Notes
Hello GDI campers! This summer’s politics disad is about immigration reform. This is an
issue that’s been brought before Congress before but they never got it done and it’s now
one of the biggest issues on Obama’s agenda in his second term.
Just one term to note: CIR = comprehensive immigration reform.
Neg
Shells
1NC – Immigration Politics
Immigration reform is passing now with bipartisan support, but differences remain
CNN 5-16 [“House group agrees on immigration reform”, May 16th, 2013,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/16/breaking-house-reaches-immigration-agreement/, Chetan]
Washington (CNN) - After
months of intense negotiations, a bipartisan U.S. House group has reached an
"agreement in principle" on immigration reform, according to Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, one of the GOP members of
the group. A Democratic aide familiar with the discussions confirmed that all the members signed on and told CNN both
Democrats and Republicans "will now run the whole package past their respective leadership and colleagues"
and aim to formally introduce legislation at the beginning of June. Diaz-Balart declined to get into the details of the deal, but said, " there's
going to be a lot of differences in a lot of areas," from a bipartisan measure working its way through the Senate. "Filing a real
bipartisan bill – a serious, enforceable commonsense bill is, I think, a huge step. But it's the first step of the process … a very important step,"
Diaz-Balart told reporters outside the House floor Thursday. The four Republican members of the House group include Diaz-Balart, Rep. Raul
Labrador of Idaho, and Rep. John Carter and Rep. Sam Johnson, both of Texas. The four Democrats are Reps. Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren,
both of California, Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, and Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Carter told reporters earlier on Thursday that the last
sticking point involved whether the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would get access to
government health care benefits. It's unclear how the group resolved that issue. Carter also said that because
Republican and Democratic negotiators were unable to come to an agreement on a program overseeing guest workers, the group decided to leave
that issue out of the bill. But both planned to offer their proposals separately, likely as amendments to the main legislation. Both sides
differed on how many worker visas should be allowed for construction companies and other industries
relying on low skilled labor workers. House Speaker John Boehner pledged that any immigration bill would move through the
appropriate committees in the House before any vote by the full chamber. A key test for the bipartisan deal will come when the House Judiciary
Committee takes it up, because that panel includes a significant number of conservatives, who have pledged to block any measure that allows a
path to citizenship for undocumented workers. Boehner signaled he wanted the House to have its own version to negotiate a final immigration
bill with the Democratic-led Senate. "I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will," Boehner
said on Thursday. The Senate plan is now being considered by the Judiciary Committee.
OCS drilling cooperation with Cuba drains Obama’s political capital – massive backlash
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 [Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist
in Latin American Affairs, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations”,
November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf, Chetan]
On the opposite side of the policy debate, a number of policy groups and members of Congress oppose
engagement with Cuba, including U.S. investment in Cuba’s offshore energy development . A legislative
initiative introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 5620, would have gone further by imposing visa restrictions
and economic sanctions on foreign companies and their executives who help facilitate the development of
Cuba’s petroleum resources. The bill asserted that offshore drilling by or under the authorization of the Cuban
government poses a “serious economic and environmental threat to the United States” because of the damage that an
oil spill could cause. Opponents of U.S. support for Cuba’s offshore oil development also argue that such
involvement would provide an economic lifeline to the Cuban government and thus prolong the continuation
of the communist regime. They maintain that if Cuba reaped substantial economic benefits from offshore oil
development, it could reduce societal pressure on Cuba to enact market-oriented economic reforms. Some
who oppose U.S. involvement in Cuba’s energy development contend that while Cuba might have substantial
amounts of oil offshore, it will take years to develop. They maintain that the Cuban government is using the
enticement of potential oil profits to break down the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba.78
Obama’s capital is critical to overcome those differences to negotiate a deal
Washington Post 5-2 [“Why is immigration going so much better for Obama than the budget”, May 2nd, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/02/why-is-immigration-going-so-much-better-forobama-than-the-budget/, Chetan]
In his news conference on Tuesday, Obama expressed confidence that Congress would overhaul immigration laws –
what he said would be an “historic achievement” – while he was less optimistic about whether he could achieve a grand bargain on the debt.
Somehow, the election and public opinion more generally have produced two different outcomes. On immigration, Senate
Republicans – led by 2016 presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) – are eager to strike and sell a deal. But they seem
content to stand their ground on the budget. Why? The question has prompted much discussion about the structural forces shaping Congress –
and Obama’s limited power to overcome them. The conventional thinking is that on immigration, Republicans are in survival mode:
They recognize they need Hispanics to win national elections. On the other hand, Republicans do not see much to lose in a
budget fight with Obama, and they see much more to lose if they make themselves vulnerable to primary challenges from the right. This
argument is elegant in that it looks at the incentives facing Republicans, and to a large degree it is fair. But it’s also
an oversimplification. Obama’s role has been more important than it may seem in shaping the political
forces in Washington, but the underlying dynamics favoring an immigration deal and auguring against a budget
agreement are even stronger than many recognize. In asking why Republicans seem responsive to public opinion on immigration but
impervious on the budget, consider the following chart: It’s extremely unlikely that Republicans would be considering an
immigration deal in the absence of Obama’s aggressive pursuit of an overhaul . In words and action, Obama
forced Republicans to take a position on the issue. He also created space for more voters to support a
pathway to citizenship by being quite tough on illegal immigrants facing deportation – often to the displeasure of the
Hispanic community. Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, staked out a far different position, opposing any pathway to
citizenship. Republicans were savaged on Election Day: exit polling showed Obama winning Hispanics by 44 percentage points.
CIR spurs economic growth --- it produces jobs, tax revenue and increases wages.
Center for American Progress, 1/14/2010 (How Immigration Reform Would Help the Economy, p.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2010/01/14/7130/how-immigration-reform-would-helpthe-economy/)
A new report, “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive
Immigration Reform,” by Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, finds that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform that includes a
legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic
benefit —a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. In stark contrast, a deportation- only policy would
result in a loss of $2.6 trillion in GDP over 10 years. Hinojosa uses a computable general equilibrium model based on the historical experience of
C omprehensive i mmigration r eform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized
immigrants would stimulate the U.S. economy . Immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84
percent. This would translate into at least a $1.5 trillion cumulative increase in GDP over 10 years, which includes
approximately $1.2 trillion in consumption and $256 billion in investment. The benefits of additional GDP growth would be
spread broadly throughout the U.S. economy , but immigrant-heavy sectors such as textiles, electronic equipment, and
construction would see particularly large increases. The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean
increased tax revenues of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in the first three years. Higher personal income would also
generate increased consumer spending—enough to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the United States. Experience
shows that legalized workers open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses, further stimulating the U.S.
economy . Comprehensive immigration reform increases all workers’ wages. The real wages of less-skilled newly legalized
workers would increase by roughly $4,405 per year, while higher-skilled workers would see their income
increase $6,185 per year. The wages of native-born high-skill and low-skill U.S. workers also increase modestly under comprehensive
the 1986 legalization program, and finds that:
immigration reform because the “wage floor” rises for all workers. Legalized workers invest more in their human capital, including education,
job training, and English-language skills, making them even more productive workers and higher earners. Mass deportation is costly, lowers
wages, and harms the U.S. economy. Mass deportation would reduce U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent, amounting to a cumulative $2.6 trillion loss in
GDP over 10 years, not including the actual costs of deportation. The Center for American Progress has estimated that mass deportation would
cost $206 billion to $230 billion over five years. Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers under a mass deportation scenario, but
higher-skilled natives’ wages would decrease, and there would be widespread job loss. Studies
from various researchers with
divergent political perspectives confirm these findings. A report by the libertarian CATO Institute using a
similar CGE model came to startlingly similar conclusions. CATO found that legalization would yield
significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would boost the incomes of U.S. households by $180
billion in 2019. CATO also concluded that tighter restrictions and a reduction in less-skilled immigration would
impose large costs on native-born Americans by shrinking the overall economy and lowering worker
productivity .
Econ decline risks multiple hotspots for global nuclear war
O’Hanlon 12 — Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Director of the John L. Thornton China Center and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and
Development at the Brookings Institution, former Professor at the University of Michigan, served as special assistant to the president for national security affairs and
senior director for Asia on the National Security Council, holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University, and Michael E. O'Hanlon, Director of Research and Senior Fellow
in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University, Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University, holds a Ph.D. from Princeton
University, 2012 (“The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt,” Los Angeles Times, July 10th, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)
Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into question for the working
classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation will make an isolationist or populist president far more
likely because much of the country will question whether an internationalist role makes sense for America — especially if it costs us well over
half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses. Lastly, American economic weakness
undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purport 7ed decline. If this
perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that
reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friendswill doubt our commitment and may pursue
nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in
throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become
less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big
foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change,
dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons.
These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now amuch more
urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that
fundamentalprerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.
Uniqueness
2NC – Uniqueness Wall
Immigration reform is passing now – our CNN evidence indicates there is a bipartisan
“agreement in principle” to push through immigration reform – they’re just resolving
issues over health care and worker visas
More evidence – there’s bipartisan agreement on CIR now, some details are still being
ironed out
WSJ 5-16 [“Bipartisan House Group Reaches Broad Immigration Deal”, May 16th, 2013,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487851658723968.html, Chetan]
WASHINGTON—After
months of negotiations, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers has reached a broad
agreement on a bill to overhaul the immigration system, one of its Republican members said Thursday. "We have an
agreement in principle," Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) told reporters. "The big hurdles are taken care of." A Democratic
aide confirmed that a deal had been reached. But Democratic lawmakers in the group were largely quiet on the agreement, and one
suggested that some provisions remained unsettled. Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, writing on Twitter, called it an "important
breakthrough'' and added: "Some details still to be worked out, but very pleased things are moving forward." The
eight House lawmakers revealed few details of their plan, other than to say it would differ from the bipartisan proposal unveiled in the Senate last
month. "There are going to be differences with the Senate bill ," Mr. Diaz-Balart said. The House legislation still
must be put into final form, and lawmakers plan to pore over it line-by-line before filing the bill, he said. The
announced deal was reached in a meeting late Thursday with six of the eight House lawmakers present and one listening over the phone. The
group's eighth member, GOP Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, was in the hospital recovering from hernia surgery, but his chief of staff was present,
Mr. Diaz- Balart said. He didn't specify how widespread support was for different provisions of the bill. Earlier Thursday, lawmakers had
said they were still hammering out differences over whether the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country
should be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies toward the cost of health insurance and how many guest workers
should be admitted into the country on work visas. Rep. John Carter (R., Texas) told reporters before the deal was announced
that Republicans planned to introduce legislation the first week of June even if their four Democratic negotiating partners didn't to sign off on the
final product. Mr. Carter said House lawmakers were likely to diverge from the Senate on the number of work visas to be created for
construction workers, though he wouldn't specify how many such visas the House bill would allow. The Senate bill would designate 15,000 visas
a year for foreign construction workers. Mr. Carter said that number wouldn't even meet the demand for construction workers in his home state of
Texas. The deal's announcement came after House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) publicly worried Thursday about the group's progress.
Mr. Boehner told reporters that he was "concerned" that the bipartisan group had been unable to reach an agreement. For weeks, Mr. Boehner has
praised the House lawmakers' efforts, making it clear that he saw their work as a plausible way to initiate House action on an immigrationoverhaul bill. Lawmakers working on the deal also included Democratic Reps. Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren, both of California, John
Yarmuth of Kentucky and Republican Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho. Separately, senior members of the House Judiciary
Committee have said they intend to begin consideration of individual pieces of legislation aimed at fixing
parts of immigration law. That approach has been seen by many in the House and outside activists as a possible fall-back option in the
event that the House group of lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement.
Immigration reform is gaining momentum in Congress – its moving through the
committees
ABC 5-17 [“Immigration Reform: Where we Stand Today”, May 17th, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-reform-stand/story?id=19200803#.UZZ_VrU3vzw, Chetan]
The loud kerfuffle over the heavy-handed IRS and post-Benghazi spin has had one positive effect: immigration
reform is quietly
moving ahead under the cable noise and political posturing of dysfunctional Washington. Both houses of Congress
are now expected to have bills ready to debate by the fall session. The bipartisan Senate "gang of 8" appears to be holding
together and its broad outline of border security, pathway to citizenship, guest worker, employment
verification and legal immigration future flow moves through committee largely intact. The Senate Judiciary
Committee has completed its third day of hearings of the sweeping immigration bill and so far the original
architecture of the bill has held strong. The four "gang of 8" members on the committee, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick
Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), have stuck together for the most part to maintain the integrity of their original
bill. Border security and E-verify amendments to the bill have been completed, as well as most of the
amendments addressing non-immigrant visas. There have been some changes, however. Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa)
amendment which calls for border security strategies to apply to all nine border sectors, not just the "high risk" ones identified in the original bill,
passed. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) also passed a bill on border security that restricts drones' ability to fly more than three miles from the border in
San Diego and El Centro sectors, a smaller section compared to the 100 miles counted as "border" in the original bill.
Reform is passing in the Senate BECAUSE of Obama’s PC, continued pressure is key
Politico 4-25 [“70+ votes for immigration reform?”, April 25th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/leaders-at-least-70-votes-for-immigration-reform-90626.html, Chetan]
The two lead negotiators in the Senate’s Gang of Eight said on Thursday that they believe their immigration
reform bill will not just have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate — but majority support from both parties.
“I think it is doable,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
said the bill cannot slip by with 60 votes because the House would feel less pressure to take it up. Others in the negotiating group have said they
think the bill could win at least 70 Senate votes. But the predictions of majority support from Republicans and Democrats is a more
ambitious goal than any members have previously stated. “We want a large Republican vote,” Schumer said at the breakfast. He said the Gang of
Eight had vote counting in mind while they were negotiating a deal between agricultural workers and growers on a visa program for the industry.
Schumer said the group worked hard to win over growers in the Southeast, which is predominantly represented by Republicans and conservative
Democrats. The senators said they support amending the immigration overhaul bill to address shortcomings in the system that led to the Boston
Marathon bombings. It is too early know exactly what needs to be fixed, McCain said, but the potential solutions should be clear by the time the
bill reaches the Senate floor in June. “We are completely open to amendments that would in any way prevent what happened in Boston,” McCain
said. McCain said members of the Gang of Eight remain in contact with key House members. He said he spoke Wednesday with Rep. Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.) to thank him for backing comprehensive immigration reform at an event Monday. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has addressed the
Republican Study Committee, McCain said. But McCain added that the more serious conversations won’t take place until after the Senate passes
McCain praised President Barack Obama’s role in the process , with Schumer adding that it
has been “just about perfect.”
a specific package.
AT: House Delay
The House will move on immigration quickly – all members are compromising and moving
the bill through the committees to a floor vote
ABC 5-16 [“Immigration Overhaul: House Has Agreement in Principle”, May 16th, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/immigration-overhaul-senate-moves-forward-house-playscatchup/#agreement, Chetan]
The House bipartisan “Gang of Eight” has reached an agreement in principle on immigration overhaul,
including major points such as a pathway to citizenship, border security, health care and guest workers , a
member of the group told ABC News tonight. The lower chamber now expects to work out details next week before taking the
Memorial Day break and introducing the bill June 4. Over hoagie sandwiches, a two-hour meeting of a bipartisan group of congressmen nearly
fell apart today over who would pay for immigrant health care, the House “Gang” member said. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, was the last
holdout who had to call into the meeting from Idaho where his daughter had a recital, the member said. Labrador, described as the most
influential Republican in the House “Gang of Eight” because he represents Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s interests, finally
agreed when language proposed by Democrats ensured that taxpayer money would not pay for immigrant
health care. Although not a member of the “Gang of Eight,” Wisconsin congressman and former vice presidential contender Paul Ryan was
instrumental in bringing the Republicans along in the agreement. The House bipartisan group that seemed to have stalled earlier today announced
it is finally moving forward on its own version of immigration overhaul. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters earlier today that
he was “concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work.”‘ ”I know that there are some very difficult issues that have
come up, but I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will,” he said. “How we get there, we’re
still dealing with it.” But Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., told reporters this evening that the group has ”an agreement in principle that we’re
drafting.” That agreement was struck after the two-hour meeting late this afternoon. “It is a very well-thought out, responsible, serious,
enforceable proposal,” he said. “I feel really, really, really, really comfortable with the fact that this is a very complete bill, that fulfills what I’ve
always wanted, which is to fix what’s broken.” The whole package will now be run past their respective leadership and colleagues before the
the bill “is imminent.” Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary
Committee has completed three days of markups and had addressed a total of 82 of the 300 amendments introduced to the
final language is finished and reviewed. But Diaz-Balart said
legislation, which was written by the Senate “Gang of Eight.” That meant they had earlier addressed more than a quarter of the amendments. A
spokesman for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told ABC News earlier today that
they were “making good progress and by far most
amendments have passed on bipartisan basis.” “Last week, we met for hours and worked through scores of amendments,” Leahy
noted at Tuesday’s hearing. “Some termed our efforts ‘a lesson in democracy.’ Many noted that senators ‘ showed a commitment
to fairness and compromise.’”
