Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Multiple checks guarantee public involvement in CBA Anastasia Christman AND Christine Riordan; National Employment Law Project;

State Infrastructure Banks: Old Idea Yields New Opportunities for Job Creation http://www.nelp .org/page/-/Job_Creation/State_Infrastructure_Banks.pdf?nocdn=1 NCHO As of 2002, two-thirds of SIBs had a board or advisory committee to help guide the selection process and provide some oversight. In most cases, personnel from the state department of transportation sit on these boards, but in some cases, governors or legislators appoint members to the board as well. Depending on the structure of the decision-making body, members of the general public may or may not have a direct ability to influence the projects their SIB prioritizes. In Arizona, for example, half-adozen advisory board members are members of the general public appointed by various government bodies, and the meetings of the board are explicitly required to be open to the public. Conversely, in South Carolina, the seven-member board includes four members appointed by the legislature, including two lawmakers. With little staff to advise the board, advocates allege this makes the SIB effectively an extension of the political process. In Maine, a December 2009 law created a coalition of stakeholders to explore transportation issues, including whether the states SIB should be considered to fund regional highway improvements. While the coalition itself specified the groups to be included, the process includes a Sounding Board which is open to any interested party to give feedback on findings and recommendations at key junctures during the study. Community advocates may want to explore the possibility of amending their states SIB legislation to provide for adequate public participation in the allocation of these resources. Advocates should also be aware that SAFETEA-LU itself includes provisions that call for a planning process that protects and enhances the environment, promotes energy conservation, improves the quality of life, and promotes consistency between state and local economic development plans. Additionally, it requires that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) develop a plan to ensure that all interested parties have reasonable opportunities to comment on the contents of the transportation plan. All urbanized areas with a population of more than 50,000 are required to have an MPO, one of the core functions of which is to engage the general public and other affected constituencies in developing an overall transportation plan. Furthermore, federal law states that funds allocated to provide assistance to a project in an urbanized area of the state (with more than 200,000) can be used only if the metropolitan planning organization designed for such area concurs, in writing, with the provision of such assistance. Thus, at least in urbanized areas, community advocates may be able to participate in developing plans through the MPO and thus ensure that SIB funds are only used to advance projects that conform to those plans.

CBA solves the environment, EIB proves Rosa DeLauro; Congresswoman; 2009 What could a U.S. National Infrastructure Bank provide? nfrastructure/Infrastructure%20Bank.aspx NCHO The bank favors projects which will take pressure off constricted road systems and limit greenhouse gasespassenger and freight railways, inland waterways, maritime projects, urban transit, and intermodal hubs. Road projects can get support if they have high economic value for reducing severe congestion and link into other transport modes. EIB also focuses on water supply and sewage treatment, championing EU goals of ensuring good status water quality by 2015 in rivers and along

coasts. The bank also promotes and supports a recent EU initiative to encourage city living and discourage suburbanization by helping create vibrant infill neighborhoods out of former industrial sites and redevelopment areas under public ownership.

CBA is key to solving congestion, excess spending, and maintenance Barry Bosworth and Sveta Milusheva; The Brookings Institution; 2011 Innovations in U.S.
Infrastructure Financing: An Evaluation %20bosworth%20milusheva/1020_infrastructure_financing_bosworth_milusheva.pdf NCHO On balance, there is significant evidence of inadequate levels of infrastructure in the United States, but the studies have also demonstrated that much of the problem lies with the process by which the United States makes decisions on funding and system management: its failures to use cost-benefit analysis to assign funds to those projects with the highest returns, a bias against funding of maintenance for existing systems, a political process that spreads the expenditures across jurisdictions regardless of needs, and an unwillingness to charge users in line with the benefits that they receive (Winston, 2010). The condition of the transportation system has deteriorated somewhat, but the most costly aspects are linked with increased congestion; and repeated experience has shown that those problems cannot be resolved by spending more money. Changes should be made in the management of the systemsspecifically in the setting of prices 6 for use of the infrastructure and the allocation of investment fundsthat would increase the benefits of the current system with little added overall spending. In addition, despite their professed support for improvements in the infrastructure, American voters and their representatives stand out for their unwillingness to pay and the constant efforts to shift the costs to others. Given these evident inefficiencies, it is difficult to favor large increases without reforms to the funding process.

