice, what to do if you have to slam
on the brakes at higher speeds, sudden unexpected responses requiring split second decisions, how to
handle the automatic and manual transmissions – to name just a few. In some cases, the driver education
process is the problem, not the adolescent driver themself.

A bill in the Legislature proposes to double the number of hours, from six to 12, that novices must
spend with a professional driving school instructor. Such an increase should help new drivers
learn the rules of the road. But standard driver's-ed instruction lacks both the experts and terrain
to teach panic stops, emergency lane changes, skid control, and drills to avoid tailgaters --
precisely the skills that novice drivers need to stay safe. Such instruction, called advanced driver
training, is available from skilled race car drivers. But the service isn't cheap at roughly $300 for a
half-day training session.

On a recent school vacation day, 20 teen drivers paired off with professional race car drivers from
the In Control advanced driver training school on a windy runway at the former Naval Air Station
in South Weymouth. Several of the students already knew about the pain caused by the roughly
3,500 deadly crashes involving 16-to-19-year-old drivers in the United States each year: They
were classmates of the two sisters from Southborough -- 17-year-old Shauna Murphy and 15-
year-old Meghan -- who died in October after their Land Rover crashed into a utility pole.
Although some students had barely been on the road for weeks, they learned quickly, and at high
speeds, how to use antilock brakes and steering techniques to avoid sudden hazards. Parents
looked on nervously as their teens climbed into Nissan sedans with their instructors and
navigated through traffic cones. Brandon Bogart, a professional race car driver and chief
operating officer of In Control, suggested parents should be more worried about the SUVs in their
own driveways, which are notoriously hard for novices to control.

Executives at the Cooperative Insurance Companies of Vermont believe in advanced driving

training so strongly that they offer to pay for half the course and to give a 10 percent discount on
premiums to young drivers who complete it. Yet a proposal in Massachusetts to allow insurance
companies to offer graduates a 5 percent discount is hung up while the Registry considers how to
certify and monitor the courses. Both legislators and insurers, at least, are devising a study to
measure the effectiveness of advanced driver training. If the numbers are as promising as
expected, 16-year-olds should be required to take advanced driver training or wait until age 17 to
drive.

Bogart believes that proper training can counteract judgment deficits in teens. He fears that many
elderly drivers, however, lack the reaction time to learn how to control their cars in an emergency.
The problem is most acute for drivers over the age of 75, the only group with higher driver fatality
rates than 16-year-olds, according to a US Department of Transportation study. Medical journals
are full of descriptions of visual impairment, foot abnormalities, musculoskeletal disorders,
hearing difficulties, and other challenges facing elderly drivers. Yet Massachusetts requires only a
vision test for anyone renewing their license, regardless of age, every five years. Many drivers,
including the elderly, can elude even that test for as much as a decade by exercising a loophole
allowing mail-in renewal every other license period.

The political clout of the elderly is such that lawmakers aren't likely to act on studies showing that
periodic road testing of elderly drivers can reduce crashes. Even requiring the elderly to renew
their licenses more frequently than younger drivers meets with resistance. For the health of both
the elderly and the general public, however, a sensible solution would require drivers over the
age of 65 to take a road test every five years. One alternative proven to reduce crashes would be
to require that physicians report patients with serious driving impairments, regardless of age, to
the Registry of Motor Vehicles, which would then conduct a lottery for road tests. Pennsylvania
officials have found that such a system captures mainly elderly drivers without creating much
political resistance.

I can't understand why governments just concentrate on ineffective speed limits and
virtually nothing on driver training. Surely lives are more important than revenue.
Make it comprehensive like the light aircraft license system. Start to teach people
when they are young, include a series of defensive driving courses, make sure they
understand what tires do and the effect tire pressures have on a car's performance,
some sound mechanical knowledge would help, as would driving experience on
gravel and wet roads. Get the hours up before you get the license, it will cost
thousands to get a drivers license, but why shouldn't it?
Get the young people driving properly and then start re-testing and re-training the
older ones too.

Economic Implications

The primary industries affected by increasing the driving age to 18 are the automotive manufacturers, auto
insurance, gas and driving education companies. This basically covers the largest firms within the auto
industry.

The automotive manufacturers would only see a delay in purchases by a factor of three years and only for
the first three years that the driving age was raised to 18. Most 18 year olds would receive their driver’s
licenses during the summer after graduating from high school.

The auto insurance companies would hopefully gain revenues by not having to pay out insurance claims
due to car accidents created by the 15 – 18 old teens. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
indicates approximately 300,000 motor vehicle crashes resulting in injuries for this age group per year,
which is above the figures for the fatalities mentioned earlier in this article. Therefore, auto insurance
industry would have a gain from raising the age limit and not having to pay out 900,000 claims from car
accidents over a three year period from age 15 to 18.
Gasoline companies would see a reduction in their revenues with the reduction of gasoline usage. Whether
15 – 18 year old drivers generate a significant impact upon the revenues of gasoline companies is
unsubstantiated as of this writing. However, it would be safe to surmise some level of reduction would be
apparent. The reduction of emissions would indeed benefit our planet.

Driving schools would see the most significant impact. Short term they would lose business for the first 3
years. Those three years could be used, however, to help provide them support by both State and Federal
governments. The amount of financial effort that has been put forth after 9/11 against terrorist continues to
question if only a fraction could be used in this effort to help save our teenagers. During these three years,
assisting them to prepare courses should be considered. Long term the driving schools would actually fair
better as they would have more hours per student to charge.

Affirmative Rebuttals

I agree the age should be raised because it scares the heck out of me when I think about a child
behind the wheel of a potentially deadly machine. They're not allowed to vote, but they’re
responsible enough to operate a 3 ton machine? Right.... Until they start administering IQ and
common sense tests as a requirement for a license, I say 16 is just too young.

Is 16 too young to drive?

If you’re 16. you probably think not. But it’s those over 16 — adults like the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety’s Adrian Lund — who will get to be the deeeeciders on this one.
Lund and some others want to push the age at which a person can get their first driver’s
license to 17 or even 18.