Link
2NC – Link Wall
Congress HATES any cooperation with Cuba over oil drilling – several bills have been
brought to sanction companies that even try
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 [Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist
in Latin American Affairs, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations”,
November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf, Chetan]
five
legislative initiatives have been introduced taking different approaches, and two congressional hearings have been held examining the issue.
H.R. 372 (Buchanan), introduced January 26, 2011, would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to deny oil and gas leases and permits “to persons who engage in activities with the government
of any foreign country that is subject to any sanction or an embargo” by the U.S. government . The intent of
the legislation is to provide a disincentive to companies involved, or contemplating becoming involved, in
Cuba’s oil development, although the scope of the legislation is much broader and could affect other oil companies, including U.S. companies, not involved in Cuba. Because
Interest in Cuba’s offshore oil development has continued in the 112th Congress as foreign oil companies have moved forward with plans to begin exploratory drilling. To date,
the bill does not define “sanction,” the term could be used to refer to such U.S. restrictions as export controls or limits on foreign assistance. With this use of the term, many countries worldwide
could be construed as being subject to a U.S. sanction, and as a result, any energy company that engages in activities with one of these countries could be denied an oil and gas lease in the United
States under the proposed legislation. S. 405 (Bill Nelson), the Gulf Stream Protection Act of 2011, introduced February 17, 2011, would require a company that is conducting oil or gas
operations off the coasts of Cuba to submit an oil response plan for their Cuba operations and demonstrate sufficient resources to respond to a worst case scenario if the company wanted to lease
drilling rights in the United States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out an oil spill risk analysis and planning process for the development and implementation of
oil spill response plans for nondomestic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior would be required, among other things, to include recommendations for Congress on a joint
Ros-Lehtinen),
would impose visa
restrictions on foreign nationals and economic sanctions on companies that help facilitate the development of
Cuba’s offshore petroleum resources . The bill would exclude from the United States aliens who invest $1 million or more that contributes to the enhancement of the
ability of Cuba to develop its offshore oil resources. It would also require the imposition of sanctions (two or more from a menu of listed sanctions) if the
President determined that a person had made an investment of $1 million on or after January 10, 2005, that contributed to
Cuba’s offshore oil development.
contingency plan with the countries of Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas to ensure an adequate response to oil spills located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. H.R. 2047 (
the Caribbean Coral Reef Protection Act of 2011 (identical to a bill introduced in the 111th Congress and noted above), was introduced May 26, 2011, and
Obama has to use his PC
Orth 11 (Derek Orth, J.D. expected May 2012, Rutgers School of Law (Newark, N.J.); Managing Articles Editor
for the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 2011 University of Oregon, Journal of Environmental Law
and Litigation, 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 509, Lexis, 2011)
The Deepwater Horizon was constructed in 2001 and was "capable of operating in water up to 8,000 feet deep and able to drill down to
30,000 feet." n6 The disaster occurred while Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) was mounting
production casing and [*512] cement on a 5,000 feet deep exploratory well in the Macondo Prospect. Ironically, integrity tests were
due to be performed on the Macondo well at the time the explosion occurred, after which the well would have been capped until BP was prepared
to begin extraction operations. n7 Tragically, the fiery explosion that occurred onboard the Deepwater Horizon threw
BP's plans into disarray, resulting in eleven deaths, n8 millions of barrels of spewing oil, n9 and immense damage to the
Gulf Coast. n10 The subsequent proliferation of monetary claims, lawsuits, and legislation n11 has raised
numerous issues that stand to forever alter the regulatory structure of the offshore oil industry n12 as well as the
liability schemes of international oil companies operating in the United States' coastal waters. n13 A bill's passage through Congress
is fraught with danger at every turn . In general, most bills are submitted by individual members of Congress,
examined and voted upon by specialized committees, presented to both the House and Senate for approval,
and, finally, submitted to the President for his signature . Thus, a well-meaning and complex bill can often only
gain approval through an expenditure of serious political capital by at least one party or the occurrence of an
event that exerts public pressure on both political parties to react expediently and deal with the crisis.
OCS sparks fights in Congress- environmental and military backlash
Bolton 10 (Alexander Bolton, The Hill, “Obama’s drilling proposal sparks battle among Senate Dems”,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/90049-obamas-drilling-proposal-sparks-battle-among-senate-democrats, March
31, 2010)
Obama’s decision to open the nation’s coastline to offshore drilling has set up a fracas with Senate
Democrats. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the leading Senate opponents of offshore drilling, has blasted
Obama’s plan.But Virginia Democratic Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner are on board, urging Obama to move quickly to open mid-Atlantic shores for oil and gas
exploration.“Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal economies,” Lautenberg said
in a statement. “Giving Big Oil more access to our nation’s waters is really a Kill, Baby, Kill policy : it threatens to
kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars ,” he added. “Offshore drilling isn’t the solution
to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and continue to push for 21st century clean energy solutions.” Democratic
President Barack
Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) also took a strong stance against Obama’s proposal Wednesday. “I have let the administration know that offshore drilling is a
non-starter for me,” Menendez told The Newark Star-Ledger. “A spill in Virginia ends up in Cape May, New Jersey.” Obama has proposed opening a vast stretch of the Atlantic coast, from the
northern tip of Delaware to mid-Florida, to offshore drilling.Webb and Warner pushed the administration to act in a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in January."We would urge you
to promptly commence these steps in order to ensure that the Virginia lease sale is conducted in a manner that is timely and consistent with the interests of the environment and our national
Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, also raised concerns over how the new drilling proposal
might affect military exercises in his state. “I’ve talked many times to Secretary Salazar and told him if they drilled too close to Florida’s beaches they’d be
risking the state’s economy and the environment,” Nelson said in a statement. “I believe this plan shows they heeded that concern. “Now I need to hear from Defense
Secretary Robert Gates,” Nelson added. “And I want him to look me in the eye and assure me that this plan will not
compromise national security by interfering with the unfettered space we have for training and testing our
most sophisticated military weapons systems.”Republican critics, such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have also put pressure on Obama to develop the
nation’s energy resources.Environmentalists argue the potential energy gains are not worth the expected impact on
beaches and marine life.Lautenberg argues that an oil spill could create severe ecological damage within a 500-mile radius — putting the New Jersey shoreline in danger. He
security," the lawmakers wrote.Sen. Bill
said the beaches and beach towns of New Jersey generate about $50 billion in economic activity every year and employ 500,000 people. The government estimates that 130 million barrels of oil
and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie off Virginia’s shores.The Bush administration crafted a plan in 2008 to begin leasing an oil and gas patch off Virginia’s coast beginning in 2011.
The Virginia senators contacted Salazar after progress on the lease slowed. Warner applauded the plan Obama announced Tuesday. "This is good news and a positive step forward as we work to
expand our nation's domestic energy production,” Warner said in a statement. “Moving forward on the mid-Atlantic off-shore proposal will provide an opportunity to determine the scope of our
region's off-shore energy resources, the economic viability of accessing those resources, and the potential impacts on our environmental and national security priorities.” In September, two
Democratic senators voted for an amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that would have prohibited delaying the Bush administration’s Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
A
lobbyist for an environmental group said that liberals such as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) would raise objections to Obama’s proposal. Democratic senators from Washington, Oregon and Rhode Island have also voiced
Program. They were Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Ben Nelson (Neb.). Fifty-four Democrats and two independents voted to support the Obama administration’s suspension of the plan.
objections to offshore drilling in the past.
Relaxing drilling restrictions empirically causes backlash---no risk of offense
Broder 10 John is a writer for the New York Times. “Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First
Time,” March 31, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?_r=0
But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore
drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate
bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of
Louisiana. The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take
over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate
Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling. But
even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests, he
risks a backlash from some coastal governors, senators and
environmental advocates, who say that the relatively small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas
are not worth the environmental risks.
Plan costs political capital
MART 8 Mergers and Acquisitions Round Table, This section includes quotes from Andrew Spitzer, Founder of the
Energy and Power Group at Harris and Williams Co., and Douglas Korn of Irving Place Partners. “Combustible;
The volatility of the energy sector has turned the industry upside down. Top players in the space discuss what this
means for investors and how dealmakers can capitalize.,” Dec 1, Lexis
But it’s also important to remember that oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set on a worldwide basis. Ultimately, we have to focus on
domestic production to help with the supply issue, and, internationally, see if we can’t encourage the national oil companies to open up more
acreage for competition. This is a worldwide problem; not just a US problem.Mergers & Acquisitions: Is it even possible, though, to completely
eliminate demand for foreign oil? Is this something that could happen in our lifetime? Spitzer:The economics certainly make it
extremely challenging, and frankly, without the political willpower to put in a variety of reforms — whether it’s
CAFE standards or relieving offshore drilling inhibitors — it’s not something that would get done without some form of
government intervention. Korn: That being said, the recent turmoil in the market and the government’s response have created a
very difficult fiscal situation going into 2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn in government receipts and that
overlays all of the government support to shore up the markets. You have to go back to the question of whether or not there
will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why we haveto become less reliant on foreign energy; from a
geopolitical point of view, from a carbon emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, “How do we make that happen in an
environment where the government will be under some severe fiscal constraints.” That’s going to be the real
challenge . Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent taxation policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that people are
dealing with is going to be tough. Any administration would have to burn a lot of political capital to push through an
energy policy that tries to accomplish what either candidate proposed.
Plan can only hurt Obama – only opposition to the plan—kills democrat support
Margaret Kriz Hobson 12, E&E reporter, April 18, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1
OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's
development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill President
Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the
shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S.
history, Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the
moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced
plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort
and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies
along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration
has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by
seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior
Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental
group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012
Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't
winning him any political capital . The environmental community hates the drilling proposals . The
Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And
independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent
presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon,
voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described
as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming
more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey found that 47
percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment
as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's
offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's
most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no
place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's
obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work."
Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After
the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has
systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil
exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The
White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional
moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill.
When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP
leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies,
essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the
Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush
during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison,
Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast.
No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives won’t give Obama credit for it
Walsh 11, Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, “Why Obama’s Offshore Drilling Plan Isn’t Making Anyone
Happy,” http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-isnt-making-anyonehappy/#ixzz26snhDbbI
Nonetheless, Obama has set a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater domestic oil production is going
to have to be a part of that—including oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately for the President, no one’s likely to cheer him. Conservatives
and the oil industry won’t be happy until just about every square foot of the country is available for drilling—though it is
worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under Obama—and environmentalists
aren’t going to rally to support any
sort of expanded drilling . With energy, as with so many other issues for Obama, it’s lonely at the center .
Empirics
E&E Daily 12 (Environment and Energy Daily, 1/17, lexis)
Despite an impressive track record at clearing energy and public lands measures, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
didn't see a single measure debated on the Senate floor in 2011. Retiring committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is
likely to keep the pressure on Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his time in the Senate comes to a close at the end of
this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of his upcoming clean energy standard legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much
traction among Republicans in either chamber -- a fact Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to start debate on the issue.
Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year kept up its famously bipartisan appearances, churning out an
impressive 61 bills. But the panel still suffered
from bouts of partisanship that brought action on certain issues -- like a
a standstill. The addition of several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the roster also
caused some strife at committee meetings and in negotiations on seemingly noncontroversial bills. Head-butting isn't likely to go
away on key issues as election-year politics dominate discussions throughout the Capitol. CES: Bingaman has vowed to float legislation
response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- to
early this session that would create a federal clean energy standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from lowcarbon sources in the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get ample face time in the committee, but partisan roadblocks in
the full Senate and a sure death in the House will likely prevent it from moving beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills: The committee last
year cleared dozens of smaller energy bills on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009 energy bill that stalled in the full
Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate leaders to move on some of those measures as he sees the clock ticking
on his time in the Senate. Offshore drilling: Efforts last year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled after ranking
member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal revenue-sharing language in a bill
responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't likely to advance the legislation this session, but the committee
could take a look at other offshore drilling issues, such as Interior's five-year leasing plan. Republicans and the oil
industry want to see the areas included in that plan beefed up, while environmentalists and many Democrats say it
already infringes on too many sensitive areas.
Forces political energy fights- saps capital
Geman 10
[Ben, The Hill, 4/1/10, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-]
expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would require congressional
approval. That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans
called Obama’s plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power,
Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new support. “One obvious implication of today’s announcement:
But the
White House and the architects of Senate legislation — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — risk
losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling . For instance, Sen. Frank
Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday. “Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal
economies,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill — such as
the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — also slammed the proposal.
delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to ‘sweeten’ a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales,” ClearView states.
Offshore drilling costs capital – upsets base
Numerick, 10 (Kevin, "Does the President Treat his Political Opponents Fairly?", Helium, September 5,
http://www.helium.com/debates/239736-does-president-obama-treat-his-political-opponents-fairly/side_by_side)
President Obama has tried to re-implement nuclear power, which disturbed his base, but is strongly
supported by most republicans as a viable and must-have source of energy production in the future. Not long after, he went
even further and spoke of adding more off-shore drilling, which really went against his base of supporters .
Regardless, the Republican Party still said no, accusing him of playing politics. Shortly after, the BP Deep Water Horizon
event happened. President Obama is also a supporter of “Clean Coal Technology” which is certainly considered a bipartisan goal, though many
Democrats disagree with it fiercely.
Bipartisan opposition
Greenwire 6 (“Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional moratoria,” 5-26-6,
http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)
With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races, efforts to open more offshore
areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on Capitol Hill, environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For
now, industry groups say momentum is on their side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing congressional moratoria
on most offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more votes than it did last year. If
there is an offshore drilling component to an upcoming House energy package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources
Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas drilling bans. States that
opt-out would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists are hopeful the bipartisan coastal coalition
that opposes wider leasing will not be swayed in sufficient numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that
are less aggressive than Peterson's but still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance of winning changes to current restrictions a "stretch."
"We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview Friday. "The bottom line is that [the] vote proves that people care about
our coasts, and any proposal that comes through that hurts our coasts will be rejected ." Also, a House floor vote last
week that would also have lifted congressional coastal oil drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an environmentalist to
note that an opt-out covering both oil and gas would face hurdles that could be greater than Peterson's gasonly proposal. One lobbyist who works on environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the
opt-out idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) that largely
mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. "I don't see how an opt-out passes," the lobbyist said. "We
have never lost a vote on this on the floor," added an aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle
ground. I am not sure if he is there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on Peterson's plan "proves a
nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet the fight could get tougher if it does not happen this year.
Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm election, and while votes on offshore drilling are not quite partisan
showdowns, more Democrats oppose wider offshore leasing.
