Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

1NC

*DA 2:00
Passing the infrastructure plan is key, and will pass, but bipartisanship is necessary
Shelbourne 1/17/18 (Mallory Shellborne, Reporter for The Hill, “bipartisan froup of
lawmakers offers ideas for infrastructure plan” The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/infrastructure/368334-bipartisan-group-of-
lawmakers-unveil-infrastructure , Accessed 3/2/18, Ashmeet Saini)

The congressional Problem Solvers Caucus on Wednesday released a report detailing policy suggestions
for a future infrastructure plan, that will pass, but requires bipartisan agreement in order to pass. The
report, released by the caucus’s Infrastructure Working Group, proposes solutions on how to modernize
U.S. infrastructure while maintaining environmental protections and bolstering the national security.
“Unfortunately, due to years of underinvestment and deferred maintenance, America is no longer
keeping pace and continues to fall behind other countries,” the report says. “By some estimates, the
funding gap may be as high as $2 trillion across all sectors of American infrastructure.” Among the
suggestions in the report is creating “a rural liaison” for various federal agencies to help those areas
seek funding. It also suggests that projects financed by the federal government should take a “Buy
America” approach to make sure U.S. goods like steel and iron are used. “America was a great country
because we did great and big things,” Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), a co-author of the report, said
during its unveiling. Esty, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, pointed
to the recent water main break at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport that caused flooding in the facility
and delayed flights as an example of the country’s crumbling infrastructure. “That’s become all too often
what we see in America right now,” she said. “It’s frustrating. It’s expensive. And we can fix it.” The
group's report comes as the Trump administration’s forthcoming infrastructure package appears to be
stalling. The administration previously vowed to produce “detailed legislative principles” for an
infrastructure package this month, but the White House said Tuesday that a plan may not come until
February, after President Trump delivers his State of the Union address. Lawmakers are seeking to push
infrastructure as a point of rare bipartisan agreement between Democrats and Republicans at a time of
heightened tensions after the passage of the Trump tax-cut bill. Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), another co-
author of the Problem Solvers's report, said the group met with the Trump administration “many times”
as it worked on the report. “They are excited about this. They are supportive and they’re happy that
we’re leading on getting the rollout going and showing that there’s bipartisan support," he said.

{{{{{Insert Link}}}}}

The aff is extremely unpopular -- trump, and his base hate it


Ehley 2/13/18
(Brianna Ethley, writer for politico, “trump’s budget targets health programs”, Politico,
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-pulse/2018/02/13/trumps-budget-targets-health-
programs-103470 , Accessed 3/16/18, AS)
TRUMP'S BUDGET TARGETS HEALTH PROGRAMS — President Donald Trump, for a second year in a
row, is seeking deep cuts to discretionary health programs, while also targeting hundreds of billion of
dollars in savings from Medicare and Medicaid. The president has proposed slicing his health
department by 21 percent, with funding for public health initiatives taking the hardest hits. He's also
calling for a roughly 95 percent cut to his own drug policy office.

Education reform unpopular – DeVos


Vyse 3/1/18 (Graham Vyse, Staff writer at The New Republic, “Education policy will
divide Democrats in 2018, because Betsy DeVos” , The New Republic,
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142079/education-policy-will-divide-democrats-
2018-betsy-devos , Accessed 2/1/18, Ashmeet Saini)

Education policy will divide Democrats and Republicans in 2018, because Betsy DeVos. When former
Education Secretary Arne Duncan championed charter schools under President Barack Obama, critics of
“school choice” were in a bind. The Democratic administration embraced traditional public schools far
more than Republicans, and steadfastly opposed private school vouchers. That left choice skeptics like
teachers unions no where else to go politically. Despite their disagreements with Obama, they strongly
supported both of his campaigns. But with privatizer Betsy DeVos now running the Education
Department, the politics of education reform are changing.

