Patrick Doesn’t Have a Breath in his Body Now

Shipsey 1NC And you’re voting neg today.

Roadmap:
Inh – Shipsey and Obama are going to get in a scrap about who gets to pass the Tax.
Justification 1: More cleanups – Nuh huh. Not on your life.
Justification 2: Preemption effect – Too bad you got preempted… and Superfund doesn’t
clean the environment. – Polluter Pays not part of the Superfund tax.
Justification 3: Environmental justice - not on your life Plumpy’man
DA’s
1. Superfund waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wasteful. (Read wastes 45% of everything it takes in
wasteful)
2. Wraith Leader’s Nuclear War Scenario – AKA, vote neg or else.
Inherency:
Sorry Shipsey, President Obama Preempted you kind of like Superfund was supposed to
preempt problems.
Superfund tax already being reinstated in the squo: Impact, aff ballot not needed, plan
already happening.
1. Superfund tax returning in 2011

Raju Chebium (Washington Journalist)

Published at http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090301/NEWS/903010320/Obama-proposes-to-reinstate-Superfund-tax-
to-collect-for-polluted-N.J.-sites.
"Obama proposes to reinstate Superfund tax to collect for polluted N.J. sites" Published March 1, 2009; accessed December
23, 2009

"President Barack Obama seeks to reinstate the Superfund tax, which expired in 1995, to
collect cleanup money for severely polluted sites in New Jersey and elsewhere. In a move
praised by New Jersey supporters, the White House said Thursday, Feb. 26 that the tax
would generate more than $1 billion for cleanup. Businesses wouldn't have to pay the tax
until 2011, after the economy improves, the White House said in documents highlighting
Obama's $3.55 trillion budget for 2010."
The important thing to note here is that President Obama made sure to include reinstating
the Superfund tax into his 2010 budget.
1. President Obama's budget was passed

CNN (CNN.com delivers the latest breaking news and information on the latest top stories, weather, business, entertainment,
politics, and more)
Published at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/us.house.senate.budget.passes/index.html.
"Senate follows House, passes Obama budget plan" Published April 3, 2009; accessed December 21, 2009

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed a $3.53 trillion version of the federal
budget for fiscal year 2010 late Thursday night in a party-line vote, ending several weeks
of acrimonious partisan debate.
The U.S. House passed a $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010 Thursday night.
The package was approved on a 55-43 vote. GOP Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania,
and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- who voted in favor of the president's
stimulus bill last month -- voted against what is essentially the blueprint of Obama's
economic policies going forward.
Earlier in the evening, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the
spending plan --$3.55 trillion budget, capping off a long day of debate and voting marked
by the defeat of several alternative spending plans."
The important thing to note here is that President Obama’s budget has been passed by
both the House and the Senate. – Impact, Superfund tax returning, Aff ballot is useless.

Justification 1: More cleanups.

 1. Superfund cleans 40 sites every year (76/year under Clinton WITH the tax)

Rebekah A. Hall (Rebekah A. Hall writes for Waste Age Magazine which is a Trade Journal featuring current
information on the recycling industry and other environmental issues. )
Published at http://wasteage.com/news/waste_completed_superfund_projects_2/.
"COMPLETED SUPERFUND PROJECTS DECLINE" Published November 13, 2003; accessed December 21, 2009

"Washington, D.C. – For a third year, completed Superfund projects has declined,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the EPA’s annual report to
Congress, it sited 40 cleanups of the nation’s toxic waste sites had been completed
through the budget year that ended Sept. 30. During the previous 12 months, 42 projects
were completed, and in 2001, 47 projects were completed. On average, the Clinton
Administration completed 76 Superfund projects per year. President Bush has asked
Congress for $150 million increase in the Superfund budget. Most cleanup projects take
several years, and some more than a decade."
True, Superfund’s average cleanups per year did fall with the removal of the tax, but the
cleanup numbers were still PITIFUL even with the tax. Superfund isn’t an effective
program. To provide comparison, during the same years, states cleaned up 4,500
comparably sized sites with less funding.

1. States completed 29,000 non-NPL sites

Environmental Law Institute

Published at http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d12-10a.pdf.
"AN ANALYSIS OF STATE
SUPERFUND PROGRAMS? - 50-State Study" Published November 1, 2002; accessed December 21, 2009

"States are in the process of cleaning up thousands of sites that are not on the National
Priorities List (NPL) but are contaminated with hazardous substances. Because these sites
are not on the NPL, they are not eligible for cleanup funding under the federal Superfund
program. These non-NPL cleanups are either paid for by the states, by responsible parties,
or by volunteers such as developers or prospective purchasers who want to put the site to
a new use. In fiscal year 2000 (FY00), states completed cleanups at more than 4,500 non-
NPL sites, with slightly fewer than half of those being completed under states’ voluntary
cleanup programs. The total number of cleanups completed was about the same as the
total completed in FY97, after accounting for differences in reporting by two states. By
the end of FY00, the states had completed cleanups at a total of about 29,000 non-NPL
sites since the start of their respective cleanup programs."
The impact? The tax has very little effect on numbers of sites cleaned up. Justification one
is GONE when we look at the actual historical data. Compare the evidence. Shipsey quotes
some lady in the White House saying that more cleanups will happen with the tax returned.
Sure, but the amount isn’t significant. Justification flows………… Neg.

Justification 2. Preemption effect.

Response: Superfund is able to preempt damage because there’s no evidence of harm being
there in the first place.