Pisses off Obama’s base
Maize, 10 (Kennedy, “Copenhagen: The Case for Climate Adaptation”, Managing Power, March 1,
http://www.managingpowermag.com/opinion_and_commentary/Copenhagen-The-Case-for-ClimateAdaptation_227.html)
Energy legislation is dead for 2010, except for possible subsidies for nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore
drilling, designed to appeal to Republicans. But that reach across the partisan divide likely will enrage
Obama’s base among liberals and environmentalists. The predictable outcome: more gridlock and name-calling. No
action.
That Tanks capital
Campbell, 11 (James E., Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department and the University of Buffalo, “Political
Forces on the Obama Presidency: From Elections to Governing”, http://www.polsci.buffalo.edu/documents/ObamaPresidencyChapter4.pdf)
Since neither the ideological base of a party not its supporters in the center can be ignored-—and since both have different demands—presidents
must arrive at some balance between them. In no small part, the success of presidents in governing depends on their success
in striking the right balance between governing to please their party’s base and governing to please the
political center. Like every presidency before his, this is the challenge for Obama’s presidency. Its success in
governing the nation, as well as the possibility of a second term, may hinge on how well the president strikes the right balance between appealing
to his liberal base and simultaneously to his supporters in the political center. The principal reason why a president’s success in office
depends on his ability to maintain the support of the president’s electoral coalition (the combined partisan base
and centrist supporters) is that this is also his governing coalition. Since political views are generally stable, a president should
expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that supported him in his election. As a consequence, the
success of a president in office depends to a great extent on his ability to maintain both the support of his base
and the center. Just as the president’s electoral success depended on maintaining his electoral coalition, his success in governing
depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In effect, there is no bright line between the politics of governing
and the politics of elections. In its most basic sense, the “permanent campaign” to maintain the president’s constituency of supporters from
election to office and on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.
Plan is a flip flop
Sexton 12
[John, 3/30/12, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas]
Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put
off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the
Atlantic coast for at least five years: The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year
environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.
Tanks capital
Goddard, 9 (Taegan, Creator – Political Wire, (One of the Most Widely-Read and Influential Political Web Sites
on the Internet), "Does Obama Practice a Different Kind of Politics?", CQ Politics, 3-19, http://innovation.cq.com/
liveonline/51/landing)
# Dan from Philadelphia: How quickly is Obama burning through his political capital? Will he have anything left to actually keep some of his
promises? With potential shifts from his campaign stances on the question of Gitmo, Iraq troop withdrawals and taxing employer
healthcare benefits, it seems he is in for tough fights on all fronts. # Taegan Goddard: That's a great question. I think Obama spends
some of his political capital every time he makes an exception to his principles -- such as hiring a lobbyist to a key
position or overlooking an appointee not paying their taxes.
more of this precious capital .
Policy reversals such as the ones you note burn through even
AT: Lifting Moratorium Popular
Even if it has support- triggers Congressional battles which sap capital
AP 12
[Associated Press, 7/25/12, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25/house-gop-rejects-obama-plan-for-offshore-drilling/]
In an election-year swipe at President Barack Obama's energy policies, the Republican-led House on Wednesday voted to revoke
Obama's five-year plan for offshore drilling, replacing it with its own plan that calls for more ambitious oil and gas development off the
U.S. coast. The
legislation will likely go nowhere in the Senate and the White House has issued a veto threat , but
as with the tax and regulatory bills the House is also taking up this month, it puts lawmakers on the record on the issues that divide
the two parties . Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, said the bill would offer lawmakers a choice
between Obama's restrictive plan and the far more expansive Republican version that opens up areas off the Atlantic and southern California for
drilling. The Republican proposal passed 253-170 with 25 Democrats supporting it. The House also voted 261-164 to reject the president's plan.
The Interior Department on June 28 announced its 2012-2017 offshore oil and gas leasing program that schedules 12 potential lease sales in the
Gulf of Mexico and three off the coast of Alaska. The White House, in its veto threat issued earlier this week, said its plan makes available for
development more than 75 percent of estimated, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in U.S. oceans. The House bill, by contrast,
provides for 29 lease sales over the same five-year period, and includes areas of the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia, and areas off the
southern coast of California as well as Alaska and Gulf areas. Hastings said the administration's plan proposed fewer leases than any
administration since the Jimmy Carter presidency. Singling out an election swing state, he said "Virginia will be left out in the cold" until 2017 at
the earliest, cheating the commonwealth of thousands of jobs. The Obama plan, he said, keeps 85 percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to
energy production. He and other Republicans said the Bush administration, responding to $4 gas prices in the summer of 2008, had newly opened
nearly all offshore areas to energy production, but that Obama tossed that decision aside when he took office in 2009. The Obama administration,
he said, has spent the past 3 1/2 years on a plan "that effectively re-imposes the drilling moratoria lifted in 2008." Hastings said the GOP plan
would generate $600 million in additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new jobs. But Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, top
Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, chided Republicans for bringing six " giveaways to Big Oil " to the
House floor, "all far too extreme to pass the Senate." The Republican bill, he said "would place drill rigs right off our
beaches in Southern California" as well as off beaches in Maine and other eastern states. Democrats also argued that
more domestic oil is in production today than at any time during the past 14 years and that oil companies already have leases in the
Gulf that contain 18 billion barrels of oil and are sitting idle. The White House said the GOP bill would mandate Outer
Continental Shelf lease sales in areas "without regard for significant issues such as state and local concerns and
impacts on important fishing areas and with inadequate consideration of military use conflicts."
AT: No Link - Presidential Action
Congress has to do it-costs capital
Malkin 8 (Michelle, “Drill bits: The uphill battle to lift domestic restrictions Update: McCain. Ugh.,” 6-11-8,
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/11/drill-bits-the-uphill-battle-to-lift-domestic-restrictions/)
Supporters of a proposal to allow drilling for oil and gas off the U.S. coastline are expected to make their case to a House panel Wednesday.
Offshore oil and gas production has been banned off most of the U.S. coastline since Congress approved the
O uter C ontinental S helf moratorium in 1981, which prevented the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Rep.
John Peterson, R-Pa., wants to change that with an amendment to the Interior Department spending bill to be
considered by a House Appropriations subcommittee. The amendment would lift the prohibition on exploration 50 to 200 miles
offshore but continue to ban drilling within 50 miles of the coastline. “For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked-up vast
offshore oil and natural gas reserves,” Peterson said. “With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the
cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves.” He cites estimates from the Minerals
Management Service that there are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas located offshore
Internals
2NC – PC Key
Obama’s political capital is necessary to ensure passage – our Washington Post evidence
indicates that it’s unlikely that Republicans will consider a deal without AGGRESSIVE
Obama push
Sustained pressure is key to win support – Obama needs to use his capital
RCP 5-1 [Real Clear Politics, “Obama Eyes Higher Profile Role on Immigration”, May 1st, 2013,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/01/obama_eyes_higher_profile_role_on_immigration_118204.ht
ml, Chetan]
But now
that the Gang of Eight bill is public and is winning some Republican support , White House advisers say
there's less risk in Obama taking on a larger public role in the debate too. The focus on immigration in the capital comes
as rallies are expected in dozens of cities around the country Wednesday in what has become an annual cry for easing the nation's immigration
laws. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a favorite of conservatives and potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016, is one if the bill's architects, as is
Arizona's Republican Sen. John McCain. And even in the Republican-led House, where an immigration overhaul faces a steeper challenger, the
Gang of Eight measure has won praise from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. The bill would strengthen border
security, allow tens of thousands of new high- and low-skilled workers into the country, require all employers to check their workers' legal status
and provide an eventual path to citizenship for some 11 million immigrants now here illegally. The measure is similar to the immigration
principles Obama outlined in January during a visit to Las Vegas, his only immigration-focused trip of the year, though there are key differences.
For example, the Senate bill makes the pathway to citizenship contingent on securing the border, which Obama opposes, and does not recognize
gay couples, which Obama supports. Many immigration advocates say they support Obama getting more involved in the
debate as the draft bill weaves its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and likely to the Senate floor.
" He needs to be an advocate and push for the bill in the Senate to make sure this gets done ," Eliseo Medina of the
Service Employees International Union said of the president. " We need continued sustained pressure from all facets." McCain
also welcomed the prospect of a more proactive Obama , saying the president is committed to being heavily engaged. But the Arizona
Republican, who has spoken with Obama about the immigration negotiations several times in recent weeks, added that the president "doesn't
want to harm the passage of the bill either. And I believe him."
Obama’s PC is key to win Congressional support on border security
NPR 5-2 [“Obama To Pitch Immigration Overhaul In Mexico”, May 2nd 2013,
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/02/180485455/obama-to-pitch-immigration-overhaul-in-mexico, Chetan]
Though the role
played by Latino voters in last year's U.S. presidential election gets much credit for the current
momentum for changing immigration laws and providing a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the U.S.
illegally, another reason for the change in attitudes is that stronger border protections and the recession have been disincentives to cross into the
U.S. As a result, illegal immigration has declined. "With Mexico, first and foremost, they are critical to our ability to secure the border," said Ben
Rhodes, an Obama deputy national security adviser. "All the immigration plans that have been contemplated put a focus on securing the border as
an essential priority and starting point for immigration reform." Even better than a strong border is an economy that keeps people from fleeing. "If
the Mexican economy is growing, it forestalls the need for people to migrate to the United States to find work," Rhodes added. Eager to focus on
the economy and immigration, the administration is downplaying Pena Nieto's recent steps to end the broad access Mexico gave U.S. security
agencies to help fight drug trafficking and organized crime under his predecessor, Felipe Calderon. Still, the changes are likely to be a subject
during the two leaders' private talks. Obama said this week he wouldn't judge the new moves until he heard directly from Mexican officials. Pena
Nieto took office in December, and for Obama the trip is an opportunity to take his measure of the Mexican leader early in his tenure. "It's
really important to go there while this new president is forming his own plans and judgments about what he's going to do about the border, about
where he's going to be on immigration, about where he is on trade," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President/CEO Thomas Donohue said in an
interview. The chamber long has worked to improve U.S.-Mexico trade, noting that now about 6 million U.S. jobs depend on commerce with
Mexico. Striking
the right note on border security is key , Donohue said, because it is a central to winning support
in Congress for the rest of the immigration legislation. "That's what everybody wants to hear, and we have to do that in a way
that makes these guys down there feel like we're doing it in conjunction with them and for them, so we can do this thing on immigration well, so
we can expand our trade, so we can deal with our political issues as they are trying to deal with theirs," Donohue said. Still, with 33 million U.S.
residents of Mexican origin, Obama's message in Mexico is also bound to resonate in the U.S., where Latinos could
increase pressure on Congress to act. "It helps keep these passions alive as far as an issue to promote for the
administration," said Carl Meacham, a former senior Latin America adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But Meacham, now
director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned that despite some bipartisan support
to create a path to citizenship in the immigration bill, there is skepticism in Latin America. "They've been brought to the
altar so many times by different American administrations that there's a little bit of a lack of trust," he said. For Pena Nieto, Obama's visit is a
chance for him to showcase his country's economic gains. After suffering along with the U.S. during the recession, its economy is now growing at
a better clip than that of the U.S. Per capita income has gone from an annual $7,900 two years ago to $10,146. But Diana Negroponte, a Latin
America expert at the Brookings Institution, says corruption remains endemic, human rights are still a problem, and efforts to change and
improve the judicial system have been too slow. "There is concern on our side of the border that greater help needs to be given in order for
Mexico to reform its system," she said. Pena Nieto's changes in the security relationship with the U.S. have prompted some U.S. officials to
speculate that the new president might be embracing the policies of his Institutional Revolutionary Party, which long has favored centralized
political and bureaucratic control. Among those watching the new steps is Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has held up $228 million sought by the
Obama administration for Mexico under a security cooperation agreement. Under the agreement, known as the Merida Initiative, Congress has
already given Mexico more than $1.9 billion in aid since 2008. But Leahy, chairman of the Senate Appropriations
subcommittee that oversees the State Department budget, has been a critic of how the money has been used
and with the results. "Congress has been asked for a significant new investment, but it's not clear what the new Mexican
government's intensions are," Leahy said in a statement to The Associated Press. "We're in a period of uncertainty until we know enough to be
able to reset that part of our relationship. I'm not ready to sign off on more money without a lot more details."
AT: No Obama Push
Obama is pressuring Congress now and will continue to do so
The Hill 5-12 [“White House strategy for winning immigration fight comes with some risks”, May 12th, 2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129-white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-somerisks, Chetan]
The White House plans to use an inside-outside game to pressure Congress as it seeks a political victory for
President Obama on immigration reform. The inside game includes meetings with key stakeholder groups, such
as one this week with Asian American and Pacific Islander leaders. In recent days, the meetings have gained
steam with Obama holding at least one meeting per week, according to White House guidance of the president's
schedule. It also includes Obama’s second-term “charm offensive” with members of Congress, in which Obama,
who needs an immigration win to help solidify his second term legacy, has used dinner dates and golf outings to
engage with his political opponents. “We want to make sure we don’t lose any Democrats and work with
Republicans to move this forward,” one senior administration official said. At the same time, Obama is expected to
pressure Congress from the outside by hitting the road in the next few months, one administration official said.
Obama will crisscross the country in the coming months to build public pressure on Congress, emphasizing the
need for a comprehensive immigration bill and a path to citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented
immigrants in the country.
AT: Poison Pill
No poison pill – GOP welcomes Obama’s efforts and his PC is key for Senate passage
The Hill 5-12 [“White House strategy for winning immigration fight comes with some risks”, May 12th, 2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129-white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-somerisks, Chetan]
Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University agreed, saying Obama has to keep a comfortable distance from the
issue. “It’s a delicate thing because conservatives in the House are allergic to Obama,” Jillson said. “A full court press might not serve him well so he’s got to figure
out exactly what his posture will be.” Jillson argues
the inside game, however, could help carry the legislation over the top in
the Senate, with 70 or more Senators voting in support of it. “It’s sensible for the president to work carefully
with persuadable Republicans to get this done,” Jillson said. “The difficulty he faces is the more he stakes his political capital on this issue, the more
the Tea Party conservatives in the House won’t let him have this. “The real question is how forward can he be without raising the temperature of Republicans in the
House," he added. Jillson and other observers predict that if
the Senate does pass the legislation, it’ll put some pressure on the
House to follow suit. Even Republicans agree that Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle might help pass
immigration . But it also might have come a little too late. “It’s probably leading to more fruitful discussions,” Mackowiak said. “But it’s one of those things
that probably should have happened in his first or second year. You have to plant those seeds, water it and watch them grow.”
AT: PC Not Key
Presidential leadership shapes the agenda
Kuttner 11 (Robert, Senior Fellow – Demos and Co-editor – American Prospect, “Barack Obama's Theory of
Power,” The American Prospect, 5-16, http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power)
As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President John F.
Kennedy, the essence of a president’s power is “the power to persuade.” Because our divided constitutional system does not allow
the president to lead by commanding, presidents
amass power by making strategic choices about when to use the latent
authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to move Congress . In one of
Neustadt’s classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad public and a
Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an American chief
executive is weak by constitutional design, a
president possesses several points of leverage . He can play an effective
outside game, motivating and shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and
using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside bully pulpit
with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators,
forcing them to take awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to pressure Congress, and
use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public agenda
Political capital is finite and drives decision-making – key to agenda success
Schier 9, Professor of Poliitcal Science at Carleton, (Steven, "Understanding the Obama Presidency," The Forum:
Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Berkely Electronic Press, http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol7/iss1/art10)
In additional to formal powers, a president’s informal power is situationally derived and highly variable . Informal
power is a function of the “ political capital ” presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines
several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the
President’s electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadt’s concept of a president’s “professional
reputation” likewise figures into his political capital. Neustadt defines this as the “impressions in the Washington community about
the skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use” (Neustadt 1990, 185). In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush’s
political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war
on terror. By the later stages of Bush’s troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq
and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk . Obama’s informal powers
will prove variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents. Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable
store of political capital. His solid electoral victory means he initially will receive high public support and strong
backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments
and with his policy agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush,
who entered office amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually employ power to disrupt the political order
they inherit in order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that “presidents disrupt systems, reshape political
landscapes, and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced” (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given their
limited time in office and the hostile political alignments often present in Washington policymaking networks and
among the electorate, presidents must force political change if they are to enact their agendas . In recent decades,
Washington power structures have become more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while presidential powers – through increased use of
executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) –have also grown. The presidency has more powers in the early 21st
century but also faces more entrenched coalitions of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas
often differ from that of the president. This is an invitation for an energetic president – and that seems to describe Barack
Obama – to engage in major ongoing battles to impose his preferences .
