HM+Neg+arguments

=Heaton &amp; Mancuso Lab's Neg Arguments=

=Disclosed neg args for neg Casebook= Zimbabwe T arg INOVATION DA INFLATION DA biz con Country PICs - Sierra Leone (Blood Diamonds Net Benefit) - Madagascar (Deforestation Net Benefit) - Zimbabwe (China Net Benefit) - Nigeria (Corruption) - Sudan (China) Compassion Fatigue/Disaster Porn Environmental Reps Speaking For Others [Narratives Bad]] Aff K Slayer Medicine K (Medicalizing Africa Bad) HIV/AIDS Alt Ethics K Politics - India Deal - Farm Bill - ELECTIONS - SCHIP Ethical Conditioning Essentialism Traditional Healers CP Gordon Brown DA DOD CP (Surveillance) CDC Tradeoff DA Ban Food Aid CP Buy Food from African Farmers CP

Inflation DA
=African Farmers 1NC=

Text: _

Observation 1: Competition Under US law, all food aid for Africa must be grown in the US, which means that all of it must be shipped out New York Times, Celia Dugger, 4/14/07,Oversight Report Says US Food Aid Practices Are Wasteful, accessed through Lexis, Boxer Thomas Melito, the G.A.O.'s director of international affairs and trade, said this practice was a highly inefficient way to raise money for development, given that over a third of food aid spending has been consumed by the rapidly rising costs of ocean shipping. Under American law, virtually all food given as aid must be grown in the United States, which means it has to be shipped out. Federal agencies were unable to provide comprehensive estimates of how much money such sales had generated compared with the costs of buying, shipping and selling the food abroad, Mr. Melito said.

Observation 2: Solvency Food aid shipped from the US destroys local markets. By dumping surplus food into the area, prices get driven down, and local farmers can’t compete, turning case The Strait Times (Singapore), Famine Amid Plenty, 1/31/07, accessed through Lexis, Boxer THE UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has at last admitted that food aid can distort local markets, helping to perpetuate the conditions that demand food aid in the first place. But it does not go far enough in addressing the root causes of famines, which persist amid plenty. 'International food aid currently provides about 10 million tonnes of commodities a year to some 200 million needy people, with an estimated total cost of US$2 billion (S$3 billion),' the FAO said in a statement with its 2006 report released last week. But food aid is rarely bought locally. The United States, which gives more than half the world's food aid, buys mostly from its own farmers. This aid in kind destroys local markets. During the famine in northern Kenya last year, southern Kenyan farmers could not afford to drive their surplus up north, knowing it would be worthless on arrival. In 1993, by the time food aid reached Somalia, the crisis was over and the country's recent harvest had been good. As food aid inundated the market, prices fell by 75 per cent, pushing many local farmers into further poverty and hunger.

Observation 3: Net benefits – Politics Differential Though buying food from African farmers would be much more effective, congressmen are unanimously opposed to the idea; they are siding with the people who pay for their campaigns St. Petersburg Times, 10/20/05, A Waste of Aid Dollars, Accessed through Lexis, Boxer The United States is the largest food donor in the world, and Americans should be proud of our generosity. But the aid comes with a catch. All donated food must be grown by American farmers, and most of it must be shipped by American companies. As a result, more than 50 cents of every food aid dollar goes to pay for transportation, storage and administration. If food was purchased in Africa closer to where the famine has struck, it could be delivered in a matter of weeks, not the three-to-four months it takes for American-sourced supplies to arrive. The spending in Africa also could help stabilize local economies and raise the prospects for African farmers. And the aid money would go a lot farther, eliminating most of the transportation costs. To his credit, President Bush has proposed changing the law to address these inefficiencies. In his budget proposal for 2006, Bush sought to allow up to a quarter of the U.S. food aid budget to be spent on commodities grown in developing countries. But Congress is refusing to go along. When it comes to helping starving people or adding to the bottom line of Archer Daniels Midland, Congress sides with ADM. After all, only one of these groups makes campaign contributions. Even a compromise measure offered by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, that would allow only 10 percent of the food aid budget to go to buy food near hungry populations, appears to be going nowhere.