1. No proof of any damage or even serious risk. EPA has to simply prove a risk of a
risk.

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina
State University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

To determine whether a site must be cleaned up, EPA uses seriously biased estimates of
risks. The EPA does not have to provide proof that the contamination in a Superfund site
is posing harm--or even serious risk of harm--to anyone nearby. It can order cleanups and
force payment for them without showing (or even claiming) that the health benefits from
the cleanups will outweigh the costs, or that the benefits will be attained at the lowest
possible cost."
The impact: Most of the time, there wasn’t even anything to prevent.

Response 2: Superfund is able to sue for remediation efforts even without the tax. Result?
No Justification 2.

1. EPA still can sue for losses (From 1996, after the tax was abolished)

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina
State University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

"Accused parties can do little to challenge the EPA's decisions, except at the very end of
the remediation process (typically expected to be 12 years). Even then, the burden is on
them to prove that the EPA has acted arbitrarily or capriciously or has violated its own
procedures as listed in its National Contingency Plan. Sometimes so little risk is present
to begin with that the cleanup itself may introduce more risk than it removes.

Justification 3: Environmental Justice – Better stop breathing now Shipsey.

 1. Superfund has no oversight – no justice

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina State
University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

"Congress replaced common-law concepts with nearly unchecked bureaucratic control.

Congress allowed the EPA to judge liability and prescribe remedies without requiring
evidence, and to recover its costs from those accused of pollution. And it drastically
restricted the opportunity for those required to pay to have an independent legal review.
So long as the EPA follows the procedures it wrote for itself, its orders are the law.
So nope. No justice. No evidence of harm. No evidence that the pollution was illegal when it
was done.

And before you even get into polluter pays, let’s preempt that.

Polluter pays isn’t really the polluter paying.

1. Superfund violates polluter pays principal.

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina
State University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

"Superfund was sold to Congress on the principle of "polluter pays." Cleanup of

dangerous waste sites would be paid for by those responsible for the problem. But this
principle is routinely violated.

The three taxes that pay for the administration of the program (a chemical tax, a
petroleum tax, and an environmental income tax on large firms) violate the concept.
Companies that may have never contaminated any waste site requiring cleanup must pay
the tax. A firm that found a way to produce the same products with no pollution whatever
would still pay the same amount of tax. Production, not pollution, is taxed. Furthermore,
the paperwork costs are very high.
Impact: The polluter really doesn’t pay and that’s another of Shipsey’s Justifications shot
down. The polluter doesn’t pay – anyone who makes the chemicals pays. And that still
doesn’t make the innocent stop paying. Consumers still pay in the form on increased taxes.
Shipsey even admitted in CX that the people who paid the tax are those who make the
chemicals, not those who pollute with them.

Now, the Disads – Superfund waaaaaaay wasteful. Superfund doesn’t even do a good job at
stopping harm to humans.
 1. $328-$410/hour overhead

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina
State University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

"In 1992, the EPA reported that its overhead costs in 1988 were more than $328 for every
hour of work performed by an individual, normally a contractor's employee, in cleaning
up a site. (That is $410 in 1994 dollars.) This does not include the wage or the overhead
cost charged by the contractor."
That’s right, Superfund paid out $410 per hour in overhead costs before the wages of any
workers. If I could get paid that much per hour… I’d be rich. And that number doesn’t
even include the worker’s wages.

1. The same money spent to remediate one hazardous waste site with Superfund
could save 250,000 times as many lives in other programs.

John A. Hird (Ph.D. in Public Policy. M.P.P in Public Policy.

M.A. in Economics
B.A. in Economics
Director, Center for Public Policy and Administration and Associate Professor of Political Science and the Director of the
Master's Program in Public Administration)
Published by Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 323-343 at
http:/www.jstor.org/stable/3325238.
"Environmental Policy and Equity: The Case of Superfund" Published Spring, 2003; accessed December 21, 2009

"It is important to note that there is a dearth of information regarding actual Superfund
site risks, so that any risk comparisons are best viewed as estimates only. Nevertheless,
using the best information available, Paul Portney [1988, pp. 79-80] showed that instead
of remediating one relatively hazardous Superfund site, an equivalent expenditures - $25
million on a radon remediation program could be expected to save 250,000 times as
many lives. My calculations indicate that Superfund costs per statistical life saved,
derived from several federal government studies, range from $340,000 to $77 billion for
the most and least hazardous sites investigated, respectively."
Impact: Superfund completely fails at stopping harm to people with any measure of
efficiency.

Conclusion.
If we look at Inherency, Shipsey is going to get into a tussle with President Obama ‘bout
who can pass this Superfund tax so Shipsey loses on Inherency.

When we look at his Justifications, Justification one is absolutely shot on multiple counts.
First, some of the waste evidence I read comes from pre-’95 when Supertax was actually in
place. Second, the increase in sites cleaned was miniscule when we compare it to the
amount cleaned by the states with less money.

Justification 2 - The polluter never really pays and there wasn’t anything to preempt
because actual harm is irrelevant under Superfund.

Justification 3 – Environmental justice is flat out wrong. Superfund is a program that’s

more like, “Super amazingly totally unjust.” In no way does it promote environmental
justice.

And the disad: Superfund isn’t efficient in any sense of the word. Actually, in response to
his argument that Superfund saves lives ect and stops harm, it costs so much for even one
life to be saves, that going off of the least contaminated site, it is entirely possible that
ZERO lives have been saves.
Because if you vote aff, Shipsey and Obama are gonna get into a tussle and they’ll most
likely bust out their nuclear arsenal, you’re voting neg today if you want to see the world
the same tomorrow.