Of course, it’s all about “safety.”

Lund — a professional nag who heads an organization of nags — says that teenage drivers are
a menace to themselves and others and wants to use the Billy stick of the federal government
(via withheld highway funds) to compel states to raise their legal driving age — just as the
Billy stick of federal money was used to impose the 55 mph speed limit, virtual Prohibition of
alcohol and “primary enforcement” seat belt laws.

This time, it’s not merely “for the children” — it actually involves them.

And Lund is partially right. Teenagers do get into more than their fair share of wrecks. But is
this due to their age — or their lack of training/experience?

There are some very young pro drivers — from NHRA to NASCAR. Maybe not sixteen-year-
olds, but not far removed. At 15 or 16, some of these kids are better drivers than most of us
will ever be. What to make of this fact?

Granted, these are exceptional kids — but the point’s not invalid: Experience and training
probably mean a whole lot more than age — as such.

Will raising the age to 17 or 18 give a kid more experience — or less? Maybe the age at which
we begin to train kids to drive should be lowered, not raised. Does it make more — or less —
sense to toss a kid with zero hours behind the wheel a set of car keys at 17 or 18, when he is
inches way from being legally free of any parental oversight whatsoever?
Maybe it would make more sense to begin teaching kids how to drive around 14 or 15 —
easing them into it gradually, and with supervision — so that by the time they are 17 or 18
they have three or four years of experience behind them. That’s actually the way it used to be
done, until public institutions such as public schools took over from parents and the whole
process became bureaucratized and officialized — but with less than stellar results.

Driving is, after all, a skill like any other; it is not mastered overnight — or after a few weeks
of classroom instruction and a couple of hours in the seat.

Logic says start them sooner, not later.

But that would make sense — and making sense is what IIHS is not all about. It exists to harp
over problems often directly ginned up by its own propaganda. Mandatory buckle-up laws are
an example of this. Ditto the neo-Prohibitionist crusade that has gone way beyond a legitimate
effort to deal with drunk drivers that now mercilessly prosecutes people with trace amounts of
alcohol in their system — as little as .06 or even .04 BAC, the level an average person can
reach after having had a single glass of wine over dinner.

But I digress.

The other half of the equation when it comes to new/teenage drivers is proper instruction.
What we do in this country — for the most part — is woefully inadequate. Many parents set
poor examples — or are simply ill-equipped to properly instruct their kids in safe/competent
driving. Ditto the so-called “schools” (especially those offered by the public schools) and the
at-best cursory testing done by most DMVs before that first license is issued.

We don’t really show kids how to drive — especially how to handle emergency, such as a slide
on black ice. Instead, we chant cant at them that’s obvious BS, such as “speed kills” — the
driving equivalent of the BS about “marihuana” that’s peddled to them in Just Say No
sessions. Kids are smart enough to see through this — but immature enough to then regard
everything they’re taught by adults as BS.

This is dangerous.

Far better to really teach them — and to be honest with them.

I’d be ready to lay serious cash on the table to bet Lund that if you took an average 14 or 15
year old and had him or her trained by an expert instructor and properly supervised for a year
or two before a provisional license was granted — after which the kid would still be monitored
and quickly reined in at the first sign of reckless or incompetent behavior — the whole
“teenage driver” thing would just disappear.

Problem is, there’s no money in that. Finding solutions to problems is not what IIS wants.
IIHS wants crusades that never end. Just like MADD; just like politicians.

Just like the whole lot of them.

STOP IRAN FROM DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS (Foreign Affairs)

Questions
What can we do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Do you believe Israel will take military action against Iran in the near future if Iran continues to develop
nuclear weapons?

What effects will their nuclear weapon developments have on the Middle East?

Negative Rebuttals

If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, then Iran will develop nuclear weapons. The rest of the world,
especially the middle east, is fed up of the USA telling them what to do, and Iran believes it is in danger
from the West and from Israel, and Iran will do whatever it can to defend itself. If it believes that nuclear
weapons is what it needs, nuclear weapons is what it will get, and Iran will not, and does not, care about
what the world thinks about their military choices.

Of course we try to stop them, but ultimately they're going to get them, if they try hard enough. I'm
opposed to military action against Iran. I don't think an air strike is going to achieve much, outside of
fueling tensions and animosity. Invading is dumb, since the people there aren't the problem, and such an
action could negatively affect that fact. Sanctions are about as far as you can go.

Affirmative Rebuttals

Gerhard Schroder's suggestion to "take the military option off the table" in dealing with Iran's advancing
nuclear program should be dismissed. No amount of "negotiations" and "incentives" will persuade the
Iranian mullahs to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

Iran's claim that their reactors will be used for civilian purposes is absurd. Iran has more oil to generate
electricity than it could possibly consume. Moreover, Iran's desire to destroy the United States (the "Great
Satan") has been made clear by more than two decades of "Death to America" chanting in state-controlled
mosques.

The Iranian mullahs are ideologically committed to spreading Islam throughout the world by force, and
they will not abandon their murderous goal for political "concessions" or financial aid. Even the threat of
war against Iran is unlikely to stop the mullahs from developing nuclear weapons. Deterrence only works
against those who value their own lives. As the hordes of Islamic fanatics who blew themselves up in
recent years have amply demonstrated, these people value death, not life. We can't risk our existence on the
mullahs being an exception.

Iran is an avowed enemy of the United Sates and a major state sponsor of terrorism. It finances, trains,
shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran
is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the
dozens.

Once Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons, the United States will be an easy target for blackmail and a likely
target for mass destruction. We cannot let that happen.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sunday that the world must stop Iran from developing nuclear
weapons.

Olmert made the remarks during the United Jewish Communities General Assembly (GA), an annual
conference, held in Jerusalem this year with thousands of participants from the North America.
 "Iran has not terminated its pursuit of nuclear weapons.... We must confront Iran's malevolent diligence
and thwart it with great force," the prime minister was quoted by local daily Ha'aretz as saying.

Iran cannot become nuclear and Israel cannot afford it, he said, adding that "We must all do whatever we
can to prevent it."

