RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff

Das ITCH Districts

CCDBG Reauthorization 1AC
Contention one: The Status Quo

A Non-subsidized child care is unaffordable for low income families forcing parents into welfare or away from
work.

Edelman et al ’07 [from poverty to prosperity: a national strategy to cut poverty in half, report and recommendations of the
center for american progress task force on poverty, april 25,
2007.http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf accessed 8/18/09 nwm.]

Low-in-
For families receiving no or inadequate assistance, the results are often not good for children or their working parents.
come working families who pay for child care purchase cheaper care than do high-income families, while
paying a much larger share of their income to do so.74 They often wind up with lower-quality care. Facing the
high costs of care, parents may be forced to go into debt, turn to welfare, choose lower- quality or less stable
child care, lose time from work, or make untenable choices in their household budgets between paying for child
care and paying for rent.75
B. The Child Care and Development Block Grant has not been reauthorized, and is significantly underfunded,
and billions is wasted on poor quality childcare.

Naccra ’08 [national association of child care resource and referral agencies: support family child care and reauthorize child care
legislation in the 111th congress, 2008. Accessed 10/4/09 nwm http://highqualitychildcare.org/naccrra_main/alert-description.tcl?
alert_id=20854635]

NACCRRA's report, Leaving Children to Chance: NACCRRA's Ranking of State Standards and Oversight of Small Family Child Care
Homes, reveals that many states fail to protect the health, safety, and well-being of children in small family child care homes. About
$12 billion in government funds are spent each year on child care subsidies. Yet, the federal and state
governments have no idea about the condition of care they are paying for in many states. NACCRRA calls on
Congress, state governments, professional organizations, and parents to do their part in improving the quality of family child care.
Our country is leaving children to chance, but we can do something about it! Since 2002, Congress has failed to
reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the primary federal funding stream for
child care in the United States. Through CCDBG, states can provide child care assistance for families AND
fund child care quality initiatives, including training for child care providers, inspections, and background checks to ensure that
providers do not have a criminal record. But CCDBG remains significantly under-funded. Since 2003, as a result of
across-the-board funding cuts and frozen funding streams, child care funding has declined. Inadequate
federal funding means efforts to ensure that child care is a safe environment where children can learn
will be further weakened. Contact your Senators and Representative now to ask that they take action to reauthorize CCDBG.
Parents, providers, and CCR&R staff, take action to support family child care - and all child care - in your community. Please edit the
letter below to share your own story.

<Footer> 1
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Thus Jon and I present the following plan: The United States
Federal Government should substantially increase social
services for persons living in poverty in the united states by
reauthorizing the child care development block grant to
substantially increase funding for childcare subsidies for
persons living in poverty. Funding and enforcement are
guaranteed through normal means, we reserve the right to
clarify legislative intent.

<Footer> 2
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Contention Two: Solvency

A. Reauthorization would improve the program.

Results ’09 [safe and affordable child care: the child care and development block grant (ccdbg) results last updated 10/6/09
accessed 10/6/09 nwmhttp://results.techriver.net/website/article.asp?id=380]
Reauthorization Long Overdue Program rules for operating CCDBG have not been reauthorized for several years.
CCDBG has been operating under a series of extensions. Reauthorization in 2009 would be an opportunity to
improve the program. One of the leading organizations for child care providers is the National Association of Child Care Resource
and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). NACCRRA recommends congressional hearings on CCDBG to examine quality and affordability
issues. NACCRRA points out that the military child care system was revamped in a way that assures high quality, affordability and
accountability. The Military Child Care Act of 1989 strengthened the system. CCDBG should be reformed on this model. See
NACCRRA’s key legislaiton policy statement.

