1. Nonunique - The economic recession has created a centralizing affect on US government – states have fallen from the spotlight allowing the federal government expand its powers – this is likely to continue throughout 2009
John Dinan and Shama Gamkhar May 14th, 2009 (Dinan is a professor of political science at Wake Forest, Gamkhar is a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin) “The State of American Federalism 2008–2009: The Presidential Election, the Economic Downturn, and the Consequences for Federalism” Published in Publius: The Journal of Federalism” page online: http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/pjp012 Accessed July 9, 2009.
The most consequential developments for American federalism in 2008–2009 were the presidential election and economic recession. After several years when states were the primary innovators on many issues that topped the policy agenda, the economic downturn drew renewed attention to federal policy-making, given the greater resources and capacities of the federal government. Although federalism was not a dominant issue in the presidential campaign, Barack Obama's election and sizable Democratic congressional gains had important implications for federal-state relations by putting federal power in the service of a different set of policy goals, encouraging state experimentation on a different set of policy issues, and producing a greater willingness to respond to state pleas for financial assistance. The two most consequential developments for American federalism in 2008–2009 were the presidential election and a severe economic recession that began in late 2007 and is expected to last well into 2009. The recession had a clear and predictable centralizing effect. As is generally the case during wars and economic downturns, the public looked primarily to the federal government, with its greater resources and capacities, to ameliorate the economic hardships and prevent the situation from worsening. Federal officials from both parties responded, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by issuing tax rebates, rescuing banks, mortgage lenders, and auto-makers, and proposing increased federal regulation of various financial institutions. Whereas in the last several years states were the primary innovators on many policy issues that topped the political agenda, the economic downturn and prominence of economic issues in the presidential election drew renewed attention to federal policy-making.
2. No brink: their evidence does not identify how much federalism would have to erode before their impacts occurred.
3. No link – their evidence is not specific to our plan.
4. TURN: Federalism bad –
A. Federalism magnifies the impact of natural disasters by making states complicit with basic federal regulations.
Governing Magazine, 2005
(RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY, October, 2005, LEXIS)
After Hurricane Frances ripped through Florida about a year ago, the Federal Emergency Management Agency wrote checks worth $31 million to residents of Miami-Dade County. There was a big problem with the payouts, though: The storm had actually hit about 200 miles to the north. Frances gave Miami a good soaking but didn't really do much damage there. It's an ironic tale, in light of all the finger-pointing wrought by the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina. To be sure, state and local officials never relish having to work with FEMA's bureaucracy when disaster strikes. That's been abundantly clear this past month. But there's usually a silver--or green--lining. It's not too hard to shake millions, even billions, out of Washington after a calamity, or even a rainstorm in Miami's case. In fact, it's much easier than winning federal aid for workaday priorities such as education or public housing. This is one of federalism's little quirks--one that some argue makes natural disasters even more disastrous. If the feds always pick up the tab, then there's no incentive for states or localities to halt risky development in areas prone to flooding, mudslides or wildfires. It's an example of what economists call a "moral hazard" problem. "The signal that's gone out over many years is that no matter what type of natural disaster it is, FEMA comes in and bails you out," says Pietro Nivola, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. "State and local governments become complacent."
B. Lack of preparedness and rapid response will allow the new wave of disasters to render the earth uninhabitable
Sid-Ahmed 2k5 (Mohammed, Al-Ahram Online, Jan 6-12, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm)
The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life.
Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself. Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26 December.
This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief that the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any way. We are now forced to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.