Presidents perceive their capital as finite – our theory is true in practice
Marshall and Prins 11, BRYAN W. MARSHALL Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of
Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and
Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3
(September) 2011
We argue that the
more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents anticipate how the use of force may
affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brulé, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It
may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with
countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or
advantage) their political fortunes elsewhere—in essence, the presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape
their ability to achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative
initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on
Capitol Hill. However,
political capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president can
bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force because their success
at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents do not
make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions
may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is
motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative
initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (CanesWrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress .
Prefer issue specific evidence
Jacobs and King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, (Lawrence and Desmond, “Varieties of
Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,” Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 793-802)
Yet if presidential personality and leadership style come up short as primary explanations for presidential success
and failure, this does not render them irrelevant. There is no need to accept the false choice between volition and
structure—between explanations that reduce politics to personality and those that focus only on system imperatives
and contradictions. The most satisfying explanations lie at the intersection of agency and structure —what we describe as
structured agency. Presidents have opportunities to lead, but not under the circumstances they choose or control. These
circumstances both restrict the parameters of presidential impact and highlight the significance of presidential
skill in accurately identifying and exploiting opportunities. Indeed, Obama himself talks about walking this
tightrope—exercising “ruthless pragmatism” in seizing opportunities for reform while accepting the limits and
seeking to “bridge that gap between the status quo and what we know we have to do for our future”.12
AT: Winners Win
Obama thinks that pol cap is finite – he’ll back off controversial issues even if he’s winning
Kuttner 9 (Robert – , co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos, author of "Obama's
Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, 4/28/9, “Obama Has
Amassed Enormous Political Capital, But He Doesn't Know What to Do with It,”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/138641/obama_has_amassed_enormous_political_capital,_but_he_doesn%27t_kn
ow_what_to_do_with_it/?page=entire)
We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the release
of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's torture policy, but then backtracked and
quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama's political self wrestled with his
constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly muted.
Thus the most important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack Obama's
conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the campaign that he would
govern as a consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of achieving consensus. One is to split the
difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is to use presidential leadership to
transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days, Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to
the politics of accommodation.
Controversial wins bleed momentum not build it
Politico, 1/20/2010 (Obama's first year: What went wrong, p.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4DF829C9-18FE-70B2-A8381A971FA3FFC9)
Obama believed that early success would be self-reinforcing, building a powerful momentum for bold government action.
This belief was the essence of the White House’s theory of the “big bang” — that success in passing a big stimulus
package would lead to success in passing health care, which in turn would clear the way for major cap-and-trade
environmental legislation and “re-regulation” of the financial services sector — all in the first year. This proved to be a radical
misreading of the dynamics of power. The massive cost of the stimulus package and industry bailouts — combined with the
inconvenient fact that unemployment went up after their passage — meant that Obama spent the year bleeding momentum rather
than steadily increasing public confidence in his larger governing vision. That vision was further obscured for many Americans
by the smoke from the bitter and seemingly endless legislative battle on Capitol Hill over health care.
Winners lose – any major win is the quickest way to kill future proposals. The GOP will
backlash
The Economist, 2/16/2011 (What’s the equilibrium here?, p. lexis)
The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is
to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion...
But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the
quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it.
Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat
to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it
emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've "poisoned the well ," one administration official told me
after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later. The Obama
administration may have a point here. Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushedinvestment in America's long-neglected
intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan,
despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest
in exchange for the right to operate the line. On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing
entitlements by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now
scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out. But I
doubt this is a stable equilibrium. The GOP's reflexive anti-Obama streak is motivated, one presumes, by a desire to win
elections. One supposes that they feel they must deny him legislative victories in order to be successful at the ballot box.
So for a while, presidential abdication of leadership may create political space for something like honest legislative negotiations over policy. But
a grand bargain that takes place under Mr Obama's watch is a political victory for Mr Obama, whether or not he led the
charge. And the GOP is unlikely to let the president have such a win.
AT: Hirsh 13
Hirsh concedes PC is real
Hirsh 13 – National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek
senior correspondent, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2-9-13,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207]
The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or
“momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to
claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney
wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a
useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the
American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital.
But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”
Regardless of general capital, the plan pushes immigration off the agenda—Hirsch
concedes this matters even if capital isn’t true
Hirsh 13 – National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek
senior correspondent, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2-9-13,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207]
Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by
electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another wellworn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his
first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular , the economy was bad, and the president
didn’t realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government
intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by
too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never
seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too
far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the
debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood.
Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform
was that it distracted the government’s attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such
as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that
their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank
financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room , the aides
said.
Bipart is premised on pressure
John Dickerson, 1/31/13, Bipartisan Baloney,
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/gang_of_eight_immigration_reform_why_republicans_
and_democrats_agreeing.html
Amateur meteorologists claim to have spotted other flickers of the bipartisan phenomena . President Obama and
Republican leaders reached a deal on a three-month extension of the debt limit and a bill to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy. These are not
historic acts, but why not raise a glass in tribute if for no other reason than to break the monotony of having to constantly raise a glass to drown
our frustration. But let's not mistake this for genuine bipartisanship. Or, if this is the new standard for bipartisanship,
then we should change our definition of it. These examples of ghost bipartisanship are born from pressure, not
cooperation . Lawmakers aren't reasoning together; one side is crying uncle. That will almost certainly be true of
any immigration reform measure that passes (if the reform effort doesn’t break down under the weight of the partisanship itself).
The folk story of bipartisanship goes like this: The two parties tackle a common problem, they fight like hell, but both sides ultimately give up
something to get a deal. In 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill negotiated a compromise over Social Security. In 1990, George H.W. Bush
forged a deal to reduce the deficit with Democratic leaders. In 1997, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out a balanced budget agreement.
These bipartisan moments were not simply the product of reason divorced from acrimony and politics. As President Truman said, "There was
never a nonpartisan in politics. A man cannot be a nonpartisan and be effective in a political party." But today’s droplets of bipartisanship are
distinct from that tradition. They come not from shared sacrifice but from one side giving in. Charles Krauthammer says Republicans got rolled
on the fiscal cliff talks. The Weekly Standard and Sen. Rand Paul say Republicans blinked on the debt limit fight. On the issue of
immigration, the bipartisan opportunities exist not because wise men from both parties have decided to solve one of the nation's
most pressing issues, but because Republicans are giving in to the pressure created by the last election. This fact is clear by the
host of Republicans who once opposed or were skeptical of any immigration-reform package that included “amnesty” but who are now
supporting it. It’s not about policy; it’s about politics . Similarly, on the question of gun control, there is an emerging consensus that
Congress will support background checks for gun purchases. This too could be called bipartisanship, except that it’s an emergency event brought
on by the Newtown, Conn., massacre, which means it tells us nothing about the baseline health of bipartisanship. If recent cooperation
shouldn’t be confused with new bipartisan vigor, there’s another new reason to be skeptical: history. Barack Obama's re-election
marks only the second time that three consecutive presidents have served consecutive two-year terms. The last time was Jefferson, Madison, and
Monroe. This gives us three modern examples of the presidential learning curve. After re-election, presidents of both parties draw the same
conclusion: Bipartisanship is a pipe dream. In Bill Clinton's second inaugural address, he declared his election would bring about a
new bipartisan era. "The American people returned to office a president of one party and a Congress of another. Surely they did not do this to
advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore." This was true long enough for the president to reach a
budget deal with Republicans—just before his second term devolved into impeachment hearings. When Republicans pursued him for lying to a
grand jury and obstructing justice, Clinton interpreted it as nothing more than blind partisanship. In 2004, after George W. Bush was re-elected,
the man who once promised to unite and not divide entered his second term with a far dimmer view of compromise. "I've got the will of the
people at my back," he said despite his narrow victory. Bush’s definition of bipartisanship meant other people falling in line: "I'll reach out to
everyone who shares our goals." Bush later admitted that when giving his State of the Union address, he relished the partisan reaction it
provoked. "Sometimes I look through that teleprompter and see reactions. I'm not going to characterize what the reactions are, but nevertheless it
causes me to want to lean a little more forward into the prompter, if you know what I mean. Maybe it's the mother in me." Like Clinton, President
Obama faces the prospect of hammering out deals with a divided government, but he reached the opposite conclusion.
The president’s aggressive second-term trajectory was evident even before he gave his inauguration speech, but the speech set the emotional tone
for a second term full of conflicts. When Obama’s top political adviser argues that Democrats don’t have “an opposition party worthy of the
opportunity,” it cemented the proof. There may be bipartisan progress in the months to come, but it will be of a
tougher kind. Members of the two parties may join arms and make a deal, but it won’t be the result of fellow feeling, conciliation, or
understanding. If there’s going to be gang-like behavior that achieves bipartisanship, it’s more likely to come through a headlock than a hug.
AT: Benghazi/IRS Scandals
The scandals have no effect on immigration reform and are even expediting its process
ABC 5-17 [“Why Immigration Reform Will Survive Obama's Scandals”, May 17th, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-survive-president-obamasscandals/story?id=19203730#.UZcRIbU3vzw, Chetan]
The trio of scandals facing President Obama have many in Washington asking whether this marks the
beginning of the end for his legislative agenda. An issue such as tax reform might be impeded considering that the Internal
Revenue Service is at the center of one of the scandals. But an initiative that could emerge unscathed, or even
strengthened, is immigration reform. Before the scandals, immigration appeared to be the item on Obama's second-term agenda that
seemed likeliest to pass through Congress. Deep fault lines have developed between both parties on issues like gun control, the deficit, and debt
reduction. But on immigration, there is strong political incentive for GOP leaders in Washington to join in the
effort to pass a bill. And the scandals haven't changed that. Although it's only been a few days since the
scandals have overtaken the political atmosphere in Washington, developments on immigration have quietly
chugged along . A bipartisan group in the House announced Thursday evening they have reached a deal in principle on a comprehensive bill
after four years of on-again, off-again talks. And in just three markup sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered 82 of the 300
amendments offered by its members, over a quarter of the total. Supporters and opponents of the bill believe that the
immigration reform
effort can make it through the scandal-obsessed environment in Washington. "I think the conditions are ripe for the
[immigration] bill to make it through. The president's been very helpful. He's been there when we've asked him to be, he's laid low when we ask
him, and I've got no complaints about the president and I think he can be very helpful getting it over the finish line," Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.), a member of the Gang of Eight, told Politico. The publication noted that he is one of "Obama's chief Benghazi critics." Mickey Kaus, a
political blogger and well known critic of the Senate Gang of Eight bill, said last week that the scandals could take away attention
from the immigration reform effort, claiming that could improve its chances of success. "I actually think these
distracting scandals help the bill's chances of passage ," he said at an event sponsored by BuzzFeed. "The problem with this bill
is: the elites like it, the voters don't like it. Every time there is publicity, every time it's at center stage, its chances of passage get worse." (We
would note that polls show that Americans who know about the bill are divided over it, while a plurality haven't yet formed an opinion. But
moving on...) So, yes, there
are plenty of reasons immigration reform might fail. But scandals just aren't one of
them .
Scandals won’t derail immigration – Congress is still pushing it through
NBC Latino 5-15 [“Will the controversy over IRS, DOJ and Benghazi derail immigration reform?”, May 15th,
2013, http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/15/will-the-controversy-over-irs-doj-and-benghazi-derail-immigration-reform/,
Chetan]
Legislators in Congress – especially Republicans – are turning their attention to plenty of issues – the IRS and Tea Party
groups, Benghazi, and the Justice Department’s seizure of journalist records. Republican legislators like Florida Senator Marco Rubio have
been calling for investigations and firings over these latest controversies. Some say this can quickly become a liability for the
Obama administration as it tries to move its agenda forward. “If they (the Administration) can’t get a hold and change the
narrative, it’s going to cause a lot of trouble for the White House,” said Republican strategist Danny Vargas on MSNBC today. So will the
focus on these issues and controversies derail an immigration bill from reaching the President’s desk by the
end of the summer? Immigration supporters in the Senate say this is not the case . “We are really making a lot
of headway through the Senate Judiciary Committee right now; in fact, it’s getting done as we speak,” says José Parra, director of
Hispanic media and Deputy Director of Communications for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “Senator Reid has said from the beginning this
is one of his top if not the top priority, and he continues to think so,” states Parra. “He intends to have it on the floor in the month of
June,” he adds. Katherine Vargas, White House Director of Hispanic Media, says the President summed it up best in a recent news conference . ”I
feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the
Senate, passes the House, and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement,” said President Obama, when asked
about the prospects of immigration legislation this year.
GOP won’t use the scandals to damage Obama’s PC – they want to remain committed to
the legislative agenda
NY Times 5-16 [“G.O.P., Energized, Weighs How Far to Take Inquiries”, May 16th, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/energized-gop-weighs-how-far-to-go-ininquiries.html?pagewanted=all, Chetan]
WASHINGTON — The
investigations ensnaring the White House have unified the Republican Party, energized a
political base shattered by election losses and given common purpose to lawmakers divided over a legislative
agenda. The most pressing question for Congressional Republicans is no longer how to finesse changes to immigration law or gun control, but
how far they can push their cases against President Obama without inciting a backlash of the sort that has left them staggering in the past. With
the House set on Friday to convene the first of its hearings into the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service, the lessons
learned from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which cost Republicans in elections in 1998, have been on display in recent days.
Republicans took obvious pains to balance their investigatory zeal with a promise to stay committed to a
legislative agenda . In a television appearance Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, the often aggressive California Republican who
is leading multiple inquiries, struck a notably calm tone and promised to work with Mr. Obama . Just hours earlier, Mr. Issa
had a nasty exchange with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Speaker John A. Boehner of
Ohio struck a similar theme Thursday. “Our job is to legislate, and we’re trying to legislate things that will help
create jobs in our country,” Mr. Boehner said. “But we also have a responsibility, under the Constitution, to provide oversight of the
executive branch of government.” In private, House lawmakers say, the speaker — a member of the leadership in the Clinton era —
has also urged caution. Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who has led the charge on the Obama administration’s handling
of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said the speaker had urged him to move slowly and methodically — contrary, he acknowledged, to his
inclinations. And House leaders have shown “great reluctance” to allow House committees to issue subpoenas , even
as rank-and-file members and the conservative political base have been demanding them, Mr. Chaffetz said. Representative Charles Boustany
Jr., Republican of Louisiana and a key driver in an investigation of the I.R.S. by the Ways and Means Committee, said, “I’m
being very cautious not to overplay my hand.”
Impact
2NC – Impact Overview
Disad outweighs and turns case – economic decline causes other countries to pursue
nuclear weapons because they perceive our weakness – causes major power war with less
restrained nukes which results in extinction.
Turns case – economic decline means we can’t trade with Cuba or afford drilling in the
OCS which tanks aff solvency
Econ Decline = War
Decline cause miscalculation and conflict – prefer statistically significant evidence
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic,
Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213–215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states.
Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic
level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global
economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre–eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre–
eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative
power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a
rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles
combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the
causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's
(1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding
economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from
trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly
for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its
own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic
decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between
internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between
internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn
returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self–reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase
in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006)
find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than
autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic
support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited S tates, and thus
weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship
positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship
links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between
integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic–security debate and deserves more attention.
Econ decline causes nuke war
Harris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence
Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future:
Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many
history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be
drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think
Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in
the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty–first as much as in the
twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in
possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,
a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood
that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if
economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that
remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist
groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training
procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self–radicalized,
particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn.
The most dangerous casualty of any economically–induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would
almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear–armed Iran could lead
states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional
weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed
between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place
under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not
well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual–capable
Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic
depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place
more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo–
mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst
case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for
example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important
geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval
If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding
targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries,
and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also
becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely
to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog–eat–dog world.
capabilities.
Impact – Economy
CIR is key to the economy --- it spurs growth and productivity.
Creamer, 2/2/2010 (Robert – author of Stand Up Straight, political organizer and strategist, Immigration Reform is
Necessary for America's Economic Recovery, The Huffington Post, p. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robertcreamer/immigration-reform-is-nec_b_445688.html)
In fact, c omprehensive i mmigration r eform is critical for America's long term economic success and is one of the few
political initiatives that could receive genuine bipartisan support in the current Congress. The immigration system is broken -- and it
costs the American economy billions in lost productivity, wasted resources, underdeveloped human capital,
depressed wages, and uncollected tax revenue. The immigration reform issue is also very acutely and personally important to the
many recent immigrants to America, their families, friends and communities. The way it is addressed in Congress will have profound long-term
political consequences. The Current Immigration System is an Economic Albatross The roughly twelve million undocumented immigrants in the
United States create a permanent underclass of workers who exist in the shadows of our society. Their lack of legal status makes them easy prey
for economic exploitation by unscrupulous employers that drag down wages and working conditions for everyone. Unscrupulous
companies that hire undocumented aliens and pay below-standard wages, also undercut law-abiding employers,
leading a race to the bottom and preventing law-abiding companies from being able to compete. The result is a
growing number of immigrant -- and non-immigrant-workers -- who receive lower wages and as a consequence spend less
on the economy's goods and services. Just as bad, the current immigration laws prevent undocumented immigrants
from investing in their own education and training -- the principal engine of economic growth . Current law makes it nearly
impossible for undocumented immigrants to get financial support for higher education. Even those who grew up in America, after being brought
here as children, are barred from receiving federal assistance for college. Several weeks ago, the
C enter for A merican P rogress published
a study concluding that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would lead to a $1.5 trillion growth in gross domestic product
over the next ten years. That finding is based on surveys indicating that newly legalized immigrants experience
substantial increases in wages, go on to better jobs, and invest heavily in higher education . The study concluded that
reform would raise the "wage floor" for all workers, increase willingness of newly-legalized immigrants to invest in the economy and purchase
big-ticket items like homes, produce more income and spending, and as a consequence generate more tax revenue for government. The effect of
immigration reform would be especially pronounced when it comes to tax revenue and government expenditures. Currently employers often pay
undocumented workers "under the table." That costs government -- and the Social Security Trust Fund -- billions of dollars in lost revenue. At the
same time, billions more are expended to apprehend, detain and deport productive members of society. And, of course, the status quo diverts
precious law enforcement resources from apprehending serious criminals and terrorists to chasing down bus boys and farm workers.
America's long-term economic success requires that we fix the broken immigration system . We can't rebuild a
strong, robust economy on top of a broken immigration system.
Solves the economy
Krudy, 13 (Edward, “Immigration reform seen boosting US economic growth,” January 29 th, 2013,
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/immigration-reform-seen-boosting-us-economic-growth1C8159298)
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be
the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s. Relaxed immigration rules could encourage
entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit,
economists said. By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to remain,
the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than
aging Europe, Japan and China. "Numerous industries in the United States can't find the workers they need,
right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex
Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. The emerging consensus among economists is that
immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers
prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth. First Thoughts: Obama
to embrace Senate immigration deal President Barack Obama plans to launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul
during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White
House said. The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a
framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. Their proposals would also
include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and
high-tech workers abroad. An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as
likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh. Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5
trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the
University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate,
currently stuck at about 2 percent.
Prevents collapse
Ozimek 2-7 (Adam, Contributor, “Does An Aging Population Hurt The Economy?” Forbes, 2013,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/02/07/does-an-aging-population-hurt-the-economy/)
The economic benefit of immigration is in part about how big of a problem our aging population is .
Immigrants are in general younger, and our best way to fight against a growing ratio of retirees to workers . But
this raises the question of how big of a problem is this ratio and our aging population in general. While many are concerned about this, Dean
Baker argues it is not a problem. He agrees that the ratio has increased and will continue to increase in the future as the population ages, but he
argues that we haven’t seen any problems yet so we won’t see any later: We have already seen a sharp decline in the ratio of workers to retirees,
yet even people who follow the economy and economic policy closely, like Klein, were apparently not even aware of this fact. Since this decline
is never cited as factor causing our current economic problems, why would we think the comparatively mild decline in this ratio projected for
future decades will be a large burden? Dean is wrong that the ratio of workers to retirees is not cited as a factor in the current economic problems.
The most prominent example comes from newly appointed Council of Economic Advisors member James Stock and his co-author Mark Watson.
In their paper “Disentangling the Channels of the 2007-2009 Recession” they specifically cite demographic trends as a cause of our slow
recovery. The variable Stock and Watson ultimately cite is the decline in labor force participation, and they argue it is driven by the aging of the
workforce and the overall distribution of workers by age. Dean may argue that this technically isn’t the dependency ratio, but that would be
quibbling: changes in these two measures capture the same basic economic phenomenon of the aging population and a lower percentage of the
population working. Not
only has the aging population contributed to the slow recovery , Stock and Watson argue there is
good reason to believe it will mean slow recoveries in the future too: The main conclusion from this demographic work is that, barring a new
increase in female labor force participation or a significant increase in the growth rate of the population, these demographic
factors point towards a further decline in trend growth of employment and hours in the coming decades. Applying this
demographic view to
recessions and recoveries suggests that the future recessions with historically typical cyclical
behavior will have steeper declines and slower recoveries in output and employment. Furthermore, this is just the
impact of the aging population on business cycles, there is also the very serious problem of how it will affect
our finances. Dean knows that by increasing the workforce immigration improves Social Security’s finances. In 2006 he wrote that if future
immigration was at 2001-2002 levels instead of at around 900,000 per year it would reduce the Social Security trust fund’s long-term shortfall by
12%. A shortfall means we will reduce benefits or pay for it in higher taxes, and either are going to result in
lower welfare for someone.
Impact – Cyberterror
Immigration reform generates an effective base of IT experts.
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force
Co-Chair, “U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force”, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/
publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And
as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's
developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity
around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements
across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands.
Was there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be
done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U nited S tates, many of which are coming to the
U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive
disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less
talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really
have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances , we're going to be put at an
increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or
carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen , I think, our system, our security
needs .
That deters and solves the impact to cyberattacks
Saydjari 8 (O. Sami, Cyber Defense Agency, LLC, “Structuring for Strategic Cyber Defense: A Cyber Manhattan
Project Blueprint”, 2008 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2008/program
/keynotes/saydjari.pdf)
As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should identify endstates— goals in terms of how we want our
systems to ideally operate. This fresh perspective includes the overall strategic picture and connects clearly with strategic actions that
significantly mitigate strategic vulnerabilities. If, for example, the nation has a capability to quickly recover its critical
information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services are
restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired End-States. The National Cyber
Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified important end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create
critical capabilities. The following end-states appear in the workshop proceedings: --Continuity of Critical Information Infrastructure
Operations. Create
technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would sustain critical
functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be affected by determined adversaries. --Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make
it economically prohibitive for an adversary to cause strategic damage to critical US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can
attack critical systems without investing substantial resources.
Nuclear war.
Lawson 9 (Sean, Assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, Cross-Domain
Response to Cyber Attacks and the Threat of Conflict Escalation, May 13th 2009,
http://www.seanlawson.net/?p=477)
Introduction At a time when it seems impossible to avoid the seemingly growing hysteria over the threat of cyber war,[1] network security expert Marcus Ranum delivered a refreshing talk recently, “The Problem with Cyber War,”
that took a critical look at a number of the assumptions underlying contemporary cybersecurity discourse in the United States. He addressed one issue in partiuclar that I would like to riff on here, the issue of conflict escalation–i.e. the
offensive use of cyber attacks could escalate to the use of physical force. As I will show, his concerns are entirely legitimate as current U.S.
military cyber doctrine assumes the possibility of what I call “cross-domain responses” to cyberattacks. Backing Your Adversary (Mentally) into a Corner
Based on the premise that completely blinding a potential adversary is a good indicator to that adversary that an attack is iminent, Ranum has argued that “The best thing that you could possibly do if
you want to start World War III is launch a cyber attack. [...] When people talk about cyber war like it’s a practical thing, what they’re really doing is messing with the OK
button for starting World War III. We need to get them to sit the f-k down and shut the f-k up.” [2] He is making a point similar to one that I have made in the past: Taking away an adversary’s
ability to make rational decisions could backfire. [3] For example, Gregory Witol cautions that “attacking the decision maker’s ability to perform rational calculations may
cause more problems than it hopes to resolve… Removing the capacity for rational action may result in completely unforeseen consequences,
possibility that
including longer and bloodier battles than may otherwise have been.” [4] Cross-Domain Response So, from a theoretical standpoint, I think his concerns are well founded. But the current state of U.S. policy may be cause for
even greater concern. It’s not just worrisome that a hypothetical blinding attack via cyberspace could send a signal of imminent attack and therefore trigger an irrational response from the adversary. What is also cause for concern is
current U.S. policy indicates that “kinetic attacks” (i.e. physical use of force) are seen as potentially legitimate responses to cyber
attacks. Most worrisome is that current U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible, something that policy makers have not denied in recent press reports. The
that
reason, in part, is that the U.S. defense community has increasingly come to see cyberspace as a “domain of warfare” equivalent to air, land, sea, and space. The definition of cyberspace as its own domain of warfare helps in its own
right to blur the online/offline, physical-space/cyberspace boundary. But thinking logically about the potential consequences of this framing leads to some disconcerting conclusions. If cyberspace is a domain of warfare, then it
becomes possible to define “cyber attacks” (whatever those may be said to entail) as acts of war. But what happens if the U.S. is attacked in any of the other domains? It retaliates. But it usually does not respond only within the
domain in which it was attacked. Rather, responses are typically “cross-domain responses”–i.e. a massive bombing on U.S. soil or vital U.S. interests abroad (e.g. think 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) might lead to air strikes against the
attacker. Even more likely given a U.S. military “way of warfare” that emphasizes multidimensional, “joint” operations is a massive conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) response against the attacker in all domains (air, land, sea, space),
simultaneously. The possibility of “kinetic action” in response to cyber attack, or as part of offensive U.S. cyber operations, is part of the current (2006) National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations [5]: Of course, the
while this may seem far fetched, it has not
been ruled out by U.S. defense policy makers and is, in fact, implied in current U.S. defense policy documents . From the
possibility that a cyber attack on the U.S. could lead to a U.S. nuclear reply constitutes possibly the ultimate in “cross-domain response.” And
National Military Strategy of the United States (2004): “The term WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary capabilities that pose potentially devastating impacts. WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
enhanced high explosive weapons as well as other, more asymmetrical ‘weapons’. They may rely more on disruptive impact than destructive kinetic effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or
attacks against transportation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small release of a lethal agent.” [6] The authors of a 2009 National Academies of Science report on cyberwarfare respond to
the United States will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks against
as being in the same category as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and thus that a nuclear response
to certain kinds of cyberattacks (namely, cyberattacks with devastating impacts) may be possible. It also sets a relevant scale–a cyberattack that has an impact larger than that associated
this by saying, “Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier, this statement implies that
the United States
with a relatively small release of a lethal agent is regarded with the same or greater seriousness.” [7] Asked by the New York Times to comment on this, U.S. defense officials would not deny that nuclear retaliation remains an option
for response to a massive cyberattack: “Pentagon and military officials confirmed that the United States reserved the option to respond in any way it chooses to punish an adversary responsible for a catastrophic cyberattack. While the
options could include the use of nuclear weapons, officials said, such an extreme counterattack was hardly the most likely response.” [8] The rationale for this policy: “Thus, the United States never declared that it would be bound to
respond to a Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional invasion with only American and NATO conventional forces. The fear of escalating to a nuclear conflict was viewed as a pillar of stability and is credited with helping deter the
larger Soviet-led conventional force throughout the cold war. Introducing the possibility of a nuclear response to a catastrophic cyberattack would be expected to serve the same purpose.” [9] Non-unique, Dangerous, and In-credible?
There are a couple of interesting things to note in response. First is the development of a new acronym, WMD/E (weapons of mass destruction or effect). Again, this acronym indicates a weakening of the requirement of physical
impacts. In this new definition, mass effects that are not necessarily physical, nor necessarily destructive, but possibly only disruptive economically or even psychologically (think “shock and awe”) are seen as equivalent to WMD.
This new emphasis on effects, disruption, and psychology reflects both contemporary, but also long-held beliefs within the U.S. defense community. It reflects current thinking in U.S. military theory, in which it is said that U.S. forces
should be able to “mass fires” and “mass effects” without having to physically “mass forces.” There is a sliding scale in which the physical (often referred to as the “kinetic”) gradually retreats–i.e. massed forces are most physical;
massed fire is less physical (for the U.S. anyway); and massed effects are the least physical, having as the ultimate goal Sun Tzu’s “pinnacle of excellence,” winning without fighting. But the emphasis on disruption and psychology in
WMD/E has also been a key component of much of 20th century military thought in the West. Industrial theories of warfare in the early 20th century posited that industrial societies were increasingly interdependent and reliant upon
mass production, transportation, and consumption of material goods. Both industrial societies and the material links that held them together, as well as industrial people and their own internal linkages (i.e. nerves), were seen as
increasingly fragile and prone to disruption via attack with the latest industrial weapons: airplanes and tanks. Once interdependent and fragile industrial societies were hopelessly disrupted via attack by the very weapons they
themselves created, the nerves of modern, industrial men and women would be shattered, leading to moral and mental defeat and a loss of will to fight. Current thinking about the possible dangers of cyber attack upon the U.S. are
based on the same basic premises: technologically dependent and therefore fragile societies populated by masses of people sensitive to any disruption in expected standards of living are easy targets. Ultimately, however, a number of
researchers have pointed out the pseudo-psychological, pseudo-sociological, and a-historical (not to mention non-unique) nature of these assumptions. [10] Others have pointed out that these assumptions did not turn out to be true
during WWII strategic bombing campaigns, that modern, industrial societies and populations were far more resilient than military theorists had assumed. [11] Finally, even some military theorists have questioned the assumptions
behind cyber war, especially when assumptions about our own technology dependence-induced societal fragility (dubious on their own) are applied to other societies, especially non-Western societies (even more dubious). [12]
Finally, where deterrence is concerned, it is important to remember that a deterrent has to be credible to be effective. True, the U.S. retained nuclear weapons as a deterrent during the Cold War. But, from the 1950s through the 1980s,
there was increasing doubt among U.S. planners regarding the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence via the threat of “massive retaliation.” As early as the 1950s it was becoming clear that the U.S. would be reluctant at best to actually
follow through on its threat of massive retaliation. Unfortunately, most money during that period had gone into building up the nuclear arsenal; conventional weapons had been marginalized. Thus, the U.S. had built a force it was
likely never to use. So, the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s saw the development of concepts like “flexible response” and more emphasis on building up conventional forces. This was the big story of the 1980s and the “Reagan build-up” (not
“Star Wars”). Realizing that, after a decade of distraction in Vietnam, it was back in a position vis-a-viz the Soviets in Europe in which it would have to rely on nuclear weapons to offset its own weakness in conventional forces, a
position that could lead only to blackmail or holocaust, the U.S. moved to create stronger conventional forces. [13] Thus, the question where cyber war is concerned: If it was in-credible that the U.S. would actually follow through
with massive retaliation after a Soviet attack on the U.S. or Western Europe, is it really credible to say that the U.S. would respond with nuclear weapons to a cyber attack, no matter how disruptive or destructive? Beyond credibility,
deterrence makes many other assumptions that are problematic in the cyber war context. It assumes an adversary capable of being deterred . Can most of those who would
perpetrate a cyber attack be deterred? Will al-Qa’ida be deterred ? How about a band of nationalistic or even just thrill-seeker,
bandwagon hackers for hire? Second, it assumes clear lines of command and control . Sure, some hacker groups might be funded and assisted to a great
degree by states. But ultimately, even cyber war theorists will admit that it is doubtful that states have complete control over their
armies of hacker mercenaries. How will deterrence play out in this kind of scenario?