Olmert did not give specific warnings about possible Israeli actions against Iran, said Ha'aretz.

The United States, Israel and their western allies accuse Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons, but
Iran insists that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sunday that the world must stop Iran from developing nuclear
weapons.

Olmert made the remarks during the United Jewish Communities General Assembly (GA), an annual
conference, held in Jerusalem this year with thousands of participants from the North America.

"Iran has not terminated its pursuit of nuclear weapons.... We must confront Iran’s malevolent diligence
and thwart it with great force," the prime minister was quoted by local daily Ha’aretz as saying.

Iran cannot become nuclear and Israel cannot afford it, he said, adding that "We must all do whatever we
can to prevent it."

Olmert did not give specific warnings about possible Israeli actions against Iran, said Ha’aretz.

The United States, Israel and their western allies accuse Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons, but
Iran insists that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

METRIFACTION OF THE UNITED STATES (Public Welfare)

Questions

How would metrification benefit the United States?

What improvements could metrification enable?
How would metrification affect United States citizens?

Negative Rebuttals

Hard metrication is considerably more difficult and more expensive since it requires changes in packaging,
tooling, fastener and some other parts inventories (plywood, etc.) inventories. However, virtually all of the
world economy except for the United States is now on hard metric size standards. (Liberia and Myanmar
(Burma) also use non-metric units.) Hence the use of U.S. customary unit based sizing for packaging,
construction materials, threads, bolts, etc. is effectively a non-tariff trade barrier and thus inconsistent with
official United States trade policy, which is committed to the elimination of such non-tariff trade barriers
(in principle at least).

In any case international trade in autos, machinery, etc. effectively means that continued use of customary
units based sizing in the U.S. will require us to continue to maintain dual sets of tools, wrenches, etc. Hard
conversion would (eventually) permit us to dispense with dual tooling, fasteners inventories, etc. Of course
elimination of such a non-tariff trade barrier would offer the usual advantages of increased international
competition and (presumably) reduced prices. Note that adoption of metric size standards would also
permit U.S. manufacturers to produce a single set of products for both domestic and international sale,
offering them additional economies of scale.

Affirmative Rebuttals

Soft Metrication

Soft metrication (or soft metric conversion) refers to the adoption of S.I. metric units for reporting,
recording, or specifying all measurements, sizes, product dimensions, etc. Thus length dimensions would
be reported in meters (or perhaps millimeters). However, no attempt is made to change the dimensions
(sizes) of products such as fasteners, building materials, etc. to standard metric sizes (i.e., to adopt 25 mm
bolts rather than 1 inch bolts).

Soft metric conversion also involves changing signage (speed limits, distances, etc.) and usually measuring
devices (or adopting dual units capable measuring devices - e.g., electronic scales).

Soft metrication is generally much easier, cheaper and faster to adopt than hard metrication (discussed
below) and is often used a step toward full (hard) metric conversion. Signage, package labels, reporting and
dimensioning practices must be changed, metric capable (or dual units) measuring devices must be
acquired, and personnel training will be needed. However, wholesale retooling of parts, fastener
inventories, etc. is not required.

It is already the case that many packaged food items and most speedometers of U.S. automobiles are
labeled in both U.S. customary and metric units.

There are several reasons for LBNL staff to adopt soft metrication:

• Federal law (Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (PL 94-169, 15 U.S.C. 205) and the Omnibus Trade
and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (PL 100-418)), Presidential executive order (EO 12770 of July
25, 1991), Federal Regulations (15 CFR 1170 - originally 15 CFR Part 19), DOE order, and
LBNL policy (RPM Sect. 1.23) mandate the use of S.I. metric units.
• Use of S.I. metric units facilitates scientific communication (esp. in international contexts). With
the nearly the entire planet (except for the United States) using metric (S.I.) units, papers written
using metric units can reach a much larger audience.
• Use of metric units facilitates, e.g., kW for engine power, facilitates understanding of some issues
of energy efficiency (e.g., of appliances).
• The S.I. system of (metric) units is simpler. Thus energy (work) is always measured Joules (or
some radix 10 multiple), whereas in customary units in the U.S. energy is various measured in
BTUs (British Thermal Units), calories, foot-pounds, kWh (kilowatt hours), kilotons (of explosive
energy), etc. Furthermore, some of these units have multiple variations, e.g., BTUs. Use of a
single unit for energy measurements facilitates the teaching of the equivalence of thermal,
mechanical, chemical, and electrical energy and the understanding of energy efficiency issues in
the conversion of chemical energy to electrical or mechanical energy.
• Consistent use of S.I. units is helpful in interdisciplinary studies (e.g., nanotechnology), avoids the
proliferation of measurements units used in different subject domains of science and engineering,
e.g., the various units used for energy and work across mechanical engineering, electrical
engineering, physics, and chemistry.
• Consistent use of S.I. units can prevent disasters such as the Mars Climate Orbiter, where
misunderstandings about units caused the failure of a NASA Martian satellite.
 • Consistent use of S.I. units facilitates the interchange (esp. internationally) of medical records and
medical research. It also reduces the possibility of medication errors due to units conversion errors
or units misunderstandings.
• Use of S.I. units for concentration (moles/cubic meter or more typically milli/micro/nano moles /
liter) facilitates chemical computations and avoids the potential ambiguities of dimensionless
measure of concentration (e.g., are parts per million a molar, mass, volume, or pressure ratio?).
• Adoption of metric speed limit signage (km/h) and distance signage (m or km) and map
annotations would facilitate safe driving on site by foreign visitors and students. Marking speed
limits in true S.I. units, i.e., meters/second, would be even better, but automobile speedometers are
not marked in meters/second.

Hard Metrication

Hard metrication (or hard metric conversion) extends soft metrication (the reporting all measurements in
metric (S.I.) units) to the adoption of metric based size standards (usually ISO standards) for packaging,
construction materials, screw and bolt threads, bolt diameters and heads, piping sizes, paper sizes, etc. Thus
one would sell milk (or oil) in liter, rather than quart containers, adopt plywood panel sizes of 1200 mm x
2400 mm (rather than 4 ft x 8 ft = 1219.2 mm x 2438.4 mm), use metric standard screw threads, bolt sizes
(e.g., 25 mm vs. 1 inch (25.4mm)), etc.