B. CCDBG helps to pay for child care and improves the quality and amount of Child Care available.
Results ’09 [safe and affordable child care: the child care and development block grant (ccdbg) results last updated 10/6/09
accessed 10/6/09 nwmhttp://results.techriver.net/website/article.asp?id=380]
The 1996 welfare reform law consolidated several different sources of federal funding for child care into the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG). CCDBG provides a block grant to states for child care assistance to help low-income working
CCDBG helps defray the costs of child care by providing eligible
families become and remain independent. Specifically,
low-income families with subsidies to help them pay for child care. CCDBG includes funds specifically
dedicated to improving the quality, as well as the amount of child care available, to low income families.
.
C. Child care subsidies are a powerful tool for helping poor families
Fagan ’09 [press, j. E., fagan, j. And laughlin, l. L. , 2004-08-14 "the effect of child care subsidies on mothers' work schedules"
paper presented at the annual meeting of the american sociological association, online 2009-05-26. Accessed 10/5/09
nwm http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/9/0/5/p109054_index.html]
For mothers who are working poor or leaving welfare for work, child care is an often expensive necessity. In this study we go beyond
previous research on the ability of child care subsidies to move mothers into employment to ask whether subsidies help mothers
succeed once on the job. Using new quantitative data from the Philadelphia Survey of Child Care and Work we examine (1) what
characteristics explain child care subsidy receipt, and (2) if receiving a subsidy reduces work-hour related problems like having to
change shift or schedule, reduce hours, or the inability to do overtime because of child care. We
find first that at-risk mothers
who are single, those without transportation, those with lower wages, those with young children and special
needs children, and Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be awarded subsidies. Second, we find that net of
other factors, subsidies do reduce the incidence of hours/schedule related problems at work by 56 percent. Our
results imply that child care subsidies can be a powerful tool to help working-poor families juggle work and
family and improve their life chances.

D. Availability of child care subsidies affects parental employment and increases families’ overall standard of
living
Kimmel 2000 [w.e. upjohn institute for employment research, employment research - april 2000. Jean kimmel: employment-
related child care issues, what we know and what we do not.]
What about federal and state spending on child care? The availability
of child care subsidies, provided via the income tax
system or more directly to providers or consumers, can alter the relative supply and demand for different modes
of care and, as a result, can affect child outcomes as well as employment of parents. In fact, tension often arises
between the goals concerning child development and employment (Blau, forthcoming). Child care subsidies are also
politically palatable work-tied transfers, raising the overall standard living of the recipient families. The
effectiveness of means-tested child care subsidies could be improved and in fact assessed more concretely if policy goals were
clarified or if key response parameters were known, including the responses to subsidies in parents' modal choices and the responses
by suppliers to the availability of subsidies. Other policy issues include the appropriate regulation of providers, the modes of care that
should be subsidized, and the availability of subsidies to encourage providers to locate in underserved areas. Across these four broad
areas, other gaps exist

<Footer> 3
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts

*Read this article

E. Investing in child care improves parents’ ability to stay employed

Bennetts ’09 [the new push for quality child care by leslie bennett.s. Ellen bravo, prof of women’s studies, national director of
association for working women. Source: national association of child care resource and referral agencies, published:
07/19/2009. Http://www.parade.com/news/2009/07/19-the-new-push-for-quality-child-care.html accessed 8/18/09]

“There’sno way we can solve this problem without adding public funding, as many other countries do, and as
we do with public education,” Ellen Bravo says. “If we want a stable workforce, investing in child care will not only
help improve the school-readiness and work-preparedness of children, but it will also improve parents’ ability to
stay employed.”

<Footer> 4
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Contention Four: Child Abuse

A. Unemployment exacerbates child maltreatment and abuse

National child abuse coalition ’08 [national child abuse coalition: december 19, 2008. Child abuse recommendations for the
stimulus package.http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/advocacy/adv-li-capta-ssbg-funds.pdf accessed 8/18/09 nwm]

The National Research Council has identified unemployment among the stresses associated with child
maltreatment in families. Research has shown us that child maltreatment rates are higher in areas with unusually
high rates of unemployment. Increases in child abuse and neglect are often preceded by periods of high job loss.
In times of crisis, families need additional supports and services to prevent maltreatment from
occurring.Most children in the child welfare system are from low-income families for reasons which
include parental stress during financial difficulties which contributes to child abuse, and poor families reported
for neglect that do not have adequate resources to care for their children. According to the Third National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect, children from families with incomes below $15,000 per year are more than 22 times more likely to experience
abuse or neglect than children living in families with incomes of $30,000 or more. While most poor people do not maltreat their
children, poverty – particularly when interacting with other risk factors, including unemployment – increases the likelihood
of maltreatment. Particularly in cases of neglect, poverty and unemployment show strong associations with child maltreatment.
B. Child abuse is less likely in childcare facilities