The plan causes fights among democrats and republicans that bog down Congress and
waste time
Doran 17
Leo Doran (staff writer). “Education Policy Has Rarely Been This Politicized.” Inside Sources. February 6th, 2017.
http://www.insidesources.com/education-policy-rarely-politicized/

Nonetheless, Republican strategists in the new administration may consciously choose to allow some
time to elapse before pushing major education reform. Despite a recent House subcommittee hearing on “The Power
of School Choice” and a pair of GOP bills aimed at rolling back Obama administration ESSA rules, Cross said he does not expect “an ‘in your
face’” attempt by Republican leadership in the coming weeks to enact sweeping campaign promises, such as President Trump’s proposal to find
$20 billion for school choice grants. While a major school choice bill may get out of the House, the Senate committee that
oversees education is expected to be busy in the coming months with the large task of amending or
replacing the Affordable Care Act. Michael Hansen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy,
agrees with Cross that the confirmation fight is “larger than just Betsy DeVos.” Hansen also expressed the caveat, however, that DeVos’s
signature issue—school choice and related voucher programs—is somewhat more controversial than the issues typically championed by
prospective education secretaries. Unlike Cross, who sees the possibility for tensions to cool in the coming months, Hansen said that

education policy “is shaping up to be a space where there are a lot of partisan divides .” He said the
issue “is probably going to be political for a while.”

Failure to improve our infrastructure leads to economic decline


Navales 16 (Ethel Navales, she is a writer, who is also the assosciate editor for Right of
Way magazine, and she wrote her own book, “Paying the price”, p.18-22,
http://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/web_jul_aug_16_PayingthePrice.pdf ,
July/August 2016, Accessed 12/25/17, Ashmeet Saini)

America’s infrastructure is crumbling at our feet Truthfully, most of us haven’t fully grasped the full
Let’s face it, .

extent of damage that such an issue has on our country. Even worse, many have simply grown
accustomed to hearing about our collapsing infrastructure and have turned a blind eye to the crisis
altogether But keeping up this mentality will ultimately lead to our detriment We can no longer ignore
. .

the [negative] impact that our deteriorating infrastructure has on our nation’s economy, business and
industry productivity, gross domestic product (GDP), international competitiveness, employment,
personal income and costs to households. our failure to act has widened further losses For years, the investment gap, and

will continue to accumulate if we don’t take action and address the needed maintenance and improvements. To monitor our progress, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) came up with

