Calvin says I win.

Inh, Justifications, then the DA's.

On the inherency.

He says the tax is returning in 2011.

A.) LUDICROUSLY powertagged- All his Chebium 09 evidebnce says is that Obama wants to
reinstate the tax, not that reinstating it would be in the budget. It's mentioned in the same sentence with
the budget, but that's not hardly enough.

B.) There's different legislation. From The Independent, December 17, 2009
http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2009-12-17/front_page/019.html
"Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), whose Monmouth County district includes part of Marlboro,
noted that a major force behind the cleanup of Imperial Oil has been the grassroots efforts headed by
Marlboro resident Tina Freedman and the Edison Wetlands Association of Middlesex County. The
congressman voiced his support for legislation reauthorizing the Superfund trust fund, which would tax
polluters and generate revenue for the trust fund to help pay the cost of cleanups nationwide."

Look at that- December 09, talking about different legislation that's not passed yet. Why would
the Congressman throw his weight behind that legislation when he could just work to get the
budget passed?

C.) Timeframe- His author says the businesses won't have to pay the tax until 2011. Jim-dandy, that
kills his argument right now, because we establish it a year sooner.

Then he says the budget (that still doesn't have the tax in it, no matter how bad Marshall wants it
to be otherwise) got passed.
A.) Multiple versions- Budgets go through a ton of revisions, especially controversial ones like
Obama's. He needs to show that the versions between March (his Chebium card) and December (his
CNN card) kept the SF tax.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:sc13enr.txt.pdf
Here's the actual bill that passed- unless he can show us where, in this bill, the Superfund Tax is
reinstated, inherency flows aff. Since neither “Superfund” nor “CERCLA” show up in the document,
I'd be intrigued to see how he plans to do that.

Overview:

Not only has Marshall not proven his point, but his card is powertagged and legislative action
suggests that he's wrong. Make him prove his argument.
Justification 1- more cleanups

Literally none of his arguments here matter because he never answers any of our claims, but I'll answer
anyway.

1.) He says 76 sites per year vs. 24.

A.) He's conceding net benefit- Superfund will be almost 3 times more effective. That's an affirmative
ballot.
B.) No better numbers- He makes the baldfaced assertion that Superfund's numbers are “pitiful”. The
only thing pitiful here is that he thinks he can win this argument without providing any analysis for
what the numbers SHOULD be. He's just making assertions that 80 of the worst sites in the country
“isn't enough” with nothing to back it up.

2.) He says states do 4500 a year

A.) More funding- Do you really think the 50 states combined have the same number of personnel and
the same funding as the Federal fund? You can't compare the two with those variables.
B.) Federal sites are “megasites”- harder and costlier to remediate. Adler 08 and Probst 09.

Jonathan H. Adler [Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School
of Law.], “Symposium: Breaking the Logjam: Environmental Reform for the New Congress and Administration: Panel VII: Managing
Waste: Reforming Our Wasteful Hazardous Waste Policy “, Published in the New York University Environmental Law Review, 2008 [17
N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 724]

As state authorities have gained greater experience with waste site management and cleanup, they have
increased their effectiveness. The number of sites cleaned up in 2000 was equivalent to the number
cleaned up in 1997, but in 2000 states were able to achieve this cleanup at 10 percent lower
cost. n151 There is some dispute whether state sites are, on average, less contaminated and inherently
less costly to remediate than federal sites. n152 Without question, some so-called "mega sites" in the
federal program are the largest, most complex, and most difficult sites to remediate in the nation. Such
sites may demand continued federal involvement.