=Ban Food Aid=

Text: _

Observation 1: Competition The cp competes through net benefits

Observation 2: Solvency 1.) US aid programs cause countries to become dependent on aid, killing self sufficiency and turning case Jihan El Tahri, Director of The Price of Aid, 2004,The Price of Aid, http://www.frif.com/new2004/aid.html, Boxer Zambian government officials, including former and present Ministers of Agriculture, as well as Zambian farmers, explain how foreign food donations perpetuate a state of dependency among African and other Third World countries, undercutting local agriculture and development projects. U.S. aid programs, rather than assisting developing nations to become self-reliant, primarily serve to implicate them in a globalization process that finally does more harm than good, endangering their health, environment and economies.

2.) Empirically, giving food to countries in need feeds the famine and constricts development. Cutting off food aid is the only path that leads to self-sustainability. Noah Zerbe, Ph.D. Center for Philosophy of Law, Catholic University of Louvain, 2004, Feeding the Famine? American Food Aid and the GMO Debate in Southern Africa pp. 14-15, Bhatte Both goals were exemplified in the case of India. Following the establishment of the PL 480 program in 1954, India had quickly become one of the leading recipients of American food aid shipments. Indeed, India was so dependant on American food aid that debates over the necessity of self-reliance, overcoming what was termed a “ship-to-mouth” existence, came to dominate political and academic discussions. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru noted the problem of Indian dependence on American food aid as early as 1951, commenting that, “The convention is growing upon me more forcefully than ever how dangerous it is for us to depend for this primary necessity of life on foreign countries. It is only when we obtain self-sufficiency in food that we can progress and develop ourselves” (Cited in Sharma, 2002: np). Nehru’s concerns seem, in retrospect, to be well placed. When drought threatened millions of peasants with starvation in 1965-66, the Johnson administration seized the opportunity and used its “food power” to press for political and economic concessions from the Indian government. The United States demanded that India open its fertilizer markets to American exports, devalue its currency, institute population control measures, and softenits criticism of American involvement in Vietnam as a precondition for the release of much-needed food aid (Sharma, 2002; Tarrant, 1980). Even after India agreed to the conditions laid down by the US, Johnson refused to release more than one month’s worth of aid at a time. India was to be kept on a “short tether” to ensure India’s continued compliance with American demands (Bjorkman, 1980; Castore, 1982). Ultimately, however, Johnson’s “short tether” policy—and indeed the food power strategy more generally—proved counterproductive in India. Since the mid 1960s, and particularly following the imposition of strict conditionalities for the beneficiaries of PL 480 aid after 1971, the cost of food aid for recipient countries, both in terms of the economic costs borne by and the political and policy restrictions imposed on the recipient, had dramatically increased. By 1974, the Indian government had decided that the costs associated with American food aid outweighed its potential benefits and applied to terminate the program. In the short term, India appealed to the Soviet Union for emergency food relief while, in the longer term, it sought to increase its own agricultural output through a concerted rural development program, thereby eliminating the need for food aid altogether (Cathie, 1982: 24).

Observation 3: Net Benefits

=TRADITIONAL HEALERS 1NC Shell=

Counter-plan Text: The United States Federal Government should provide financial incentives to double the number of traditional healers in Sub-Sahara Africa.

Solvency:

Traditional healing is more effective than standard health workers in curing ailments—studies in Africa prove Mariana G. Hewson, PhD in the Division of Education at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, June 15, 1998, “Traditional Healers in Southern Africa”, Vol. 128, Issue 12, Part 1, pgs. 1029-1034, Annals of Internal Medicine, http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/128/12_Part_1/1029 The idea of cultural relativism maintains that concepts of healing should be interpreted within the particular world-view of the person being healed and his or her cultural group. Like their patients, traditional healers do not necessarily distinguish between curing and caring, subjective and objective symptoms, or measurable and immeasurable clinical data. They seem to be concerned mainly with relieving suffering, controlling symptoms, and restoring physical function and social and psychological connection. For southern African traditional healers, healing rests on the assumption that if the mind is healed, the body takes care of itself. In western medicine, the converse is often considered true: If the body is healed, the mind takes care of itself. The approach of southern African traditional healers may have merit. Growing numbers of research articles show that by embracing both the psychosocial and biomedical aspects of illness and by assuming responsibility for the relief of psychogenic suffering as well as physical suffering, physicians can enhance their clinical effectiveness