The Report Card for America’s Infrastructure . This report, which is published every four years, grades national infrastructure categories on a familiar “A” through “F” scale. Unfortunately, we have held “D” averages since 1998. Most recently, the ASCE released Failure to Act: Closing the
Infrastructure Investment Gap for America’s Economic Future , which updates previous Failure to Act reports from 2011 and 2012. The series outlines the impact of infrastructure investment on America’s economic future and takes a closer look at each sector, giving a more precise idea
of the effects that each system has on businesses, households and the overall economy. More specifically, Failure to Act details how severely our country will be hurt by 2025 if we continue to ignore the infrastructure investment gap within each system. THE PRICE PAYING JULY/AUGUST
2016 Right of Way 19 20 Right of Way JULY/AUGUST 2016 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Surface transportation infrastructure includes highways, bridges, commuter rails and all other transit systems. Over the years, there have been a number of funding efforts, such as the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation Act, which utilizes $56.2 billion per year of federal funds for highway and transit programs. Unfortunately, these efforts have only kept the problem at bay. While we have been able to avoid immediate failure of key facilities and stabilize the downward trend in
highway investment, it is not enough for effective functioning of the national highway system. In other words, the deterioration is still continuing and leaving a mounting burden on the U.S. economy. In fact, it seems that every effort we make for improvement has its consequences. While
maintenance on roads and highways has improved, delays caused by highway congestion have grown by 36 percent. Funds received for public bus and rail transportation end up being used for maintenance of the aging vehicles and fixing damages caused by poor roadway surfaces. Our
funds are diverted to the difficult task of damage control instead of prevention. According to Failure to Act , the average annual investment gap for surface transportation through 2025 is expected to increase to $110 billion, and the deficiencies are projected to cost the national economy
almost $1 trillion in GDP by 2025. What does this mean for American citizens? Travel time will increase due to poor roadway c onditions and out-of-service transit. Increased travel time for service providers will lead to increased cost of services and products. This will ultimately impact
sales, which makes U.S. products less competitive with foreign imports. Overall business income and wages will be suppressed and the U.S. economy will move away from research, knowledge- based and technology-related sectors. WATER AND WASTEWATER It’s no surprise that out of
all the infrastructure types, water is the most fundamental. Water systems collect water from rivers and lakes, remove pollutants and distribute the safe water. Similarly, wastewater systems collect sewage and used water, remove contaminants, and release the clean water back into the
lakes and rivers. Obviously, both systems are incredibly essential. Despite our heavy reliance on water and wastewater systems, the conditions of these systems remain extremely poor. Aging pipes and inadequate capacity leads to the estimated discharge of nearly 900 billion gallons of
untreated sewage each year. These kinds of failures can lead to a variety of disruptions and even damage to other types of essential infrastructure. Clearly, the public will not overlook the water and wastewater systems. In fact, current standards for public health and environmental safety
require a significant number of water and wastewater infrastructures to be built. For instance, some have called for more than 7.3 million lead service pipelines around the country to be replaced. However, investments are simply unable to keep up. According to Failure to Act , the annual
investment gap for water and wastewater through 2025 is expected to decrease from $11.2 billion to $10.5 billion thanks to projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, the nation will still have lost over $508 billion in GDP. 46% $941 BILLION FUNDED $1.1
TRILLION UNFUNDED 30% $45 BILLION FUNDED $105 BILLION UNFUNDED FUNDED FUNDED JULY/AUGUST 2016 Right of Way 21 ELECTRICITY Electricity relies on generation facilities and high- voltage transmission lines that connect it to major populations. These generation, transmission
and distribution facilities were built over the course of a century. As such, they all have varying ages, conditions and capacities – and many of these facilities are in dire need of an upgrade. Unfortunately, complicated and inefficient regulations make decisions more complex. Failure to Act
points out that more investments must be put toward maintaining and replacing aging infrastructure before making expensive, new generation investments. If aging equipment and increased demands are not addressed, we can expect greater electricity interruptions. For instance, every
power interruption costs an average of $2,600 - $6,600 for industrial firms and an average of $900 - $1,700 for commercial firms. These power outages result in higher production costs, which again affects the competitiveness of American industries. AIRPORTS, INLAND WATERWAYS AND
MARINE PORTS Although the U.S. has well over 3,000 airports, only 30 “core” airports serve nearly 70 percent of commercial passengers and 79 percent of all domestic and international airfreight. And with the need for airport spending growing everyday, we become even more at risk for
air and ground congestion at these major airports. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that construction needs and congestion relief will require $19.9 billion in investment through 2025. The inland waterway system and marine ports are in no better shape. Domestically, 20
percent of all crude petroleum, 6 percent of all coal and 14 percent of other fuel oils are transported over water. This alone affects all of the nation’s economic sectors that rely on energy. Additionally, 63 percent of U.S. imports and 73 percent of our exports are transported by water.
Despite this heavy reliance on water transportation, difficult economic conditions have led to unmet port and transportation system needs. As a result, Failure to Act estimat es losing nearly $800 billion in GDP by 2025. Historically, the U.S. has had a competitive advantage by having
relatively inexpensive transportation costs. However, if airport and water port infrastructure continue to age and deteriorate, the cost to move goods will rise significantly. Deficiencies in airports and marine ports will directly harm our national competitiveness . 81% $757 BILLION
FUNDED $177 BILLION UNFUNDED 73% 59% $115 BILLION FUNDED FUNDED FUNDED FUNDED $22 BILLION FUNDED $42 BILLION UNFUNDED $15 BILLION UNFUNDED 22 Right of Way JULY/AUGUST 2016 will also reverberate throughout. Just as one weakened infrastructure system can
bring the others down, a strengthened one can positively affect the various systems as well. The Failure to Act series shows that closing each infrastructure investment gap is actually possible, and the economic consequences are avoidable with invest ment. After all, the nation’s inland
waterways, marine ports, airports, and electricity and water infrastructure have all shown modest signs of investment gap improvements. Ultimately, it is insufficient funding which brings down economic productivity. Although creating innovative answers and long-term solutions for this
national crisis will be no easy task, one thing is certain: if we continue to turn a blind eye to the widening infrastructure investment gap, then the expectations of the Failure to Act report will surely turn into a reality. J For more information and to download the full report, visit