Cyberterrorism will cause accidental launch that triggers the Dead Hand and nuclear war
Fritz 9 (Jason, BS – St. Cloud, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control”, Study Commissioned on Nuclear NonProliferation and Disarmament, July, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc)
Direct control of launch
The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear affairs. Under this rule two authorized personnel must be present and in agreement during critical stages of nuclear
command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of Defense; Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a submarine,
both the commanding officer and executive officer must agree that the order to launch is valid. In the US, in order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action Message (EAM) is needed.
This is a preformatted message that directs nuclear forces to execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily and consist of a complex code read by a human voice. Regular
monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos posted to YouTube provide insight into how these work. These are issued from the NMCC, or in the event of destruction, from the designated
hierarchy of command and control centres. Once a command centre has confirmed the EAM, using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm the weapons and
the message is sent out. These messages are sent in digital format via the secure Automatic Digital Network and then relayed to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High
Frequency Global Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear capable submarines via Very Low Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The technical details of
Some reports have noted a Pentagon review, which
showed a potential “electronic back door into the US Navy’s system for broadcasting nuclear launch orders to
Trident submarines” (Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber terrorists could potentially infiltrate this
network and insert false orders for launch. The investigation led to “elaborate new instructions for validating launch
orders” (Blair 2003). Adding further to the concern of cyber terrorists seizing control over submarine launched
nuclear missiles; The Royal Navy announced in 2008 that it would be installing a Microsoft Windows operating
system on its nuclear submarines (Page 2008). The choice of operating system, apparently based on Windows XP, is
not as alarming as the advertising of such a system is. This may attract hackers and narrow the necessary
reconnaissance to learning its details and potential exploits. It is unlikely that the operating system would play a
direct role in the signal to launch, although this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating system may lead to
the insertion of malicious code, which could be used to gain accelerating privileges, tracking, valuable information,
and deception that could subsequently be used to initiate a launch. Remember from Chapter 2 that the UK’s nuclear
submarines have the authority to launch if they believe the central command has been destroyed. Attempts by cyber
terrorists to create the illusion of a decapitating strike could also be used to engage fail-deadly systems. Open source
knowledge is scarce as to whether Russia continues to operate such a system. However evidence suggests that they
have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated system set to launch a mass scale nuclear
attack in the event of a decapitation strike against Soviet leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded message
VLF submarine communication methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception.
to the bunkers, switching on the dead hand. If nearby ground-level sensors detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a break was detected in communications links with top military
commanders, the system would send low-frequency signals over underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields and other military sites, these rockets in turn would
broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via radio relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to some Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of Russia's nuclear-armed missiles in underground
silos and on mobile launchers can be fired automatically. (Broad 1993) Assuming such a system is still active, cyber terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order to activate Perimetr,
and then fool it into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not an easy task, the information age makes it easier. Cyber reconnaissance could help locate the machine and
learn its inner workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level official’s—anyone who has reportedly worked on such a project, or individuals involved in military
operations at underground facilities, such as those reported to be located at Yamantau and Kosvinksy mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair 2008) Indirect Control of
Launch Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be transmitted, received, or displayed at nuclear command and control centres, or shut down these centres’ computer networks
completely. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific sounding rocket was mistaken by Russian early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a US submarine. A radar operator used Krokus to
notify a general on duty who decided to alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three chegets activated, and the countdown for a nuclear decision began. It took eight minutes
before the missile was properly identified—a considerable amount of time considering the speed with which a nuclear response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in
these early warning systems would be relatively easy using computer network operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most likely on a closed network.
However, if they are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide an entry point, and information gained through the internet may reveal the details, such as passwords and software, for gaining
entrance to the closed network. If access was obtained, a false alarm could be followed by something like a DDoS attack, so the operators believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no
This could add pressure to the decision making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a
first round EMP burst. Terrorist groups could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile, such as the one used by
Norway, in an attempt to fool the system. The number of states who possess such technology is far greater than the
number of states who possess nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when
enhancing operations through computer network operations. Combining traditional terrorist methods with cyber
techniques opens opportunities neither could accomplish on their own. For example, radar stations might be more
vulnerable to a computer attack, while satellites are more vulnerable to jamming from a laser beam, thus together
they deny dual phenomenology. Mapping communications networks through cyber reconnaissance may expose weaknesses, and
longer verify it.
automated scanning devices created by more experienced hackers can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications
is a highly complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the world’s most powerful and well funded militaries. Yet, there are
recurring gaffes, and the very nature of asymmetric warfare is to bypass complexities by finding simple loopholes. For example, commercially
available software for voice-morphing could be used to capture voice commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound bytes
into phonemes, and splice it back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen 2001, Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to
escalate a volatile situation in the hopes of starting a nuclear war. “ **[they cut off the paragraph]** “In June 1998, a group of international
hackers calling themselves Milw0rm hacked the web site of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) and put up a spoofed web page
showing a mushroom cloud and the text “If a nuclear war does start, you will be the first to scream” (Denning 1999). Hacker web-page
defacements like these are often derided by critics of cyber terrorism as simply being a nuisance which causes no significant harm. However,
web-page defacements are becoming more common, and they point towards alarming possibilities in subversion. During the 2007 cyber attacks
against Estonia, a counterfeit letter of apology from Prime Minister Andrus Ansip was planted on his political party website (Grant 2007). This
took place amid the confusion of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.
Impact – US/India Relations
Immigration reform expands skilled labor --- spurs relations and economic growth in
China and India.
L os A ngeles Times, 11/9/2012 (Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-by-sourcecountries.html)
"Comprehensive immigration reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas ," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell,
director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University .
A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least
a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the
arm for India and China ." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled
migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global
economy , Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their
expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not ,"
he said.
US/India relations averts South Asian nuclear war.
Schaffer, Spring 2002 (Teresita – Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Security, Washington Quarterly, p. Lexis)
Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as
Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies
see that they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of
friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm
possible future nuclear tensions in the region . Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a
prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India . For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role in the
world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States
Aff
Uniqueness
2AC - Won’t Pass
CIR won’t pass – Senate and House bills differ greatly and there isn’t even any House
legislation
Politico 5-17 [“Immigration reform no sure bet”, May 17th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/immigration-reform-no-sure-bet-91573.html, Chetan]
After years of false starts, Washington finally appears to be on the path to rewriting the nation’s immigration laws.
The Senate Gang of Eight bill is holding its own in committee and is expected to hit the Senate floor in June. And in the House this week,
members of a bipartisan group agreed “in principle” on a big bill to be revealed in June. But in this case,
looks are deceiving . There are still major hurdles before immigration reform can reach President Barack Obama’s desk. The
biggest one is the GOP-controlled House. Right now, the Senate bill has no chance of making it to the House
floor . Key senators such as Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have stressed that their bill would need upwards
of 70 Senate votes in order to enact pressure on the House. But House GOP negotiators flatly say the margin
of votes in the Senate — no matter how big — won’t matter. “ I don’t think it can pass the House,” said Rep. John
Carter (R-Texas) said of the Senate bill, echoing the quiet conversation of top House Republican leaders. “I think our bill has a better chance of
passing the House than the Senate bill. We went more into detail than they did. They’ve got holes all through their bill.” There are many
reasons for the Senate bill being anathema to House conservatives, including its shorter pathway to
citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants, a guest worker program viewed as too generous to labor unions and border
security measures they say are too weak. But even getting a measure through the House will be enough of a
challenge. And if the House manages to approve its own bill, then the two chambers would have to hammer
out a compromise – or let immigration reform die. The House’s legislation is still not finished , according to multiple sources.
They agree broadly on how to deal with the issue of health care for undocumented immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship, but haven’t
worked out the details. The party also threw in the towel on a consensus on low-skilled worker visas.
Won’t pass – House wants piecemeal approach and Judiciary Committee will block
Politico 5-17 [“Immigration reform no sure bet”, May 17th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/immigration-reform-no-sure-bet-91573.html, Chetan]
So when House members say they have an agreement “in principle,” that’s shorthand for “this can all still fall
apart.” For example, Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, a member of House Democratic leadership and of the House immigration group,
hasn’t signed on to the deal — and he wants specific bill language before publicly backing it. If the House
group actually releases something, it has to go through the Judiciary Committee — a panel with a volatile mix
of progressive liberals like New York Rep. Jerry Nadler and staunch conservatives like Iowa Rep. Steve King and Texas Rep.
Louie Gohmert. King and Gohmert, flanked by other House conservatives, held a press conference this week denouncing the Senate bill.
“ Judiciary
is going to be a tough row to hoe,” said Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), a member of the group. “But I think we’ll be all
right. I think that a lot of the things that make it important are going to stay in place. At least I’m very hopeful.” Not to mention, that
committee’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), has said he wants to overhaul immigration in bite-sized bills
— not the comprehensive approach of the eight-person group. His committee members say the same thing. “I’m
in favor of an incremental approach,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said. “I think you do this one step at a time. Find common ground and move
onto the next issue.” House Republicans are leaving open the option to break up the group’s immigration bill and move separate pieces through
different committees. Judiciary will have the primary jurisdiction, but — for instance — border security provisions could be taken up by the
Homeland Security Committee. But Democrats who have consistently rallied for one comprehensive bill are expected
to raise ferocious objections to a piecemeal approach in the House. If the House bill survives the entire
chamber, the House and Senate will need to negotiate the considerable differences . The House bill, reflecting its
Republican members, is already more conservative, and is likely to become even more so after making its way through that chamber.
1AR – Won’t Pass
Won’t pass – Senate provisions are too controversial for House conservatives
Politico 5-17 [“Immigration reform no sure bet”, May 17th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/immigration-reform-no-sure-bet-91573.html, Chetan]
The Senate bill alone is a delicate bipartisan compromise, and pulling that legislation too much to the right or
left could risk unraveling the entire agreement . A more conservative House bill will run into resistance from
liberal Democratic senators — several of whom have already proposed changes to the Senate bill that makes
the pathway to citizenship more generous or add provisions to cover gay partners. On top of that, House
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team need to keep an eye on the far right, because conservatives
like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are already denouncing any kind of reform. “If there’s anything that looks like
amnesty that’s brought before this Congress it would be exactly the wedge that splits the Republican Party in
this House,” he said in an interview. “There are a whole lot of conservatives that haven’t spoken out. They’re
increasing in their intensity in this thing. I can just feel it.” And with all the attention on Sen. Marco Rubio’s (RFla.) bipartisan work with Schumer (D-N.Y.), you would think that bill could sail through the conservative House.
Link
2AC – Plan Popular
Oil companies massively support the plan and lobby for it---determines Congressional
sentiment
Sadowski 11 – Richard Sadowski 11, J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, Fall 2011, “IN THIS ISSUE:
NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICT: CUBAN OFFSHORE DRILLING: PREPARATION AND PREVENTION
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO,” Sustainable Development Law &
Policy, 12 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 37, p. lexis
A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba's offshore oil fields hold at least four and a half billion barrels of recoverable oil and ten trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. n29 Cupet, the state-owned Cuban energy company, insists that actual reserves are double that of the U.S. estimate. n30
One estimate indicates that Cuba could be producing 525,000 barrels of oil per day. n31 Given this vast resource, Cuba has already leased
offshore oil exploration blocks to operators from Spain, Norway, and India. n32 Offshore oil discoveries in Cuba are placing
increasing pressure for the United States to end the embargo. First, U.S. energy companies are eager to compete
for access to Cuban oil reserves. n33 [*38] Secondly, fears of a Cuban oil spill are argued to warrant U.S. investment
and technology. n34 Finally, the concern over Cuban offshore drilling renews cries that the embargo is largely a failure and harms human
rights.¶ ECONOMICS: U.S. COMPANIES WANT IN¶ For U.S. companies, the embargo creates concern that they will lose
out on an opportunity to develop a nearby resource. n35 Oil companies have a long history of utilizing political
pressure for self-serving purposes . n36 American politicians, ever fearful of high energy costs , are especially
susceptible to oil-lobby pressures . n37 This dynamic was exemplified in 2008, when then-Vice President Dick Cheney told the
board of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that "oil is being drilled right now sixty miles off the coast of
Florida. But we're not doing it, the Chinese are , in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have
figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply " n38¶ This pressure for U.S. investment in oil is
exacerbated by America's expected increase in consumption rates. n39 Oil company stocks are valued in large
part on access to reserves. n40 Thus, more leases, including those in Cuban waters , equal higher stock valuation.
n41 "The last thing that American energy companies want is to be trapped on the sidelines by sanctions while
European, Canadian and Latin American rivals are free to develop new oil resources on the doorstep of the
United States." n42
Rubio loves the plan
Abramson 10 (Andrew, “Rubio says Obama's offshore drilling proposal "right decision for
country",”http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/rubio-says-obamas-offshore-drilling-proposalright/nL5tX/)
Considering that Marco Rubio has spent months attacking Republican governor Charlie Crist for supporting
President Obama's stimulus plan, Rubio praising Obama for anything might be the last thing Rubio supporters'
expected. But at a campaign luncheon at the First Baptist Church at 1101 S. Flagler Drive this afternoon, Rubio — a
Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate — said he was surprised when Obama announced his intentions to open
offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. "It was the first time I think the administration has ever
signaled a willingness to look at that," Rubio said to reporters after his speech. "I think it's important that the country
has all of its domestic energy resources at its disposal. "It's the right decision for our country." Rubio said he still
needed to learn more details of the proposal, but that he wants more drilling off the coast of Florida.
Rubio will make or break the bill
Politico 5-6 [“Gang of Eight plots path to Senate supermajority”, May 6th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gang-of-eight-immigration-supermajority-90949_Page2.html, Chetan]
The second tier of senators, who are less likely to back the bill but could be swayed , includes John Barrasso of
Wyoming, John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch of Idaho and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. This is a group that could
vote yes if Rubio is still on board and other conservatives are falling into line. “ The key is Rubio ,” said Aguilar, executive
director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “ Without Rubio, this bill would not get anywhere with
Republicans. He gives them the cover.”
1AR – Popularity Turn
Drilling in the OCS is popular
Russell 12 [Barry Russell is President of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, August 15, 2012, “Energy Must Transcend
Politics”, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php#2238176]
There have been glimpses of great leadership, examples when legislators have reached across the aisle to construct and support
common-sense legislation that encourages American energy production. Recent legislation from Congress which would replace the
Obama administration’s five-year offshore leasing plan and instead increase access America’s abundant offshore oil and natural gas
is one example of such bipartisan ship. The House passed legislation with support from 25 key Democrats. The support from
Republicans and Democrats is obviously not equal, but this bipartisan legislative victory demonstrates a commitment by the
House of Representatives to support the jobs, economic growth and national security over stubborn allegiance to
political party . The same is happening on the Senate side. Democratic Senators Jim Webb (VA), Mark Warner (VA), and
Mary Landrieu (LA) cosponsored the Senate’s legislation to expand offshore oil and natural gas production with Republican
Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Hoeven (ND), and Jim Inhofe (OK). Senator Manchin (WV) is another Democratic leader who consistently
votes to promote responsible energy development.