=UK CP=

Text: The United Kingdom should increase funding of the Global Safe Abortion Program, administered by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, to counteract the global gag rule

Observation One: CP is legitimate

1. The is not topical because it does not use USFG action. 2. the CP competes through solvency and net-benefits.

Observation Two: Solvency

The U.K supports safe abortion clinics that have made a great effort to open the community to more reproductive-health services to fill the hole the global gag rule has created. Kirsten Sherk, Senior Associate: Media Relations, February 6 2006, [“U.K. Pledges Funds to Combat Global Gag Rule Effects”, http://www.ipas.org/english/press_room/2006/releases/02062006.asp

At a time when U.S. policy has blocked safe abortion services in many countries, the United Kingdom has stepped up its efforts to combat the global health crisis of unsafe abortion. Today in London, the United Kingdom’s International Development Minister Gareth Thomas announced his government’s support for a new Global Safe Abortion Programme, with an initial £3 million (roughly US$ 5,251,000) contribution. To be administered by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the program will help compensate for the loss of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds that occurred when President George W. Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule. Signed into law by executive order in 2001, the Global Gag Rule prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive USAID family-planning funds to use their own funds to provide abortion services, counseling or referrals or to advocate for less restrictive abortion laws in their own countries. In a press release, Thomas said: “We know from experience that the absence of sexual- and reproductive-health services results in an increase in unintended pregnancies and, inevitably, a greater number of unsafe abortions. That is why the U.K. will support organizations like the IPPF and Marie Stopes that are providing medical care to help save women’s lives.” Other nations are invited to give to the program. Ipas President Elizabeth Maguire said: “Ipas welcomes the leadership demonstrated by two longstanding partners, the Department for International Development (DFID) and IPPF, in taking a strong and visible position against the Global Gag Rule and stating their unequivocal support for women’s access to safe abortion care.”Each year, 19 million women across the world undergo unsafe abortions; nearly 70,000 will die, and millions more will live with permanent abortion-related injuries. But with the new U.K. initiative, Maguire said, “the International Planned Parenthood Federation will be able to expand their services and community-level providers will be able to offer their patients more reproductive-health options. These changes will complement Ipas work in training providers, building the capacity of national health systems and increasing availability of the safest abortion technologies. We believe this is a win for women and their communities.”

INC Shell Observation 3: The Net Benefit:

A. Uniqueness Brown is trying to separate himself with the US’s foreign policy in Africa, criticism from cabinet members is making the split more likely BBC News, top European news source, 7-13-07

Speaking in the US, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander emphasised the need for "new alliances, based on common values". He warned against unilateralism and called for an "internationalist approach" to global problems. Asked if this amounted to criticising the US, Gordon Brown's spokesman said that view "was not shared" by the PM. He said Mr Alexander had given "a fairly straightforward speech on development". It was "not some startling new insight", the spokesman said, adding that the "interpretation", rather than the "content" had been the problem. Correspondents have described the speech as a "coded criticism" of the policies of President George W Bush. Mr Alexander, who is seen as one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's closest allies, also said "empowering women must be a priority for us all". He said: "The economic, social and political position of women in many countries is actively preventing us from reducing child and maternal mortality, and stopping the spread of HIV/Aids." Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "Douglas Alexander's comments may hint at a fresh relationship with the United States.

B. Link- The Global gag rule further distances the US between the U.K, but the plan would bring the nations together United Nations Population Fund, 11/10/00 (“United Nations Population Fund Welcomes Netherlands and U.K. Action to Avert Condom Crisis”, [|http://www.unfpa.org/news/news.cfm?ID=252&amp;Language=1)]

However, today “the president’s accumulated actions have distanced the United States from its own position” and that of governments around the world (Cohen, 2004).Other donor countries and organizations have stepped in to fill the “decency gap” created by the U.S. when it withdrew support for sexual and reproductive health programs in the developing world. The European Development Fund began channeling support to IPPF and UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, in direct response to the U.S. decisions to defund global reproductive health efforts (Cohen, 2004).The Safe Abortion Action Fund was launched by the United Kingdom government in February 2006. It aims to offset global gag rule-related funding losses and promote safe abortion around the world (Boseley, 2006; DFID, 2006). The UK has been joined by the governments of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland and other donors in contributing to the fund, which will be distributed to nongovernmental organizations who apply to work in the areas of advocacy, operations research, and service delivery (IPPF, 2007). The UK’s counterpart to USAID, the Department for International Development (DFID), elected the International Planned Parenthood Federation to administer the fund (DFID, 2006).