Congestion makes up 20% of emissions Matthew Barth AND Kanok Boriboonsomsin; Both at the College of Engineering - Center for Environmental Research and Technology UC Riverside 5-01-2010 Real-World CO2 Impacts of Traffic
Congestion NCHO Transportation plays a significant role in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, accounting for approximately a third of the U.S. inventory. To reduce CO2 emissions in the future, transportation policy makers are planning on making vehicles more efficient and increasing the use of carbon-neutral alternative fuels. In addition, CO2 emissions can be lowered by improving traffic operations, specifically through the reduction of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion and its impact on CO2 emissions were examined by using detailed energy and emission models, and they were linked to real-world driving patterns and traffic conditions. With typical traffic conditions in Southern California as an example, it was found that CO2 emissions could be reduced by up to almost 20% through three different strategies: congestion mitigation strategies that reduce severe congestion, allowing traffic to flow at better speeds; speed management techniques that reduce excessively high free-flow speeds to more moderate conditions;

and shock wave suppression techniques that eliminate the acceleration and deceleration events associated with the stop-and-go traffic that exists during congested conditions.

CBA is faster and more effective than the squo J. Bradford DeLong; economist at UC Berkeley and a badass at the SDI; August 22, 2011ECONOMIC
STIMULUS--THROUGH FIXING THE HOUSING MARKET AND OTHER INITIATIVES http://delong.typepad .com/sdj/2011/08/economic-stimulus-through-fixing-the-housing-market-and-other-initiatives.html NCHO The economy needs help. And it needs help now. But when it comes to putting people back to work right away, infrastructure programs, in particular, can be slow. The whole point of the infrastructure bank, for example, is to subject every proposal to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. That takes time. One way around this problem is to change some of the rules for public works and, as Gary Burtless of Brookings explains, applying some lessons the federal government learned after the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern California: The feds learned a bitter lesson from San Franciscos very slow spending of federal aid dollars after the World Series earthquake a few years earlier. Wanting to avoid a repetition of that fiasco, the federal govt told CA and L.A. that the U.S. earthquake relief dollars had to be spent within a specified period. It worked. L.A. repaired its wrecked freeways much faster than the Bay area fixed its wrecked highways and bridges.

CBA solves equality and favoritism Mallett et al. 11

William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy Steven Maguire Specialist in Public Finance Kevin R. Kosar Analyst in American National Government; Congressional Research Service; December 14, 2011 National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation http://www.fas .org NCHO/sgp/crs/misc/R42115 .pdf NCHO A frequent criticism of current public infrastructure project selection is that it is often based on factors such as geographic equity and political favoritism instead of the demonstrable merits of the projects themselves. In many cases, funding goes to projects that are presumed to be the most important, without a rigorous study of the costs and benefits. Proponents of an infrastructure bank assert that it would select projects based on economic analyses of all costs and benefits. Furthermore, a consistent comparative analysis across all infrastructure sectors could yield an unbiased list of the best projects.

CBA trades off with social equality and would ignore local communication Mallett et al. 11
William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy Steven Maguire Specialist in Public Finance Kevin R. Kosar Analyst in American National Government; Congressional Research Service; December 14, 2011 National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation http://www.fas .org NCHO/sgp/crs/misc/R42115 .pdf NCHO

Selecting projects through an infrastructure bank has possible disadvantages as well as advantages. First, it would direct financing to projects that are the most viable financially rather than those with greatest social benefits. Projects that are likely to generate a financial return through charging users, such as urban water systems, wastewater treatment, and toll roads, would be favored if financial viability is the key element for project selection. Conversely, projects that offer extensive spillover benefits for which it is difficult to fully charge users, such as public transit projects and levees, would be disfavored. Second, selection of the projects with the highest returns might conflict with the traditional desire of Congress to assure funding for various purposes. Rigorous cost-benefit analysis might show that the most attractive projects involve certain types of infrastructure, while projects involving other types of infrastructure have less favorable cost-benefit characteristics. This could leave the infrastructure bank unable to fund some types of projects despite local support.

CBA reform solves rural equality Mallett et al. 11

William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy Steven Maguire Specialist in Public Finance Kevin R. Kosar Analyst in American National Government; Congressional Research Service; December 14, 2011 National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation NCHO Third, financing projects through an infrastructure bank may serve to exclude small urban and rural areas because large, expensive projects tend to be located in major urban centers. Because of this, an infrastructure bank might be set up to have different rules for supporting projects in rural areas, and possibly also to require a certain amount of funding directed to projects in rural areas. For example, S. 652 proposes a threshold of $25 million for projects in rural areas instead of $100 million in urban areas. Even so, the $25 million threshold could exclude many rural projects.