Kate Probst [Senior Fellow for Resources for the Future, whose research topics include Environmental Regulation, Policy Instruments,
Waste Management and Site Cleanup. Over the last 25 years, she has conducted numerous analyses of environmental programs, focusing
mainly on improving the implementation of Superfund and other hazardous waste management programs. She was the lead author of the
study, Superfund's Future: What Will it Cost?, requested by Congress, on the estimated cost of the Superfund program to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from FY 2000 through FY 2009. Her 2004 study Success for Superfund, includes
recommendations for specific information EPA should make readily available to the public on all Superfund sites, in a site "report
card.."], “Reinstating the Superfund Taxes: Good or Bad Policy?”, published by Resources For the Future, August 24, 2009
http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/Reinstating-the-Superfund-Taxes.aspx

In addition, it has become clear that some of the sites that warrant federal attention—mining sites and
contaminated waterways —are among the most complex and expensive types of sites to remediate.

C.) So what?- There's no impact. He's comparing apples to oranges- the states' methods, sites, and
budgets are completely different, so you can't compare state and federal performance.

Overview:

He's wrong here, but even if he was right, there's no reason to vote us down at all. He just plays
games with numbers to claim it doesn't matter without addressing the argument.
Justification 2- Pre-emptive effect

1.) He says there's no proof of damage, which means that the EPA abuses companies. I beg to
differ.
A.) Evidence misapplied- His evidence is grossly misapplied. In the 1NC he claims there's no
risk, In C-X that there's no proof of a risk, but his evidence doesn't say either of those. It says the
EPA doesn't need to prove that there's a risk- that's all. Don't let him powertag.
B.) No impact- He clarifies in C-X that his point isn't that there's no risk. Cool. He's conceding that
toxic waste sites are bad. I think we can all agree on that. This has no impact to the EPA's ability to pre-
empt.
C.) TURN: Pre-emption eliminates abuse- He complains that the EPA can do all these
bad things to companies, but if the companies police themselves to prevent pollution (that's
1AC Revesz), the EPA won't abuse them. But in the status quo, they're not policing themselves,
which leads to all this injustice, because there's no incentive for them not to pollute, which puts
them on the chopping block. Better to prevent them from being abused (the plan) than just
abusing them slower (the squo.) I'll be cross-applying this point later on.

2.) He says Superfund can sue for remediation in the squo.

A.) Revesz says you're wrong. Refer to 1AC Revesz- without the money in the trust fund (which ran
out in 2003), the EPA is a paper tiger, and its ability to sue is severely curtailed.
B.) Trust fund is what matters. Yes, the tax was gone in 1996, but the trust fund didn't run out till
2003.
C.) Powertagged again. What the evidence ACTUALLY says is that the accused parties can do little to
challenge the EPA's decisions. Remember, those decisions aren't necessarily lawsuits- it could just as
easily be referring to the remediation itself.

I'll extend this justification: THROW OUT ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS- Pre-emption alone
justifies the continuation of Superfund. Revesz 09.

Richard Revesz [Dean of the New York University School of Law. Graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and continued
his studies at Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-cheif of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall. He joined the NYU faculty in 1985, teaching environmental and administrative law.],“Should the U.S. Resurrect
Superfund?”, published by National Journal Expert Blogs: Energy & Environment,, March 2, 2009
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/should-the-us-resurrect-superf.php?comments=expandall#comments

In the end, Superfund liability plays an extremely important role in giving companies the right
incentives to properly handle toxic substances. Cleaning up sites is important, but equally important is
ensuring that fewer toxic sites are created in the future. Even if few Superfund cleanups ever
happened, the threat of the Superfund hammer coming down would give firms plenty of reasons
to stay on the straight and narrow. And that is reason enough to keep the Superfund funded.

Overview:

Per the second Revesz 09 card, an affirmative ballot is justified by Justification 2 ALONE. In
fact, pre-emption enables us to solve for all of his offense. Plus he powertags again.
Justification 3- Environmental Justice

The first thing to note is that he completely drops and misunderstands the actual case justification-
when the Superfund has budget shortfalls, the neglected sites are the ones in minority communities.
That's not justice, that's institutionalized racism. He drops it, so this flows Aff. Institutional
racism outweighs his impacts because it's actually a pattern- to be unfair in one instance to the oil
companies is hardly a pattern of discrimination. They get tons of legal advantages. But to
continue disregarding the health of minorities is a flat-out senseless continuation of a devastating
pattern. On to the line-by-line.

