The big reason this blog has been incredibly... boring is because I've been too occupied with speech and debate to post here. Sorry. So I decided to post my 1AC so everyone could see what's going on.
Note to everyone who is competing in NCFCA and still reading: Yes, this is the complete case flow for Maisano/Morgan from Texas (R4). If you continue to read it, I'm going to make a simple request. I understand that I can't enforce this, but I'm trusting in your conscience. :-) So, if you read this, please post your feedback. You are welcome to use the evidence we've dug up here, but the same principle applies. Post your evidence against it.
So, in a word, if you are going to use this, please return the favor and post any information you may have that will help us improve. Everyone hates free-riders, right?
As a side note, you can check out my marvelous partner's blog at: Toni's Thoughts.
Today we will examine the long term consequences of the government's policy of shipping foreign aid to India. But first we need to make sure we're on the same page by providing a couple definitions in:
Policy-As foreign policy consists of 'decisions and actions which involve to some appreciable extent relations between one state and others', it can be defined as 'the actions of a state toward the external environment and the conditions under which these actions formulated'.
Toward-"With regard to; in relation to"
Interestingly enough, the Department of the treasury reported that while giving India this money, we also owed them about $16.2 Billion in Treasury Securities.
Cristina Arellano (Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota), Aleš Bulíř (PhD. M.Sc., Associate Professor, Prague University of Economics), Timothy Lane (Ph.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor, University of California, San Francisco), Leslie Lipschitz (Ph.D., Director of the International Monetary Fund Institute). "The dynamic implications of foreign aid and its variability." Journal of Development Economics 88 (2009) 87–102. http://www.econ.umn.edu/~arellano/aidpaper.pdf
"The paper examines the effects of aid and its volatility on consumption, investment, and the structure of production in the context of an intertemporal two-sector general equilibrium model, calibrated using data for aid-dependent countries in Africa. A permanent flow of aid mainly finances consumption rather than investment—consistent with the historical failure of aid inflows to translate into sustained growth. Large aid flows are associated with higher real exchange rates and smaller tradable sectors because aid is a substitute for tradable consumption. Aid volatility results in substantial welfare losses, providing a motivation for recent discussions of aid architecture stressing the need for greater predictability of aid. These results are also consistent with evidence from cross-country regressions of manufactured exports, presented later in the paper."
Consumption, not investment. In other words, short term gratification, not long term responsibility. What about India specifically? Well, according to:
January 23 2008.
"Western donors wrestle with the contradictions of rising India." By Jo Johnson (B.A., M.B.A., Financial Times’ South Asia bureau chief). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3470229c-c9db-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html
"India does little to solicit aid and, sometimes, much to deter it. Ahead of Mr Brown's visit, Rahul Gandhi, a senior Congress party politician, hinted at the extent of corruption, claiming that only 5 per cent of development funds reached their intended recipients, down from 15 per cent when his father was prime minister.
His warning coincided with the release by the World Bank of a report that found "systemic fraud and corruption" in a flagship health programme and "suggested that other projects had been similarly compromised". The bank in the year to June 2007 provided $3.7bn in new loans to India, its largest borrower."
Even officials in the Indian government admit that foreign aid is being lost in a quagmire of corruption. So your 74 Million becomes 3.7 Million. With such a low rate of return, one must ask: Was it really need in the first place?
"Sir, Your article “Western donors wrestle with the contradictions of rising India” (January 24) implies that there is a contradiction between a booming India and the reality of mass poverty. The real contradiction is between aid donors who failed and their reluctance to acknowledge their irrelevance in an India that has finally learnt how to grow rapidly and reduce its massive poverty."
The Federal Government's foreign program is irrelevant because organizations on both sides of the ocean are more than capable of aiding India. The Index of Global Philanthropy 2008 shows that only about 12% of all American assistance comes through the government anyway.
So, because there are valid alternatives to US governmental spending that aren't in such a financial predicament, there's no reason to continue an Unfunded, Ineffective, Irrelevant program.
So it's obviously not a responsible policy. But why is this so important? That's the fourth observation:
"Since the second world war, India has received more foreign aid than any country in the world. The money subsidised the creation of a corrupt, parasitic bureaucracy following anti-market policies typically advocated by well-meaning donors. The economy stagnated for nearly 40 years, compared with the dynamism of east Asian countries that relied on themselves and on markets more than on foreign aid."
So our policy actually makes Indians worse off by subsiding harmful bureaucratic tendencies.
That's exactly what this policy does. It swindles our future.
Mandate 1: Phase Out. Current government non-military aid sent to the India will be phased out.
Mandate 2: Pay Debt. Funds freed shall be redirected to pay off Indian Securities.
Next, the Timeline: This plan will be phased in over the next two fiscal years, FY 2009 and 2010. Savings will begin in FY 2011.
Finally, we reserve the right to clarify this plan as needed.
-In 10 years, we will not save $ 741 Million, we'll save almost a billion dollars.
-And in 20 years, we won't save $ 1.4 Billion, with interest we'll save 2.5 Billion.
The longer we save, the more we save. So now is the time to start making this long term investment. But there are other reasons to adopt this plan.
"In short, America should stop pouring billions into bureaucracies to buy short-term alliances and focus its efforts on bottom-up entrepreneurship. This would increase America's popularity, alleviate poverty, and promote real democratic change in these developing countries."