CBA hurts federalism Mallett et al. 11

William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy Steven Maguire Specialist in Public Finance Kevin R. Kosar Analyst in American National Government; Congressional Research Service; December 14, 2011 National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation NCHO/sgp/crs/misc/R42115.pdf NCHO A fourth possible disadvantage is that a national infrastructure bank may shift some decision making from the state and local level to the federal level. Although the initiation of projects will come from state and local decision-makers, a national infrastructure bank will make the final determination about financing. Some argue that this will reduce state and local flexibility and give too much authority to centralized decision-makers divorced from local conditions.

CBA is hella awesome Daniel Graham, Imperial College, May 17 2010

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Introduction and Overview of the United Kingdom Approach NCHO

First, CBA is comprehensive in scope. It incorporates a wide range of considerations. In addition to financial impacts, CBA also considers safety, environmental, travel time, and other impacts. CBA does not cover all of the factors that may be considered in the transportation decision-making process, however. For example, CBA does not consider political factors. Second, CBA has a social perspective. CBA is based on the view that a net increase in welfare is a good thing, even if some groups within society lose out. This perspective is called the Hicks-Kaldor assertion. CBA is not focused on finding the most financially viable project. Rather, CBA is focused on finding the project that delivers the most benefits to society as a whole. CBA examines the costs and the benefits that are accrued to different groups in society. Some groups may win and some groups may lose. CBA focuses on the net effect of a project. Third, CBA focuses on monetary terms. The CBA approach qualifies all costs and benefits financially. Cost and benefits are monetized for all factors. Finally, CBA focuses on individual valuation. Benefits and costs are measured by how individuals value them, not social planners or analysts.

CBA links to every K, values benefits incorrectly, and assumes perfect economic conditions Daniel Graham, Imperial College, May 17 2010
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Introduction and Overview of the United Kingdom Approach NCHO There are limitations with CBAs. The first limitation is monetization. CBA necessarily involves value judgments. These value judgments can be contentious and can prejudice the decision maker toward certain project impacts. Second, CBA is sensitive to the input values, especially demand and cost forecasts. Additionally, the calculation of NPV and BCR can be highly sensitive to the choice of a discount rate. The potential for additionality of benefits is another limitation. The WTP approach creates scope for double counting benefits, particularly regarding transfers. Double counting of benefits should not occur. Analysts need to ensure that benefits are counted only once. Another limitation is that the magnitude of time savings may be very small with many projects. While time savings are typically the largest component in a CBA, small time savings may have little productive value. A final limitation relates to coverage. Consumer surplus theory assumes perfect markets and the absence of market failure. Violations of these assumptions create unaccounted benefits and costs. One of the main areas of research is examining the WEI of projects to address all the economic benefits realized from transportation projects.

CBA is key to real econ growth and equality David Lewis, HDR, May 17 2010 Employment, Productivity, and Real Estate Value in Benefit/Cost
Analysis NCHO

The effects of transportation investments on labor markets can be examined in four different ways short-term jobs due to project construction, long-term jobs due to project operations and maintenance, productivity benefits from business reorganization, and other productivity effects due to agglomeration and diversion to more productive modes. Productivity growth in the economy is a principal means of generating real growth in incomes. It is one thing to grow jobs, but it is another

thing to grow real incomes and the standard of living. The source of real standard of living improvements in our economy is productivity growth. Examining how jobs manifest themselves in productivity growth is thus important.