C: Internal Link: A close UK-US relationship makes the UK look illegit and revives a foreign policy of Blair and will reinstate dictatorship in Iran Timothy Garton Ash, 5/10/07, “Brown must learn the lessons from Blair’s three big mistakes”, The Guardian, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/comment/0,,2076182,00.html

All political careers end in failure, but it is not always the same failure. As Tony Blair departs, he is deeply unpopular at home but rather respected abroad. Only 22% of British respondents in a recent YouGov poll think he can be trusted, while 59% say he has not raised Britain's standing in the world. The question is, would 59% of the world agree? A fortnight ago I used this column to let Blair give, in his own words, his own balance sheet of his foreign policy over the last decade. To judge by some of the furious responses I received, even to offer the outgoing prime minister a courteous hearing is a kind of intellectual treason. The sole duty of any self-respecting commentator is to interrogate and then indict Blair - sorry, "Bliar" - as if he were a cross between Radovan Karadzic, Augusto Pinochet and Adolf Eichmann. That bloodied hand must never be shaken, that smile wiped off his face once and for all. As at many a London dinner table, one's own superior virtue, and one's belonging to the tribe, is demonstrated by the unbounded vehemence of one's denunciation of him. "Not in my name" is all that needs to be said, or rather shouted. Iraq also exposed the weakness of another strand of Blairite foreign policy - the attempt to influence American policy by working privately through the corridors of power in Washington, while avoiding all public disagreement. This is what I call the Jeeves school of diplomacy, and it has failed. Britain alone is no longer big enough to sway the hyperpower, especially if Washington thinks British support can always be taken for granted. Actually, it's more interesting to stop shouting for a moment and to listen, for what Blair offers is a template by which to judge his own record. The essence of Blairism in foreign policy, he told me, is liberal interventionism. His foreign policy has been all about combining soft and hard power, and about strengthening our alliances with the United States and the European Union, in order to face the supranational challenges of our time. Drawing away troops from Afghanistan when the job there was only half done, we have created two failures instead of one possible success. The Shia-Sunni rift has been inflamed across the Muslim world. The theocratic dictatorship of Iran has been greatly strengthened. The moral authority of the US is in tatters, and that of the United Kingdom dragged down with it. Iraq has alienated Muslims everywhere, including our own fellow citizens. Need I go on? This is the most comprehensive British foreign policy disaster since the Suez crisis of 1956.

A closer UK-US alliance will provoke Iran to strike and trigger war with Iran Nile Gardener, PHD, 06, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1047.cfm\

The United States and Great Britain have also been the targets of the Iranian regime’s venomous rhetoric. Iran is threatening to unleash 40,000 suicide bombers against “American and British sensitive points” in the event of action against their nuclear facilities, and a senior official with the Revolutionary Guard has warned that “Britain’s demise is on the agenda.”[2] Hassan Abbasi, Ahmadinejad’s chief political adviser, has described Britain as “the mother of all evils,” and boasted of “a strategy for the destruction of Anglo-American civilization.” If the UK were to take part in U.S.-led operations against Iran, the British contribution could include Special Forces (Special Air Service) contingents for covert operations, as well as air and navy support. The 8,000 British troops stationed in southern Iraq would, if still based in the country, play a key role in protecting the border with Iran, and combating Iranian-backed Shia militias. The British-owned Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, which houses an Anglo-American military base, would be an important launch pad for air strikes by B-2 stealth bombers, as would the Royal Air Force Base at Fairford in southern England. In addition, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) would be a critical component of any intelligence gathering operation.

