Unpayable Debt Neg - DDI 2023 KM

NEG---KM vs LS Unpayable Debt
Topicality
TVA
Reparation is key to save black lives—the health disparity is a unique issue solved only through a combination of reparation and health care—prefer saving lives than the knowledge 1ac claim to produce.
Bassett and Galea’20[Mary Travis Bassett is an American physician and public health researcher who was the 17th Health Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, being appointed to the position by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 29, 2021, until December 31, 2022.]Mary T. Bassett, M.D., M.P.H., and Sandro Galea, M.D., Dr.P.H., Reparations as a Public Health Priority — A Strategy for Ending Black–White Health Disparities, November 26, 2020, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026170/HZ
There has not been a single year since the founding of the United States when Black people in this country have not been sicker and died younger than White people. A growing consensus highlights a structural basis for these preventable disparities — structural racism — clarifying the need for a structural solution. Black reparations are one such solution and, we believe, a long-overdue approach to persistent Black–White health disparities in the United States. Though the racial gap in life expectancy has narrowed, Black Americans continue to die 4 years earlier, on average, than White Americans. The divides on other U.S. mortality measures are starker: Black mothers are three times as likely as White mothers to die from pregnancy-related causes1; Black infants are more than twice as likely as White infants to die in their first year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the rate of premature death (before 75 years of age) is 30% higher among Black Americans than among White Americans. These racial inequities have been the focus of attention from the medical and public health communities in recent years. The National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities, for example, began as a program within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Director in 1990, and through a succession of legislative iterations become an Institute of the NIH in 2010. Its mission, in part, is “to reduce and encourage elimination of health disparities.” The CDC has, since 2011, issued Health Disparities and Inequalities Reports and Strategies for Reducing Health Disparities, highlighting public health approaches. Private foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have adopted health disparities reduction as a core goal, and a generation of scholars has worked assiduously on this challenge for several decades. An important advance is that addressing Black–White health gaps is no longer at the margins of academic or health concerns. But though this attention has brought some tangible gains, progress has been strikingly limited. Despite improvements, life expectancy remains stubbornly tied to whether a person is born Black or White. Black–White health gaps continue to characterize American health and, at the current pace of effort and investment, will continue to do so for decades to come. Perhaps the most important insight into why these gaps persist comes from work that focuses our thinking about fundamental causes of health.2 This work shows that forces that shape our societal structures — including power, money, and access to resources — inevitably become embodied in health and will continue to shape health patterns unless they are addressed. This understanding clarifies that the Black–White health gap is inseparable from the enormous gap in resources between Blacks and Whites in the United States. Black Americans earn 65 cents for every dollar earned by White Americans. Even more dramatically, the average Black family has about $10 in assets for every $100 accrued by the average White family. In 2015, for example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found a truly staggering racial gap in wealth in Boston: household assets averaged $8 for Black families and about $247,500 for White families. And power, money, and access to resources — good housing, better education, fair wages, safe work places, clean air, drinkable water, and healthier food — translate into good health. The radical implication of this link is that what really needs fixing is access to resources. We suggest that one means for fixing it is Black reparations for slavery. Reparations would target the underlying causes of Black–White health gaps. Efforts to provide better health care, to provide more medicine, and to tackle the greater disease burden in a population that lacks access to essential resources for health are bound to fall short — they may be necessary, but they will never be sufficient. If the medical and public health communities understood both this inadequacy and the central role that Black reparations could play in narrowing health gaps, they might feel compelled to engage with the question of Black reparations. We believe that there are three pathways through which reparations could reduce health disparities. First, they would go some way toward expanding the extremely limited resources available to many Black Americans. Insofar as the relationship between resources and health is inarguable, there is no way to close a health gap without also addressing a resource gap. In the short term, reparations would give many Black Americans the means to obtain health-producing resources such as better neighborhoods, better schools, and access to cleaner air. Second, reparations would help reduce the stress felt by many Black Americans, which is undoubtedly associated with poor health. Psychological strain has been clearly linked to poor health,3 and reparation funds that alleviated some of this strain could help improve the health of Black Americans. Third, we would expect the ultimate effect of Black reparations to be intergenerational. Health is produced over the life course and across generations, and any effort in the present to level the wealth playing field could reset the potential wealth and assets — and consequent health — of future generations. Thus, any reparations provided today would be an investment in the future and in reducing disparities that have been intractable for generations. A growing literature makes the moral, historical, legal, and economic arguments for Black reparations.4 However, such advocacy has rarely considered the health advantage that reparations would offer.5 Black reparations could be implemented in various ways, ranging from cash transfers to the creation of investment vehicles, and we need research to elucidate the most effective forms. It seems likely that no single approach will be sufficient to counterbalance the centuries-long deprivation that continues to harm the health of Black Americans today. But at the core, reparations would be