Infrastructure is critical to every nation’s prosperity, public health and welfare.


http://www.asce.org/failuretoact/ IT’S TIME TO ACT

Despite this, we have only been paying roughly half of America’s infrastructure bill, leaving a giant
funding gap that hurts the economy, businesses, workers and families . All of the Failure to Act reports conclude that business costs and prices will increase if

In fact, if none of the infrastructure gaps are


surface transportation worsens, if airports and waterways become too congested and outdated, or if water and electricity systems deteriorate.

addressed, the nation is expected to lose 2.5 million jobs, $4 trillion in GDP, $34,000 in disposable
income per household and $7 trillion in lost business sales by 2025. This is largely because the weakening of even one of the infrastructure systems has an effect on

the others. For example, if airports become too congested, passengers may turn to surface transportation. But what happens if surface transportation infrastructure is too deteriorated to take on the extra strain? And what happens when power plants that provide electricity do not have a
reliable source of clean water? Ultimately, these infrastructure systems depend on one another and the deterioration of just one will have a cascading impact on th e other systems. Do these circumstances mean we are destined to crumble? Not necessarily. The silver lining is that
economic benefits of infrastructure investment
*CP

Next, onto the CP


Text: The 50 states and relevant territories should uniformly do the affirmative plan.

View the counterplan through the lens of sufficiency, if we can prove, we can
sufficiently resolve the affirmative, and avoid the disad, you vote neg. We don’t need
to prove the CP solves better than the aff. We just need to avoid the link to the disad,
which we do, because

States bypass partisan gridlock


Goins 2012 (Pam Goins, January/February 2012, “States Develop Solutions in Era of ‘Do-Nothing’
Congress,” Capitol Ideas, a publication of the Council of State Governments,
http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/jan_feb_2012_regionPDFs/CIJanFeb2012SOUTH.pdf)

As Congress remains gridlocked over just about every issue that comes before its members, states are
addressing the inaction with innovation. Congressional inaction has forced states to address problems
in transportation and education, as well as take a leading role in the immigration debate. Congress has failed
to re- authorize the Elementary and secondary Education act, also known as No Child Left Behind, and the surface transportation law, known
as saFETEa-LU. Federal lawmakers also are dragging their heels on overhauling immigration, but the U.s. Department of Justice
is taking legal action against states that address the issue.

Plank Text: The 50 states and relevant territories should raise property taxes
proportionally to fund the plan.

Raising property tax solves funding


Kenyon 2007 Daphne A. Kenyon, Policy Focus Report, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy - (Kenyon, 2007.
“The Property Tax – School Funding Dilemma.”
http://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/the-property-tax-school-funding-dilemma-
full_0.pdf)//EM