An attack on Iran escalates to full-scale global nuclear war, leading to extinction Muhammad Jamil Khan, Retired Pakistani General, August 7, 2005. THE NATION, accessed 8/21/06, http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/aug-2005/7/columns5.php The above analysis vividly indicates US aggressive intentions on some pretext against Iran. US at present is covertly aligning her allies against Iran and looking for the opportunity to initiate the offensive. Most probable hypothesis is that US would make Iran’s nuclear development programme the pretext for launching offensive. Under such an eventuality Russia would guard Iran’s interest to pre-empt US intrusion towards CAS and Russia. Any offensive action of US on Iran would amount to annexation of Gwadar Port and Karachi Port for making a ‘bridge-head’. She would make safe access for India to provide logistic support to the US forces. In this regard she would neutralise Pakistan military capabilities through electronic jamming and containing its troops through limited offensive on Eastern and Western borders and to block and keep China away from the battlefield. Both US and India know that any intrusion in Pakistan would invoke China’s bitter reaction against them. All these reactions would result into a world war. In brief the big powers would make Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as the battleground. In this scenario both India and Israel would launch pre-emptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear strongholds and defence installations. As declared by Pakistan that any attempt on its nuclear installation would amount to strong reaction against that country. This reaction, under all possibility, would initiate nuclear war. Both Russia and China would also react to guard their strategic interests in Iran and Pakistan respectively. Initiation of nuclear weapons would amount to mass destruction and elimination of most of the global civilisation. Vast areas littered with human bodies would serve as feast for the Gog Magog. Revelation of Gog and Magog is not a fiction but a reality as revealed in the Holy Quran “Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier) and they swiftly swarm from every hill.” (21:96). Only Allah knows when and from where this revelation would materialise.

=DOD 1NC Shell= Text: The USFG Department of Defense should 

Observation 1: Solvency DOD LABORATORIES ARE CAPABLE OF STREAMLINING THE AFRICAN SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, AND OFFER THE BEST TECHNOLOGY AND PERSONNEL TRAINING. Patrick W. Kelley, M.D., Dr. P.H., Colonel and Director, Division of Preventive Medicine Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Institute of Medicine (Authoring organization), 2001, “Emerging Infectious Diseases from the Global to the Local Perspective”, p. 56, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10084

A major asset is the DOD network of overseas laboratories in Egypt, Kenya, Thailand, Indonesia, and Peru. These are medical research and development laboratories that in some cases were established more than 50 years ago and that exist primarily for the purpose of product development. For example, the key studies conducted for the licensure of the hepatitis A and the Japanese encephalitis vaccines were done at these laboratories. These laboratories have, in some instances, a biosafety level 3 capability. The laboratory in Cairo, Egypt, can if necessary, adapt to a biosafety level 4 capability. Although located in 5 countries, these laboratories have active research programs in about 31 countries; they have established extensive networks in their regions and have formal relationships with many ministries of health and the WHO. The laboratories have tremendous depth. In almost every case they have expertise in virology, bacteriology, parasitology, other aspects of microbiology, veterinary medicine, and epidemiology. Although their primary purpose was to support product development, increasingly they are becoming involved with surveillance. In all, about 700 people work at these laboratories and are backed up by more than 800 more DOD scientists working on issues related to emerging infections. The laboratories have additional assets: they are networked with state-of-the art communications technologies and possess cutting-edge field diagnostic reagents that are field oriented, rapid, and invaluable in the response to emerging infectious diseases. In addition, the laboratories have access to special drugs and vaccines that might be of critical importance in regions with outbreaks of unusual pathogens.

Observation 2: CDC DA 

=CDC Disad – 1NC=

A. CDC budget balanced now – public health is being sustained

Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Director CDC, March 9, 2007 The President’s FY 2008 Budget Request for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2007/03/t20070309a.html

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the support CDC has received in the President’s FY 2008 budget request. In an era of limited fiscal resources and many competing priorities, the FY 2008 budget strikes a balance between preparing for urgent threats and confronting urgent realities, and we are committed to leveraging these resources to achieve maximum health impact and reduce health disparities. In the coming fiscal year, CDC will sustain our leadership role in promoting health among young people and adults, across all life stages, and in schools and communities around the country. We will continue our investment in preparedness for urgent health threats and will work with partners at home and abroad to assure a healthy international community. In closing, I would like to express particular thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this Subcommittee, for your continued support. I look forward to working with Congress over the course of this next fiscal year to fulfill our public health mission, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