For those manufacturers which presently produce only equipment to inch-based size standards, adoption of
metric based (i.e., ISO) size standards would ease acceptance of their equipment in overseas markets.

Hard metric conversion will also facilitate interoperability of U.S. military forces with allied forces - since
all of our allies are now using metric size standards for machinery. (Liberia and Myanmar are not major
allies of the United States.)

At LBNL, the universal adoption of hard metric standards for design of experimental equipment would
facilitate integration of LBNL designed equipment into international scientific collaborations, e.g., CERN,
which rely on metric sizing and fasteners.

U.S. law, executive and D.O.E. orders cited above also mandate the adoption of hard metrication (albeit at
a slower pace and with more exceptions).

Below we list activities which individual LBNL staff members can undertake to accelerate metrication:

• Individual researchers can use S.I. metric units in their publications, standards writing, and web
pages. If some readers need U.S. customary units, use dual units for measurements, writing non-
metric dimensioned measurements in parentheses following metric dimensioned measurements.
Consult NIST documents for metric style usage.
• Software designers and database designers can adopt the usage of metric units for storage and
computation with dimensioned units. Input and output should default to the use S.I. metric units.
Measurement units should be thoroughly documented in all programs, data exchange formats,
database designs, and forms specifications.
• Individual researchers can also call their colleagues attention to their usage of non-metric units
and urge them to convert to S.I. metric units.
• In their role(s) as journal editors and referees for journals, conferences, and research proposal
review panels researchers can demand S.I. metric units.
• Supervisors can require usage of metric units by their subordinates in publications, software and
databases.
• Mechanical and civil engineers can dimension drawings in metric units. They can design to ISO
hard metric standards for machinery (this may be harder for civil engineers). Metric paper sizes
can also be adopted for engineering drawings.
 • Purchasing agents can identify vendors which carry and catalog metric dimensioned parts,
supplies, and equipment. They could require contract vendors (office supplies, scientific supplies)
for LBNL to stock metric size fasteners, containers, materials, paper, etc. It is currently difficult to
obtain metric paper sizes (A4) at LBNL.
• Technical editors at LBNL can call attention to use of non-S.I. units, and suggest the use of
appropriate S.I. units.
• Authors, editors, and compositors at LBNL can select page margins which facilitate the printing of
LBNL technical reports on either U.S. customary paper sizes or A4 sized paper. Alternatively,
multiple .pdf files can be generated - one for U.S. customary paper size, one for A4 paper size.
(See discussion below.)
• Individuals can repeatedly ask grocery stores, produce vendors, delicatessens, butchers, coffee,
tea, and spice vendors to price and sell bulk items in S.I. metric units. One can also ask for the
provision of metric scales at food stores. Specifically, the LBNL cafeteria should be reminded
that it is supposed to (under LBNL policy) price and sell bulk foods (e.g., the salad bar, bulk
candy, etc.) in metric units (and provide metric scales).
• Readers can contact the editor of LBNL Today to urge that they publish the daily weather
statistics in degrees Celsius rather than degrees Fahrenheit. (This has been done. Temperature
forecasts now given in both Celsius and Fahrenheit measurements.)
• Individuals can adopt the use of metric fasteners in their personal furniture, mechanical, home
construction or renovation.
• Individuals can give metric measuring instruments / utensils to friends and family as gifts.
• One can give (or post) directions in metric units (meters or kilometers).
• In our interactions with doctors and medical researchers we can urge the adoption of S.I. (metric)
units for chemical concentrations, blood pressure, temperature, etc.
• Those LBNL staff engaged in teaching and writing text books can adopt S.I. (metric) units.
• LBNL staff can insist on the purchase of metric (or dual U.S. customary/metric) measuring
devices (tape measures, calipers, etc.).
• LBNL staff engaged in the procurement of motor vehicles can specify vehicles which use
exclusively standard metric sized fasteners. (As motor vehicle production has become
internationalized this is becoming easier. Thus most motor vehicle engines now use metric
fasteners.)
• Procurement of bulk commodities at LBNL can be specified in metric units (oil, chemicals,
cement, etc.). Concentrations of chemicals purchased should be specified in moles/liter (molarity).
• LBNL staff can format all of their documents with margins consistent with both U.S. paper size
(216 mm x 279 mm)(8.5 x 11 inches) and metric A4 paper size (210 mm x 296 mm

We are past the halfway point of metrication and moving on towards completion, due to many influences
including those shown below.
-- The only question remaining for the United States is this: Does our country want to finish the job
economically and efficiently or does it want to continue a disorganized approach to the end of the
job?
-- The only question remaining for you is this: Do you want to keep up by metricating now or do you
want to try to catch up in desperation later on?

Virtually all countries now require commerce to be conducted solely in units of the International System
of units (SI), sometimes known as the "modern metric system". There is no significant country in the world
left to be metricated except the United States but we are estimated to be 60 % to 70 % metricated.
-- Large producers are silently continuing this process in the United States.
-- Smaller enterprises that ignore this silent movement are in danger of being caught unawares and being
squeezed out.

UNITED STATES BECOME FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT FROM CHINA (Foreign Affairs)

Questions
Negative Rebuttals
he total U.S. trade deficit in goods and services fell 6.8 percent in 2007, from $758.52 billion to
$711.61 billion, with all of the net improvement generated by a major fall-off in imports, not the
export boom touted by U.S. government officials according to a U.S Business and Industry Council
report (www. americaneconomicalert.org.com).

The report went on to say that in many of the sectors generating the economy’s highest paying jobs
and greatest productivity growth and technological progress – manufacturing and high-tech
manufacturing – meaningful trade deficit improvement was difficult to find.

Total exports of goods and services recorded its second straight year of double-digit growth. But the
12.18 percent increase in 2007 – to $1.62 trillion – was slightly slower than the 12.68 percent
increase registered in 2006. The big change in trade flows came on the import side, where growth
slowed from 10.35 percent in 2006 to 5.86 percent in 2007. Total import levels hit $2.33 trillion last
year.