Shadow-pricing reduces economic benefits of CBA David Lewis, HDR, May 17 2010 Employment, Productivity, and Real Estate Value in Benefit/Cost
Analysis NCHO When examining short-term jobs due to project construction, the labor used for construction is in general a cost, not a benefit. At a local level, these short-term jobs, are of course, a good thing. From a BCA standpoint, however, using labor for a specific project makes it unavailable for other valuecreating opportunities. If wages reflect the real opportunity cost of labor, then short-term jobs are a wash from the workers point of view. Labor is a project cost. The opportunity cost of labor considers what workers would be doing in the absence of the specific project. Workers could be employed in a similar activity, employed at a lower productivity job, unemployed but engaged in productive activity, or unemployed at leisure. The opportunity costs of labor declines as we move down this list. When unemployment is low, is can safely be assumed that project workers will likely be working in similar jobs at competitive wage rates, and that wage rates are close to the real opportunity cost of labor. When unemployment is high, however, project workers may be otherwise un-employed or underemployed. In this situation, because wages tend to be rigid, the prevailing wage rate can exceed the real opportunity cost of labor. This situation means that the projects labor cost measured at market wages is too high to reflect the true opportunity cost of that labor. Wages may be discounted or reduced, rather than taken at market level, to better reflect the true cost of labor. This method is called shadow pricing. The difficulty in shadow pricing is determining how much to reduce or discount wages. Shadow pricing is currently used more in Europe than the U.S. The European Commission Guidelines on BCA considers the shadow wage to be inversely correlated to the level of unemployment. In the example below, the shadow wage is equal to the market wage times 1 minus the unemployment rate. Shadow Wage = Market Wage (1-u) For example, if regional unemployment is 12 percent for unskilled workers, the conversion factor for that category of labor is equal to 1 minus the unemployment rate or 0.88. More information on this approach is available in the European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy, Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, July 2008. The same general principles apply for long-term jobs due to project operations and maintenance. The labor used for operations and maintenance is a cost when employing people for a specific project makes them unavailable for other value-creating opportunities. Shadow pricing is more difficult in this situation due to uncertainty in market conditions in the medium and long-term. The European Commission Guidelines do acknowledge that long-term structural unemployment exists in some areas and that shadow pricing might be appropriate.

CBA is the shit; spills over to the broader economy David Lewis, HDR, May 17 2010 Employment, Productivity, and Real Estate Value in Benefit/Cost
Analysis NCHO Productivity benefits from business reorganization represent the third way to examine the possible effects of transportation investments on labor markets. Firms can take advantage of improved transportation services by reorganizing logistics. More reliable transportation, especially more reliable networks, permit just-in-time delivery, thus reducing inventories. Firms may substitute transportation

for warehousing and inventory. Shippers can serve a larger market area with existing facilities at lower costs. Lower transportation costs allow reduced prices and increased output and employment. The benefits of improved freight transportation can have cascading benefits. First-order benefits focus on cost reductions on current freight miles, reduced transit times, and increased reliability. Secondorder benefits result from firms improving logistics and serving larger markets, with increases in output and freight miles. Third-order benefits focus on the development and production of improved products and new products.

CBA cant solve congestion Rich Steinman, Federal Transit Administration, May 17 2010 Panel on Challenges of Applying
Benefit/Cost Analysis: A Modal Perspective NCHO A problem has arisen in trying to accurately measure the highway benefits from the transit New Starts projects. We have not been able to successfully obtain good estimates of the congestion-related impacts resulting from changes in mode from the local travel forecasts. We have found it difficult to evaluate the highway user benefits from transit projects.

CBA cant solve environment; no standard measurement Rich Steinman, Federal Transit Administration, May 17 2010 Panel on Challenges of Applying
Benefit/Cost Analysis: A Modal Perspective NCHO Environmental benefits are easier to measure, but still difficult to monetize. The travel forecasts can be used to estimate reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and reductions in emissions. It is more difficult to turn these estimates into improvements in air quality, and even more difficult to estimate the value of those changes. While environmental impacts can be measured, placing a dollar value on them is not easy.

I-Bank is bipartisan, cheap, and empirically verified to work by every other country John Avlon; CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek; 07-09-2012; 3 bipartisan
bills that could get the economy moving NCHO (CNN) -- Welcome back to work, Congress. Hope you enjoyed your fourth full week off this year. Now find a way to work together to help get America back to work. Experts all say not to expect any constructive action from Congress until after the election. There is a reason that cynicism passes for wisdom in Washington. But with economic clouds from overseas depressing our own recovery, there is an obligation to act now. And, in fact, there is a handful of bipartisan bills that could help get the U.S. economy moving again if they were enacted. These are not Democrat or Republican ideas -- they are simply good ideas. And unlike bipartisan pork barrel bills, they cost taxpayers comparatively little to enact. Let's take a look at three proposals with bipartisan support that could pass this summer if given a chance. Public-Private Infrastructure Bank. The bipartisan BUILD Act is a no-brainer that has been stalled for no good reason. It would create a public-private bank to seed investment in America's aging infrastructure, improving our resilience and competitiveness over the long term while spurring the