B. Plan causes funding to be cut

The Nation’s Health, Official Newspaper of the American Public Health Association, March, 2007 Kim Krisberg, President’s 2008 budget plan proposes further health cuts: CDC, HRSA programs threatened, http://www.apha.org/publications/tnh/archives/2007/March2007/Nation/BushBudget.htm

How much legislators will be able to achieve remains to be seen. While the new Congress is expected to place a high priority on health issues, the overall federal budget remains tight. Nevertheless, public health advocates will be working to make sure funding is adequate, and APHA members are being asked to help. While CDC would see some increases for emerging threats under Bush’s proposal, such as an additional $158 million increase for pandemic flu preparedness, such added funding comes at the expense of the agency’s core prevention and health promotion programs, many of which have been targeted for elimination by the administration during the past few budget cycles as well, said Don Hoppert, APHA’s director of government relations. Among the CDC programs threatened are the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, which the president’s proposal would eliminate completely. The block grant is a key stream of public health funding that allows states to tailor activities to their community’s specific needs and can be used to fill in funding gaps or address unforeseen public health threats. Block grant money goes toward a myriad of activities, from anti-obesity programs to emergency volunteer training to newborn hearing loss tracking. Bush’s budget recommendations would also eliminate much of the Steps to a Healthier U.S. program, which addresses the nation’s rising obesity rates. The proposal comes on the heels of last year’s elimination of CDC’s Verb program, a proven and highly successful media campaign aimed at childhood obesity.

C. The PHHS block grant is the bedrock of the American public health system – cutting the program risks nationwide epidemics

DHPE, Directors of Health Promotion and Education, 2006 Executive Summary: Impact of Elimination of the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant on Delivery of Public Health Services A Case for Restoration, http://www.dhpe.org/ExecutiveSummaryImpactEliminationPHHSBlockGrant.doc

With no proposed increases in other categorical funding to offset the PHHS Block Grant’s elimination, states face devastating cuts in critical public health services. These cuts would severely hamper the nation’s investment in prevention and the states’ ability to respond timely to emergencies and health threats. Specifically, terminating the PHHS Block Grant would create dangerous cracks in the nation’s public health system, eliminate important public health services in the local communities, and impede state innovation and distribution of start-up funds. Already-strained state budgets would be asked to find $132 million dollars to fund those programs currently supported by the PHHS Block Grant. Our assessment shows that this is not possible. It has also been implied that current categorical funding (most of which are available in only a subset of states) can absorb up to 65% of the eliminated costs. This is clearly not feasible or possible. Many categorical funding sources prohibit using funds for crosscutting efforts. Eliminating this critical source of flexible funding to states at a time when state health departments are facing deep cuts in funding would seriously endanger an already fragile public health system. Significant funding from the PHHS Block Grant goes to chronic disease prevention programs such as heart disease and stroke, diabetes, cancer, physical activity/nutrition, arthritis, oral health and school-based health services. States currently dedicate nearly $49 million in PHHS Block Grant funds to such programs. States also dedicate approximately $8.6 million to injury prevention and $7.6 million to rape prevention. Many of these initiatives are not supported by CDC’s categorical chronic disease programs. For example, PHHS Block Grant funding currently is the sole source of funding for the following: heart disease programs in 8 states, nutrition and overweight programs in 6 states, oral health programs in 6 states, rape or attempted rape programs in 5 states, and physical activity &amp; fitness programs in 3 states. Elimination of the PHHS Block Grant will yield disastrous results in all of these areas. In addition to chronic diseases and related risk factors, PHHS Block Grant funds allow States to respond quickly to state-specific emergencies and emerging health issues. States need a source of flexible funds to react quickly during unexpected outbreaks and emergencies and to respond rapidly to emerging health threats within their states so as not to endanger other states or spawn and nationwide epidemic. Programs at stake in this area include prevention of fatalities due to a recent meningitis outbreak in Mississippi school children and prevention of outbreaks of waterborne disease in Alabama.