Fiene ’02 [13 indicators of quality child care: research update. Presented to: office of the assistant secretary for planning and
evaluation and health resources and services administration/maternal and child health bureau. U.s. department of health and human
services. Presented by: richard fiene, ph.d.pennsylvania state university, national resource center for health and safety in child care,
university of colorado. 2002. Accessed 8/19/09 nwm http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/ccquality-ind02/]

A major concern of parents when they drop their children off at child care is the safety of their children in the hands of the caregivers. The
abuse of
children in out-of-home settings has generated a good deal of concern. However, all documented research
in this area indicates that fewer instances of abuse occur in child care programs than in homes or
residential facilities (Finkelhor & Williams, 1990; Goldman, 1993; Margolin, 1991). If abuse does occur, though, parents must be aware of several signs that
are cause for concern. According to research, physical abuse most frequently occurs in the form of excessive discipline, often as a response to prior conflict with the
child. Sometimes, excessive discipline may have been inadvertently supported by parental permission for corporal punishment. Although sexual abuse occurs less
frequently in centers than in homes, the effects of sexual abuse on the child seems worse in centers. Sexual abuse often involves physical abuse

C. Abuse destroys childrens’ self worth and leads to social ills later in life

Bethea ’99 [primary prevention of child abuse by lesa bethea, m.d., university of south carolina school of medicine, columbia,
south carolina. 1999 american academy of family physicians. Accessed 9/22/09 nwm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1577.html]

Not only do children suffer acutely from the physical and mental cruelty of child abuse, they endure many long-
term consequences, including delays in reaching developmental milestones, refusal to attend school and
separation anxiety disorders. Other consequences include an increased likelihood of future substance abuse,
aggressive behaviors, high-risk health behaviors, criminal activity, somatization, depressive and affective
disorders, personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, schizophrenia and abuse of their
own children and spouse.12, Recent research has shown that a loving, caring and stimulating environment during the
13

first three years of a child's life is important for proper brain development. This finding implies that children
who receive maltreatment in these early years may actually have suboptimal brain development.1

<Footer> 5
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts

D. The failure to protect our children outweighs war, poverty, hunger, crime, racism, tribalism, and genocide
because it means we have devolved—in order to survive we must protect our young- child abuse is a threat to
the survival of humanity.

Vachss ’98 [our endangered species: a hard look at how we treat children by andrew vachss. Originally published in parade
magazine, march 29, 1998. Accessed 10/19/09 nwmhttp://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9803_a.html]

there is one critical area in

Although we all believe our human species to be the highest point on the evolutionary scale,
which we have failed to evolve, one area in which we do not represent an improvement upon our
predecessors. And this is a failure so fundamental, so critical, that our long-term survival is at stake.
Ultimately, it poses a greater threat than war, poverty, hunger, crime, racism and tribalism—even of the
genocidal variety—combined. That fundamental failure is this: We are not protecting and preserving our
own. Our notion of the human "family" as the safeguard of our species has not evolved. Instead, it has gone in the opposite direction
—it has devolved. It has devolved to the extent that we tolerate unprotective, even violently abusive parents. It
has devolved to the extent that we tolerate predators within a child's circle of trust—in schools, in clubs, within religious
organizations. It has devolved to extent that abusers, even when they have been identified, are permitted further opportunities to
prey. It has devolved to the extent that we insist on the "rehabilitative potential" of those who viciously injure and/or sexually assault
their own children. And it has devolved to the extent that we permit convicted predators of children to be released and walk among
us. One distinguishing characteristic of highly evolved species is a long period of postnatal helplessness, when offspring are not able
to fend for themselves. Another characteristic is pack behavior, a collectiveness which requires that all activity be geared to the
ultimate survival of the group. Among other mammals, nonprotective parents are considered defective by other pack members. Not
only will they decrease the pack's numbers through direct attacks on their own young, but they also cannot be relied upon to guard
the offspring of others while pack members forage, hunt or gather. And so they are expelled. Likewise, predators within a species are
not tolerated. They are banished, avoided or killed. These are not moral judgements; they are biologically driven and, among all
species but our own, compelling.Human animals, by contrast, have tolerated—even tacitly condoned—the nonprotector and the
predator, leading to an escalation of the rape, murder and torture of our children. Rather than making their survival, and the survival
of our species, an unquestioned priority, we watch indifferently while the evolution of cruelty continues. Much of it comes from the
Instead of blaming the "destruction of the family" for
individual family itself; all of it from the human family as a whole.
every social ill and evil, we need to face the fact that this is a self-inflicted wound. The "family" is self-
destructing—destroying itself from within by its failure to nurture and value its offspring. What are "family values"
anyway? Unless and until the ultimate "family value" is protection of our children, such a term deserves no respect. We
cannot continue to tolerate those who prey upon our children—the future of our species. Evolution is a race, a relay race, with the
baton passed from generation to generation. The competition is between those who value children as the seedlings of our species
and those who value them as vassals and victims. We are not winning this race. And we cannot, unless and until we change our
priorities and our conduct. All the pious rhetoric on the planet will not save one child. And while we endlessly debate
the "right" of pedophiles to post kiddie porn on the Internet, our species moves farther away from its biological roots. We must
take the abuse of a child as an offense against (and threat to) our survival. And we must replicate the conduct of
our animal ancestors and respond as they did—or fail to do so and vanish as some of them did. Forever.