Said Kevin L. Kearns, president of the U.S. Business and Industry Council, “The facts make clear
that export boom claims are falsehoods concocted by the Bush administration and other outsourcing
interests to cover up continuing trade policy failures. America’s trade numbers are improving
because the U.S. economy is slowing – not because recent presidents have opened new foreign
consumer markets or adequately dealt with predatory foreign trade practices.”

“A $700-plus billion trade deficit is completely unacceptable for America’s competitive producers. It
also keeps saddling our citizens and their children with ever more debt, and keeps enabling foreign
interests to increase their influence over our economic future. Yet both the Bush administration and
the Democratic Congress continue ignoring America’s biggest trade problem – blatant cheating by
China and other Asian countries on currency, subsidies, and numerous other fronts – and keep
focusing their trade policy efforts on new outsourcing-focused deals with minuscule third world
economies. Both major political parties urgently need to start championing genuinely American
interests in U.S. trade policy, and the place to start is with a strong currency manipulation bill,”
continued Kearns.”

The hollowness of export boom claims was also evident from trends in goods trade, which
dominates U.S. trade flows. Export growth slowed from 14.36 percent to 12.34 percent over the last
two years, with exports reaching $1.15 trillion in 2007. But import growth, again, fell by nearly half
– from 10.68 percent to 5.56 percent. Goods imports stood at $1.96 trillion last year.

Services trade offered a partial exception to the pattern. Export growth accelerated between 2006
and 2007 – from 8.79 percent to 11.80 percent. But import growth fell here as well – from 8.61
percent to 7.48 percent. As a result, the longstanding services trade surplus jumped 30.37 percent
from 2006 to 2007, to $103.97 billion – still only 12.75 percent of the goods deficit.

The modest 3 percent fall in the manufactures trade deficit in 2007 was also driven by declining
imports. U.S. manufactures exports increased by 10.71 percent in 2007, to $869.71 billion. Yet that
growth represented a major slowdown from the 14.62 percent rise in 2006. Import growth, by
contrast, fell by more than half – from 10.02 percent in 2006 to just 4.59 percent in 2007.
Manufactures imports reached $1.48 trillion in 2007, and the deficit hit $611 billion.

In the U.S. high tech manufacturing sector, exports increased by only 8.20 percent – a slower rate
than for the rest of manufacturing. Much larger import flows surged 12.44 percent, boosting the
deficit to a new record of $53.49 billion.

Growth in goods exports to most major U.S. trading partners declined significantly in 2007 as well,
but goods import growth fell much faster. In 2006, for example, U.S. goods exports to rapidly
expanding China jumped 31.63 percent – the biggest percentage increase for any major trading
partner. But in 2007, this growth had shrunk to 18.21 percent. Import growth from China declined,
too, but not as dramatically – from 18.20 percent to 11.72 percent. Since U.S. goods imports from
China dwarf exports in absolute terms, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China rose another
10.18 percent in 2007, to $256.27 billion – and hit another new record.

The only exception to the pattern was U.S. trade with the Euro area. U.S. goods export growth
quickened from 13.26 percent in 2006 to 15.94 percent in 2007. Import growth rates increased as
well, from 7.77 percent to 8.16 percent.

The most dramatic slowdown in U.S. goods export growth came with Mexico – from 11.31 percent
in 2006 to a bare 1.91 percent in 2007. The biggest decreases in U.S. goods import rates came
from Mexico as well (from 16.54 percent growth to 6.33 percent growth), and from Japan – whose
exports to the United States actually fell by 1.83 percent in 2007 after rising by 7.37 percent in
2006.

The U.S. Department of Commerce reported yesterday that the goods and services trade deficit
fell to $711.6 billion or 5.1% of GDP in 2007, a decline of $46.9 billion since 2006. The trade
deficit dropped by an unexpectedly large $4.4 billion in December due to a sharp drop in imports
of autos and vehicle parts and consumer goods. The sharp drop in imports in December provides
further evidence of a U.S. slowdown in the fourth quarter. Today's report also indicated:

* The U.S. merchandise trade deficit, which includes only manufactured goods and commodities,
declined $22.7 billion (or 2.7%) to $815.6 billion in 2007, while the services surplus increased to
$104.0 billion, a $24.2 billion improvement (30.4%).

* The U.S. trade deficit with China rose $23.7 billion (or 10.2%) to $256.3 billion, offsetting
improvements in the trade deficit with other countries such as Canada, Germany, the U.K. and
other EU countries, Taiwan, Brazil, and Chile.

* The cost of U.S. petroleum imports also increased $27.9 billion (9.6%) in 2007; a small
decrease (1.5%) in the volume of total energy related petroleum imports was more than offset by
a $6.26 per barrel (10.8%) increase in the average unit cost of crude oil.

* The U.S. had a $53.5 billion global trade deficit in advanced technology products (ATP) in 2007,
a $15.4 billion (40.6%) increase over 2006 levels. Trade with China can account for the entire
U.S. ATP deficit in 2007 and most of the increase in the ATP deficit. The United States had a
trade surplus in ATP products with the rest of the world of $14.2 billion in 2007. The United States
had an ATP deficit with China of $67.7 billion in 2007, an increase of $12.6 billion over 2006.

While trade balances between the United States and many of its most important trading partners
are improving, the trade deficit with China continues to grow, and the dollar value of oil imports
continues to grow rapidly.

The U.S. goods and services trade deficit improved for the first time since 2001. The deficit
fell to $711.6 billion (see Figure A below), or 5.1% of GDP in 2007, a sharp drop of 0.6
percentage points over the deficit in 2006. The improvement in the deficit was explained, in part,
by continued rapid growth of U.S. exports, which increased a record $176.1 billion (12.2%) in
2007, as shown in the Figure A. A slowdown in import growth to 5.9% ($129.2 billion) also played
a key role. The slowdown in import growth in 2007 reflects softening in consumer spending in the
overall economy. Both the import slowdown and export growth were probably driven in part by the
depreciation of the dollar in recent years.