Property taxation and school funding are closely linked in the United States, with nearly half of all
property tax revenue used for public elementary and secondary education. There is an active policy
debate across the country regarding the degree to which public schools should be funded with property
tax dollars. Some policy makers and analysts call for reduced reliance on property tax revenue and
increased reliance on state funding; others claim that the property tax is a critical ingredient in effective
local government. School funding is no less controversial, and nearly every state has dealt with school
funding litigation and court mandates at least once over the last several decades. States experiencing
taxpayer revolts among homeowners are tempted to reduce reliance on the property tax to fund
schools. But a more targeted approach can provide property tax relief and also improve state funding
for public education, according to this new report by Daphne A. Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the Lincoln
Institute. “Those who have tried to reduce property taxes and improve school performance at the same
time have not met with much success,” according to Kenyon. The report includes a comprehensive
review of recent research on both the property tax and school funding, and summarizes case studies of
seven states—California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas, the
majority of them heavily reliant on property tax revenues to fund schools. Among these states
Massachusetts ranks the highest and California the lowest, according to the respective property tax
relief and school funding principles presented in the report. One objective of the report is to provide
information helpful to state policy makers and others who are grappling with the twin challenges of
court mandates regarding school funding and constituent pressure to lower property taxes. Another
objective is to correct some common misconceptions through a critical analysis of nine myths regarding
school funding litigation, property tax characteristics, and the state role in funding education. While
there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the report recommends addressing property taxes and school
funding separately. Property tax relief. Arguing that the use of property tax revenue for schools is
fundamentally sound, the report points out that increasing state aid for education does not necessarily
result in lower property taxes, and it cautions against switching to greater reliance on a sales tax, for
example, to fund schools. Instead, a more targeted effort can achieve fairness and relief, with the
greater use of circuit breakers that adjust property tax bills based on ability to pay. Many states do not
take full advantage of this policy instrument, or limit its application to the elderly. School funding.
Addressing the complex issue of statewide funding for schools, the report also recommends a targeted
approach—distributing state aid for public education to the neediest school districts, schools, and
students. State policy makers should not aim to provide any specific percentage for the state’s share of
funding K-12 education, the report concludes. According to Darcy Saas, the Deputy Director of the New
England Public Policy Center, a research group established by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank, this
report's "most important contribution is its exposure and discussion of the common misconceptions
regarding school funding and property taxes. Public policies are too often developed based on
incomplete analysis and unchallenged assertions. There is a real need for objective research like Dr.
Kenyon’s that can shine a brighter light on assumptions and support the development of sound
policies."

SOLVENCY
T – Education
1. Interpretation: The plan must regulate subject-matter in classrooms---anything
broader includes all socialization
Ikonen 99 (PhD, faculty of education (Risto, “What is this Thing called Education? - An Attempt to reveal the True Nature of the Science
of Education,” http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001354.htm)

[3] Michael Naish (1984, 151) argues that ‘education’ is a legitimatizing word: "the teaching of a particular subject or range of
topics may be the more legitimated the more widely it is believed to fall under that term [i.e. education]". This is exactly what I mean with the
manifesto-like character of the word ‘education’: it is not just a name, it is an ultimately concentrated piece of information.
[4] Actually, the same idea can be found in Frankena (1973, 73), when he writes that education must foster disposition and use methods "that
are desirable and morally unobjectionable, or at least regarded as such, otherwise it is not education" (emphasis mine). - Obviously this notion
should lead to a conclusion that the characteristics of the phenomenon of ‘education’ have to be sought from the name-giving process, not
from the things that are named as education. [5] Frankena (1973, 75) writes that Plato, Kant, Dewey or Chinese ---"all mean by ‘education’
(or its equivalents in their languages) the same thing, i.e. a process, involving an educator and an educated, of forming ’desirable
dispositions by desirable methods’" (emphasis mine). [6] In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th edition, Vol. 4) ‘education’ is defined
as a discipline that is concerned --- "mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools or schoollike environments
as opposed to various informal means of socialization". - The connection to schooling is obvious.
T – Ban
1. Interpretation : “Regulation” steers valued activities --- it’s not the same thing
as an outright ban, which is “forbiddance”
Koop 17 – Christel Koop, Department of Political Economy, King’s College London, and Martin Lodge,
Department of Government & Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics
and Political Science, “What is Regulation? An Interdisciplinary Concept Analysis”, Regulation &
Governance, Volume 11, Issue 1, Wiley Online Library