E. You have a moral obligation to place children first and prevent child abuse

Gervin ’09 [jovanie’s declaration: uniting to prevent child abuse and neglect by george gervin (honorary chair of the blue ribbon
task force 2009). Accessed 8/19/09 nwmhttp://www.blueribbontaskforce.com/jovanie.html]

We, the citizens... Can grow.

G. Child abuse causes social homeostasis—reducing abuse is the most important task

<Footer> 6
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Demause ’98 [the history of child abuse by lloyd demause (director of the institute for psychohistory, editor of the journal of
psychohistory and president of the international psychohistorical association and is the author of the history of childhood, foundations
of psychohistory,and reagan's america.) The journal of psychohistory 25 (3) winter 1998 nwm]

Indeed, my conclusion.. Task we face today.

H. Reducing child abuse opens the door to an empathic classless society incapable of war

Demause ’98 [the history of child abuse by lloyd demause (director of the institute for psychohistory, editor of the journal of
psychohistory and president of the international psychohistorical association and is the author of the history of childhood, foundations
of psychohistory,and reagan's america.) The journal of psychohistory 25 (3) winter 1998 nwm]

What kind of society... Children needing punishment.

I. Child abuse is the root cause of war

Demause ’98 [the history of child abuse by lloyd demause (director of the institute for psychohistory, editor of the journal of
psychohistory and president of the international psychohistorical association and is the author of the history of childhood, foundations
of psychohistory,and reagan's america.) The journal of psychohistory 25 (3) winter 1998 nwm]

That all social violence... Love and independence.

<Footer> 7
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Contention Five: The Trap
Initially note, lack of childcare forces parents onto welfare because they have to cut work to care for children-
that’s Edelman 07.

Further- Without access to child care many people cannot maintain jobs

Winne ‘08 [mark winne, (dir., hartford food system), closing the food gap: resetting the table in the land of plenty, 2008, 181.]

Reinforcing its reputation... Jobs and careers.

Scenario One- Dependency

Child care solves dependency- families can get to work.

Results ’09 [safe and affordable child care: the child care and development block grant (ccdbg) results last updated 10/6/09
accessed 10/6/09 nwmhttp://results.techriver.net/website/article.asp?id=380]
The 1996 welfare reform law consolidated several different sources of federal funding for child care into the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG). CCDBG provides a block grant to states for child care assistance to help
low-income working families become and remain independent. Specifically, CCDBG helps defray the
costs of child care by providing eligible low-income families with subsidies to help them pay for child
care. CCDBG includes funds specifically dedicated to improving the quality, as well as the amount of child care available, to low
income families. Funding of CCDBG comes from three sources: CCDBG funding is included at a mandatory level specified in the
welfare law, which is $2.917 billion for fiscal year 2008. Congress annually appropriates a discretionary amount, which is $2.062
billion for fiscal year 2008. States may choose to use part of their federal welfare block grant for child care. The amount varies from
year to year and has decreased dramatically because of states’ fiscal crises. CCDBG provides money for child care assistance for
low-income families, families receiving public assistance, and those enrolled in training or education or who are working and
States can use these funds to help families who need child care in order to
transitioning from public assistance.
work and to help families move out of and stay off welfare. For many parents, child care is essential in
order for them to work. For families leaving welfare, child care is pivotal to a parent’s ability to make a
smooth transition from welfare to work. For child care arrangements to support working families, they must be affordable,
available, reliable, and of good quality. Many low-income parents, however, have difficulty finding child care settings that are
affordable and flexible enough to accomodate their work schedules, while also meeting their child’s developmental needs.