Committee votes
Hastings 12
[Doc, R- Wash, 7/23/12, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/239529-president-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-must-bereplaced]
the Congressional Replacement of President Obama’s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, would replace President
passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee with
bipartisan support and will be considered by the full House this week. It sets up a clear choice between the president’s drill-nowherenew plan and the Congressional replacement plan to responsibly expand offshore American energy production. President Obama’s plan doesn’t open one new area
H.R. 6082,
Obama’s plan with an environmentally responsible, robust plan that supports new offshore drilling. This plan
for leasing and energy production. The Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast and most of the water off Alaska are all placed off-limits. This is especially frustrating for Virginians who had a lease sale
scheduled for 2011, only to have it canceled by President Obama. The president added further insult to injury by not including the Virginia lease sale in his final plan, meaning the earliest it could
The president’s plan only offers 15 lease sales limited to the Gulf of Mexico and, very late in the plan, small parts of Alaska. It doesn’t open one
new area for leasing and energy production. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, President Obama’s 15 lease sales represent the lowest number
happen is late 2017.
ever included in an offshore leasing plan. President Obama rates worse than even Jimmy Carter.
GOP Support
Largen 12 [Stephen, Post and Courier, 6/12/12, http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120612/PC16/120619771/haley-congressionalrepublicans-push-offshore-drilling]
leading Republicans
launched a
push for offshore drilling
All can and should be in the Palmetto State’s future, a trio of some of the state’s
said Monday as they
renewed
. But an
environmental group said it’s unclear that there’s sufficient oil and natural gas deposits off the coast to support drilling, and doing so would risk the bread and butter of South Carolina’s economy: tourism. U.S. Sen. Lindsey
Graham and U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan said Monday that they will introduce companion bills that would open the state’s coastline for oil and natural
gas exploration from 10 to 50 miles offshore. “Let’s get on with it,” Graham said during a news conference with Duncan and Gov. Nikki Haley. “I’m tired of talking about
being energy independent. I’m tired of sending the hardworking people of America’s money overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts.” In 2005, Graham said offshore drilling could harm the coastal
economy due to concerns about the impact of drilling on the environment and tourism. And he said offshore drilling represented nothing more than buying time and not addressing the fundamental problem with fossil fuels. He
explained his change of heart Monday by saying that his bill addresses environmental concerns with its requirement that no drilling be allowed within the 10-mile buffer. South Carolina would also have to clear all exploration within
the 10- to 50-mile zone off the coast, he said. Graham’s measure would allocate 37.5 percent of all revenue from any drilling to the state. Fifty percent of revenue would be used to pay down the federal debt, and the remaining 12.5
. Graham said his bill also would allow drilling off Virginia’s coast and has the support of the commonwealth’s two U.S.
senators. The S.C. Republicans and several business groups in attendance Monday highlighted a new report estimating that drilling
could bring $87.5 million in annual revenue to the Palmetto State years down the line.
percent would be used to fund conservation efforts
1AR – Rubio Turn
Rubio Pushes
Human Events 10 [“Exclusive Human Events Interview with Marco Rubio”, May 7th, 2010,
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/05/07/exclusive-human-events-interview-with-marco-rubio/, Chetan]
offshore drilling. What’s your position on that? Rubio: America has an energyindependence problem that it still needs to confront and solve . And not even the most optimistic believers in
alternative sources of energy believe that anywhere and anytime in the near future that we’re going to be able to
provide that without a reliance on petroleum. So the fundamental question for the American people is: ‘How dependent on foreign
sources of energy are we prepared to become?’ There is going to be drilling off the shore of the United States .
HE: Segueing into another issue:
It’s going to be done by China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russians and others who have openly announced plans to explore off Florida’s coasts and in the Gulf region etc. And so, naturally, now we are
in the midst of a very serious economic, ecological, and environmental disaster. One that needs to be dealt with to minimize the damage it’s going to cause. The second thing we need to figure
out is why it happened. Primarily, to make sure that the responsible parties pay for it and to ensure that it never happens again because there are thousands of rigs operating all over the world
America should invest heavily
America has to have all of its domestic
right now. But ultimately, when all of that is settled, we still have an energy-independence issue, an energy-independence goal. I believe
alternative energies and in the development of new energy technologies. That’s going to take time. And, in the interim,
energy resources at least at its disposal.
in
HE: So you would approve of drilling in ANWR? Rubio: As long as it can be done safely, absolutely. And that’s probably
the debate we’re going to be having here very shortly. What caused this accident? Was it BP oriented? Was it human error? Was it specific to that rig? There are thousands of other drilling
operations all over the world and this is not happening on them. So we need to figure out that first. But
I think calls for moratoriums are premature.
Internals
Aff – Obama Won’t Push
Obama won’t push immigration – he’s taking a hands-off approach
Washington Post 4-13 [“With domestic legacy in lawmakers’ hands, Obama considers his options”, April
13th, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-13/politics/38507684_1_president-obama-senaterepublicans-agenda, Chetan]
After outlining what he wants in an immigration bill, Obama has largely taken a hands-off approach to
designing the legislation, now the subject of negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang
of Eight. The strategy was adopted soon after his second-term inauguration, when Obama, eager to push the issue
after winning more than 70 percent of the Latino vote, prepared to introduce his own bill during a visit to Las Vegas
to break a long-standing deadlock among Senate negotiators. Administration officials said Sen. Charles E. Schumer
(D-N.Y.), a Gang of Eight member, called the White House a few days before the Jan. 29 event. Schumer said the
group was close to reaching consensus on a bill and asked Obama to hold off on announcing his own in order
to avoid disrupting the talks. Obama agreed. “On any issue where there is progress being made, we don’t want
to get in the way ,” said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the White
House legislative strategy and assess its prospects. “Every one of these issues has potential pitfalls and potential
opportunities.”
Aff – PC Not Key
PC not key – other factors shape the agenda mofre
Dickinson 9 – professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University
where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt (5/26/09, Matthew, Presidential
Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,”
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/, JMP)
As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both
written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress adjourns for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her
seat in time for the start of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her
Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous
means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on
the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of
legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of
legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the
president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge
of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote
on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political
scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing
enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of
presidential influence. Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan
leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually
predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring
the importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential armtwisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying .
selection reveals about the basis of presidential power.
No PC - Consensus of political scientists goes aff
Beckman and Kumar 11 [Mathew N and Vival, Department of Political Science, University of California.
Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol 23, no 1, January 2011 “How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of
positive presidential power in US lawmaking”.http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/3.abstract]
Deciding how best to promote the president’s policy initiatives on Capitol Hill is a frequent concern inside the modern White House. ‘Legislative
strategy’ sessions attract senior officials and fervent debate; they implicate the president’s policy positions and (potentially) his public standing.
What is more, White House staffers say the decisions they make in these meetings are vitally important for determining the president’s fate in
Congress. For Beltway insiders, then, it comes as no surprise that the president’s advisors expend considerable amounts of their time, expertise,
and energy devising a legislative strategy and translating it into a lobbying enterprize. For political scientists, however, the resources
allocated to formulating and implementing the White House’s lobbying offensive appear puzzling , if not
altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each president’s capacity to marshal legislative proposals through
Congress, the prevailing wisdom now stresses contextual factors as predetermining his agenda’s fate on Capitol Hill.
From the particular ‘political time’ in which they happen to take office (Skowronek, 1993) to the state of the budget (Brady
and Volden, 1998; Peterson, 1990), the partisan composition of Congress (Bond and Fleisher, 1990; Edwards, 1989) (see also
Gilmour (1995), Groseclose and McCarty (2001), and Sinclair (2006)) to the preferences of specific ‘pivotal’ voters (Brady and
Volden, 1998; Krehbie, l998), current research suggests a president’s congressional fortunes are basically beyond his
control. The implication is straightforward, as Bond and Fleisher indicate: …presidential success is determined in large measure by the results
of the last election. If the last election brings individuals to Congress whose local interests and preferences coincide with the president’s, then he
will enjoy greater success. If, on the other hand, most members of Congress have preferences different from the
president’s, then he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of bargaining and persuasion can do much to
improve his success. (Bond and Fleisher, 1990: 13) Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some researchers paint a more optimistic picture
regarding presidents’ potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. (1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha
(2007), Edwards III and Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light (1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002) all observe that presidents
secure greater support for their ‘priority’ items, and when they exert ‘effort’ pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that White
House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, while Canes-Wrone (2001, 2005) shows
that presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically ‘going public’ when advocating popular proposals (see also
Kernell (1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) finds that presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members’ positions as a bill
moves through the legislative process. However, even among these relative optimists, the prescription for presidents appears
to be an ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy . In discussing the challenge for a president
looking to push legislation on Capitol Hill, Samuel Kernell offers a comparable assessment. He writes, The number and variety of choices place
great demands upon [presidents’] strategic calculation, so much so that pluralist leadership must be understood as an art…an ability to sense
‘right choices’. (Kernell, 1993: 36) Furthermore, the seemingly paradoxical findings noted above, that is, a general (if modest) pattern of
president-supported legislative success on passage and policy content, but not on ‘key’ roll-call votes, remain unexplained. This paper aims to
demystify the White House’s legislative strategies, both their logic and their effects. Developing a non-cooperative game in which the president
allocates scarce ‘political capital’ to induce changes in legislators’ behavior, we deduce two lobbying strategies White House officials may
execute and, in turn, investigate their impact on the laws that result. Interestingly, we theorize that presidents’ foremost influence comes from
bargaining with congressional leaders over policy alternatives before bills reach the floor, not bargaining with pivotal voters for their support
once they do. Precisely because so much of the presidents’ influence comes in the legislative earlygame (rather than the endgame), we theorize
that typical roll-call-based tests of presidents’ legislative influence" have missed most of it.
Aff – Winners Win
PC theory is wrong - winners win
Hirsh 13 – National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek
senior correspondent, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2-9-13,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207]
The idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. On Tuesday,
in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and
ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do
talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much
“political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what
actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about
this time of year: They will
Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after
winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license.
(It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited
executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama
didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right
than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a
“mandate” or “political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the
horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a
high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the
National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to
fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started
a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be
bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people
are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun
laws. But one thing is clear: The political
tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time . Whole new possibilities exist now that
members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of
didn’t a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican
compromise on immigration
reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the
turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal
influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent
for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on
11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this
immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the
movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen.
Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census
It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed,
Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive
showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority.
election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected
and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an
unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces
of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of
political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually
over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to
political capital is a concept that
misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do
about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change
everything . Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real
do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason,
investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any
president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present.
And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to
the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the
Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests
can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the
pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is
kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “ Winning wins.” In theory, and in
practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his
skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to
the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political
scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful
capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature
successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there.
That makes it kind of useless ,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the
calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is
presidencies say that political
never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if
an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not
going to get what he wants, and [they]he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other
actors ” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side . It’s a
bandwagon effect.” ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because
[they’re]he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon
Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in
addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to
get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The
Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late
1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills
the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to
expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?”
Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax
cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum
he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “ Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,”
LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have
unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.)
Winners win
Green ’10 (Green 6/11/10 – professor of political science at Hofstra University (David Michael Green, 6/11/10,
"The Do-Nothing 44th President ", http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-DavidMichael-Gree-100611-648.html)
Moreover, there
is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement.
In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her
next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around . This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you
can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating
presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of
power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and
the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By
jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning
team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.
Aff – Poison Pill
Obama using PC backfires – causes the GOP to be reluctant to give Obama another
agenda win
The Hill 5-12 [“White House strategy for winning immigration fight comes with some risks”, May 12th, 2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129-white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-somerisks, Chetan]
This outside pressure, however, comes with some risks for a president who governs over a divided country. If
Obama wants to make progress, some Republicans suggest he should stay out of the immigration debate —at
least for the time being. “The president engaging is not helpful at this stage,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist.
“Ninety-five percent of Democrats will vote for this. This is now about how many Republicans he can get. But the president engaging
on this will only make it harder for conservative Republicans to be for it . It’s the exact reason why [Sen.] Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.) hasn’t been going to the White House that much or locking arms with the president. The White House feels emboldened to keep up some
public pressure given the desire by many Republicans to push immigration over the finish line. Unlike the recent battle over gun control, the
White House is banking on the fact that Republicans need an immigration win on the heels of the 2012 election. Seventy-one percent of the
Latino vote went for Obama in the 2012 election, compared to 27 percent for Republican Mitt Romney. That’s the lowest percentage for a GOP
presidential candidate in the last three elections. “That’s what keeps this [issue] separate from the debate over the fiscal cliff and guns,” said the
administration official. “It’s in their political incentive to get this done.” High profile Republicans like Jeb Bush—a contender for the 2016
presidential race—have said the GOP needs a fundamental makeover on issues like immigration. “Way too many people believe Republicans are
anti-immigrant,” Bush declared at the Conservative Political Action Conference annual dinner in March. Still, Republicans warn their party still
includes many opponents to reform, and that Obama could pull a defeat from the jaws of victory with too aggressive an approach. “This battle
is going to be won on the Hill,” Mackowiak added. “The White House has no role to play in that.” Cal Jillson, a professor
of political science at Southern Methodist University agreed, saying Obama has to keep a comfortable distance from the issue.
“It’s a delicate thing because conservatives in the House are allergic to Obama,” Jillson said. “A full court press might not serve him well so he’s
got to figure out exactly what his posture will be.” Jillson argues the inside game, however, could help carry the legislation over the top in the
Senate, with 70 or more Senators voting in support of it. “It’s sensible for the president to work carefully with persuadable Republicans to get this
done,” Jillson said. “The difficulty he faces is
the more he stakes his political capital on this issue, the more the Tea
Party conservatives in the House won’t let him have this . “The real question is how forward can he be without raising the
temperature of Republicans in the House," he added. Jillson and other observers predict that if the Senate does pass the legislation, it’ll put some
pressure on the House to follow suit. Even Republicans agree that Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle might help pass immigration. But it
also might have come a little too late. “It’s probably leading to more fruitful discussions,” Mackowiak said. “But it’s one of those things that
probably should have happened in his first or second year. You have to plant those seeds, water it and watch them grow.”
Aff – Benghazi/IRS Thumper
GOP will use the Benghazi and IRS scandals to deplete Obama’s PC and stall his agenda
NY Times 5-16 [“G.O.P., Energized, Weighs How Far to Take Inquiries”, May 16th, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/energized-gop-weighs-how-far-to-go-ininquiries.html?pagewanted=all, Chetan]
Working against those methodical plans, however, are the personal passions of the rank and file. Mr. Chaffetz on
Thursday repeated his refusal to take the impeachment of the president “off the table.” Representative Michele
Bachmann, the Republican firebrand from Minnesota, joined in. “As I have been home in my district in the Sixth District of Minnesota,”
Mrs. Bachmann said, “there isn’t a weekend that hasn’t gone by that someone says to me: ‘Michele, what in the world are you all waiting for in
Congress? Why aren’t you impeaching the president? He’s been making unconstitutional actions since he came into office.’ ” Republicans
say they are mainly determined to get at the truth, and they question efforts to put their intensifying pursuit of the administration
in political terms. Even the most ardent conservatives have adopted a tone of sobriety. “It’s not like we’re trying to hurry or trying to slow it
down. We’re just trying to proceed at the speed that gets to the truth,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, who was one of the
first lawmakers to dig into the I.R.S. controversy. But Republicans privately acknowledge political benefits like rekindling
the fervor of the Tea Party — a key ingredient in 2010 Congressional victories — particularly given the fact
that the I.R.S. was subjecting those very groups to special scrutiny. “Few things can get the conservative base
as fired up as being targeted by an agency in the government of a president they already strongly dislike ,” said
Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is already using the I.R.S. case against some Senate
Democrats who are up for re-election. As of now, Republican strategists say they do not expect voters to flood the polls in November 2014 to
vote against the president’s party over Benghazi, the seizure of phone logs of Associated Press reporters, or even the political intrusion by the
Republicans will use the controversies to undermine Mr. Obama’s credibility, question his
competence and diminish his political capital . The cases also help them tar the health care law, gun control efforts and Mr.