2 Searching for Platonic essences As noted, scholars have stated that the diversity of properties that are associated
with regulation make it impossible to come to a single definition of the concept we refer to as
regulation. As Baldwin et al. put it, there are “a variety of definitions in usage which are not reducible to some Platonic essence or single
concept” (1998, p. 2).5 In addition, Black points out that the definition used often strongly depends on the problem that the author is
interested in (2002, p. 13). As a consequence, Levi-Faur argues, “we should recognize the many meanings of regulation and devote our
attention to understanding each others' terms” (2011, p. 5). Nonetheless,
two main observations can be made. First, at
an abstract level, authors agree that regulation is about intervention in the behavior or activities of
individual and/or corporate actors. As Mitnick puts it, “the central element of the class of behaviors that might be termed
‘regulation’ is an interference of some sort in the activity subject to regulation – it is to be governed, altered, controlled, guided, regulated in
some way” (1980, p. 2; emphasis in original). Similarly, Moran indicates, “its core meaning is mechanical and immediately
invokes the act of steering” (Moran 2003, p. 13). Mitnick adds that this implies that regulated activities are not to
be replaced or banned; they are only to be regulated. This is reflected in Selznick's definition, which
refers to “activities that are valued by a community” and, thus, excludes most areas of criminal law
enforcement (Selznick 1985, p. 363; cf. Ogus 1994, p. 1; Baldwin et al. 1998, p. 3). In Mitnick's view, “[t]here should be public
recognition that the regulated activity is worthwhile in itself and therefore needs protection as well as
control” (1985, p. 363). Hence, we find some agreement on regulation being about intervention in activities, and there are various attempts
to establish boundaries around the realm of regulation. For Mitnick (1980) and Selznick (1985), this is largely about separating
regulatory intervention from the realm of forbiddance.
Case/Impact D
Super Generic Case
Betsy Devos turns the affirmative, and prevents the affirmative from having any
meaningful impact, or change – she slashes budgets, has funding diversions, and
increases segregation – the list goes on
Weingarten 17 (Randi, Time magazine, reporter, “AFT President: Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump Are
Dismantling Public Education” http://time.com/4765410/donald-trump-betsy-devos-atf-public-education/) DGA

Donald Trump may say teachers are important, but hespent his first 100 days undermining the schools most
educators work in —America’s public schools. One of President Trump’s first acts was to appoint the most
anti-public education person ever to lead the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos has called public
schools a “dead end” and bankrolled a private school voucher measure in Michigan that the public defeated by a
two-to-one ratio. When that failed, she spent millions electing legislators who then did her bidding slashing public
school budgets and spreading unaccountable for-profit charters across the state. The result? Nearly half of Michigan’s charter
schools rank in the bottom of U.S. schools, and Michigan dropped from 28th to 41st in reading and from 27th to 42nd in math
compared with other states. Now DeVos is spreading this agenda across the country with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s blessing.
They’ve proposed a budget that takes a meat cleaver to public education and programs that work for kids and
families. After-school and summer programs — gone. Funding for community schools that provide social,
emotional, health and academic programs to kids — gone. Investments to keep class sizes low and
provide teachers with the training and support they need to improve their craft — gone. Their budget
cuts financial aid for low-income college students grappling with student debt at the same time the Trump
administration is making it easier for private loan servicers to prey on students and families. The Trump/DeVos budget funnels more than $1
billion to new voucher and market strategies even though study after study concludes those strategies have hurt kids. Recent studies
of
voucher programs in Ohio and Washington, D.C., show students in these programs did worse than those
in traditional public schools. Further, private voucher schools take money away from neighborhood public
schools, lack the same accountability that public schools have, fail to protect kids from discrimination,
and increase segregation. It’s dangerous in education when the facts don’t matter to people. But it doesn’t stop there. Schools must
be safe and welcoming places for all children, and that’s a belief shared both by parents who send their kids to voucher schools and those who
send their kids to public schools. But Trump
and DeVos have acted to undermine the rights of kids who look or feel
different, and to cut funding for school health and safety programs. What Trump and DeVos are doing stands in stark
contrast to the bipartisan consensus we reached in 2015 when Congress passed a new education law that shifted the focus from testing back to
teaching, pushed decision-making back to states and communities, and continued to invest funds in the schools that need it the most. It offered
an opportunity to focus on what we know works best for kids and schools—promoting children’s well-being, engaging in powerful learning,
building teacher capacity, and fostering cultures of collaboration. The Trump/DeVos agenda not only jeopardizes that work, their
view
that education is a commodity as opposed to a public good threatens the foundation of our democracy
and our responsibility to provide opportunity to all of America’s young people. Americans have a deep connection
to and belief in public education. I see it every day as I crisscross the nation talking to parents, teachers, students and community members
about what they want for their public schools. And it transcends politics. It’s one of the reasons we saw such a massive grass-roots response to
the DeVos nomination from every part of the country.
Next, even if the affirmative can argue, and win that DeVos is good for education, it
doesn’t matter, she will circumvent the affirmative plan – this makes their solvency
impossible
Murdock 17 (Sebastian, received Bachelor’s Degree in Editorial Journalism at University of Colorado, “Betsy
DeVos Rescinds Key Obama-Era Policy on Campus Sexual Assault”, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-
devos-campus-sexual-assault_us_59c53abee4b0cdc77330fd89)