an acknowledgment of the harms of slavery, a restitution of resources that have long been denied to people affected by slavery over generations, and would bring some closure to profound injustices that the country has long shamefully neglected. Black reparations have been highly controversial, a proposition generally seen as politically untenable. Though supported by most Black Americans, reparations are opposed by a majority of Americans overall. Yet the tide is turning. Democratic presidential candidates discussed — and several supported — reparations during the 2019 primary debates. In 2019, Congress held its first hearings on a reparations bill in more than a decade. Then the murder of George Floyd unleashed unprecedented global rejection of the human cost of the U.S. racial hierarchy. These developments create an extraordinary opportunity to clarify that a fundamental driver of Black–White health gaps is a difference in resources that is structural in origin, owing to many obstacles to Black advancement. We cannot ameliorate long-standing Black–White health inequities without addressing the structural forces that pattern them. Black reparations would not solve racism — structural racism permeates all we do and bars Black Americans from equitable access to housing, occupational opportunities, and safe neighborhoods, to name but a few determinants of health. But reparations would represent a monumental break with the past. At the 1963 March on Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., proclaimed that “In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check.” He explained: “America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’” From this, his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, we remember King’s words about the content of our characters. But his remarks on the obligation to repair have often been overlooked. It is left to those of us in medicine and public health to argue that now is the time to act, because equity is not simply about repair in cash or in kind. Addressing the Black–White wealth gap through reparations is about saving lives. By bringing attention to the health benefits of addressing this gap, we can help shift a national conversation about reparations that often becomes mired in blame and accusation to one that centers the critical importance of health.
Turn—progress is possible--Their author is not anti-fiscal redistribution, the author is pro anti poverty materialistic action, they endorsed taxes in the literally next paragraph of the same article—neg read blue
Hamilton ‘19 [Brian Hamilton November 20, 2019; Brian Hamilton is an American entrepreneur and philanthropist. He is founder of the philanthropic organizations "Inmates to Entrepreneurs" and the "Brian Hamilton Foundation. Universal basic income is just a band-aid on a much bigger problem - Brian Hamilton Foundation]
But UBI is a lazy solution that fails to solve the real problem: how to give people an opportunity to create wealth. We need to get more people invested in our country as owners of real things that create this wealth—things like real estate, businesses, cars. Otherwise, like in the days of sharecropping, we risk continuing to have a whole class of people who are merely being sustained, but not given the chance for real economic advancement. After the Civil War, the southern region of the US was left destitute to a degree barely imaginable by today’s standards. Since the economic model of the south was heavily reliant on slave labor, the region’s economy was struggling to survive after the abolition of slavery. The answer? Sharecropping. The practice of giving people a modicum of economic incentives, where they could subsist at a low-income level, but where it was impossible for them to rise permanently, defined American poverty for decades. In the sharecropping system, a person would rent land from an owner and farm that plot. A “share” of the profits was also provided to the landlord/owner. Rents were set to make economic profit impossible. So, sharecroppers survived through very hard work, but they could not statistically rise as a group. As a result, people never became owners, which is a basic tenet of economic advancement. From an economic vantage point, sharecropping resembled a form of slavery, except that it also enveloped poor white people. Not surprisingly, following the Civil War, the South was locked into a cycle of poverty lasting into the 20th century with income down 36% from where it was prior to the war. Today’s proposal for UBI is similarly flawed, specifically since it will not result in more ownership. My fear is that, rather than helping, solutions like this will create a permanent class of people on the margins. Without owning assets of significance, people will remain bystanders. There are better ways to attack the problems of poverty: Education Early and broad education around financial literacy and wealth building, for example, costs taxpayers less and creates more results. I got an MBA and never took a course in simple personal financial management. Poor people are forced into bad financial practices by their circumstances and lack of knowledge. Taxes Another option is tax credits for people who invest in tech companies that produce anti-poverty or wealth-building products that benefit the poor. So, you invest $1 and get a $1 deduction against your income. We have to get tech companies working for the poor rather than indirectly against them. A company can get certified with a B Corporation designation, which indicates that it is a social enterprise. Why can’t we create the same type of designation for companies working on anti-poverty technologies and initiatives? Investments The US’s Small Business Administration (SBA) costs taxpayers about $715 million a year. It seems to me that this is a case where increasing a spend can move the dial for everyone’s benefit, including by aggressively expanding the SBA, but where it partners with private sector non-profit organizations that emphasize helping people start businesses. If you look at the history of disenfranchised people, the pattern is that they got themselves out of poverty either by getting educated or by starting their own businesses. This is especially crucial because, despite the popularity of entrepreneurship, the rate of ownership in private companies continues to fall dangerously low over the past 50 years. Lower ownership in private businesses is a national risk. Having an opportunity to participate and own is integral to human dignity. It is true that the problem of poverty is immensely complicated and encompasses many socioeconomic factors. But, if solutions are well thought through and not slapped together under a false premise, such as sharecropping and UBI, we can significantly reduce poverty in this country with the resources and economic power that we already have.