D. A strong US public health system is key to the economy

Business Week, September 25, 2006 What's Really Propping Up The Economy, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

If you really want to understand what makes the U.S. economy tick these days, don't go to Silicon Valley, Wall Street, or Washington. Just take a short trip to your local hospital. Park where you don't block the ambulances, and watch the unending flow of doctors, nurses, technicians, and support personnel. You'll have a front-row seat at the health-care economy. For years, everyone from politicians on both sides of the aisle to corporate execs to your Aunt Tilly have justifiably bemoaned American health care -- the out-of-control costs, the vast inefficiencies, the lack of access, and the often inexplicable blunders. But the very real problems with the health-care system mask a simple fact: Without it the nation's labor market would be in a deep coma. Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago.

E. A U.S. economic collapse will cause nuclear war.

Walter Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, March/April, 2004 America’s Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, Proquest

Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance. The United States' global economic might is therefore not simply, to use Nye's formulations, hard power that compels others or soft power that attracts the rest of the world. Certainly, the U.S. economic system provides the United States with the prosperity needed to underwrite its security strategy, but it also encourages other countries to accept U.S. leadership. U.S. economic might is sticky power. How will sticky power help the United States address today's challenges? One pressing need is to ensure that Iraq's econome reconstruction integrates the nation more firmly in the global economy. Countries with open economies develop powerful trade-oriented businesses; the leaders of these businesses can promote economic policies that respect property rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Such leaders also lobby governments to avoid the isolation that characterized Iraq and Libya under economic sanctions. And looking beyond Iraq, the allure of access to Western capital and global markets is one of the few forces protecting the rule of law from even further erosion in Russia. China's rise to global prominence will offer a key test case for sticky power. As China develops economically, it should gain wealth that could support a military rivaling that of the United States; China is also gaining political influence in the world. Some analysts in both China and the United States believe that the laws of history mean that Chinese power will someday clash with the reigning U.S. power. Sticky power offers a way out. China benefits from participating in the U.S. economic system and integrating itself into the global economy. Between 1970 and 2003, China's gross domestic product grew from an estimated $106 billion to more than $1.3 trillion. By 2003, an estimated $450 billion of foreign money had flowed into the Chinese economy. Moreover, China is becoming increasingly dependent on both imports and exports to keep its economy (and its military machine) going. Hostilities between the United States and China would cripple China's industry, and cut off supplies of oil and other key commodities. Sticky power works both ways, though. If China cannot afford war with the United States, the United States will have an increasingly hard time breaking off commercial relations with China. In an era of weapons of mass destruction, this mutual dependence is probably good for both sides. Sticky power did not prevent World War I, but economic interdependence runs deeper now; as a result, the "inevitable" U.S.-Chinese conflict is less likely to occur.

=INFLATION 1NC=

Inflation reasonable but higher than Bernanke wants, a moderate increase will spark a rate hike.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 7/18/07, "Housing Continues to Hold Down Core Inflation in June," http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=1245&amp;Itemid=220

On net the price picture continues to be very mixed. There is certainly no story of inflation getting out of control; on the other hand, it does not seem likely that the core CPI will fall to the 2.0 percent target that Bernanke prefers. With somewhat rapid price increases at earlier stages of production (import prices have also been rising more rapidly), and a sharp slowdown in productivity growth in recent years, it seems more likely that inflation will edge higher than lower. The Fed will have to balance the desire for a lower inflation rate with ongoing weakness in the economy, as a sagging housing market and declining real wages continue to crimp demand growth.

Health worker shortage leads to inflation

Christopher Snowbeck, Februrary 26th, 2006. "Highmark chief says problems with part D offer lessons for government"

One of the key drivers of rising costs, he suggested, is the shortage of health-care professionals in some fields. A case in point was the divorce this month between a group of anesthesiologists and the West Penn Allegheny Health System. The break-up resulted in increased payments to professionals throughout the region as doctors moved and hospitals scrambled to make sure they had anesthesia services. "Now, the cost of anesthesia services in the community is higher than it was six months ago, and it doesn't make sense," Dr. Melani said. "We having nothing new -- we have no new capabilities, it's not going to allow us to live longer, healthier lives -- and we're paying more money."