The U.S. deficit in manufactured goods improved from $690 billion in 2006 to $679 billion
in 2007, a decline of 1.6%. Manufactured imports are responsible for the bulk of the U.S. trade
deficit. The manufacturing sector lost 3.3 million jobs between January 2001 and December
2007, including 200,000 jobs lost in 2007 alone. More than 32,000 U.S. manufacturing
establishments closed between 1998 and 2005.

Trade deficits, manufacturing job losses, and plant closures are due, in large part, to
overvaluation of the U.S. dollar. Much needed increases in the value of other currencies
against the U.S. dollar since 2002 are largely responsible for the improvement in the U.S. trade
balance in 2007. On a broad, inflation-adjusted, trade-weighted basis, a broad cross-section of
currencies has gained 28% against the dollar since 2002, and 6.9% in 2007, as shown in Figure
B. Most of that improvement has come against a group of major currencies, including the Euro
and Canadian dollar, and the U.S. trade balance with those regions improved significantly in
2007. These currencies have gained 42.6% since 2002, and 7.9% in the past year alone.

In contrast, the currencies of "Other Important Trading Partners (OITP)," a group that includes
China and a number of other East Asian nations that tightly manage the value of their currencies
against the dollar, have gained only 12.5% in value since 2002 and 5.8% last year. As a result,
the U.S. trade deficit with these countries continued to grow in 2007. (See: A Plunging Dollar?
How Far and Relative to What?). Sustained improvements in the U.S. trade deficits will be
unlikely unless the managed currencies are allowed to appreciate substantially (e.g., 30% to
40%).

Improvement in the U.S. trade deficit in 2007 was due to the combined effects of
appreciation of the Euro and other currencies over the past five years, and the initial
effects of a U.S. slowdown.The U.S. trade deficit in 2007 still exceeded 5.1% of GDP, an
amount considered unsustainable by most economists. The deficit could start growing again once
the current slowdown ends, unless governments in China and other OITP countries agree to
substantially raise the value of their currencies. This is a good time for other countries to re-orient
their currency policies and spur consumption growth at home. These developments would be
good for both the United States and its trading partners and would lead to a more stable global
economy.

Affirmative Rebuttals

Wal-Mart claims it creates jobs across America, but a new report shows a much
different reality.
The giant retailer’s reliance on cheap goods made in China has cost this country
nearly 200,000 jobs since 2001, says the report,The Wal-Mart Effect, by the
nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
The report shows Wal-Mart has played a major role in creating a record trade
deficit with China that has eliminated some 1.8 million jobs, mainly in
manufacturing.
The U.S. trade deficit with China reached a whopping $233 billion last year, and
imports for Wal-Mart alone accounted for $27 billion—11 percent of that
total. This year’s first-quarter $46.4 billion total deficit is twice as large as in the
same period last year.
The U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced
production that could have supported about 2.2 million U.S. jobs, according to
EPI. Most of these jobs (1.8 million) have been lost since China entered the
World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.
Contrary to the predictions of its supporters, China’s entry into the WTO has
failed to reduce its trade surplus with the United States or increase overall U.S.
employment.
Says economist Robert Scott, author of the EPI report:
Now we know the impact that imports from China to the world’s largest retailer
has on our nation’s jobs. What’s good for Wal-Mart is not always good for U.S.
workers.
The AFL-CIO, domestic manufacturers and many economic experts maintain that
one key reason the U.S. trade deficit with China is so high is because China
deliberately undervalues its currency, the yuan, to keep the value artificially
low so it can boost exports and discourage imports—running up the U.S. trade
deficit and costing good American jobs.
An AFL-CIO report shows China’s fixed currency rate artificially lowers the price
of its goods by 40 percent, effectively subsidizing China’s exports and putting
U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage.
The bipartisan Fair Currency Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)
and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), would clarify that currency manipulation is an
illegal subsidy under WTO rules. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate by
Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
In 2004 and 2005, the Bush administration rejected petitions from the AFL-CIO
and business and farm leaders that asked Bush to take action against China’s
currency manipulation.

Yes, I know that stopping all trade with China is going to be difficult, but we
have no choice. The profits they make from us are used to build nuclear
missiles which are then pointed at us. This is insanity. Don't trade with a
partner that hates you and can destroy you.

China is employing a Sun Tzu strategy of working with our enemies. Look at
our enemies around the world and China and/or Russia will be there helping
out.

Both North Korea and Iran are the responsibility of China and Russia. China and Russia
need to start paying the price for their actions.

The United States trade deficit widened to a record $726 billion in 2005, the government
reported yesterday, adding more fuel to the increasingly partisan debate between
advocates of further globalization and those who contend that free trade is causing the
loss of too many American manufacturing jobs.

Hitting its fourth consecutive annual record, the gap between exports and imports reached
almost twice the level of 2001. It was driven by strong consumer demand for foreign
goods and soaring energy prices that added tens of billions of dollars to the nation's bill
for imported oil. The nation last had a trade surplus, of $12.4 billion, in 1975.
The continued growth in the trade deficit, particularly with China, is likely to renew a
fight in Congress as early as this spring over President Bush's trade policies. Lawmakers
have seized on the growing imbalance with China to call on the White House to take a
harder line with Beijing over its currency practices.

But as long as the American economy is growing faster than most of its trading partners
and energy prices stay at elevated levels, economists expect little improvement, and
perhaps even a slight widening, in the trade imbalance this year.

"You would need a dramatic slowdown in domestic U.S. demand to bring down the U.S.
trade deficit, and we think that is unlikely," said Dean Maki, chief United States
economist at Barclays Capital in New York.

That means the nation will go deeper into debt with the rest of the world as Americans
continue to rely on the strong flow of foreign money, particularly from central banks in
Asia, to finance the trade gap. China, Japan and other foreign governments are some of
the biggest holders of government securities, lending money to cover the substantial
federal budget deficit and helping to keep interest rates and home mortgage costs here
relatively low.

As a result, American consumers are able to spend more and save less.