I.R.S. Instead, they say,
Obama’s regulatory agenda as just more examples of government overreach.
Republicans in the House will use the scandals as an excuse to not move immigration
reform
NBC Latino 5-15 [“Will the controversy over IRS, DOJ and Benghazi derail immigration reform?”, May 15th,
2013, http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/15/will-the-controversy-over-irs-doj-and-benghazi-derail-immigration-reform/,
Chetan]
But others, like University of Notre Dame professor Allert Brown-Gort, are not so sure. “It’s not whether Benghazi or the IRS or AP
sucks the oxygen out of the room for immigration reform – it’s whether some Republicans, especially in the House,
will use this as an excuse to put off hearings and not move the legislation forward ,” says Brown-Gort, a faculty fellow
at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Brown-Gort says that while the Republican party
leadership and the “intelligentsia” are pushing for it, “their base is saying ‘no’ – the Republicans got hoisted on their own petard on the
success of the word amnesty,’ he adds. Immigration reform advocates point to the fact that only a small group of House Republicans joined a
press conference yesterday against the current immigration reform bill. ”The House press conference underscored the fact that these opponents
are rapidly losing influence,” said America’s Voice Frank Sharry. Conservative Republican Congressman Steve Stockman said in the press
conference they will have a “gang of millions” against the bill. In the meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee meets tomorrow again – and at
least in the Senate, the bill is on its way.
Benghazi and IRS scandals thump Obama’s PC – could make his second term useless
Telegraph 5-14 [“Benghazi and the IRS: the curse of the second term is haunting Barack Obama”, May 14 th,
2013, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100216827/benghazi-and-the-irs-the-curse-of-the-second-termis-haunting-barack-obama/, Chetan]
Barack Obama was meant to be different. After
a surprisingly emphatic re-election last year, he seemed to have the
political capital necessary to implement a substantive second-term agenda. He had reckoned without a pair
of scandals . The US Internal Revenue Service this week admitted to targetting conservative groups for tax investogations – especially those
with "tea party" in their names – before the 2012 election. The White House press secretary later admitted these actions were "inappropriate",
although that seems a rather kind way of describing the politicisation of bureaucracy. George F Will, one of America's leading political
commentators, has said that he sees "echoes of Watergate" in it all. The second scandal relates to the deaths of four Americans, including the US
ambassador to Libya, last September. Obama faced awkward questions about it at the last election, but now that emails have been released
showing a dispute between the State Department and the CIA over the tragedy, they are more pressing than ever. The fifth year of a presidency
should represent a high point: buoyed by re-election and freed from the burden of running again, the president has a
window for action before obsessing over the next election begins. Instead Obama faces two crises with the potential to
rumble interminably on – and the unanswered questions over Benghazi could also prevent Hillary Clinton from succeeding him in the
White House, too. There remains confusion over exactly what Clinton knew as Secretary of State – and with her none-too-subtle desire to run in
2016, the Republicans aren't about to let her forget. Obama's second term is only four months old, but already there is a
sense that it risks being shrouded in failure , with the lack of progress over gun control and the triumph of expediency over a longterm resolution in budgetary negotiations .
Impact
AT: Economy Internal
CIR doesn’t solve the economy – trades of with native jobs and will use welfare programs
more than they provide in job creation
Ruark and Graham 11 [Eric Ruark and Matthew Graham – Directors of Research at the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, “Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners the Harmful effect of Unskilled
immigrants on American Workers”, May 2011, http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf, Chetan]
calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” are nothing short of a push for a massive amnesty that
would give permanent status to millions of illegal aliens who are not needed in the workforce , and it would reward
Current
unscrupulous employers who profited from hiring illegal workers, providing them with a legal low-wage workforce that would continue to have a negative impact on native workers. The border
is not secured and there is much opposition to the mandatory use of E-Verify and interior enforcement. Those who argue against enforcement are not going to decide overnight to support these
measures, and politicians have long ago proven that their promise to enforce immigration laws after granting amnesty are not to be believed. This report contains the following findings: • In
less than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the
U.S. economy. • Studies that find minimal or no negative effects on native workers from low-skill immigration are based upon lawed assumptions and skewed economic models, not
upon observations of actual labor market conditions. • There is no such thing as an “immigrant job.” The reality is that immigrants and
natives compete for the same jobs and native workers are increasingly at a disadvantage because employers
have access to a steady supply of low-wage foreign workers. • Low-skilled immigrants are more likely than their
native-born counterparts to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and to utilize welfare programs. Immigrants and their children made up
2009,
32 percent of those in the United States without health insurance in 2009. • Research done by the Center for American Progress has found that reducing the illegal alien population in the United
Defenders of illegal immigration often tout the findings of the so-called Perryman Report to argue
that illegal aliens are responsible for job creation in the United States; yet, if one accepts the Perryman findings as true, that would mean
that only one job is created in the United States for every three illegal workers in the workforce. • It is true that if the
States by one-third would raise the income of unskilled workers by $400 a year. •
illegal alien population decreased the overall number of jobs in the U.S. would be reduced, but there would be many more jobs available to native workers –jobs that paid higher wages and
offered better working conditions
CIR doesn’t increase the tax intake – full amnesty more than doubles their accessed
welfare and they don’t acquire enough jobs to compensate in taxes
Ruark and Graham 11 [Eric Ruark and Matthew Graham – Directors of Research at the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, “Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners the Harmful effect of Unskilled
immigrants on American Workers”, May 2011, http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf, Chetan]
Proponents of amnesty often tout the fact that amnestied illegal aliens would become taxpayers , and some proposals even stipulate that
these people would have to pay back taxes. Amnesty advocates also highlight the fact that most illegal immigrants pay Social Security taxes, ignoring the fact that this happens largely because 75
percent of illegal aliens use a stolen Social Security number (usually from children, who more easily fall victim to this type of fraud).63 It is true that illegal aliens do account for a meager tax
However, amnesty would make them eligible for the full range of tax credits and welfare benefits (the wait
The argument that amnesty
would turn illegal immigrants into taxpaying citizens is designed to disguise the proposals harmful fiscal
impact. Steven Camarotas analysis of Current Population Survey data revealed that in 2002, the average illegal immigrant household used $2,700
more in federal government services than it paid in taxes. However, if illegal aliens were amnestied and
accessed welfare at the same rate as immigrants of the same income and education level, this number would rise to S7.700.*4 These findings should not
surprise anyone, as it is well known that the poor pay very little in taxes, are eligible for tax credits that may be larger than their tax payment, and use many government services. The
large tax subsidies and wage impacts on the poor are not justified by the supposed economic benefits claimed
by supporters of amnesty and large-scale unskilled migration. Often, the impact of a particular immigration policy on the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) is used to argue that even illegal aliens benefit the economy. GDP measures the total amount of production of goods and services ,
meaning that even a person who earned or spent just one dollar in the U.S. last year technically made a contribution to its GDP A GDP increase does little to measure
the accompanying benefits or consequences. The extremely small GDP increase that results from illegal or
unskilled legal immigration does not translate into improvements in the standards of living of the quality of
life for most Americans, especially the poor. The immigration of legal and illegal unskilled workers has contributed to the overall size of the U.S. economy, but this has not
translated into overall economic benefits for Americans. In fact, even the estimates cited by those who tout an economic windfall from
immigration often reveal less than impressive results when put in context. A 2008 study by the Perryman Group estimated
that the economic impact of illegal immigration supports 2.8 million permanent jobs in the U.S. Using the Pew Research Centers
estimates of 8.3 million illegal aliens in the workforce, this works out to one permanent job for every three illegal workers. Their
contribution.
period before amnestied individuals would be eligible to receive government benefits varies according to which amnesty bill one references).
claimed $245 billion contribution to the GDP amounts to less than $20,000 per illegal worker.67* Illegal aliens increase the overall
size of the pie {creating more potential profit for the corporations that fund pro-amnesty groups), but they do not improve each individuals slice.
AT: Economy Impact
Economic decline doesn’t cause war
Tir 10 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate
Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, “Territorial Diversion:
Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict”, The Journal of Politics, 2010, Volume 72: 413-425)]
Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic
performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in Models
3–4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In accordance with
the insignificant relationships of Models 1–2 and 5–6, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a U.S.
President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert the public’s
attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the
inclination to act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation
between a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude that the conflictinitiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and
Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant
relationship (in Models 3–4), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an
incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordham’s (2002) revision of Gowa’s (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen
and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the public’s attention from a poor economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and
Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)—but only for the United States;
slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are
sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic underperformance and increased attacks on
domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit
well with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak
support via the economic growth variable. These results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to respond
with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general
background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing
the economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal
territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the
most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the
country (i.e., an underperforming economy).
AND - even if wars occur, they won’t escalate.
Bennett & Nordstrom 2k [Department of Political Science Professors @ Penn state U, D. Scott and Timothy,
“Foreign Policy Substitutability and Internal Economic problems in Enduring Rivalries” Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Feb., p33-61]
When engaging in diversionary actions in response to economic problems, leaders will be most interested in
a cheap, quick victory that gives them the benefit of a rally effect without suffering the long-term costs (in
both economic and popularity terms) of an extended confrontation or war. This makes weak states particularly
inviting targets for diversionary action since they may be less likely to respond than strong states and
because any response they make will be less costly to the initiator . Following Blainey (1973), a state facing poor economic
conditions may in fact be the target of an attack rather than the initiator. This may be even more likely in the context of a rivalry because rival
states are likely to be looking for any advantage over their rivals. Leaders may hope to catch an economically challenged rival looking inward
in response to a slowing economy. Following the strategic application of diversionary conflict theory and states’
desire to engage in only cheap conflicts for diversionary purposes, states should avoid conflict initiation against
target states experiencing economic problems.
93 examples are on our side
Miller 2k [Morris Miller, Winter 2K. economist and adjunct professor in the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of
Administration and former Executive Director and Senior Economist at the World Bank. Interdisciplinary Science
Reviews, 25.4]
Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates
poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of
The question may be reformulated.
such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people
or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war.
According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three
episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much
of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of
economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse
of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling
elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).
AT: Cyberterror Impact
The grid’s fine now
Kemp 12 -- Reuters market analyst (John, 4/5/12, "COLUMN-Phasors and blackouts on the U.S. power grid: John
Kemp," http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/column-smart-grid-idUSL6E8F59W120120405)
The hoped-for solution to grid instability is something called the North American SynchroPhasor Initiative (NASPI), which sounds like
something out of Star Trek but is in fact a collaboration between the federal government and industry to improve
grid monitoring and control by using modern communications technology. More than 500 phasor
monitoring units have so far been installed across the transmission network to take precise measurements of
frequency, voltage and other aspects of power quality on the grid up to 30 times per second (compared with once
every four seconds using conventional technology). Units are synchronised using GPS to enable users to build up a
comprehensive real-time picture of how power is flowing across the grid (www.naspi.org/Home.aspx and). It is a scaledup version of the monitoring system developed by the University of Tennessee's Power Information Technology Laboratory using inexpensive
frequency monitors that plug into ordinary wall sockets. Tennessee's FNET project provides highly aggregated data to the public via its website.
The systems being developed under NASPI provide a much finer level of detail that will reveal congestion and
disturbances on individual transmission lines and particular zones so that grid managers can act quickly to
restore balance or isolate failures ().
Nuclear weapons are protected from hacking
Green 2 (Joshua, Editor – Washington Monthly, “The Myth of Cyberterrorism”, Washington Monthly, November,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.green.html#byline)
When ordinary people imagine cyberterrorism, they tend to think along Hollywood plot lines, doomsday scenarios in which terrorists hijack
nuclear weapons, airliners, or military computers from halfway around the world. Given the colorful history of federal boondoggles--billiondollar weapons systems that misfire, $600 toilet seats--that's an understandable concern. But, with few exceptions, it's not one that applies to
preparedness for a cyberattack. "The government is miles ahead of the private sector when it comes to cybersecurity," says
Michael Cheek, director of intelligence for iDefense, a Virginia-based computer security company with government and private-sector
clients. "Particularly the most sensitive military systems." Serious effort and plain good fortune have combined to bring this
about. Take nuclear weapons. The biggest fallacy about their vulnerability, promoted in action thrillers like WarGames, is that
they're designed for remote operation. "[The movie] is premised on the assumption that there's a modem bank hanging
on the side of the computer that controls the missiles," says Martin Libicki, a defense analyst at the RAND Corporation. "I assure
you, there isn't." Rather, nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems enjoy the most basic form of Internet
security: they're "air-gapped," meaning that they're not physically connected to the Internet and are therefore
inaccessible to outside hackers. (Nuclear weapons also contain "permissive action links," mechanisms to prevent
weapons from being armed without inputting codes carried by the president.) A retired military official was somewhat indignant at the
mere suggestion: "As a general principle, we've been looking at this thing for 20 years. What cave have you been living in if you haven't
considered this [threat]?"
AT: US/India Relations
Can’t solve relations- visa fees
Smith 13 [Allen Smith, J.D., is manager, workplace law content, for SHRM. “Higher Visa Fees, Penalties
Foreseen with Immigration Reform”, January 30th, 2013,
http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/comprehensive-immigration-reform.aspx, Chetan]
Obama outlined four of his priorities in immigration reform. “First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement,” he noted. “To be fair, most businesses
want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not. So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and
accurately verify someone’s employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties. “Second, we have to deal with the 11 million
individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from
the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.” The third principle, he explained, “is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the
If you’re a foreign
student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a
business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here.” No Pain, No Gain So,
what does all the new energy mean for employers and HR? So far, there aren’t that many specifics, according to Ian
Macdonald, an attorney with Littler Mendelson in Atlanta. Expect more H-1B and other visas, but at higher fees , Jorge Lopez, a Littler attorney in its
Miami office, told SHRM Online. If a large group of people are legalized to work, that will go hand in hand with increased enforcement, Macdonald said. Visa fees won’t be the
only thing hiked, he predicted. Penalties for noncompliance likely will be raised as well.
realities of our time. For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America.” And he added, “
No indo pak war
Giorgio et al 10 (Maia Juel, Tina Søndergaard Madsen, Jakob Wigersma, Mark Westh, “Nuclear Deterrence in
South Asia: An Assessment of Deterrence and Stability in the Indian – Pakistan Conflict,” Global Studies, Autumn,
http://dspace.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/6041/1/Project%20GS-BA%2c%20Autumn%202010.pdf)
To what extent has nuclear deterrence enhanced stability in the India-Pakistan conflict? Recalling the logical
structure of the paper, we here wish to reconcile the three analyses and offer a coherent synthesis of the results in
relation to the research question. In order to gather the threads it is beneficial to shortly reflect upon the main results
of the three analyses. Firstly, the aim with the thesis was to explore if there is nuclear deterrence between India
and Pakistan, based upon Waltz three requirements. After having undertaken this analysis, we can conclude
that Waltz’s requirements for effective nuclear deterrence are in fact fulfilled in both countries. Thus, from a
neorealist perspective, is it then possible to deduce that stability reigns between India and Pakistan as a result of
nuclear deterrence? Taking a point of departure in neorealist assumptions and nuclear deterrence theory,
there is indeed stability between India and Pakistan, as no major war has taken place between the countries,
and more importantly, nuclear war has been avoided . Nuclear deterrence has thus been successful in
creating stability on a higher structural level.