Counterplan
1NC — Counterplan
CP text: The United States should establish a UBI funded by a carbon tax
Carbon Dividend reduces emissions drastically and is progressive.
Cumbers 21 — John Robert Cumbers, former molecular biologist at NASA, founder of SynBioBeta, an organization that promotes synthetic biology to build a more sustainable universe, PhD in Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry from Brown University, 2021 (“This Climate Bill Would Actually Send Checks To Americans. Can It Help Save The Planet And Grow Our Economy?,” Forbes, Aug 3rd, Available Online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2021/08/03/this-climx, Accessed on 07-24-23)
Gradually Rising Carbon Fees
EICDA’s carbon fee is a straightforward tweak to market dynamics. The bill imposes a steadily rising carbon fee on the CO2 emissions of fossil fuels and carbon-intensive products when they enter the economy — at the mine, well, or port of entry. To avoid shocking the economy, the fee starts at a low $15 per metric ton of CO2 emissions. The fee then increases annually by $10 per metric ton to gradually wean the economy away from fossil fuels. This approach gives businesses certainty in making both short- and long-term investment decisions.
The fee will shift market dynamics in favor of fossil fuel alternatives. The rising price of CO2 emissions will encourage innovation and make climate solutions more competitive in the marketplace. Everyone— individuals, businesses, and government— can make choices that work economically AND drive down carbon pollution.
The robustly increasing fee makes it possible for EICDA to commit to an ambitious schedule of U.S. emission reductions and project a decrease in emissions to 36-38% of 2005 levels by 2030. This exceeds America’s commitment under the Paris Agreement to a 26-28% reduction in emissions by 2025. EICDA will reduce America’s carbon pollution by 50% by 2030, putting us on track to reach net zero by 2050.
Carbon Dividends Avoid Regressivity and Stimulate the Economy
Revenues from the EICDA carbon fee are projected to total over $1 trillion in the first eight years. EICDA pays over 98% of those revenues as a monthly dividend (think rebate) to households. In year one, a family of two adults and two children would receive about $790 in carbon dividends. As early as year ten, that sum would increase to nearly $3,500. Roughly two-thirds of households will break even or come out ahead financially. On top of being equitable, the carbon dividend makes good political sense. First, it prevents the possibility of an American Yellow Vest rebellion, like the one that greeted France’s attempt to raise gas taxes. Second, once voters start receiving monthly dividend checks, woe to the politician who tries to take them away!
Otherwise, warming becomes unmanageable.
Plumer 23 — Brad Plumer, a climate reporter specializing in policy and technology efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions at the New York Times, 2023 (“Climate Change Is Speeding Toward Catastrophe. The Next Decade Is Crucial, U.N. Panel Says,” New York Times, March 21st, Available Online at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/climate/global-warming-ipcc-earth.html, Accessed 07-24-23)
Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade, and nations will need to make an immediate and drastic shift away from fossil fuels to prevent the planet from overheating dangerously beyond that level, according to a major new report released on Monday.
The report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, offers the most comprehensive understanding to date of ways in which the planet is changing. It says that global average temperatures are estimated to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels sometime around “the first half of the 2030s,” as humans continue to burn coal, oil and natural gas.
That number holds a special significance in global climate politics: Under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, virtually every nation agreed to “pursue efforts” to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Beyond that point, scientists say, the impacts of catastrophic heat waves, flooding, drought, crop failures and species extinction become significantly harder for humanity to handle.
But Earth has already warmed an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius since the industrial age, and, with global fossil-fuel emissions setting records last year, that goal is quickly slipping out of reach.
There is still one last chance to shift course, the new report says. But it would require industrialized nations to join together immediately to slash greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and then stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the early 2050s. If those two steps were taken, the world would have about a 50 percent chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Delays of even a few years would most likely make that goal unattainable, guaranteeing a hotter, more perilous future.
“The pace and scale of what has been done so far and current plans are insufficient to tackle climate change,” said Hoesung Lee, the chair of the climate panel. “We are walking when we should be sprinting.”
The report comes as the world’s two biggest polluters, China and the United States, continue to approve new fossil fuel projects. Last year, China issued permits for 168 coal-fired power plants of various sizes, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air in Finland. Last week, the Biden administration approved an enormous oil drilling project known as Willow that will take place on pristine federal land in Alaska.
Our planet is dying and the clock has run out – without change we will go EXTINCT
John Bellamy Foster 7-1 - ("Monthly Review," Monthly Review, published 7-1-2023, accessed 7-11-2023, https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/planned-degrowth/)//penelope/
The world scientific consensus, as represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has established that the global average temperature needs to be kept below a 1.5°C increase over pre-industrial levels this century—or else, with a dispr

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.