Medical cost rising at brink rates now—a jump would cause skyrocketing inflation.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2/21/07, "Jump in Medical Costs Pushes Core Inflation Higher," http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=1054&amp;Itemid=220

An extraordinary 0.8 percent jump in medical care costs led to a higher than expected 0.3 percent core inflation rate in January. The overall inflation rate for January was 0.2 percent, as a 1.5 percent fall in energy prices more than offset a 0.7 percent increase in food prices in January. The annual inflation rate in the core over the last three months has been 2.0 percent, down from a 2.7 percent rate over the last year. The overall inflation rate has been 2.7 percent over the last three months, up from 2.1 percent over the last year. The jump in medical care costs reported for January will not be repeated, but it suggests that the moderation in medical care inflation reported in prior months' price data was an anomaly. With the January jump, the annualized rate of inflation over the last three months is 5.0 percent, compared to a 4.3 percent rate over the last year. The rate of inflation in medical care going forward will probably be close to 4.0 percent. There were a number of other anomalous numbers in this report, which were largely offsetting. On the high side, tobacco costs jumped 3.1 percent in January and hotel prices rose by 1.1 percent, bringing the annual inflation rate in these components over the last quarter to 18.3 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively. Both series are very erratic (tobacco costs probably reflect new taxes put in place in January), and are likely to show much lower inflation in future months. On the low side, communication costs fell by 0.4 percent in January, bringing their annual rate of decline over the last three months to 5.7 percent. This compares to a 2.0 percent rate of decline over the last year. It is likely that some of the recent price declines will be reversed. Tuition costs rose by just 0.1 percent in January, after rising 5.8 percent over the last year. Tuition will almost certainly rise more rapidly in the months ahead. Rental inflation continued to moderate in January. The owner equivalent rent component, which accounts for more than 30 percent of the core CPI, rose by just 0.2 percent. The annual inflation in this component over the last three months has been 3.5 percent. This is down from a rate of more than 5.0 percent last spring. The downward trend is undoubtedly attributable to the nationwide glut of vacant units, especially ownership units. Many homeowners are being forced to rent out houses that they are unable to sell after they move. The rent proper component rose by 0.4 percent in January, bringing its inflation rate to 4.8 percent over the quarter. This higher rate reflects the impact of utility costs being passed on in rent. Car prices fell 0.2 percent in January and have fallen at a 4.4 percent annual rate over the quarter. Car prices are likely to flatten or rise modestly in the months ahead. There is little evidence of inflationary pressures at earlier stages of production. The overall finished goods index fell by 0.6 percent in January, while the core index rose by 0.2 percent. The core finished goods index has increased by 1.8 percent over the last year, which is probably close to its current underlying rate. The core intermediate goods index was flat for the second consecutive month in January, after falling 0.4 percent in November. Weakness in the prices for many industrial supplies, notably construction, is containing inflation in this index. The overall inflation picture remains somewhat mixed. There is no evidence that inflation poses any serious problem, but it is likely that the core inflation rate will be near the Fed's 2.0 percent target in the months ahead, as rising health care and tuition costs are not offset by sharply falling car and communications prices. The revised productivity data that will be released next month, which will show substantially slower productivity growth for both the last quarter and the last year, is likely to raise concerns over the future course of inflation.

Inflation causes interest hikes and collapses the global economy.

People's Daily, 12-2-06 "Declining US economy impacts other economies" http://english.people.com.cn/200612/02/eng20061202_327622.html

Once the value of the dollar plummets by large margins, the United States will be forced to raise the interest rate dramatically to keep the assets in US dollars attractive. This would constitute the triggering factor for the dwindling of the assets market and for economic stagnation. In the scenario of the hard landing of the US economy, other countries' economies would not be able to remain intact. The decline of the economy of the United States, which is the world's largest market for imports and the No 1 recipient of foreign direct investment, would negatively impact other economies.

Global economic collapse causes extinction

Thomas Bearden, Association of Distinguished American Scientists and LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), 2000 ("The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly", [|http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released.~ As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China--whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States--attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary.~ The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible.As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.