Many economists say this situation is unsustainable over the long run, arguing that the
United States could eventually face a harsh correction that would depress spending,
increase the cost of borrowing and sharply lower the value of the dollar.

"There are certainly going to be inflows, the question is at what price?" said James
O'Sullivan, an economist at UBS, an investment house. "As time goes on, it will become
a little more difficult to attract foreign funds. That's another way of saying the dollar will
fall."

But other economists argue that the huge trade gap mostly reflects stronger American
growth and that money is flowing into the country at relatively low rates because of the
attractiveness of the United States as a place to invest. They see little reason to fear a
dollar crisis.

"As long as foreigners are willing to put their capital in the United States, we can sustain
a trade deficit of 6 percent or more" of overall economic activity, said Phillip L. Swagel,
a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington who served as a
staff economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
"It would be better that we saved more on our own," Mr. Swagel added, "but given that
we aren't, I would rather have investment go on by foreign capital."

For its part, the Bush administration urged caution on the deficit.

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, touring an I.B.M. operation in North Carolina,

told The Associated Press, "We can't overreact and make tactical choices that will hurt
our economy."

As a share of the gross domestic product, the trade gap increased to 5.8 percent, from 5.3
percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003.

While most economists dismiss the importance of bilateral trade imbalances, it is the
deficit with China that has set off the most political fireworks. That nation had the largest
gap with the United States of any country, at $201.6 billion for the year, up 24.5 percent
from 2004. In December, the deficit with China narrowed nearly 12 percent, to $16.3
billion.

Following increased pressure from the White House, the Chinese government allowed the
yuan to rise by about 2 percent in July and allowed its currency to float in a narrow band.
Since then the yuan, also known as the renminbi, has risen by an additional 0.7 percent.
One dollar buys about 8.0505 yuan.

NO TAXES ON GASOLINE (Economic Policy)

Questions

How will a nation compensate for the loss of revenue caused by the removal of taxes on gasoline?

Negative Rebuttals

A gallon of gas costs less than $2, and Maryland's gasoline tax hasn't been raised for 15 years.

But don't look for Howard County's State House delegation to lead the charge in Annapolis for a
tax increase to prevent big cuts to commuter transit and highway projects.

If the proposed Mass Transit Administration cuts become reality Jan. 12, scores of people who
responded to $4-a-gallon gas by heeding the government's call to use mass transit will feel as
though they've been thrown under a bus - if there is one.

To counterbalance declining revenue, state officials are considering cutting $1 billion from
transportation projects now and maybe twice that much later. The reductions would eliminate
commuter bus service from Columbia to Baltimore, including one route serving U.S. 1, and result
in fewer trips to Silver Spring and Washington, as well as cuts to MARC train service. Only the
route from Long Gate Shopping Center to Baltimore would remain.

At an MTA hearing in Columbia this month, riders said they are willing to pay higher
fares to cover the cost of the bus service, and they urged consideration of new ways to
finance mass transit. In a Nov. 24 letter to Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari, the
county's Democratic elected officials urged consideration of fare increases to limit the
losses.

Republican Dels. Gail H. Bates and Warren E. Miller and state Sen. Allan H. Kittleman
argue that taxing rural motorists' gasoline purchases to support mass transit isn't fair.
Bates said mass transit should pay for itself, and Kittleman said he has no objection to
higher bus fares.

Miller noted that the state's cuts to highway projects in the western county drew no
delegation letters of protest, though the widening of Route 32 has been a priority there.
That project is now delayed, he and Bates said.

"I think gas tax revenues should be used for roads," Kittleman said. Miller agreed.

"I think that mass transit has bled off desperately needed road money," he said.

Del. Shane Pendergrass, a Democrat, disagrees.

"Those of us who rarely use public transit, like me, have some obligation to subsidize
people who are getting off the roads," she said. "I'm very comfortable subsidizing public
transportation."

She is not advocating raising the gas tax, though.

For now, the gasoline tax and vehicle titling fees are the main sources of transportation
funding in Maryland, and revenues from both are declining rapidly amid the economic
slump.

State legislators didn't raise the tax in last year's special session to address a revenue
shortfall, deciding to divert half the higher revenue from a sales tax increase to
transportation instead. Now gas prices are down, but the politicians say they are finished
raising taxes.

"I haven't found anybody who has any will to raise taxes," said Del. Frank S. Turner, a
Democrat who serves on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

A clutch of Howard elected officials attended the MTA hearing in Owen Brown to
strongly oppose plans to cut bus service.
"What gets me is that it flies in the face of what the state, county and our country is trying
to do," Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer, a Democrat and Senate majority leader, told the state
hearing examiner. "You'll lose the trust of the people [who ride transit]."

But only County Council member Mary Kay Sigaty raised the issue of the gas tax at the
hearing. Del. Elizabeth Bobo, who did not attend, later agreed it should be looked at. Bobo
said she would like to see consideration of a suspension of work on the multibillion-
dollar Intercounty Connector highway in Montgomery County to save money.

"I am a lonely voice, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be speaking about it" Sigaty said
the day after the hearing.

Sigaty said public transit is the best hope for controlling air pollution, traffic congestion
and saving energy. Low gas prices and reductions in bus service reinforce the use of
private vehicles and all the ills the nation is trying to fix, she said.

Affirmative Rebuttals

MINNESOTA FUEL REBATE EQUAL TO ONE MONTH HEATING COST (Foreign Affairs)

Questions

Negative Rebuttals

Affirmative Rebuttals

Finance Minister Lloyd Matthews today announced that the province is offering a one-time, $100
rebate for households that use home heating fuel and where an individual in that household
receives any amount of the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, Newfoundland and
Labrador HST credit or the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors’ Benefit.

The minister noted that the increased cost of fuel is market driven, and is an international problem
that is beyond the scope of any provincial government to fix. “Government recognizes that there
are people who are adversely impacted by the high cost of home heating fuel,” said Minister
Matthews. “This program is designed to provide those in greatest need with some modest relief.