1.) He says Superfund has no oversight.

A.) Don't blame them- That's the fault of Congress for writing a bad law, but we've seen no evidence
that the EPA has done ANYTHING.
B.) Turn: Neg prolongs it- He advocates keeping the Superfund as it is. That's a bad move, because
that means that he accesses this injustice just as much as we do. Also, since the plan preempts
pollution, that means fewer businesses will be abused by the EPA. Superfund will keep cleaning sites
under a neg ballot, so vote affirmative for fewer sites and less abuse.

2.) He says the polluter isn't paying.

A.) Better than the people- No matter how you slice it, taxing polluting industrial sectors is more fair
than the taxpayers, which is where the funding comes from now. At least SOME of the companies will
be at fault, whereas none of the taxpayers are.

B.) Without the tax, companies can dodge responsibility- it's necessary. Pope 09.

Carl Pope [Chairman and former Executive Director of the Sierra Club. Graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College. Pope has
worked with the Sierra Club for more than 30 years, and has served as a board member for other organizations, including the National
Clean Air Coalition, California Common Cause, and Public Interest Economics Inc. He was a Peace Corps volunteer in India from 1967
to 1969. Mr. Pope has authored multiple books, including “Hazardous Waste in America”.], “Should the U.S. Resurrect Superfund?”,
published by National Journal Expert Blogs: Energy & Environment,, March 2, 2009 http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/should-
the-us-resurrect-superf.php?comments=expandall#comments

Let's be blunt. Companies facing serious toxic waste liabilities are highly creative at using contracting
and bankruptcy to avoid responsibility for their actions -- and the business sector as a whole has not
policed itself. As an example, American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) tried to shift at
least $500 million in toxic waste liabilities to the general public by declaring bankruptcy in 2005 even
while its parent company, Grupo Mexico, was doubling its profits by shedding ASARCO's liabilities.
And ASARCO is not unique -- the huge number of "orphan" toxic waste sites are evidence that it is
critical to hold industrial sectors as a whole responsible for the consequences of their actions.

That doesn't mean the Superfund is perfect. The existing law can be improved -- indeed, back in 1993 a
broad coalition of organizations, ranging from the Sierra Club to the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, agreed on such a reform package -- only to have it die in partisan bickering in
the Senate.

Once the tax expired, too many business interests, like the American Chemistry Council, walked away
from Superfund reform because they were off the hook. We ought to restore the tax, and perfect the
law.

C.) TURN: The tax was a trade for liability exclusions- now they don't need to pay AT ALL!
 Beinecke 09.
Frances Beinecke [President of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She received a bachelor's degree from Yale College and a
master's degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. She now co-chairs the Leadership Council of the Yale
School of Forestry, is a member of the School of Management's Advisory Board and a former member of the Yale Corporation Frances
has received the Rachel Carson Award from the National Audubon Society, the Distinguished Alumni Award from Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies, the Annual Conservation Award from the Adirondack Council and the Robert Marshall Award from the
Wilderness Society. Frances has worked with NRDC for more than 30 years. In addition to her work at NRDC, Frances has played a
leadership role in several other environmental organizations. She currently serves on the boards of the World Resources Institute, the
Energy Future Coalition and Conservation International's Center for Environmental Leadership in Business and is on the steering
committee of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. She has been a member of the boards of the Wilderness Society, the China-U.S. Center
for Sustainable Development and the New York League of Conservation Voters.], “Should the U.S. Resurrect Superfund?”, published by
National Journal Expert Blogs: Energy & Environment,, March 2, 2009 http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/should-the-us-
resurrect-superf.php?comments=expandall#comments

It is important to remember that the “polluter pays” tax was enacted as part of a legislative compromise
that excluded oil companies from liability for clean-up under Superfund. The industry has likely been
spared hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs as a result (and been exceedingly profitable in
the meantime). Since the tax has been expired so long, it may make sense to eliminate the liability
exclusion altogether.