Impact- Welfare fosters dependencies that threaten our entire social fabric, dehumanizes the poor, increases
poverty and crime rates
Michael D. Tanner, analyst, Cato Institute, THE POVERTY OF WELFARE: HELPING OTHERS IN CIVIL SOCIETY, 2003, p.50.
Nearly 150 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville called for abolishing government welfare programs, warning that "the number of
illegitimate children and criminals grows rapidly and continuously, the indigent population is endless, the spirit of foresight and of
saving becomes more and more alien." Tocqueville could easily have been describing our government welfare system today.
Welfare may have started with the best of intentions, but it has clearly failed. It has failed to meet its stated goal of
reducing poverty. But its real failure is even more disastrous. Welfare has torn apart the social fabric of our society.
Everyone is worse off. The taxpayers must foot the bill for programs that don't work. The poor are
dehumanized, seduced into a system from which it is terribly difficult to escape. Teenage girls give birth to
children they will never be able to support. The work ethic has eroded. Crime rates soar. Such is the legacy of
welfare. In 1996 we recognized the failures of welfare, which led to the most significant changes to the program in more than a
welfare's failures are far deeper and more endemic than any reform can fix.
quarter century. But as we shall see,
They are characteristic of the welfare state itself.
This turns the case—dependency, not poverty, is the root cause of social problems
Robert E. Rector, fellow, Heritage Foundation, "The Effects of Welfare Reform," TESTIMONY, March 15, 2001,
www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test031501b.cfm,
If having a low income were the key cause of crime, illegitimacy, drugs, or child abuse, for example, then earlier periods should have
been simply awash in those problems. Instead the opposite is the case, most social problems seem to have gotten worse as incomes
rose. Clearly poverty is not the cause behind the growth of these social problems. Instead, it is the ethos within

<Footer> 8
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
families that is critical; the norms and values imparted to children concerning: marriage, work, education, and
self-control. Conventional welfare, by undermining this ethos (especially with regard to work and marriage),
has increased rather than diminished most social problems.

Scenario Two- Poverty

Government dependency makes poverty easy – dependency and unemployment re-entrenches the impoverished.
Williams, 05 (Walter E. Human Events Online, “Americans' Dependency on Government Is Growing”, July 6
2005, lexis)
One of the results of the growth of dependency on government is what Professor Olasky calls the charitable
equivalent of Gresham's Law -- where bad charities drive out good charities. Consider two options for a
homeless family. A church or some other non-governmental entity might offer a homeless family shelter in
return for the family's performance of chores such as cleaning the kitchen, mowing the lawn and washing
windows. By contrast, a shelter financed by the government might provide that family shelter with no such
obligation. The natural tendency for many homeless families would be to opt for the shelter where they have no
obligation to give back. The Gresham's Law feature of this is the displacement of charity from the local and
private level to the state, where all too often the state is unwilling or unable to distinguish between deserving
and undeserving need. ; There's another devastating feature of growing dependency on government. Professor Olasky says that
prior to the 1960s, marriage was a more vital institution than today. It was a "compassionate anti-poverty device that offered adults
affiliation and challenge as it provided two parents for each child." Before the '60s, the support for marriage was so strong that an
unmarried woman who became pregnant usually would get married. Professor Olasky adds that 85 percent of teenage mothers in the
1950s were married by the time their babies were born. That's before we bought into the vision promoted by "experts" such as Johns
Hopkins professor Andrew Cherlin, who said, "It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of
the supposed deficiencies of broken homes." The real issue, according to Professor Cherlin, "is not the lack of male presence but the
lack of male income." That's a vision that says marriage and fatherhood can be replaced by a welfare check. on government also
has the effect of reducing economic mobility among the poor. Professor Olasky says that the dramatic progress of Asians
and Cubans in recent decades demonstrates the existence of opportunities for those who are willing to conform to the traditional
Easy access to welfare has made many individuals, who
work-hard-and-rise pattern by staying out of the welfare system.
turned down opportunities, believe they were better off so far as income, leisure time and family time than they
would have been by accepting a low-paying job. In terms of short-run economics, many were correct. Welfare
reform during the 1990s, despite the dire predictions, moved many former welfare recipients into the world of
work and upward mobility. Many who never had a job are now working and are self-sufficient. As such, the tens of thousands
of former welfare recipients who moved from welfare rolls to payrolls are proof of the inhumanity of
dependency. What's more important is that these former welfare recipients and their families have a greater
sense of self-worth. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he wrote, "[T]he best way of doing good to the poor,
is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Government dependency makes
poverty easy.

