but if funding is extra-T, then we eliminate any plan that requires funding of any sort, which seems rash. it's obvious that whether you specify where it comes from or leave it up to "general federal revenue", funding isn't going to come from the rez. so the question is, why should we say GFR instead of a specific program
I've been meaning to address this for a little while.
You've gotta understand how the federal government allocates money. They have a bill (the omnibus appropriations bill-- though there are many appropriation bills, that the primary one), and they write lines into this bill detailing what $$ goes to what agency and under what provisions. You're not cutting some "GFR" funding. You're writing text into a bill in the same way Congress does all the time. Interestingly enough, if you do specify your funding this process still happens.
To be more clear, your plan doesn't pass a bill that literally says "Redirect X monies to Y." No-- you make two separate and distinct changes to completely different parts of a law. You first cancel funding to X and then change another part of the law to allocate monies to Y.
They're completely separate and distinct, and the only reason affirmatives specify funding is to cop out of justifying the actual worth of their case vs. the SQ policy and try to get the budget-neutral vibe in an illegitimate way.
It's not the changing of text into the omnibus bill that I object to-- it's the fact that you're changing something completely outside the reasonable negative research burden.
(though certainly you should pull some cards on funding as Dr. Srader mentioned, but it's impossible (and I mean that quite literally) to find a defense for every bit of funding that might possibly be used.)
Also, the anti-xtraT funding people: you guys continue to argue against extra-T funding by arguing against claiming ADVANTAGES from that funding
(1) You do claim advantages from your funding. It's because of the monies that your case works. Your case only works because you have funding. Before you dismiss this argument offhand, keep in mind that by specifying your funding, you're implicitly claiming that your mandates are superior to what the monies are doing currently. Ergo, you're claiming that you have an advantage over the status quo
because you use the monies more effectively.
(2) Let's be real. We're in the NCFCA. You cut funding from Planned Parenthood, NASA research on the evolutionary origin of life, the UN IPCC, etc., the judge is going to notice, even if you don't make a big deal about it.
(3) The only reason you're doing it is to spike the spending DA. From that perspective, you're eliminating a disadvantage (and by disadvantage I mean "something to properly weigh the cost of the aff plan") and putting yourself at an inherent advantage. You're eliminating a cost of your plan. That was my biggest beef with Daniel's Angel Coalition case-- they eliminated the primary cost of their plan by specifying their funding-- again, putting themselves at an inherent advantage.
Coach Carter wrote:
However funding arguments is general are usually a big time suck if as the neg you can chose between an on point argument and funding chose on point every time! Now to the argument at hand.
it also puts all affs in a bind of only offering revenue neutral plans in other words no additional money could be spent to improve the criminal justice system that is simply too big a burden and not what is intend by the resolution
I think I responded to the rest of what you said above, but I should clarify my argument: the O-Spec does not rule out using GFR as a funding source. Ergo, it doesn't have to be budget neutral.