“While Government is not able to equal the cost of the increase in home heating fuel, this rebate
will more than offset the increased provincial HST,” said the minister. Government estimates that,
in comparing today’s price for home heating fuel with the average price over the past 32 months,
households will spend between $40 and $70 more on Newfoundland HST on an annualized
basis.

TODAY’S TOPIC: ALASKA 2008 ENERGY REBATE - CAMPAIGN STRATEGY 101?

In May of this year, Governor Palin proposed disbursing an energy rebate of $1200 to residents of
Alaska, asserting this was to reimburse Alaskans for the hefty increase in all fuel prices. Ironically, her
ability to offer this largesse is the result of the rising prices of oil, et al.

(Reports from June 2008 verify our fuel prices across the state rose 28%. Alaskans, on the average,
have always paid between 10% to 20% more for transportation and home heating costs than most in
the lower 48.)

Palin first proposed a twelve month debit card for each eligible Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend*
applicant. This card, with a $100 monthly limit, would be valid only at Alaskan utility providers, gas
stations and home fuel suppliers. However, because she proffered this concept without doing due
diligence on the associated costs to the state (purchase of cards, distribution, oversight, fraud
safeguards, record keeping, etc.) this plan was discarded as too cumbersome and expensive to
implement and maintain.

Subsequently, in lieu of the debit cards, she mandated that applicable residents receive one
gift of $1200.

According to our state’s calculations, 610,768 residents was the estimated figure used to calculate
dividend amounts for the PFD stipend. Thus, the payout for the energy rebate alone was projected to
be $732,921,600.00. The following identifies some of the flaws in Palin’s ‘energy rebate’ ploy:

1. Remember, the $1200 is not per household, but per individuals of all ages. Ergo, a family of 6
(Palin’s for example: two adults, four children) will realize a net $7200.00 (equivalent to $600.00 per
month) for ‘energy rebate’. (Note: In Palin’s family, the baby is not eligible as he was not born until
this year. The qualifications are based on residency in 2007.) The theory that a household of six
members would consume five times the energy as a one member unit is not validated by any factual
study or issued report. While the equivalent of $100 a month would cover the average increase to a
one member household, the $600 a month ‘gift’ for a family of six far exceeds the actual
reimbursement per stated intent of these funds.

2. The checks that include the ‘energy rebate’ can be cashed and spent anywhere, for anything,
without restriction.

The energy rebate program does include additional Power Cost Equalization** credits for rural areas,
but it does not apply to commercial business accounts. Yet, the increased cost of energy for businesses
such as grocery stores (lots of refrigeration), Laundromats and yes, service stations is passed on to all
consumers. Those who understand the economics and nuances involved, confirm that IF Palin’s intent
was indeed to put forth a prudent means to address rising energy costs, the plan would have provided
the means to provide equal relief for the total populace.

Thus, it would encompass the ability to:

a.) Ensure funds were targeted to Alaska energy providers in a manner that would reduce direct (per
gallon) costs to consumers.

b.) Deliver to the low income, rural areas who pay an average of over $6.50 - $8.50 for their fuel
(transportation and home heating) a package that included a greater per gallon subsidy (with set limit)
to help offset their greater costs. (Some pay $10.00 and more per gallon of gas and/or heating fuel.)

c.) Supply businesses too with the equivalent of a PCE credit to help reduce their costs and thus
reducing the expense of the services and products passed on to all consumers in Alaska.

There are these and other concepts that could and would have culminated in a much greater fiscally
responsible and equitable process to deliver energy relief in a more viable and prudent manner. But,
perhaps the time, expertise and energy (pun intended) needed to secure the better program, couldn’t
be achieved because of Palin’s personal time line and goal.

Some will proffer her rush to action was based on the timetable of the legislator’s special session
and because, only a few months away, was the promise of a frigid winter.

But the truth, as whispered by those within the Palin Administration, is this:

Sarah became aware a few weeks before her proposal that she was indeed being considered as a
viable VP candidate for McCain. Aware of her favorable first impression upon McCain in February,
she had no doubt if she could lure him closer, she would seal the deal! (And she knew he was aware of
the need to curry favor with those female voters!)

Palin's approval numbers were still above average, but if they were to increase, well, so would her
odds of being on the national ticket. How could she nudge it higher? She knew all too well there was
going to soon be less than positive news published about her personal and professional worlds.
Therefore, she needed to minimize the negatives, while maximizing her appeal to Alaskans!

Snap. Money always works! By linking the $$$$$$ with one of the biggest issues of the day,
‘increased energy costs’, her popularity soared and she secured her claim as, ‘The Nation’s Most
Popular Governor!”

Although Sarah has never been considered to be a great intellect, she is known to be a force to be
reckoned with when she wants something. She’s a big picture kind of gal, and has little patience
with those who point out any negatives in her processes. Those pesky little things like fiscally
irresponsibility, inequitable processes, short-term flim-flam and pandering to the masses v.
positive leadership don’t concern her. Usually her actions prove the veracity of the old adage,
‘the devil is in the details’! (And so is the truth.)

The end result is every man; woman and child who met the criteria now are $1200.00 richer. Sarah
Palin got what she wanted and we got what she wanted. Her rise in approval ratings didn’t cost
her a thing. In fact, both her family’s bank accounts as well as her ambitions, got a big bump
up! And to her, that’s priceless.

Even if you don’t believe this was a craftily managed ‘campaign’ strategy, the reality is that Palin’s
energy rebate ‘program’ was not the product of someone proclaimed to be an ‘energy expert’ and
‘fiscally conservative’ and ‘a leader who exercises good judgment’.

**The goal of Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) Power Cost Equalization program is to provide
economic assistance to customers in rural areas of Alaska where the kilowatt-hour charge for
electricity can be three to five times higher than the charge in more urban areas of the state. PCE only
pays a portion of approximately 30% of all kilowatt hour’s sold by the participating utilities.
PCE fundamentally improves Alaska’s standard of living by helping small rural areas maintain the
availability of communications and the operation of basic infrastructure and systems, including water
and sewer, incinerators, heat and light. PCE is a core element underlying the financial viability of
centralized power generation in rural communities.