The government has a duty to solve poverty even if it isn’t the cause.

Center for Economic and Social Rights, 2009 [Human Rights and Poverty: Is Poverty a Violation of Human Rights,
Human Rights Insight No.1, 2009 http://www.cesr.org/article.php?list=tye&type=40]
Poverty often has overlapping and multiple determinants which cannot all be attributed to the state. However, whilst it
is true that
poverty has many determinants, this cannot be used as an excuse by governments to do nothing. It does not
relieve governments of their responsibility for addressing the various determinants of poverty, nor does it
relieve them of their responsibility to examine policy choices to ensure that they have not created, exacerbated
or perpetuated poverty. As Louise Arbour has argued: “Poverty and exclusion is too readily accepted by majorities as regrettably
accidental, or natural or inevitable, or perhaps even the fault of the poor, rather than the outcome of conscious policy choices.”
Conscious policy choices can cause poverty in foreseeable - and therefore avoidable - ways.
(Louise Arbour, 2008)
From this perspective, we cannot argue that poverty is always inevitable because it is often the result of

<Footer> 9
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
conscious policy choices; it is not simply a natural disaster, but a ‘human-made’ disaster. Louise Arbour cites for
example the Human Development Report’s 2005 criticism of how agricultural subsidies in northern developed countries are causing
poverty in southern, developing countries. Governments in the north are consciously choosing policies that foreseeably cause
poverty. As Thomas Pogge argues, this could be seen as a violation of the negative duty to do no harm (duty to respect). He argues
thatgovernments have a duty to refrain from participating in an unjust institutional system when that
participation helps to produce or perpetuate worse conditions for the poor.

<Footer> 10
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Child Abuse Ext.
Child abuse creates a vicious cycle of further abuse

Belmonte ’08 [child abuse and neglect: warning signs of abuse and how to report it by joelle belmonte, helpguide.org
2008.http://helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm accessed 8/18/09 nwm]

Facts about child... Perpetuate the cycle.

<Footer> 11
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Solvency Ext.
CCDBG supports the states

Thomas ’09 [senate report 111-066 - departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies
appropriation bill, 2010. Library of congress 2009. Accessed 10/5/09 nwm http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?
&sid=cp111zxgca&refer=&r_n=sr066.111&db_id=111&item=&sel=toc_543449&]

The child care... Development programs

CCDBG enables parental employment

Blagman ’09 [testimony on the child care and development fund state plan for new jersey department of human services, division
of family development ffy 2010-2011. Presented by amanda blagman, senior policy analyst on behalf of the association for children of
new jersey. Accessed august 9, 2009.]

As it has in... Can best afford

<Footer> 12
RHS 09-10 CCDBG Reauthorization Aff
Das ITCH Districts
Dehum Add-On
A. Poverty dehumanizes and kills—more have died from poverty in the last 53 years than all who died in
vietnam

Loffredo ‘93 [assistant professor of law, city university of new york law school at queens college (stephen loffredo, 141 u. Pa. L.
Rev. 1277, “poverty, democracy and constitutional law,” lexis]

It is hard... Society at large.

B. Dehumanization is the root cause of genocide, war crimes, and rights violations. It strips both the victims and
the perpetrators of their humanity.

Maiese ’03 [michelle maiese is a graduate student of philosophy at the university of colorado, boulder and is a part of the research
staff at the conflict research consortium: beyond intractability version iv copyright © 2003-2007 the beyond intractability project: guy
burgess and heidi burgess, co-directors and editors. July 2003. Accessed
7/15/09.<http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/>]

Once certain groups... Common goals.

<Footer> 13