An Obama-era policy that aimed to better protect victims of sexual assault on campus has been [was]
rescinded by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The announcement, made Friday by the Department of
Education, rolled back guidance under Title IX on how colleges and universities should handle[ing]
complaints of sexual harassment and assault. Among other recommendations, the guidance had set forth a lower
“preponderance of evidence” standard for finding that students had committed sexual assault and thus could be punished. Under DeVos,
schools can now raise that standard. “Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes and behaviors head-on,” DeVos said in a
statement. “There will be no more sweeping them under the rug. But the process also must be fair and impartial, giving everyone more
confidence in its outcomes.” In
just her first six months, the secretary has also rolled back protections for
transgender students and seriously scaled down campus rape investigations by the Education
Department. Know Your IX, a national youth-led campaign to end sexual violence, called the latest decision a betrayal of survivors of sexual
assault. “Today’s guidance allows schools to systematically stack campus investigations against survivors and push survivors out of school,” the
group said in a statement. “The Department
of Education is sending the message that they value survivors’
access to education less than that of the students who assault and abuse them.” The department’s Office for Civil
Rights has 360 open sexual assault investigations, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. DeVos is ignoring the “terrifying reality” that
1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted while on campus, according to Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of the national women’s advocacy group
UltraViolet. “Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump are more concerned with protecting the rights of predators and abusers over the rights of
survivors of sexual assault,” Chaudhary said in a statement. “Sadly, given President Trump’s history of bragging about sexual assault, this isn’t
that surprising.”

Alternative causes to solvency — Schools need plans and well trained teachers to
supplement their funding. Poor planning in schools means the aff can’t solve.
Dervarics ’11 [Charles Dervarics is a researcher and writer with 20 years expertise in education, human services and
technology issues, “Study: Minority, Low-income students lack adequate access to educational opportunities”, Diverse Issues in
Higher Education, August 8, 2011, http://diverseeducation.com/article/16180/] Accessed 7-15-17, Tamara W

The study sample of 7,000 school districts and more than 72,000 schools in the Civil Rights Data
Collection says many students have uneven or poor access to rigorous courses at many schools. “Despite
the best efforts of America’s educators to bring greater equity to our schools, too many children —
especially low-income and minority children — are still denied the educational opportunities they need
to succeed,” Russlynn Ali, U.S. assistant secretary of education for civil rights, says in a news statement. Daria Hall,
K-12 policy director for The Education Trust, says the data are important even if they are not surprising. “It provides more actionable
information on the ground,” she says. “It’s a tool to empower parents and advocates and a strong vehicle to force conversations.” “The
evidence is clear. The
single greatest predictor of college success is success in rigorous high school courses,”
Hall says. She contends that the issue is not only access but success. “Just putting kids in courses with
the right title isn’t enough. There must be highly trained teachers and school plans to promote success.”