economy in the near term. Analyzing another weak jobs report "In a time of budgetary crisis, the American Infrastructure Bank pays for projects with private money now sitting on the sidelines," attests Michael Likosky, director of NYU's Center on Law & Public Finance. "Every country uses private capital to build projects except for the United States. We are an island." "We are poised for a new era of prosperity if we could gain consensus on the fact that our infrastructure needs to be rebuilt," agrees John Hofmeister, the former CEO of Shell Oil. "It was designed for a time in the past when our country had a different population. President Obama has backed this bipartisan infrastructure bank bill as more feasible than a version his administration pushed earlier. "President Obama is the biggest proponent of public-private partnerships to hold office to date," argues Likosky. "The Infrastructure Bank is a rare case of a popular bipartisan idea, born in the Beltway, that has been adopted by governors and mayors." It is trickle-down policy-making. It's also smart policy-making that business and labor, Republicans and Democrats, should all be able to agree on.

Revenue outweighs short-term costs Brad Plumer; Washington Post; September 19, 2011 How Obamas plan for infrastructure bank would
work NCHO One of the key aspects of President Obamas jobs plan is an idea thats been knocking around Washington for some time: a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to fund new roads, bridges, mass transit and other public-works endeavors. Heres how it would work. The proposal, modeled after a bipartisan bill in the Senate, would take $10 billion in start-up money and identify transportation, water or energy projects that lack funding. Eligible projects would need to be worth at least $100 million and provide a clear public benefit. The bank would then work with private investors to finance the project through cheap long-term loans or loan guarantees, with the government picking up no more than half the tab ideally, much less for any given project. Critics have deemed the idea risky for taxpayers, and those voices will no doubt get louder after the collapse of Solyndra, a California-based solar manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department only to go bankrupt in August. Administration officials have, in turn, tried to allay fears about taxpayer losses by noting that the loans would only go toward projects that have a dedicated revenue stream, such as toll roads, to repay the loans.

Private funding has enough capital Brad Plumer; Washington Post; September 19, 2011 How Obamas plan for infrastructure bank would
work NCHO In recent years, reams of white papers have come out describing how much of the nations transportation, water and energy infrastructure is in shambles. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report, for one, found that a quarter of the countrys 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or inadequate to todays traffic needs. Most U.S. infrastructure is funded through either federal outlays or state and local municipal bonds. The country lacks a central source of low-cost financing for big construction projects, akin to the European Investment Bank. The private sector chips in just 6 percent of infrastructure funding, although supporters of the bank say that number could be higher. Last year, Robert Wolf, chairman and chief executive of UBS Americas, told the Senate Banking Committee that there was more than $180 billion of private-equity and pension-fund capital available for infrastructure investments. The White House estimates that its infrastructure bank could ultimately

backstop about $100 billion to $200 billion in construction. That would, in theory, boost the overall size and impact of its jobs bill, which nominally costs $447 billion. But that depends on how quickly the money flows. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has backed a bank bill in the Senate, has said We have projects all across America that are ready to go tomorrow. Yet other supporters, including the Chamber of Commerce, sound more cautious, saying it could take a few years for the pipeline of projects to get going.

Plan popular polls prove Rockefeller Foundation February 14, 2011 Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey Reveals
Bipartisan Support for Transportation and Infrastructure Investments and Reform NCHO An exclusive Rockefeller Foundation survey released today reveals overwhelming bipartisan support for federal investment in transportation and infrastructure projects. The survey showed that 71% of voters think leaders in Washington should seek common ground on legislation related to roads, bridges and transit systems, including 66% of Tea Party supporters and 71% of Republicans. Two out of three voters say that improving the countrys transportation infrastructure is highly important. Nearly half of all voters said that roads are often or totally inadequate and that only some public transportation options exist. Eighty percent of voters agree that federal funding to improve and modernize transportation will boost local economies and create millions of jobs, and view it as critical to keeping the United States as the worlds top economic superpower. But Americans want changes in the way the Federal government invests in infrastructure and makes policy. Two-thirds of respondents favored 9 of 10 reforms tested in the survey, with 90 supporting more accountability and certification that projects are delivered on time and fit into a national plan. In terms of priorities, a vast majority (80 percent) believe the country would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system and 57 percent believe that safer streets for our communities and children should be the one of the top two priorities if more money is to be invested in infrastructure. The Rockefeller Foundation funded this survey as part of the Foundations Transportation initiative, a $66 million investment aimed at promoting equitable and sustainable transportation policies at the federal and state level. Through this investment, the Foundation is committed to the development of policies that provide access to opportunity, more transportation options and help create vibrant and healthy communities, all while increasing access to good jobs for lower income Americans. Half a century ago, Americans built an interstate highway system that enabled unrivaled economic prosperity and opportunity, said Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin. Today, almost half of Americans think that their transportation options and roads are inadequate. The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey shows that American voters want Washington to work together to pass laws that ensure we fix the infrastructure we have and provide more Americans with more transportation options befitting a 21st century economic power. This Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey highlights 4 key findings: American voters see improvement in transportation infrastructure as a way to improve the economy and their quality of life: With federal unemployment rates hovering at 9%, Americans feel that improvements to transportation and infrastructure will create millions of jobs eight in ten voters think transportation and infrastructure will boost local economies and create jobs including 64% of Tea Party supporters and 66% of Republicans. American voters are looking for consensus and cooperation in Washington: Americans want their elected officials to work together, especially around the issue of transportation and infrastructure (66% of voters say this is a time where they would like leaders in Washington to make compromises and seek common ground). More than any other issue tested,