Extending on that turn, the liability limits amount to an unfair windfall for polluting industries.
Browner 02. (who is, for the record, not “some lady in the White House”, but the Administrator
of the EPA.)

Carol Browner [Lawyer, environmentalist, businesswoman and Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
longest-serving Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration. She then became a founding
member of the Albright Group and Albright Capital Management during the 2000s. She also served on a number of boards of directors
and committees dealing with environmental issues. She received her B.A.. from the University of Florida, and her J.D. From the
University of Florida College of Law.], “Polluters Should Have to Pay”, Published in the New York Times, March 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/opinion/polluters-should-have-to-pay.html

The 1980 law imposed a tax on the oil and chemical industries to finance the trust fund. In return, the
oil industry was relieved of most of its liability for petroleum contamination. While the oil industry is
covered by other environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, it is the only industry to receive special
treatment under the Superfund act.
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton all collected these Superfund taxes and
sought their extension. Congress, however, allowed the taxes to expire at the end of 1995, despite the
Clinton administration's annual requests that they be extended. In 1993, 1994 and 1995, these
Superfund taxes generated more than $2 billion a year.
The administration's decision not to seek an extension means that the Superfund trust fund will be out
of money by 2004. Yet the end of the tax does not alter the limit on liability that the oil industry
continues to enjoy under the Superfund law. Failure to collect the taxes amounts to an enormous
windfall for the oil and chemical industries.

Overview:
Not only are his answers non-responsive, they're flat-out wrong. Not only are you giving us the
1AC justification (which outweighs his industrial fairness impacts), but you're also giving us
industrial fairness too.
Disadvantage 1- Wasteful

1.) He says Superfund has high overhead.

A.) No alternative- He gives no numbers for why that's too high, he just gives you a number and hopes
you think it sounds unreasonable. That's not a warrant. He needs to give analysis about what a
reasonable cost for overhead is.

2.) He says the money could be better spent elsewhere.

A.) No tradeoff- Nowhere does he ever establish a tradeoff. We could overturn Roe v. Wade for free
and save more lives than any program. That doesn't mean you vote me down.
B.) He proves significance- His card proves that people die from the toxins at Superfund sites. Great.
That means that justification 2 carries way more weight now, because his card proves that preemption
saves lives FOR FREE.

3.) No impact. There's literally no impact to this argument at all. “We shouldn't be giving money to
a wasteful organization” isn't a reason to reject and is also non-unique.

4.) TURN: More company involvement. In the status quo, the Federal Government does all the
cleanups. But under the plan, we create incentives for liable parties to do it themselves (1AC
Browner 02). All their analysis about the EPA being bad applies to the status quo, where there's
no incentives for companies to clean up, and not to the plan, which creates incentives.

Overview:

The disad contains crazy leaps of logic, fails to establishes a tradeoff, and gets turned too.
Disadvantage 2- Nuclear exchange.

Impact turn: Obama would lose.

Fool, you think I'm going to lose to Obama? No way am I losing to some Hawaiian fancy lad. He'd lose
and I'd become President. (That's how it works, right?) Since I'd be President, the prophecies about the
Antichrist in the book of Revelation will be fulfilled (don't act like you didn't know) and I will take the
nations to war on the Plains of Meggido, meaning that as soon as you enact the plan, we get the Second
Coming, culminating in the salvation of mankind and the rise of New Jerusalem. Salvation outweighs
all his impacts. The power of Christ COMPELS ye!

Overview:

Wham bam thank you ma'am.

Overview:

Marshall essentially loses as soon as he fails to put any unique offense on the flow. The faster
cleanups and pre-emption turn all his offense, and his defense is weak sauce to begin with. Some
of his cards contradict each other, most are powertagged. We're winning impacts about public
health, justice for businesses (since he sticks with the SQ, which is way less just than the plan),
justice for taxpayers, and racial justice. Also I'm winning that an aff vote will result in the Second
Coming. You're voting aff today if you like Jesus.