American voters would like to see compromise on legislation related to transportation and infrastructure (71%). American voters see room for improvement in how government spends money on infrastructure: With a high federal deficit, Americans overwhelmingly say that that current government spending on building and maintaining transportation infrastructure is inefficient and unwise 64% overall and 72% of Republicans. Americans support a host of reforms aimed at making spending more efficient while still producing results. For instance, 90% support allowing local regions to have some input on how transportation dollars are used in their area. American voters are open to several funding streams for national transportation projects: With overwhelming support for transportation and infrastructure improvements, Americans are open to several funding streams. Seventy-eight percent encourage more private investment and 72% of voters support imposing penalties on projects that go over budget or exceed their deadline. Sixty percent of voters support establishing a National Infrastructure Bank, 59% support issuing new transportation bonds and 58% support eliminating subsidies for American oil companies that drill in other countries. Only 27 percent support increasing the gas tax, although almost half of all respondents believe it increases annually (it has not increased since 1993). As the transportation debate in Washington begins to heat up, this new Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey shows that the American people, no matter their political party, support transportation and infrastructure reform, said Marcia L. Hale, President of Building Americas Future Education Fund. As voters continue to demand that economic reforms come ahead of politics, I call on all our representatives in Washington to listen closely to what the public is saying. Survey Methodology: From January 29 to February 6, 2011, Hart Research (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) conducted a national survey of voters on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation. The firms interviewed 1,001 registered voters, including 200 voters who have only a cell phone. The datas margin of error is +/-3.1 percentage points for the full sample, and a higher for subgroups of the sample.

PIC Text: The USFG should use benefit-cost analysis instead of cost-benefit analysis Same solvency, but benefit-cost analysis is American; guarantees crucial context and solvency Daniel Graham, Imperial College, May 17 2010
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Introduction and Overview of the United Kingdom Approach NCHO Thank you, Jack. It is pleasure to participate in this workshop. The title of my presentation is CostBenefit Analysis: Introduction and Overview of the United Kingdom (U.K.) Approach. We use the term Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) in the U.K., rather than BCA, which is used in the U.S. Both terms refer to the same process and analysis.

Solves war and tyranny; we must break all connections with the British Franklin et al 76
Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson; OG Framers; July 1776 The Declaration of Independence We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness: That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it

is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, & to institute new Government, laying it's Foundation on such Principles, & organizing it's Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses & Usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty to throw off such Government, & to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; & such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries & Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid World. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome & necessary for the public Good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate & pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; & when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, & formidable to Tyrants only. He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People. He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, & Convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these states; for that Purpose obstructing the laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, & raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, & the Amount & payment of their Salaries. He has erected a Multitude of new Offices and sent hither [hitler] Swarms of new Officers to harass our People and eat out their Substance. He has kept among us in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of, & superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, & unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock-Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: For imposing Taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging it's Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, & declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection, and Waging war against us. He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, & destroyed the Lives of our People. He is, at this time Transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of Death, Desolation & Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, & totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to

bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends & Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, & has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, & Conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People. Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration & Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connection and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice & of Consanguinity . We must therefore acquiesce in the Necessity which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends! We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress Assembled, do, in the name, & by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and are of Right to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; & that as Free & Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce & to do all other Acts & Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor."