UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Politics Supplement
Politics Supplement ......................................................................................................................... 1
General ............................................................................................................................................ 3
UQ ................................................................................................................................................ 4
UQ—AT: Scandals .................................................................................................................... 6
UQ—AT: Climate...................................................................................................................... 7
UQ—AT: Employer Mandate delay ......................................................................................... 9
N/UQ—Political Capital ............................................................................................................. 10
N/UQ—Bipartisanship ........................................................................................................... 13
Winners win............................................................................................................................... 14
Economy terminal mpx ............................................................................................................. 15
Cuba Links .................................................................................................................................. 18
Changing Travel Restrictions Unpopular .............................................................................. 19
Oil Investment Unpopular ..................................................................................................... 22
Oil Spill Cooperation Unpopular........................................................................................... 25
IFI inclusion link ................................................................................................................... 26
Terror list link ........................................................................................................................ 27
Mexico Links .............................................................................................................................. 28
Mexico Generic 1NC............................................................................................................. 29
Ext. Mexico Engagement Link .............................................................................................. 30
Mexico Democracy Assistance Link ..................................................................................... 31
NAFTA Revisions Unpopular ............................................................................................... 33
Human Trafficking Aid Unpopular ....................................................................................... 34
Offshore Drilling Unpopular ................................................................................................. 35
NAIF Links............................................................................................................................ 39
Venezuela .................................................................................................................................. 42
Venezuela Generic 1NC ........................................................................................................ 43
Ext. Venezuela Engagement Link ......................................................................................... 44
Laundry List .......................................................................................................................... 45
Appeasement/Congress Links ............................................................................................... 47
Appeasement/Cuba Lobby Links .......................................................................................... 50
Debt Ceiling ................................................................................................................................... 54
Shell ........................................................................................................................................... 55
DC UQ ........................................................................................................................................ 58
DC UQ… AT: Immigration Thumper ....................................................................................... 61
DC UQ—AT: GOP demands spending cuts ............................................................................ 62
DC Brink/TF ................................................................................................................................ 63
DC t/f ..................................................................................................................................... 65
DC Brink… AT: UQ o/w Link ................................................................................................... 66
DC I-L.......................................................................................................................................... 69
DC I-L… AT: Obama won’t negotiate ..................................................................................... 70
DC I-L: Crowd Out .................................................................................................................. 71
DC Impact .................................................................................................................................. 72
DC Impact—Economy ............................................................................................................ 73
1
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Economy—AT Default Short ............................................................................. 75
DC Impact—Economy—AT: Impact = Slow**/Impact Defense ............................................ 76
DC Impact—Economy—AT: No Default ................................................................................ 77
DC Impact—Hegemony ......................................................................................................... 78
DC Impact—Cyber Attacks Scenario...................................................................................... 81
DC Impact—Cyber Attacks ext .............................................................................................. 83
DC N/U ....................................................................................................................................... 84
AT I-L .......................................................................................................................................... 88
DC AT: Impact ............................................................................................................................ 89
Default/Impact = Inevitable .................................................................................................. 90
DC Not Key to Econ................................................................................................................ 91
AT: China Impact ................................................................................................................... 94
AT: Heg .................................................................................................................................. 95
IMMIGRATION ............................................................................................................................... 98
1NC Imm UQ .............................................................................................................................. 99
Imm UQ ................................................................................................................................... 100
Imm UQ—Brink ................................................................................................................... 102
Imm UQ—AT: Debt ceiling thumper ................................................................................... 103
Imm PC I-L Update ................................................................................................................... 104
Imm AT PC I-L Update.............................................................................................................. 105
Imm N/Unique ......................................................................................................................... 106
Focus Link ................................................................................................................................ 108
2
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
General
3
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
UQ
Obama’s pc is high – this assumes recent losses
The Hill, 7/8 Niall Stanage and Amie Parnes, “Obama loses altitude, needs solid wins,”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/309485-obama-loses-altitude-needs-solid-wins-six-months-into-second-term
But the
pendulum has not swung entirely against Obama. The economy is improving, albeit more
the recovery gains strength, it will lift Obama and the general
mood of the nation. The president’s recent speech on climate change also underlined that he is
capable of taking action without always having to deal with Congress. On that topic, he intends to use executive actions and
slowly than the president would like. If
regulations. Some independent observers argue that Obama is being hamstrung by the political dynamics of the day rather than
because of any failure of leadership on his part. “Second terms are hard and, in an era of polarization, even harder. The idea that he
was going to be able to get a very big legislative agenda through was pretty much a dream,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history
and public affairs at Princeton University. “We’re in an era where you get a kind of hatred,” Zelizer added. “Half the country votes
for the president and the other half hates him. And that’s the kind of political environment you have to govern in.” Zelizer, along
with others who spoke to The Hill, noted that one key element in Obama’s second term and in securing his historical legacy will be
the effort to bed down the legislative achievements of his first four years. No achievement is more important than the Affordable
Care Act, now more widely known as ObamaCare. This, in turn, explains why the recent decision to delay the requirement for
employers to provide healthcare for their workers was met with such consternation, even from people who support the
administration. “Look, I know it’s a complicated law with many levers and buttons, but they should have had all this figured out
before it appeared like it was ready to go,” one former administration official said. “It’s a good law, it will help so many people who
need it, but it looks sloppy.” The danger for Obama is that people’s faith both in him personally and in the more activist role of
government that he favors will decline. “The people’s trust in his leadership has fallen,” said Susan MacManus, a professor of
political science at the University of South Florida. But, she added, “people are increasingly disgusted with both political parties. For
the average American, you really don’t have anyone who seems like they can craft solutions. People are losing faith that their
government can do so much.” Republicans are, predictably, even less charitable. “You’re in a bad place when scandals far
outnumber your legislation achievements,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “The president
spent a billion dollars to get reelected and still has nothing to show for it.” Yet Obama
might benefit from fights with
the GOP. A recent Gallup poll showed just 39 percent of respondents holding a favorable view of the
Republican Party. The last major legislative victories Obama secured came in early January when the GOP stumbled during
debates over the fiscal cliff and a Hurricane Sandy relief package. Even as the president has been frustrated in recent months, his
allies take heart from their belief that he is lucky in his enemies.
PC high – gay marriage
Fox News 6/29 “Obama-Court alliance on gay marriage sets up tough road ahead for same-sex union foes,”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obama-court-alliance-on-gay-marriage-sets-up-tough-road-ahead-for-same-sex/
The Supreme Court's rulings this past week on gay marriage signal that social conservatives looking to
advance their fight against same-sex unions could be in for a rocky road ahead. In its more modest decision this week,
the court issued a narrowly tailored ruling that had the effect of reinstating gay marriage in California. But it was the decision on the
Defense of Marriage Act that provided the strongest language, and the best indication of where the court's majority stands on the
broader issue -- whenever it returns to the nation's most powerful justices for review. The majority opinion, authored by swing
justice Anthony Kennedy, was unequivocal, at times suggesting efforts to limit gay marriage are morally indefensible. The opinion
said the DOMA law, which defined marriage as between a man and woman, "humiliates" the children raised by gay couples. "Under
DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," the
majority wrote. The court's conservative justices fumed at this language, with Justice Antonin Scalia accusing his colleagues of
deeming gay marriage foes "enemies of the human race." The opinion, though, was an outright victory for Obama - who has actually endured a string of defeats before the high court this year. Perhaps the biggest blow came Tuesday when the
court stopped the Justice Department from singling out certain states for challenges to their voting laws. One report estimated the
administration lost two-thirds of the cases it had before the court this session. But on gay marriage, Obama
won big. The
court effectively backed him up on two controversial moves -- the decision not to defend the Clinton-era
marriage law in court, and the president's personal endorsement of gay marriage last year. Importantly, on the merits of the gay
marriage debate, the ruling put two of the three branches of the federal government on the same page. Going forward, the ruling
establishes an Obama-Supreme Court alliance that will loom large over future efforts to restrict same-sex marriage. On that point,
conservative justices and social conservative activists blasted the high court for the scope of its opinion. Scalia, who voiced seething
4
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
frustration, accused the court of overstepping its bounds in order to "pronounce the law." Further, he said that assertions that
DOMA would humiliate children and impose inequality will in effect stack the deck against any state trying to limit gay marriage
going forward. "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well
every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," Scalia wrote. "The result will be a judicial distortion
of our society's debate over marriage." The gay marriage debate at the state level will continue to play out, as the California
Proposition 8 decision stopped short of declaring a universal right to same-sex marriage. Thomas Reese, a senior analyst for National
Catholic Reporter, argued that the bishops in states across the country are now faced with a tough choice, depending on where they
are. "Bishops in states that have legalized gay marriage may conclude that it is politically impossible to reverse the decision in their
states and (therefore) admit defeat and move on," he wrote. "Bishops in red states where gay marriage is not legal may judge the
fight worth making because with other allies they have a good chance of maintaining the status quo. The tough call will be for
bishops in blue states where polls show growing support for gay marriage. Here they must choose between fighting gay marriage or
negotiating exemptions for the church as a price for their silence." The
court's majority opinion on the issue may
be more a sign of the times and the tenor of the national debate -- fueled by Obama's pronouncements
-- than a product of the president's appointments. The two reliably liberal justices that Obama has appointed, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan, indeed sided with the majority. But the balance of the court is the same as it's ever been, as those two replaced two
other traditionally liberal justices.
5
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
UQ—AT: Scandals
Obama is a teflon president—None of the scandals are sticking
American Thinker June 21st [2013 “Obama's Standing with the Public”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/obamas_standing_with_the_public.html#ixzz2Yf73
GL3m]
As Thomas Lifson noted on June 6, Barack Obama may be another "Teflon president."
During his first term, Obama's public approval levels matched the pattern already described. The first Gallup poll after he was
immaculated showed his approval level at 67%. By the end of his first term in office, Obama's approval rating had fallen to 52%; it
was 38% in mid-October 2011. (The final Gallup poll before the 2010 mid-term elections, in which Democrats lost heavily, showed
45% approved of Obama's job performance.)
It's Obama's approval rating during his second term on which my tale focuses. The first Gallup poll immediately after his second
immaculation found his approval rating at 52%.
Obama's approval rating over the next few months oscillated between 51% and 47%. The latest Gallup poll currently available -June 13-15 -- shows that 47% approve, 45% disapprove, and 8% don't know. Obama's average approval rating during his second
term is 49%.
The range by which Obama's approval rating -- judged by Gallup polls -- has varied this year is very
small: plus or minus five percentage points, usually less. This is barely outside "sampling error" -- i.e., the amount of variation in
poll results that is usually attributed to the vagaries of drawing a sample from a national population.
The narrow range within which Obama's approval ratings have fluctuated becomes truly amazing considering
the plethora of scandals that have plagued his administration throughout his second term. Those scandals
are well-known, so I needn't restate them.
Much as the MSM has been loath to publicize these scandals, several reputable polling organizations have polls showing they are
taking a toll on confidence and trust in the Obama administration. (Lifson drew attention to some polls, but the really damning ones
have come since June 6.)
Unless the latest CNN poll is a harbinger of new trends, very
little of the negative consequences -- where public
approval is concerned -- that usually afflict a chief executive whose administration is mired in scandal
has slopped over on Obama.
Why? Steve McCann opined on June 11 that Obama maintains high approval because of the "Limbaugh Theorem." Rush Limbaugh
theorizes that because Obama projects an image of the quintessential "outsider," trying to clean up the "mess" in Washington, he,
as McCann puts it, "remains
above the fray and is not ... blamed for any" scandals.
6
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
UQ—AT: Climate
Obama’s climate agenda won’t require political capital to persuade the
Congress—But it will strengthen him with his base
The Hill July 6th [2013 “Obama channels his inner Al Gore in climate change messaging shift”]
Now Obama’s not running for reelection, the economy is sluggish but improving, and several high-profile natural disasters –
including Hurricane Sandy – have thrust climate into the spotlight, at least periodically.
With no hope for a major bill, Obama is taking an array of steps that don’t require congressional
approval, including Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
“Speaking directly about the need to fight climate change goes hand in hand with putting a strong regulatory approach first. As a
second-term president who knows the GOP House will not legislate on carbon control issues, Obama and his people are
now
speaking mainly to and for environmentalists,” said Theda Skocpol, a Harvard government and sociology professor.
“And they have their eye on the judgment of history, rather than the judgment of the mass electorate,” adds Skocpol, who has
written widely on the politics of global warming.
Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor of communication at American University who also analyzes the climate movement, said the
White House is “fitting a message to new conditions and a new audience.”
He said that during the first term, Obama’s team was trying to get Republicans, conservative Democrats and business leaders behind
cap-and-trade legislation during a major recession.
“Now they
are looking to appeal to their activist base and moderate voters during a time of
extreme weather and dangerous climate impacts, hence a different message strategy,” he said.
Obama not yet committed political capital to climate
The Guardian June 25th [2013 “President Obama is talking big on climate change, but will he
act?”
Obama gave what might turn out to be his most substantive, not to mention controversial, address on climate
change since he took office over four years ago.
I say might turn out to be, because the devil, as they say, is in the details, and the details are not yet in. It's
not clear, for
example, how much of his diminishing stock of "political capital" Obama will be willing to spend on
aggressively pushing for the climate relief package that he outlined today. It is also not clear whether the three years plus that
remain in his soon-to-be lame duck presidency will be enough time to accomplish his ambitious goals, still less insure that they won't
be reversed by the next resident of the White House.
Obama’s not really acting on climate change
Earthjustice June 21st [2013 “Will Bold Deeds Follow Bold Words?”
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2013-june/will-bold-deeds-follow-bold-words]
And the hyped action on climate change is almost here, with the New York Times reportingthat the president may
announce as soon as next week a three-pronged plan to:
Put limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing and proposed power plants;
Boost renewable energy development on public lands; and
Mandate greater energy efficiency in buildings and equipment.
These three steps are overdue, but would have real benefits, and will require an expenditure of political capital from Mr. Obama.
But he’s hardly gone all-in on climate change of late. On some very important climate issues, the
president has instead displayed a penchant for ignoring the issue or dawdling on major decisions.
Take the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring carbon intensive, dirty tar sands oil to (but mostly through) the U.S.
Pipeline opponents argue that approving Keystone will make it impossible for the planet to avoid pushing the planet’s climate
beyond a “tipping point” which will lead to extremely dire consequences for our way of life. Even the extremist wackos at Scientific
American are sounding alarm bells. He continues to play coy, dropping hints that he’ll approve it, but fearing to upset his base.
7
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Or take coal exports. Increasing the flow of coal through the U.S. and sending it to China or Europe could make burning coal
even more attractive there and would result in billions of tons of CO2 emissions. But the Obama administration just announced a
bold policy to … completely ignore the climate impacts of coal burning made possible by coal exports. So while Obama readies a plan
to reduce climate emissions from domestic power plants, he’s burying his head in the sand on the harm from fueling power plants
overseas.
8
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
UQ—AT: Employer Mandate delay
Employer mandate delay was a win for Obama
Washington Post July 8th [2013 “Obamacare just got easier to implement, not harder”]
I asked around. Peter Orszag, who helped design Obamacare from his perch as head of the Office of Management and Budget,
disagreed with Rubin. “Delaying the employer mandate makes successful implementation more likely,
not less likely,” he told me.
Larry Levitt, vice president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, agreed. “There’s nothing about the delay in the employer
requirement that suggests Obamacare can’t still be implemented,” he said. “If anything the
delay removes some
potential administrative complexities from the plates of the implementers, and avoids the problem of
some employers reducing the hours of part-time workers to get around the requirement.”
Timothy Jost, a health law expert at Washington and Lee University’s School of Law, was even blunter. “Implementation just got
easier rather than harder,” he said.
9
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
N/UQ—Political Capital
Obama spending political capital on climate
The Guardian June 25th [2013 “Obama and climate change: fresh air”
There is no doubting that, for today, Mr Obama is not
only leveraging the power of his office. He is also
investing his political capital into the cause of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This and immigration will
be the defining domestic reforms of his second term. No cause could better merit this effort. With the US and China, the world's
biggest emitters, making tangible efforts, no bigger signal could now be sent to the rest of the world.
Employer mandate delay undermines Obama credibility on immigration reform
and debt ceiling
HotAir July 5th [2013 “ObamaCare delay undermines entire White House agenda”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/05/obamacare-delay-undermines-entire-white-houseagenda/
ObamaCare delay undermines entire White House agenda
The White House wants to spin the delay in enforcing the employer mandate of ObamaCare as evidence that they’re listening to
Americans and the business sector and attempting to be flexible on implementation. Rich Lowry isn’t buying it. In an essay
yesterday for Politico, Lowry explains that the delay comes from the incompetence of the White House more than three years after
pushing an unworkable bill through Congress, combined with its clear intention to manipulate the law for its own political benefit:
The administration can call it whatever it wants, but there is no hiding the embarrassment of a climbdown on a high-profile feature
of President Barack Obama’s signature initiative — although the administration seemed determined to do all it could to hide it. If
Bloomberg hadn’t broken the news on Tuesday, the administration was apparently planning to announce it on July 3 — only because
the day before Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve were too far off.
The reason for the delay, we’re told, is incompetence. The administration’s story is that it simply couldn’t find a way to implement
the insurance reporting requirements on employers within the time frame set out in the law. In this telling, the mandate was merely
collateral damage — it had to be put off, along with the accompanying $2,000-per-employee fine on firms with more than 50
employees who don’t offer health coverage.
This just happens to be the mandate that is causing howls of pain from businesses and creating perverse incentives for them to limit
their hiring or to hire part- rather than full-time employees. And it just happens that 2015 — the new target year for implementation
— is after a midterm election year rather during one. It must all be a lucky break. …
Obamacare was sold on two flagrantly false promises: that you could keep the insurance you have and that prices for insurance
would drop. But employers will dump significant numbers of employees onto the exchanges to save on their own health-care costs.
And the latest indication of the law’s price shock came via The Wall Street Journal this week, which reported, “healthy consumers
could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage.”
That demonstrates the underlying incompetence of the ObamaCare project, from start to finish. It promises something that it not
only couldn’t deliver, but made all but impossible from its very existence. On top of that, it created a huge top-down bureaucracy
that makes everything more costly for all participants in the system — government, providers, insurers, employers, and
consumers. That also increased the likelihood of incompetence, capriciousness, and failure, which is a large part of the reason that
the employer mandate had to be delayed … the other part being the approaching 2014 midterm election cycle, of course.
This creates a bigger headache for Obama and his administration than merely the Affordable Care Act
rollout, though. They face two big policy debates in the coming months — immigration reform in the House,
and the budget and debt ceiling in both chambers of Congress. By declaring the right to arbitrarily ignore
statutory law and defy Congress in this matter, just how is Congress supposed to negotiate with the
administration on anything else? Allahpundit blogged about the impact on border-security statutes earlier this week,
butConn Carroll and Mickey Kaus point out another component in the comprehensive bill that might be even more vulnerable to
Obama administration capriciousness:
10
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Obama’s agenda is crashing and burning
Newsday July 5th [2013 “O'Reilly: Something needs to go right for Barack Obama”
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/william-f-b-o-reilly/o-reilly-something-needs-togo-right-for-barack-obama-1.5632691
There cannot be a crisis next week," Henry Kissinger oncequipped, "my schedule is already full." It's a line President Barack Obama
ought to borrow right about now.
This hasn't been a good week for the nation's 44th president. The one before it wasn't so hot either, nor was the one before that.
Come to think of it, Obama
hasn't had a really good week since being re-elected last November.
is proving to be the train wreck Sen. Max Baucus
(D-Mont.) warned it would be; our clumsy efforts to snag catch-me-if-you-can 29-year-old Edward Snowden are
causing international incidents from Beijing to Moscow to Sucre; secularists in Egypt -- who should love America -are furious at the administration for having backed the just-overthrown democratically elected Sunni extremist regime;
the president's "redline" over the use of chemical weapons in Syria was crossed, yet the president is
It's hard to know where to begin: Implementing Obamacare
hamstrung on what he can do about it; and, noting that, Iran is moving ever closer to realizing nuclear weapons and regional
hegemony. The IRS and
budging at 7.6 percent.
reporter hacking scandals also continue to fester, and the unemployment rate isn't
Have I forgotten anything -- other than what Snowden actually revealed about the NSA, Benghazi, stalled
immigration
reform and the debt ceiling fight coming in September?
Probably.
I realize I'm piling on. But not inaccurately. President Obama's
second term is having real problems. Events are
overtaking his capacity to lead, leaving his administration desperately needing to demonstrate competence -- at
anything.
Obama is wasting his political capital—He has no persuasive power
The Washington Post June 28th [2013 “‘The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies’ by
Jonathan Alter”
Perhaps the most interesting revelations come in Chapter 10, “Missing the
Schmooze Gene,” in which Alter succeeds
better than any other writer to date in making sense of the paradox that has come to define Obama: a political figure who
loves the real work but becomes impatient with the trivial duties of modern-day political
office, where schmoozing, fundraising, “donor maintenance” and false friendships are the grist that
keep the machine churning. Alter describes the president complaining to staffers during the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis
as he dutifully calls Democratic senators whom Majority Leader Harry Reid has placed on a list for special attention. Obama
gripes: “Why do these guys need this? Are they so insecure that they can function only if they get to tell people, ‘Hey, the
president called me!’?” One senior aide explains, “It’s not in his DNA.” According to friends,
Obama would rather
exercise or spend time with Michelle and the girls than chit-chat with needy members of Congress.
George H.W. Bush and other presidents were famous for dashing off personal notes of thanks to donors and political allies, but
Obama has generally rebuffed that practice. A former top adviser explained, “He fundamentally doesn’t relate to their impact
because he wouldn’t particularly care if he got one.” Yet Obama daily pens handwritten letters to average citizens who write to
him, believing this to be a valuable use of his time. In assessing this missing “schmooze gene,” Alter concludes that Obama’s
strong desire to be a normal person is “a fine quality in an individual but problematic for a president.” He concludes that
Obama has squandered a valuable piece of political capital: “His failure to use the trappings of the
presidency more often left him with one less tool in his toolbox, one less way to leverage his authority.”
11
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
SCANDALS ARE HURTING OBAMA’S CREDIBILITY
Young, 7/03/13 (J.t. Young conservative columnist and political commentator “The Peril For
President Obama In His Negative Polling Numbers”. 7/03/2013.online.)
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/03/the-peril-for-president-obama-in-hisnegative-polling-numbers/]
Recent scandals are driving President Obama’s negative ratings perilously close to November
2010’s. This deterioration is seen not just in the overall population, but even more pronouncedly
in those with the most strongly held opinions. Without significant improvement in the variables
influencing public opinion, Obama could be in for an even tougher upcoming midterm election
than his first.
According to Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, four years ago on July 1, 2009, Obama had a nine
percentage point positive overall job approval rating (54% to 45%). Over the last four years,
problems have had a debilitating impact on Obama’s poll numbers. The economy is still weak,
unemployment still high, the budget deficit and federal spending both still well above
historical averages, and Obamacare continues unpopular. As a result, on May 11 this year – the
day three scandal stories (about the Benghazi attack, IRS targeting of political groups, and HHS
solicitation of private firms to help fund Obamacare implementation) dominated news
coverage, but had not yet shaped public opinion – Obama had just a three percentage point
positive overall job approval rating (51% to 48%).
12
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
N/UQ—Bipartisanship
Congress is gridlocked—Obama’s agenda has ground to a halt
Bloomberg News July 7th [2013 “Vilified U.S. Congress Shows Few Signs of Ending Gridlock”]
With few signs of ending the gridlock crushing public approval of Congress, U.S. lawmakers
return this week to confront a budgetary deficit, a loophole-riddled tax code and a Senate
revamping of immigration law given little chance in the House.
Their conflicts don’t stop there. Republicans in the Democratic-controlled Senate may block
President Barack Obama’s nominees to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and Labor
Department. The Republican-run House may try to revive farm legislation while seeking a
piecemeal approach to immigration instead of the broad plan the Senate passed on June 27.
They will approach all this with a 15-percent public approval rating. Even passage of an
immigration compromise wouldn’t be enough to uproot the view of a Congress that can’t
address the nation’s top challenges, said Michael Dimock, director of the nonpartisan Pew
Research Center in Washington.
“One success in a row is not a pattern,” Dimock said. “The real big-ticket items that people want
to see action on haven’t happened.”
Congressional inaction has slowed Obama’s legislative agenda to a crawl in the first year of his
second term, with the prospect of even fewer accomplishments next year before the 2014
midterm congressional elections. Still, lawmakers, not the president, are paying the price in
public opinion, according to a Gallup Poll report last month.
13
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Winners win
Action key to Obama’s agenda—Plan distracts from the scandals draining his
political capital
Washington Times June 12th [2013 “Sensational season for scandal”
That’s a big problem for Mr. Obama. The more
time that passes, the less political capital he’ll have to muscle
through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly, he could lose his chance to make his presidency truly historic. He
needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.
More practically, the media abhors a vacuum, and that’s what persistent inaction is creating. Reporters
have no choice but to fill their news holes. As a result, minor kerfuffles and governmental failures, which would
otherwise be relegated to the second tier, become front-page news for lack of competition.
Scandals blossom in the absence of a serious agenda. That’s one reason the Obama administration has been
battered by the terrible trifecta of the snatching of reporters’ telephone logs, the continuing suspicions about the attacks in
Benghazi and, most importantly, the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. The recent news that the
government has compelled telephone and Internet companies to fork over information about average citizens has also raised
concerns because of the dearth of impactful actions otherwise in the nation’s capital.
Distractions take center stage when the main acts don’t show up.
14
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Economy terminal mpx
Collapse of the economy destabilizes the entire international system—
Burrows and Harris 9- Mathew J. Burrows is a counselor in the National Intelligence Council
(NIC), the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Jennifer Harris is a
member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the
Financial Crisis”, The Washington Quarterly, April,
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 possible permutations of outcomes, each
with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, 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 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 attack 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 relationshipthat existed between the great powers
for most of the Cold War would emergenaturally 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. 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 neomercantilist 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 governmentleaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for
maintaining domestic stability and the survival oftheir regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical
implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for navalbuildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and
India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If
the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns
inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup ofregional naval capabilities could
lead to increased tensions, rivalries, andcounterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation
in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer inAsia and the Middle East, cooperation
to manage
changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in amoredogeat-dog world.What Kind of World will 2025 Be? Perhaps more than lessons, history loves patterns. Despite widespread changes in
the world today, there is little to suggest that the future will not resemble the past in several respects. The report asserts that, under
15
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
most scenarios, the trendtoward greater diffusion of authority and power that has been ongoing for acouple of decades is likely to
accelerate because of the emergence of new global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential growth in regional blocs,
and enhanced strength of non-state actors and networks. The multiplicity of actors on the international scene could either
strengthen the international system, by filling gaps left by aging post-World War II institutions, or could further fragment it and
incapacitate international cooperation. The diversity in both type and kind of actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring
over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of transnational challenges facing the international community. Because
of their growing geopolitical and economic clout, the rising powers will enjoy a high degree of freedom to customize their political
and economic policies rather than fully adopting Western norms. They are also likely to cherish their policy freedom to maneuver,
allowing others to carry the primary burden for dealing with terrorism, climate change, proliferation, energy security, and other
system maintenance issues. Existing multilateral institutions, designed for a different geopolitical order, appear too rigid and
cumbersome to undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources. Nongovernmental
organizations and philanthropic foundations, concentrating on specific issues, increasingly will populate the landscape but are
unlikely to affect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at greater
inclusiveness, to reflect the emergence of the newer powers, may make it harder for international organizations to tackle
transnational challenges. Respect for the dissenting views of member nations will continue to shape the agenda of organizations and
limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted. An
ongoing financial crisis and prolonged recession would
tilt the scales even further in the direction of a fragmented and dysfunctional international
system with a heightened risk of conflict . The report concluded that the rising BRIC powers (Brazil,
Russia, India, and China) seem averse to challenging the international system, as Germany and Japan
did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but this of course could change if their widespread hopes for
greater prosperity become frustrated and the current benefits they derive from a globalizing
world turn negative.
economic decline causes war – statistics prove
Royal 10 [Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,”
in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and
Brauer, p. 213-214]
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 (Fearon. 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 he the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it
triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.' 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
16
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
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
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
conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomber & Hess,. 2002. p. 84)
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 United States, 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 level,
This implied connection between integration. crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security
debate and deserves more attention.
17
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Cuba Links
18
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Changing Travel Restrictions Unpopular
Republicans are skeptical of contact with Cubans
Kasperowicz 12 [Pete Kasperowicz, 10/3/12 “House members blast student visit with US fugitive in Cuba” Graduated
from University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1992 http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/260003-house-members-blast-studentvisit-with-us-fugitive-in-cuba]
Three House Republicans are criticizing an educational trip to Cuba that they say led to a
meeting with a fugitive from U.S. justice last year, and have called on President Obama to
ensure that future visits do not allow these sorts of meetings to take place. Travel to Cuba is
allowed for several specific reasons, including educational activities, although they require a license
from the State Department. But House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.)
and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said a 2011 trip went to
far, and cited reports in The Daily Iowan that said a University of Iowa student was allowed
to meet with someone wanted for a crime in the United States. "We are appalled that on at
least one occasion, 'educational activities' licensed by your administration included a
meeting between American university students and a fugitive from U.S. justice," they wrote to
Obama in a letter they released Tuesday. "Accordingly, we ask that you determine how many such meetings
have occurred since the 2011 regulation changes regarding 'educational activities' and
'people-to-people' travel, and that you take all appropriate measures to ensure that licensed
travel (through travel-related transactions to Cuba) do not again facilitate meetings
between U.S. travelers and fugitives wanted by the United States." Their letter said it is unclear which
fugitive the student might have met with, but said there are several possibilities, including Joanne Chesimard, who killed a New Jersey
State Trooper, and Charles Hill, who killed a New Mexico State Trooper. It also noted that Victor Gerena fled to Cuba after robbing a
Wells Fargo armored car in Connecticut, and William Morales, the leader of the terrorist group FALN. "It is a perpetual shame that
these and so many other fugitives from U.S. justice remain at large just ninety miles from our shores," they wrote. "It is an
abomination to surviving victims, their families, and the families of those who were murdered, that an American fugitive remains free
in Cuba to apparently spout enemy propaganda to American students by virtue of a license granted by your administration. "We
sincerely hope that this is not an example of the type of 'educational activities' anticipated
by your 2011 changes which weakened the regulations enforced by the Treasury
Department, and that you will strengthen efforts to guarantee that licensed travel to Cuba
will not be used as a tool of the Castro dictatorship to advance its anti-American agenda."
Changing travel restrictions is highly controversial
Boyd 10 [Clark Boyd, a reporter for The World, July 20, 2010, “Talking Travel: Congress debates Cuba travel ban”
http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/talking-travel-congress-debates-cuba-travel-ban/]
Above, you can see a street in Trinidad, Cuba. Since 1988, Trinidad has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Of course ,
if you
are an American, spending a single US dollar in Trinidad (or anywhere else in Cuba) means
breaking American law. Apart from special circumstances, US travel to Cuba has been
effectively banned for decades now. But the US Congress is currently considering a measure
that would end the travel ban. Both sides have been arguing their case passionately. Some
say there is no reason to punish the Cuban people by depriving them of needed US tourist
dollars. Others say every dollar spent in Cuba only props up the nation’s Communist
government. In this episode of our Talking Travel podcast, Lonely Planet’s Robert Reid and Tom Hall offer their assessments on
what the lifting of the travel ban might mean for you as a tourist, and for the Cuban people.
Reducing travel restrictions is a huge controversy and unlikely to pass
without pressure
Heflin 10 [Jay Heflin writer for The Hill, July 19, 2010 “Debate Over Travel to Cuba Heats Up”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/109593-debate-over-travel-to-cuba-heats-up]
A congressional debate over whether all Americans should be able to travel freely to Cuba
appears to be heating up. The House Agriculture Committee last month approved a
19
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
measure that allows travel to Cuba and eases restrictions on U.S. commodities sold there.
The measure still needs approval from the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can come to
the floor for a vote, but Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) has indicated that he supports lifting the ban. ”I
have long believed that the nearly fifty year old travel ban to Cuba simply has not worked to help the Cuban people in any way,” he
The legislation
builds upon efforts by President Obama in 2009 to ease travel restrictions for CubanAmericans and would allow virtually all Americans to visit the island. Proponents for ending the ban
contend it will boost trade between the two countries. But not everyone is on board with opening the travel
door to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday reiterated his strong opposition to
lifting the ban. “I want to make it absolutely clear that I will oppose — and filibuster if need
be — any effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its own people
basic human rights,” he said. “The fact is the big corporate interests behind this misguided
attempt to weaken the travel ban could not care less whether the Cuban people are free,”
Menendez said. “They care only about opening a new market and increasing their bottom
line. This is about the color of money, not the desire for freedom.” Like Menendez,
opponents to the ban argue easing travel restrictions will funnel money to the Castro regime
and essentially fund activities that will provide little benefit to the Cuban people. “The very
fact that a travel bill has moved through the House Agriculture Committee makes one
wonder why American agriculture interests would even care about travel to Cuba,”
Menendez said. “One can only assume it’s about generating increased tourism dollars for
the Castro regime to buy more agricultural products.” Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of
the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which supports the travel ban, told The Hill that
lawmakers in favor of easing restrictions understand that the votes are not there and have
resorted to hiding the provision in noncontroversial bills to get it passed. “What they’re
trying to do is package it with an agricultural bill in order to get it through the back door,”
he said, adding, “They’re basically trying to maneuver this any way they possibly can
without addressing the travel issue specifically.” Last month, Claver-Carone’s organization
joined nearly 500 organizations that oppose lifting the ban and warned Congress that
nothing good would come from allowing free travel between the two countries. “[The] below
signatories believe that the freedom of Cuba will not arrive by means of the pocketbook nor
the lips of libidinous tourists, who are aseptic to the pain of the Cuban family,” their letter
states, adding, “For that reason we suggest that you maintain a firm and coherent policy of
pressure and condemnation against the tyranny of Havana.” When, or if, the Foreign Affairs Committee
said in prepared remarks. “It has not hurt the Castros as it was intended to do, but it has hurt U.S. citizens.”
will vote on the legislation remains to be seen. A Berman spokesman did not respond to a call about timing for the measure. “That’s
where the current question is at,” Claver-Carone said. ”But
it’s pretty clear that they do not have the votes on
the floor.”
Huge opposition to relaxing travel restrictions
Padgett 10 (Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to
Florida to become TIME’s Miami & Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego.
“Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?” Time Magazine. Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html)
Proponents of doing just that insist there's more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which,
after almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to
stimulate democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority of Cuban Americans now agree. Still, for
all the good
vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that Obama
has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that
matter. Critics, for example, point to his decision last year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd
ousted a leftist President, when conservative Republicans in Congress objected. Embargo supporters, including CubanAmerican Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, are already blasting Obama's plans to relax
Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the Castro regime," Menendez said this
month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend their reign of oppression." As a
20
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when
it comes time for the White House to
give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's
not worth it." But Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel
ban is about more than Cuban rights — it's also about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S.
citizens travel to Cuba is not a gift to the Castros — it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee
vote this summer. "It's time to trust our own people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument Obama usually agrees
with. But now he may need to show how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.
Even lifting the travel ban is controversial in Congress
Hanson 9 - associate director and coordinating editor for the website of the Council on Foreign Relations (Stephanie, “U.S.Cuba Relations”, 4-14, Council on Foreign Relations, http://gees.org/documentos/Documen-03412.pdf)//ID
Many recent
policy reports have recommended that the United States take some unilateral steps
to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one step in the process of
normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by the heated
congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to include provisions easing travel
and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. These provisions passed in a March 10 vote. "Whatever
we call it-- normalization, detente, rapproachement--I think it is clear that the policy process risks falling
victim to the politics of the issue," says Sweig.
Travel restrictions and export enhancement is unpopular – it is unpopular in
the House and is a large bill
WERNER, 10 – editor of the Cuba Standard (JOHANNES, “WINDOW OPENS TO LIFT CUBA TRAVEL BAN”, July 11,
2010, lexis)//eek
As Spain's foreign minister put it during a press conference in Havana on Wednesday: The United States "will have to take note."
The "Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act," which would lift travel
restrictions for all Americans and ease agricultural sales to Cuba, is the closest any major
embargo-easing bill has ever come to being signed into law. It enjoys a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S.
Senate, and the president has not indicated he would veto it should the bill make it to his desk.
But there's a hangup in the House of Representatives.
Supporters said two weeks ago they were 13 votes short should it come to a floor vote in the House. So proponents
and
opponents of the bill are using all they have to pull fence-sitters on their side.
21
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Oil Investment Unpopular
Strong congressional opposition to US investment in Cuban oil
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 (Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin
American Affairs for the Congressional Research Service. “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development:
Background and U.S. Policy Considerations” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf)
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
The plan is the worst nightmare for the Cuba lobby
Voss 11-staff writer for the BBC News in Havana
(Michael, “Cuban oil project fuels US anxieties” BBC News, November 15, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america15737573)//HA
Oil windfall?
The anti-Castro groups
just for safety reasons.
want the administration to take action to halt the drilling altogether and not
A major oil find would
make this communist-run Caribbean island financially independent for the first
time since the revolution in 1959.
For more than half a century Cuba has been dependent on the largesse of its ideological allies. First it was
subsidised by the Soviet Union, then more recently Venezuela and, to a lesser extent, China.
Cuba has long produced some oil from a series of small onshore and coastal deposits.
Cuba already has a small domestic oil industry
Tourists going from Havana to the beach resort of Varadero drive past several kilometres of nodding donkeys and the occasional
Chinese or Canadian drilling rig.
Cuba currently produces about 53,000 barrels of oil a day but still needs to import about 100,000 barrels, mainly from Venezuela.
Its deep territorial waters, though, lie on the same geological strata as oil rich Mexico and the US Gulf.
Estimates on just how much offshore oil Cuba is sitting on vary. A US Geological Survey estimate suggests 4.6bn barrels, the Cubans
say 20bn.
Even the most conservative estimate would make Cuba a net oil exporter. A large find would
provide untold riches.
It is one of the US-based anti-Castro lobby's worst nightmares .
"The decaying Cuban regime is desperately reaching out for an economic lifeline, and it
appears to have found a willing partner in Repsol to come to its rescue," Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Cuban-born
Republican and Chairwoman of the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement recently.
The Florida Congresswoman and a group of 33 other legislators, both Republican and Democrat, wrote to Repsol warning
the
company that the drilling could subject the company to "criminal and civil liability in US
courts".
Repsol responded saying that its exploratory wells complied with all current US legislation covering the embargo as well as all safety
regulations.
If oil exploration goes well, Cuba could meet its energy needs and become a net exporter
It has also agreed to allow US officials to conduct a safety inspection of the Chinese rig before it enters Cuban waters.
Under the embargo it is limited to just 10% American technology.
22
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
The rig was fitted in Singapore and the one piece of US equipment which was installed was the blow-out preventer.
It was the failure of BP's blow-out preventer which was at the heart of that disaster.
According to Lee Hunt, the Scarabeo 9 is a state of the art deep-water rig and there are six similar platforms built at the same Chinese
shipyard currently operating in US waters.
For the moment environmental concerns appear to be taking precedence over politics.
The government will take up Repsol's offer to inspect Scarabeo 9 and a limited number of licences have been issued to US clean-up
operators to enter Cuban waters and assist in the event of a spill.
But the
arguments are far from over as environmentalists are pushing for greater cooperation while Cuban-American groups are looking at ways to place legal and legislative
hurdles in the way.
The plan will be spun by the Cuba lobby as giving Castro a new lease on life –
they see it as the equivalent of ending the embargo
Ravsberg 11-staff writer for Havana Times
(Fernando, “Cuba-Repsol Oil Operation Threatened” Havana Times, December 20, 2011,
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=58002)//HA
The
possibility of Cuba becoming an oil-producing country is worrying politicians in the US.
They have therefore begun putting pressure on those firms operating in Cuban waters, particularly
the Spanish corporation Repsol, which will be the first to start drilling.
While Washington says it’s afraid of an oil spill, Cuban-American lawmakers are
complaining that oil finds could strengthen the Castro government, and US oil companies are alarmed
by the idea of drilling competition 60 miles off their shores.
For years there was speculation that Cuban waters could possess deep underwater oil reserves and, paradoxically, the confirmation of
this came from the US.
A study carried out in 2004 by the US Geological Service claimed that the Gulf area belonging to Cuba had oil reserves estimated at
4.6 billion barrels, in addition to 2.8 billion cubic meters of natural gas and 900 million barrels of liquid natural gas.
Cuban sources now claim there are actually five times more than what the Americans identified.
Cuba parceled its 112,000 square kilometers of offshore Gulf waters into 59 blocks and signed exploration contracts with various oil
companies, which will take a percentage of any oil discovered or lose their investment if they fail to find exploitable deposits.
The investments are huge, while exploration requires working at a depth of 1,700 meters with sophisticated and expensive technology.
An aggravating factor is that to avoid a legal problem with the United States, no oil rig can have more than 10 percent of its
components made in the USA, according stipulations in Washington’s 50-year economic embargo against Cuba.
Repsol is the leading company working in the area and will start drilling early next month from its Scarabeo 9 platform, manufactured
especially for Cuba taking into account the constraints imposed by the US.
Other companies are waiting in line to use that platform in the exploration of their own blocks. Operating costs are so high that for oil
companies to invest, they must have prior evidence that they will find exploitable reserves.
Cuban-American representatives in the US Congress rapidly began pressuring Repsol and
other oil companies. Thirty-four federal lawmakers, led by Miami Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, demanded
that the project be halted.
They claimed that discoveries would only serve to “finance the repressive apparatus,” arguing that the Cuban
government is looking for an “economic lifeline” while accusing Repsol of being a “partner
ready to rescue it.”
Since this political offensive didn’t work, they returned to the attack by questioning the safety of the operation, given the catastrophe
impact an oil spill would have on the coast of Florida.
In response, a group of US experts (led by William Reilly, the co-chair of the commission investigating last year’s BP spill in the
Gulf) was invited to the island this past September. He was accompanied by Daniel Whittle, from the Environmental Defense Fund;
and Lee Hunt, from the International Association of Drilling Contractors. The three were “optimistic,” stressing the willingness of
Cuban experts to cooperate with the US and recognizing Repsol’s experience in this kind of operation.
Michael Bromwich, the head of the US Office of Environmental Safety, assured that “the exploration plan by Repsol-YPF is sensitive
to the political and environmental issues of the US, which wants to protect the Florida coast from any oil spill while complying with
the embargo against Cuba.”
He added that Washington is preparing licenses [to get around the blockade] so that US companies can “deploy equipment for
collecting oil, dispersants, pumps and other equipment and supplies needed to minimize environmental damage in the event of a spill.”
As the blockade seeks to “weaken Cuba’s economy,” the discovery of reserves would
neutralize that attempt.
Therefore, Cuban-American politicians are not giving up on their efforts. They presented a bill that would
punish foreign oil firms if there were a spill.
Senator Bob Menendez, one of the bill’s sponsors, explained the purpose of this, saying, “Companies that want to drill in Cuban
waters will have to think twice if they know they’ll be held responsible for any damage to the Florida Keys.”
23
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
The Cuba lobby demands crack downs on Cuban oil development – they
think it violates the embargo
Lobe 11- Washington bureau chief for Inter press services
(Jim, “Cuba-Repsol Rig Upsets Anti-Castroites” Havana Times, November 4, 2011, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=54907)//HA
“We
are extremely concerned over what seems to be a lack of a coordinated effort by the Administration
to prevent a State Sponsor of Terrorism, just 90 miles form our shores, from engaging in risky deep
sea oil drilling projects that will harm U.S. interests as well as extend another economic lifeline
to the Cuban regime,” complained four Cuban-American congressmen in a letter to Obama earlier this week.
They demanded, among other things, that the administration investigate whether any part of the
Scarabeo has been made with U.S.- origin parts in violation of the 49-year-old U.S. trade embargo, and
whether Obama’s own Interior Department may itself be violating the law by providing Repsol
with technical advice.
“The administration needs to provide answers and change course,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, one
of the four lawmakers and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who in September also helped persuade 35 of her House
colleagues to sign a letter to Repsol’s chairman urging
him to immediately halt the company’s plans to
drill.
The signatories included most lawmakers from Florida whose Gulf coast would almost
certainly be affected by any spill originating in the drilling area.
24
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Oil Spill Cooperation Unpopular
Oil spill cooperation with Cuba is INCREDIBLY unpopular and leads to gridlock in Washington
Bert and Clayton 12 (Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton,
Fellow for Energy and National Security“Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 15”
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515 AJ)
An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however,
that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly
experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil
companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies.
Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief
drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental
damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts
to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and
encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to
improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S.
federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory.
Seeking safety technology licenses for oil spills causes Congressional backlash
Lobe 11- Washington bureau chief for Inter press services
(Jim, “Cuba-Repsol Rig Upsets Anti-Castroites” Havana Times, November 4, 2011, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=54907)//HA
“First and foremost, the
administration should take steps now to ensure that U.S.-based companies
are pre-authorised to assist in preventing and containing major oil spills in Cuban waters,” he
testified.
“It’s critical to get U.S. companies into the act because of their technology, know-how, and proximity,” agreed Jake Colvin, vice
president of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), a business lobby that represents major multi-national corporations here.
“While the administration has the authority to license a rapid response by those companies in the event of an accident, it hasn’t yet
authorised it.”
“The reason they’re not issuing a general license is entirely political ,” according to Sarah Stephen, the
director of the Washington-based Center for Democracy in the Americas, which has lobbied against the embargo and last summer
published a booklet on Cuba’s drilling plans.
“The
administration clearly understands the urgency here, but it’s worried about the
pressure from Congress, especially from the Floridians,” she said.
25
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
IFI inclusion link
Pursuing IFI membership is massively unpopular – Cuban-American lobby
bullies Congress even if the executive acts
Feinberg 11 - professor of international political economy at UC San Diego, nonresident senior fellow with the Latin America
Initiative at Brookings (Richard E., “Reaching Out: Cuba’s New Economy and the International Response”, November, Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/11/18%20cuba%20feinberg/1118_cuba_feinberg.pdf)//ID
What, then, accounts for the anomaly of the empty Cuban seat at these international
organizations? The principal answer is as simple as it is disturbing: a relatively small but well placed and
hard-charging community of Cuban-American exiles . As will be explained toward the end of this section, U
.S . legislation mandates the U .S . executive director in the IFIs to oppose the admission of
Cuba, and to withhold U .S . payments to the IFIs should they approve assistance to Cuba
over U .S . opposition . Moreover, influential congressional representatives stand ready to hold
legislation or personnel confirmations of interest to the executive branch hostage to their
Cuba-related concerns . To a remarkable degree, the unyielding Cuban-American lobby has bullied
the U .S . executive branch and the IFI leadership into submission, even as many of their economists
and staff understand that excluding Cuba—or any country, for that matter—on political grounds runs
counter to U .S . strategic interests and core IFI norms . In U .S . debates on Cuba policy, there is no
equally insistent counter-lobby to balance the hard-line pro-sanctions faction .
26
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Terror list link
Executive delisting Cuba diverts focus from immigration reform
Thale and Anderson, 13 – Program director and WOLA and a Senior Associate for Cuba at the Latin America
Working Group (Geoff and Mavis, “Cuba, the Terrorism Report, and the Terrorist List”, 24 May 2013,
http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_the_terrorism_report_and_the_terrorist_list)//eek
Does this mean that the administration is no longer thinking about delisting Cuba? Should those of us who support a more rational
relationship between the United States and Cuba throw up our hands in despair? No and no. The
President can remove
Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism at any time. In fact, few observers expected
Cuba to be removed from the terrorist list this spring anyway, given the major legislative
battles on immigration and gun violence prevention.
Delisting links – it is perceived and disliked
Thale and Anderson, 13 – Program director and WOLA and a Senior Associate for Cuba at the Latin America
Working Group (Geoff and Mavis, “Cuba, the Terrorism Report, and the Terrorist List”, 24 May 2013,
http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_the_terrorism_report_and_the_terrorist_list)//eek
Importantly, the State
Department will have many opportunities over the course of the year to
take the sensible step of removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. In fact, it
is because of this possibility that opponents of change are working so hard to convince the
administration to sit on its hands. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio
Sires recently sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking him to keep Cuba on the
list.
Removing Cuba from the terrorist list triggers hardline opposition
Ryan 13- former US diplomat
(Patrick, “Former U.S. diplomat Patrick Ryan: Time to drop Cuba from terror list” The Hill, 4/30/13, http://thehill.com/blogs/globalaffairs/guest-commentary/296867-former-us-diplomat-patrick-ryan-)//HA
As a former U.S. diplomat who authored the 2007-09 Country Reports on Terrorism for Nigeria and visited Cuba many times on
official business, I believe keeping
Cuba on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism is absurd and
highly political, particularly given its glaring omissions.
Where is North Korea, which has conducted small-scale attacks against the South over the past several years — and recently
threatened a nuclear first strike against the United States? Despite the fact that Cuba maintains a capable espionage network, no
credible intelligence sources claim it is currently a security threat to us. Cuba’s listing is about
Florida electoral politics.
A
small minority of Cuban-American politicians has been dictating U.S. foreign policy
toward one of our most geographically proximate neighbors for too long — and using the
highly questionable terrorist listing to justify continuation of the Cold War-era embargo.
Ironically, these members of Congress support Cubans’ ability freedom to travel to the United
States but not Americans’ freedom to travel to Cuba, and use the terrorist justification for
this. If we truly want to undermine the Castro regime, the best way would be to end the listing,
including the embargo and travel ban, and flood Cuba with American visitors, as well as our products and
democratic ideas. Ending the restrictions would also demonstrably help the Cuban people — a stated aim of these same
politicians.
27
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Mexico Links
28
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Mexico Generic 1NC
Economic engagement with Mexico’s politically divisive
Wilson ‘13
Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International.
Center for Scholars (Christopher E., January, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic
Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,”
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relation
s.pdf)
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America
and bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make: sit back
and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust
agenda to improve the competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given
that job creation and economic
growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but
a limited understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico
economic relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to
support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.
29
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Ext. Mexico Engagement Link
NAFTA proves the link – trade gets linked to a broader fights about jobs
Villarreal and Fergusson ‘13
Specialists in International Trade and Finance (M. Angeles, Ian F., 02/21,
“NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf)
NAFTA was controversial when first proposed , mostly because it was the first FTA
involving two wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate
surrounding the agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement
would help generate thousands of jobs and reduce income disparit y in the region, while
opponents warned that the agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as
companies moved production to Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses
feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy
appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico account for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.
However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their
economies.
Pushing expanded free trade measures with Mexico angers democrats
Perez-Rocha 12
[Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies
in Washington D.C, “Don't Expand NAFTA”, July 26th, 2012,
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta]
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for the FTAA. So it
is not surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that former attempt to expand
the neoliberal model throughout the Western hemisphere. The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama
administration make its case. In their statement, North
American unions “call on our governments to work
with us to include in the TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protections, a healthy
environment, safe food and products, and the ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises.”
But the truth is that only big business is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having
exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text. A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out
of 191)
have expressed that they are “troubled that important policy decisions are being
made without full input from Congress .” They have written to U.S. Trade Representative
Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper consultations with members
of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to
ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come."
also challenge “the lack of transparency of the treaty
negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the
far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states, is of
In their letter, the representatives
grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the
negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the TPP, under
humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead of expanding it
through the TPP we must learn from NAFTA’s shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions and producers
in the three member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American union statement
explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the
investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada
and Mexico. The
unions’ statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing
trinational opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.
30
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Mexico Democracy Assistance Link
The plan causes a fight because it’s linked to Merida
Seelke ‘13
[Clare Ribando Seelke - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Mexico and
the 112th Congress”, January 29th, 2013,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf]
There have been ongoing concerns about the human rights records of Mexico’s federal,
state, and municipal police. For the past several years, State Department’s human rights reports covering
Mexico have cited credible reports of police involvement in extrajudicial killings, kidnappings
for ransom, and torture.83 While abuses are most common at the municipal and state level, where corruption and police
collaboration with criminal groups often occurs, federal forces—including the Federal Police—have also committed
serious abuses. Individuals are most vulnerable to police abuses after they have been arbitrarily detained and before they are
transferred to the custody of prosecutors, or while they are being held in preventive detention. Some 43% of Mexican inmates are
reportedly in pre-trial detention.84 The Calderón government sought to combat police corruption and human rights abuses through
increased vetting of federal forces; the creation of a national police registry to prevent corrupt police from being re-hired; the use of
internal affairs units; and the provision of human rights training. In 2012, the government also announced new protocols on the use of
force and how detentions are to be handled that were designed to prevent abuses. A January 2009 public security law codified vetting
requirements and professional standards for state police to be met by 2013, but progress toward meeting those standards has been
uneven. With a few exceptions, efforts to reform municipal police forces have lagged behind. There has
also been increasing concern that the Mexican military, which is less accountable to civilian authorities than the police, is committing
more human rights abuses since it is has been tasked with carrying out public security functions. A November 2011 Human Rights
Watch (HRW) report maintains that cases of torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings have increased significantly in
states where federal authorities have been deployed to fight organized crime.85 According to Mexico’s Human Rights Commission
(CNDH), the number of complaints of human rights abuses by Mexico’s National Defense Secretariat (SEDENA) increased from 182
in 2006 to a peak of 1800 in 2009 before falling slightly to 1,695 in 2011. The Trans-Border Institute has found that the number of
abuses by SEDENA forces that have been investigated and documented by CNDH has also declined since 2008-2009, particularly in
areas where large-scale deployments have been scaled back.86 In contrast, complaints of abuses against the Secretariat of the Navy
(SEMAR) reported to CNDH increased by 150% from 2010 to 2011 as its forces became more heavily involved in anti-DTO
efforts.87 While troubling, only a small percentage of those allegations have resulted in the CNDH issuing recommendations for
corrective action to SEDENA or SEMAR, which those agencies say they have largely accepted and acted upon.88 A June 2011
constitutional amendment gave CNDH the authority to force entities that refuse to respond to its recommendations to appear before
the Mexican Congress. In addition to expressing concerns about current human rights abuses, Mexican and international human rights
groups have criticized the Mexican government for failing to hold military and police
officials accountable for past abuses .89 In addition to taking steps to reform the police and judiciary, the Calderón
government took some steps to comply with rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) that cases of military
abuses against civilians should be tried in civilian courts. While a few dozen cases90 were transferred to civilian jurisdiction and
former President Calderón asked SEDENA and SEMAR to work with the Attorney General to accelerate transfers, most cases were
still processed in the military justice system.91 Military prosecutors have opened thousands of investigations into allegations of human
rights abuses as a result of complaints filed with the CNDH, with few having resulted in convictions.92 A reform of Article 57 of the
military justice code was submitted by then-President Calderón in October 2010 mandating that at least certain human rights
violations be investigated and prosecuted in civilian courts. A more comprehensive proposal that required that all cases of alleged
military human rights violations be transferred to the civilian justice system was approved by the Mexican Senate’s Justice
Commission in April 2012; however, the bill was subsequently blocked from coming to a vote. In September 2012, another proposal
to reform Article 57 was presented in the Mexican Senate, but not enacted. Enacting a reform of Article 57 of the military justice code
may become more urgent now for the Peña Nieto Administration now that Mexico’s Supreme Court is in the process of establishing
binding legal precedent for determining jurisdiction in cases involving alleged military human rights violations against civilians.
Human rights defenders and journalists have been particularly vulnerable to abuses by organized crime, sometimes acting in collusion
with corrupt government authorities. Recently, several prominent human rights defenders have been harassed, attacked, and even
killed, including members of the high-profile Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity led by Javier Sicilia. Increasing
violent crimes targeting journalists, combined with high levels of impunity for the
perpetrators of those crimes, have made Mexico the most dangerous country in the Western
Hemisphere for journalists. Crimes against journalists range from harassment, to extortion, to kidnapping and murder. The
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented 58 murders of journalists and at least 10 cases of journalists disappearing in
Mexico since 2000. Threats from organized crime groups have made journalists and editors fearful of covering crime-related stories,
and in some areas coverage of the DTOs’ activities have been shut down.93 The Calderón government and the Mexican Congress
took some steps to better protect human rights defenders and journalists, but many human rights organizations have called upon the
Peña Nieto Administration to do more. The Calderón government established a special prosecutor within the Attorney General’s
Office to attend to crimes against freedom of expression and created mechanisms to provide increased protection for journalists and
31
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
human rights defenders. Those mechanisms have yet to be effectively implemented. The Mexican Congress enacted a law to make
crimes against journalists a federal offense and a law to require the federal government to provide protection to journalists and human
rights defenders who are “at risk” of being victimized and to their families. Another law approved by the Congress in 2012, but not
promulgated by the Calderón government, would require the state to track victims of organized crime and provide assistance to
victims and their families. Human rights organizations expressed satisfaction after President Peña Nieto signed that law, commonly
referred to as the “victims’ law,” in January 2013, but said that the real test of his government’s commitment to human rights will be
in how that and other laws are implemented. Human Rights Conditions on U.S. Assistance to Mexico In 2008, Congress debated
whether human rights conditions should be placed on Mérida assistance beyond the requirements in §620J of the Foreign Assistance
Act (FAA) of 1961. That section was re-designated as §620M and amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L.
112-74). It states that an individual or unit of a foreign country’s security forces is prohibited from receiving assistance if the Secretary
of State receives “credible evidence” that an individual or unit has committed “a gross violation of human rights.” The FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252), which provided the first tranche of Mérida funding, had less stringent human rights
conditions than had been proposed earlier, largely due to Mexico’s concerns that some of the conditions would violate its national
sovereignty. The conditions required that 15% of INCLE and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance be withheld until the
Secretary of State reports in writing that Mexico is taking action in four human rights areas: 1. improving transparency and
accountability of federal police forces; 2. establishing a mechanism for regular consultations among relevant Mexican government
authorities, Mexican human rights organizations, and other relevant Mexican civil society organizations, to make consultations
concerning implementation of the Mérida Initiative in accordance with Mexican and international law; 3. ensuring that civilian
prosecutors and judicial authorities are investigating and prosecuting, in accordance with Mexican and international law, members of
the federal police and military forces who have been credibly alleged to have committed violations of human rights, and the federal
police and military forces are fully cooperating with the investigations; and 4. enforcing the prohibition, in accordance with Mexican
and international law, on the use of testimony obtained through torture or other ill-treatment. Similar human rights conditions were
included in FY2009-FY2011 appropriations measures that funded the Mérida Initiative.95 However, the first two conditions are not
included in the 15% withholding requirement in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74). As previously
mentioned, Congress
has yet to pass a final FY2013 appropriations measure. It remains to be
seen whether an omnibus bill would include the conditions on aid to Mexico that are in the
Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2013 foreign operations ppropriations
measure S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172). Those conditions would retain the condition related to torture, as well as require the State
Department to report that Mexico has reformed its military justice code and is requiring police and military officials to immediately
transfer detainees to civilian judicial authorities. Thus far, the State Department has submitted three 15% progress reports on Mexico
to congressional appropriators (in August 2009, September 2010, and August 2012) that have met the statutory requirements for
FY2008-FY2012 Mérida funds that had been on hold to be released. Nevertheless, the State Department
has twice elected to
hold back some funding pending further progress in key areas of concern. In the September 2010
report, for example, the State Department elected to hold back $26 million in FY2010 supplemental funds as a matter
of policy until further progress was made in the areas of transparency and combating
impunity.96 Those funds were not obligated until the fall of 2011. In the August 2012 report, the State Department
again decided to hold back all of the FY2012 funding that would have been subject to the conditions (roughly
$18 million) as a matter of policy until it can work with Mexican authorities to determine steps to
address key human rights challenges. Those include: improving the ability of Mexico’s civilian institutions to
investigate and prosecute cases of human rights abuses; enhancing enforcement of prohibitions against torture and other mistreatment;
and strengthening protection for human rights defenders.97
32
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
NAFTA Revisions Unpopular
Democrats are strongly opposed to NAFTA revisions – labor concerns
Perez-Rocha and Trew 12 (Stuart Trew is the trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians.Manuel Pérez Rocha
is a Mexican national and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. They are both contributors to
Foreign Policy In Focus. “Don't Expand NAFTA” July 26, 2012. Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta)
A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are
“troubled that important policy decisions are being made without full input from
Congress.” They have written to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper
consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues
involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for
years to come." In their letter, the
representatives also challenge “the lack of transparency of the
treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states
on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding
on our states, is of grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack
of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision
to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead
of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTA’s shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with
unions and producers in the three member countries. It
is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA,
which as the North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the
expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the
investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our
democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions’ statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational
opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.
33
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Human Trafficking Aid Unpopular
Human trafficking aid is ineffective and unpopular in congress
Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando Seelke; Specialist in Latin American Affairs; January 29, 2013; “Mexico and the 112th Congress”;
Congressional Research Service; http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KDUB
Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien smuggling and
human trafficking receive some degree of U.S. financial support. One way to increase Mexico's
role in migration enforcement may be for Congress to consider additional investments in these
programs. The United States also could include migration control as an explicit priority within
other existing programs, such as the Mérida Initiative. On the other hand, Mexico is already among the
largest recipients of U.S. anti-TIP assistance in the Western Hemisphere, and some Members of
Congress may be reluctant to invest more resources in such programs.
Many
34
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Offshore Drilling Unpopular
Offshore drilling cooperation with Mexico is contentious
Geman 6/25 (Ben Geman 6/25/13; “White House ‘cannot support’ House US-Mexico drilling bill”; The Hill;
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307769-white-house-cannot-support-house-us-mexico-drilling-bill)//KDUB
The White House said Tuesday that it opposes House legislation to implement a 2012
administration pact with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation, citing “unnecessary,
extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill.” The formal statement of administration policy backs the
“goal” of the bill that’s coming to the House floor Wednesday to implement the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons
Agreement. But it cites provisions in the GOP-crafted bill that exempts oil companies operating
under the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to disclose their
payments to foreign governments. “As a practical matter, this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure
of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments in accordance with a
transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency and
accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said. The
White House statement, however, stops short of a veto threat despite saying it "cannot support" the measure. It says the
administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill .
35
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Border Infrastructure Politics Links
Plan is unpopular – bureaucracy causes backlash
Dallas Morning News July 2008 “EDITORIAL: NADBank deserves U.S. funding” ProQuest
Not everyone agrees about the merits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but it's hard to argue that the
North
American Development Bank, created under NAFTA, hasn't brought overwhelmingly positive
changes to the border region. NADBank's good work needs to continue, and that won't
happen if Congress continues to whittle down its funding.¶ Before NAFTA, the border region was an
environmental disaster zone. Mexican border towns dumped millions of gallons of raw sewage into area rivers. Tap water was
undrinkable. Pollution and industrial waste abounded. It's better now, but much cleanup work remains to be done.¶ Through grants
and low-interest loans, NADBank has sparked more than $1.4 billion in public infrastructure projects on both sides of the border. This
is not sexy stuff. Much of it involves sewage-treatment plants, landfill sites, water projects and road work. NADBank officials
estimate that such projects have halted the dumping of about 300 million gallons per day of sewage into the Rio Grande and other
waterways.¶ Washington's
skepticism about NADBank has grown in recent years, partly
because the bank has been slow to disburse its funds. Bank officials say the backlog was
caused by the two-year average lead time needed to study, plan and approve each project
before it could be funded. Steps are under way to streamline its processes, bolster accountability and reduce backlogs.¶ As
the fervor over NAFTA has died down, so has Capitol Hill's enthusiasm for funding NADBank. Initial U.S. appropriations of nearly
$100 million a year have steadily been slashed since NAFTA took effect 14 years ago. The requested 2009 appropriation is only $10
million.¶ Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn have been enthusiastic supporters of NADBank in the past. A renewed
funding push by them and other border-state legislators would help ensure that the bank's important work stays on track in the future.
36
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Border Security Link
Politics Link to the aff
Allen, 12 Senior Fellow at CFR (Edward, CATO Journal, “Immigration and Border Control”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-8.pdf )
It may be reasonable to set a higher goal for border apprehensions, so long as Congress is
prepared to appropriate the necessary funds, though the current budget environment is one in
which extra dollars are certain to be scarce. But no serious discussion of border enforcement is possible until
reasonable targets can be set by political leaders.
37
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Temporary Work Programs Link
Largest possible link
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 11 (“Steps to a 21st Century U.S.-Mexico Border”
http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/2011_us_mexico_report.pdf )
To alleviate the pressure on the border and to ensure the safety of our country, we must enact comprehensive
immigration
reform that includes a streamlined temporary worker program. There is, arguably, no higher
contested issue—politically—than that of a temporary worker program. This issue has many
facets and its complexity demands that it be combined with a full-scale, comprehensive change to
America’s immigration system. The U.S. Chamber has and will continue to call for comprehensive immigration reform to secure our
borders and security and create an immigration system that works toward the goals of economic growth and physical security
38
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
NAIF Links
Investment and immigration extremely divisive
Human Development Report, 4 (“Globalization and cultural choice”, 2004,
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_chapter_5.pdf)//KG
The fears come to a head over investment, trade and migration policies . Indian activists protest the
patenting of the neem tree by foreign pharmaceutical companies. Anti-globalization movements protest treating cultural goods the
same as any other commodity in global trade and investment agreements. Groups
in Western Europe oppose the
entry of foreign workers and their families. What these protesters have in common is the fear of losing their
cultural identity, and each contentious issue has sparked widespread political mobilization. How should governments respond? This
chapter argues that policies that regulate the advance of economic globalization—the movements of people, capital, goods and ideas—
must promote, rather than quash, cultural freedoms. It looks at three policy challenges that are among the most divisive in today’s
public debates: • Indigenous people, extractive industries and traditional knowledge. Controversy rages over the importance of
extractive industries for national economic growth and the socio-economic and cultural exclusion and dislocation of indigenous people
that often accompany mining activities. Indigenous people’s traditional knowledge is recognized by the Convention on Biological
Diversity but not by the global intellectual property rights regime as embodied in the World Intellectual Property Organization and the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. • Trade in cultural goods. International trade and investment
negotiations have been divided over the question of a “cultural exception” for films and audiovisual goods, which would permit them
to be treated differently from other goods. • Immigration. Managing
the inflow and integration of foreign
migrants requires responding to anti-immigrant groups, who argue that the national
culture is threatened, and to migrant groups, who demand respect for their ways of life.
The extreme positions in these debates often provoke regressive responses that are nationalistic,
xenophobic and conservative: close the country off from all outside influences and preserve tradition. That defence of national culture
comes at great costs to development and to human choice. This report argues that these extreme positions are not the way to protect
local cultures and identities. There need not be a choice between protecting local identities and adopting open policies to global flows
of migrants, foreign films and knowledge and capital. The challenge for countries around the world is to design countryspecific
policies that widen choices rather than narrow them by supporting and protecting national identities while also keeping borders open.
Plan is contentious from connection to immigration
Schwalbe, 10 - Honors B.A., International Relations from the University of Delaware (Kaleigh, “Mexican Immigration to the
United States”, University of Delaware, Spring 2010,
http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/5521/Schwalbe,%20Kaleigh.pdf?sequence=1)//KG
Few issues in modern United States politics have generated the same amount of spark or
received as much attention as the Mexican immigration movement to the United States.
Fading in and out of the news media, immigration has always been a contentious issue . Even now, with the
recent uproar over the Arizona Immigration Law signed in April 2010, thousands voice their opinions in protests across the nation.
Even more than demonstrating the passion immigration issues create, the recent reaction to the Arizona Immigration Law shows that
there is a weakness in the United States immigration policy, one that has yet to be fully solved and addressed. Hopefully the signing
of this law will again reopen the immigration debate in Congress, and furthermore that the result of this debate will be
a new immigration policy, one which will advance both the United States and Mexico towards future progress and prosperity.
Mexican immigration to the United States is one of the longest running labor migration movements in the world, yet why is it now
such a contentious issue (Sotelo 52)? Recent
changes in the movement have given it much more
attention in today‟s news media. When Mexicans first immigrated to the United States, it was
primarily to the
American southwest, and their work was limited to certain industries like agriculture, mining, and railroad construction. Today we are
now witnessing new destinations of this old immigration movement (Sotelo 55). Mexicans immigrants have now found jobs in many
diverse sectors of the economy, and have settled and found homes in many new corners of the United States. This is largely in part to
the 2 expansion of social networks, which immigration relies upon. This is also in part to an expansion of the US economy, and with
it an increase in labor demands from employers. When developing countries are close to countries with booming economies,
migration is the inevitable result (LeMay 107).
Foreign investment is always partisan – models prove
Pinto and Pinto, 7 - Department of Economics, West Virginia University AND Department of Political Science,
Columbia University (Santiago M. and Pablo M, “The Politics of Investment: Partisan Governments, Wages and Employment”,
March 2007, http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/Pinto_Paper2.pdf)//KG
39
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
The assumption that governments have partisan
(and electoral)
incentives in regulating
economic activity is ubiquitous in the literature on politics and macro-economic performance. Hibbs
(1977, 1992), Tufte (1978), Esping-Andersen (1990), Goldthorpe (1984), among others, are precursors in this tradition.11 We adopt
the same approach and assume that parties
of the left will try to advance the political agenda of owners
of labor, while parties of the right are identified with the interests of domestic business
owners. Moreover, we argue that this argument follows because foreign investment is likely to affect
differently the return to domestic factors of production, potentially creating a distributive cleavage in the
regulation of FDI. This argument is consistent with that in literature on the link between
investment and trade politics.12 In their analysis of quid-pro-quo FDI, Bhagwati et al. argue that among those actors
supporting the position of multinationals we usually find business groups brought into joint-ventures with foreign investors, labor
unions that experience employment gains, and local communities that benefit from location of the MNC facility.13 Grossman &
Helpman (1996) refer to this distributive rationale in their analysis of trade policy in the presence of multinationals: “When policy
toward DFI is endogenous, the politics may generate a con- flict between domestic firms wanting investment restrictions and domestic
workers with industry-specific skills wanting free entry by multinationals.” (Grossman and Helpman, 1996, pp. 220.) We
explicitly model the distributive consequences of foreign investment, as driving the
preferences of domestic actors on the demand side of politics. We also map those preferences onto the
partisan disposition of governments. We predict that left-leaning governments -those governments that cater
to labor- are more likely to provide better investment conditions to lure foreign investment
into those sectors where labor is a complement of FDI. Furthermore, we argue that governments that defend the
interests of the right-leaning party -the party identified with domestic business owners- will offer
a more favorable investment environment to foreign investors that are likely to raise the
return to domestic capital. At the same time, they will limit the inflow of foreign capital to those sectors where foreign
investment is more likely to increase the demand for labor, compete down the rents that would have otherwise accrued to domestic
business owners, thus reducing the return they receive from their economic activity.14 In a strategic environment foreign investors
anticipate and react to government’s policy by investing in a country and sector when the host government is of the “right” type.
US investment in Mexico controversial
McAllister, 13 – journalist for Reuters (Edward, “For Obama and Pena Nieto, a delicate 'first dance' around energy”,
Reuters, 5-2-13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/02/us-energy-usa-mexico-idUSBRE9410GN20130502)//KG
conversation between President Barack Obama and his newly elected Mexican counterpart
Enrique Pena Nieto turns to the controversial topic of energy during their meeting this week, both are apt
to step carefully. The two countries have abruptly changed positions over the past decade: Mexico, once the growing energy
(Reuters) - When the
power, is struggling to maintain production; the United States, once a guaranteed importer, is enjoying a lucrative energy boom.
However, the thorny issues of foreign
investment in Mexico's oil production sector or swapping different types of crude
oil between the two nations will likely only be brought up in private, if at all. Although Mexico's aging
refineries could operate more efficiently using some of the light crude emerging from U.S. oilfields, state oil and gas monopoly Pemex
has long avoided incremental imports in order to maintain its reliance on the heavier crude produced domestically. Meanwhile, U.S.
pipeline exports of natural gas to Mexico have surged, and could double within a few years as new projects link Latin America's
second-largest economy with major U.S. producing regions, despite concerns in the United States that exports could push prices
higher at home. Less divisive topics, such as climate change and how to improve cross-border energy efficiency, are expected to be
discussed, Sergio Alcocer, Mexico's deputy foreign minister responsible for the United States, told Reuters. "This is more like the
first dance of the season," said Bill O'Grady, chief markets strategist at Confluence Investment Management. "You get to see each
other, get to know each other. But Mexico is still trying to figure out how to reform its own state oil company." SOME KIND OF A
SWAP? Mexican oil and gas output remains flat while national demand increases, creating a dilemma for Pena Nieto, whose
opponents vigorously oppose foreign investment in the country's energy sector. Although Mexican crude is a staple for Gulf Coast
refineries, crude oil imports from Mexico have dropped a third over the past decade, sinking below 1 million barrels per day last year
for the first time since 1994, according to government data. Mexico has duly shifted its focus. A month ago Pemex touted a new twoyear deal to boost crude exports to China by 30,000 bpd. Talk of some kind of oil "swap" has also circulated, based on the idea that
U.S. producers could get a better price for their light-sweet crude in Mexico while Texas and Louisiana refineries built to run on
heavy-sour grades could get more of that type of oil from Mexico, albeit at lesser rates than in the past. There is little indication yet
that Pemex is angling for U.S. shale oil, or that U.S. companies are pressing to sell it. GAS BONANZA As lawmakers
engage in an increasingly fierce debate in Washington over whether natural gas exports would drive up fuel
prices at home, foreign companies are racing to export more to Mexico, where demand is growing fast. U.S. natural gas exports to
Mexico rose by 24 percent in 2012 to all-time highs, according to U.S. government data. The capacity to export will double by the
end of 2014 as Mexican power plants hook up to pipelines running from the giant Eagle Ford play in Texas and further afield.
Companies like Sempra Energy, Japan's Mitsui and Kinder Morgan are all planning to build new pipelines in Mexico, potentially
reducing its dependence on imported LNG from overseas. Alejandro Martinez, the top natural gas executive at Pemex, said exports of
U.S. gas to Mexico and Mexican oil to the United States present "a natural exchange" for the two countries. "I think we have to have
40
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Whether Obama
and Nieto will discuss the more delicate matter of Mexico's allowing foreign investment in its
struggling oil sector is unclear. Development of the country's large shale formations is still on hold as it considers its options.
a much greater integration," he said in an interview with Reuters this week. INVESTMENT ESSENTIAL
Mexico has the fourth-largest shale gas resources in the world after the United States, China and Argentina, according to a U.S.
government report on global shale deposits in 2011, though it remains to be seen how they will be developed. Pena Nieto has pledged
to open up Mexican oil production and exploration to more outside investment in order to ramp up growth. "When push comes to
shove, it's U.S. companies that have the technology and experience to help Mexico develop its deepwater and onshore unconventional
Traditionalists who view Pemex
as a symbol of Mexican self-sufficiency strongly oppose the prospect. Jorge Buendia, political
analyst and director of polling firm Buendia & Laredo, said Mexico was therefore likely to avoid open talk
of oil and gas with the United States for now, though "back-room" discussions would no doubt take place. Raising the
subject frankly would lay the new president open to accusations that he was selling Mexico
out to those looking "to steal" its oil, and imply that the industry was falling behind, Buendia added. "The current
situation doesn't lend itself at all to bringing this subject up in public."
resources," said Ed Morse, managing director of commodity research at Citi Group.
41
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Venezuela
42
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Venezuela Generic 1NC
Congress hates cooperation with Venezuela
Sullivan ‘13
Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for
Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
U.S. Policy The
United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major
supplier of foreign oil to the United States, but there has been significant friction with the
Chávez government. For several years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights,
Venezuela’s military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its relations with Cuba and
Iran, its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries, and the
use of Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces. Declining
Venezuelan cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern.
Since 2005, Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President
Obama ) as a country that has failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations.
Since 2006, the De partment of State has prohibited the sale of defense articles and
services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.
43
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Ext. Venezuela Engagement Link
More evidence – the plan would be perceived as an end-run on a bunch of
reforms Congress wants before it engages Venezuela – they’d backlash
Sullivan ‘13
Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for
Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
Legislative Initiatives As
in past years, there were concerns in the 112 th Congress regarding the
state of Venezuela’s democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with
Iran, and these concerns will likely continue in the 113 th Congress. The 112 th Congress
approved H.R. 3783 (P.L. 112- 220), which requires the Administration to conduct an
assessment and present “a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity
in the Western Hemisphere.” Other initiatives that were not approved include: H.R. 2542, which would have withheld
some assistance to the Organization of American States unless that b ody took action to invoke the Inter-American Democratic
Charter regarding the status of democracy in Venezuela; H.R. 2583, which included a provision prohibiting aid to the government of
Venezuela; and H.Res. 247, which would have called on the Secretary of State to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism.
GOP hates the plan
Ros-Lehtinen 13
[Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, is chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. “ROSLEHTINEN: Venezuela after Chavez: What comes next?”, March 14th, 2013,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/venezuela-after-chavezwhat-comes-next/]
Last year, it was
reported that the Obama administration was seeking to exchange ambassadors
in an attempt to normalize relations between the countries. The U.S. State Department’s
approach was extremely premature , and it, unfortunately, legitimized Mr. Maduro without even
questioning whether the Venezuelan Constitution was being upheld. The Obama
administration continued to send mixed messages and to undermine the opposition by sending a
delegation to attend Chavez’s funeral services last week, alongside enemies of the United States, such as Iranian leader Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. Words
matter, but actions matter more, and this decision not only sends mixed signals to the
the failed policy of attempting to re-establish diplomatic
people of Venezuela, but reiterates
relations. It is in our best interest if political and economic reforms come to Venezuela, but all signs currently point to the
contrary. As the leader of the Chavista movement, Mr. Maduro could potentially be worse for
the Venezuelan people and for U.S. national security interests. Mr. Maduro still controls all branches of
government, stifles free speech and was indoctrinated with socialist ideology. He has traveled to Tehran and has strong ties with Iran,
supports the Assad regime in Syria and has become a lap dog for Cuba’s Castro brothers.
44
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Laundry List
Our GOP, Appeasement, Cuba Lobby, Committee and Rubio Links
Mazzei, 12
Patricia, and Erika Bolstad, Miami Herald, 7/11/12, http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/11/v-fullstory/2891728/republicans-attackobama-for-chavez.html
howl over President Barack Obama’s remark about Hugo Chávez Republicans criticize
for saying Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has not threatened U.S. national
security. The region’s experts, however, side with Obama. Republicans, led by Mitt Romney and Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio, pounced on President Barack Obama on Wednesday after he told a Miami TV anchor that
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez does not pose a “serious” national security threat to the United
States. Republicans wasted no time in firing up a key South Florida constituency coveted by
Mitt Romney, GOP
President Obama
both Romney and Obama:
Cuban-American voters who hate Chávez for his close ties to the Castro
regime in Cuba. “President Obama hasn’t been paying attention if he thinks that Hugo Chávez,
with buddies like the regimes in Cuba, Iran, and Syria, drug cartels, arms traffickers, and
extremist groups, is not a threat to the United States,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, chairwoman
of the House Foreign Affairs committee and co-chair of Romney’s National Hispanic Steering Committee. “I am
deeply disappointed that this administration continues to bury its head in the sand about
threats to U.S. security, our interests, and our allies.” Rubio said Obama “has been living under a
rock ” when it comes to Chávez, and said the president “continues to display an alarmingly naïve
understanding of the challenges and opportunities we face in the western hemisphere.”
Other Cuban-American lawmakers issued statements in the same critical vein , and Senate
candidate Connie Mack, a Republican congressman from Fort Myers, tied his opponent Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.,
to the president’s remarks. Experts in the region, though, called Obama’s comments reasonable. Chávez is “certifiable,”
with a tremendous ego fueled by the power that comes from sitting on vast oil reserves — but he’s not as dangerous as the leaders of
other less friendly regimes, said Riordan Roett, the director of Latin American Studies Program at the School of Advanced
International Studies at The Johns Hopkins University. The Republican criticism is “just pure electoral politics,”
Roett said. “He poses no security threat to the United States or anyone else,” Roett said. “Hugo Chávez is not going to attack us, he’s
not going to occupy our embassy, he’s not going to bomb U.S. planes arriving in Caracas at Maiquetía Airport. He is a loudmouth
who enjoys listening to himself, and has built up on the basis of oil revenue, a very, very populist, dependent regime that can’t deliver
on basic services, on goods and commodities to his own people.” Here’s what Obama told Oscar Haza, a Spanish-language broadcast
journalist and anchor in an interview with Obama that aired Tuesday night on A Mano Limpia (which roughly translates to “The
Gloves Are Off”), Haza’s nightly show on WJAN-Channel 41: “We’re always concerned about Iran engaging in destabilizing activity
around the globe,” Obama said. “But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chávez has done over the last several years has not had a
serious national security impact on us. We have to be vigilant. My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the
Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs, and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don’t always
see.” Romney
called Obama’s comment “stunning and shocking” and said in statement it’s a sign
of “a pattern of weakness” in the president’s foreign policy. “It is disturbing to see him
downplaying the threat posed to U.S. interests by a regime that openly wishes us ill,”
Romney said. “Hugo Chávez has provided safe haven to drug kingpins, encouraged regional terrorist organizations that threaten
our allies like Colombia, has strengthened military ties with Iran and helped it evade sanctions, and has allowed a Hezbollah presence
within his country’s borders.” White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to answer questions about the president’s remarks.
The president’s campaign spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said Romney is only “playing into the hands of Chávez” and his “outdated
rhetoric” by giving him any attention. “Because of President Obama’s leadership, our position in the Americas is much stronger today
than before he took office,” LaBolt said. “At the same time, Hugo Chávez has become increasingly marginalized and his influence has
waned. It’s baffling that Mitt Romney is so scared of a leader like Chávez whose power is fading, while Romney continues to remain
silent about how to confront al-Qaeda or how to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.” Michael Shifter,
president of the
Dialogue, cautioned that it’s up to the president to
judge in an election year whether it’s politically smart to talk about Chávez in a way that draws
Washington D.C.-based think tank Inter-American
45
UTNIF 2013
such heated Republican response
Politics Supplement
in South Florida — especially considering how valuable the swing state’s votes are
to Obama’s prospects.
46
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Appeasement/Congress Links
sparks fierce congressional fight - extremists control Venezuela debate and
anything short of confrontation gets viewed as appeasement
Harper, 10 (liz, Senior Editor @ US Institute for Peace, adjunct fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
americasquarterly.org contributing blogger based in Washington DC, 12/21, http://americasquarterly.org/node/2058)
Venezuela’s Formal Rejection of Ambassador-Designate Larry Palmer The long-running
debate over how to deal
with the irrational and impulsive strongman, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, has reached feverish pitch this
winter. The latest casualty in this war of words has become U.S. Ambassador Larry Palmer, the Obama administration's nomination as
ambassador to Venezuela. Worse yet, Chávez ultimately got what he wanted out of this latest battle: his choice of who will not be our
next Ambassador in Venezuela. On Monday, Venezuela formally told the U.S. to not bother sending Larry Palmer as the next
ambassador since he would be asked to return the moment he landed in Caracas. How did this all go down? Like
Cuba, any
U.S. move regarding Venezuela involves egos, politics and fortunately, some policy. Naturally, when
Palmer went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over the summer, the career diplomat—characterized by some at the U.S.
Department of State as "not a Washington man"—he already faced an uphill slog. Our domestic
generally falls
debate over Venezuela
into two camps: engagement and confrontation . There are, of course, shades of
gray and nuances between the two sides—though such voices are so often overpowered by the
more extreme views. On one side, you have those espousing "strategic engagement," keeping
in line with the Obama administration's stated foreign policy and national security objectives. In short and broadly speaking,
these proponents might argue, with an irrational state, you shouldn't turn your back. Look where that got us with North Korea, Iran
and Syria. Instead you want a seat at the table to start a dialogue based on mutual respect and to build on areas of mutual interest. You
raise concerns discretely and express disapproval quietly or through third parties. As one person said, engagement should be
“subversive," because you
seek to assert positive influence by being present and through cooperation on areas
development, financial opportunities, or culture and sports. Indeed, Palmer was the right guy to
carry out this mission. But, the engagement policy, as it is practiced with Venezuela, seems more like
such as business
"appeasement ," say people clamoring for a tougher approach. After all, for years now, we
have witnessed a democracy's death by a thousand cuts. This past week, Hugo Chávez got one of his
Christmas wishes with the approval of new decree powers, thereby further eroding the country's once well-established institutional
checks and balances. Chávez threatens more than human rights and democratic norms; the
U.S. has legitimate national
security concerns, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism and narcotrafficking. Yet, as Chávez runs
roughshod over international norms, is the U.S. working to halt the downward spiral? Those are the broad brush strokes
of the debate into which Palmer was tossed.
opposition to economic engagement in Venezuela is increasing – triggers fight
in congress and Israel lobby hates it
Farnsworth, 10
Eric, contributing blogger to americasquarterly.org. He is Vice President of the Council of the Americas in Washington DC, 11/3/10,
http://americasquarterly.org/node/1976
Now What? Elections and the Western Hemisphere Tuesday’s election results were not unexpected. The question now is what will
for U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. The outlines are already clear: expect a
sharper tone across the board of Congressional oversight and initiative toward the
Administration in trying to impact policy. Here are a few predictions for regional policy based on the midterm
election results. The new chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee will be Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; the chair of the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee will be Connie Mack. Together with newly-elected Senator Marco Rubio, this troika
of Florida Republicans may well seek to reverse the Obama Administration’s slow motion
liberalization of Cuba policy. Expect also a harder line coming from Congress toward Venezuela
and the possible renewal of an effort to sanction Venezuela as a state sponsor of terror. As well,
they mean
47
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Chairman-To-Be Ros-Lehtinen
has earned strong pro-Israel credentials and is a strong supporter of Iran
sanctions; further moves of Brazil or Venezuela toward Tehran could well prove to be a point of
friction between the Administration and Congress if the Administration is perceived as
downplaying their significance.
spun as appeasement – triggers intense fight and derails Obama domestic
agenda priorities
Dueck, 11
Colin Dueck,professor at the Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University, October 1, 2011
policy review » no. 169, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/94006
Look at how Obama’s strategy of accommodation has played out in relation to four categories of
foreign governments: 1) those essentially hostile to the United States, 2) those who pursue a mixture of strategic rivalry and
cooperation, 3) genuine American allies, and 4) Arab governments of varying allegiance. The first category, of regimes basically
hostile to the United States, includes the governments of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, to name
only four of the most notable. Each of these governments has literally defined itself at a
fundamental level by violent opposition to America. To think that a conciliatory tone, a preliminary
concession, or a well-intentioned desire for better relations on the part of a U.S. president by itself will transform that hostility is
simply naïve. In the case of Cuba, for example, the Obama administration began by lifting certain economic sanctions, in the hope of
seeing some reciprocal concessions from the Castro brothers: political liberalization, an easing of anti-American hostility, anything at
all of significance. No such concessions have been made. The case of Iran has already been discussed — Obama reached out to
Tehran with great fanfare in 2009, and has received in effect a slap in the face. Both Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and North Korea’s
Kim Jong Il are likewise just as hostile and provocative toward the United States today as they were when George W. Bush was
America’s president. This is because the fundamental barrier to friendly U.S. relations with those regimes was never George W. Bush.
The fundamental barrier to friendly relations with these regimes is the fact that they are bitterly hostile to the United States. The kinds
of concessions that Washington would have to offer to win their genuine accommodation
would be so sweeping,
from the point of view of any likely U.S. president that they will not
be made — and certainly not by Barack Obama. Any smaller concessions from Washington, therefore, are simply
massive, and unacceptable,
pocketed by a hostile regime, which continues along in its basic antipathy toward the United States. So who is supposed to be the
target audience here? The true audience and for that matter the ultimate source of these various conciliatory policy initiatives is
essentially a small, transnational, North Atlantic class of bien pensant opinion who already share Obama’s core policy priorities in any
case. They have rewarded him with their support, as well as with the Nobel Peace Prize. Others internationally are less impressed.
And in the meantime, we may have lost something, in terms of the ability to seriously prepare for certain looming security challenges.
A primary and continuing emphasis on diplomatic engagement after Iran has repeatedly rebuffed the United States does not help us to
prepare for the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. A declared commitment to nuclear abolition does nothing to convince other nuclear
powers to abandon their own arsenals, and may even be counterproductive in the sense that it deludes important segments of opinion
into believing that such declarations actually help to keep the peace. Obama has said from the beginning that the purpose of his more
conciliatory foreign policy approach was to bolster American standing in the world, but the definition of international standing has
actually been highly self-referential in the direction of aforementioned transatlantic liberal opinion. In many cases overseas, from the
perspective of other governments, Obama’s well-intentioned conciliatory
gestures are read as a sign of
weakness , and consequently undermine rather than bolster American standing. In one way, however, Obama has already
achieved much of what he desired with his strategy of accommodation, and that is
to re-orient American
national
attention away from national security concerns and toward the expansion of domestic
progressive reforms. He appears to sincerely believe that these liberal domestic initiatives in areas such as health care and
resources and
finance will also bolster American economic power and competiveness. Actually they will do no such thing, since heavy-handed and
constantly changing federal regulations tend to undermine investor confidence as well as long-term U.S. economic growth. But either
way, Obama’s
vision of a more expansive government role in American society is well on its way to being
achieved, without from his point of view debilitating debates over major national security
concerns . In that sense, especially if he is reelected in 2012, several of his major strategic priorities
will have been accomplished. Any good strategy must incorporate the possibility of pushback
or resistance from unexpected quarters. As they say in the U.S. military, the enemy gets a vote. So, for that matter, do other
countries, whether friendly or not. When things do not go exactly according to plan, any decent strategy and any capable leader adapt.
Indeed any decent foreign policy strategy begins with the recognition for backup plans, since inevitably things will not go exactly
according to plan. Other countries rarely respond to our initial strategic moves in precisely the way we might wish. The question then
becomes: What is plan B? Obama
is tactically very flexible, but at the level of grand strategy he seems to have no
48
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
backup plan. There is simply no recognition of the possibility that world politics might not operate on the post-Vietnam liberal
assumptions he has imbibed and represented over the years. Obama’s critics often describe him as providing no strong foreign policy
His guiding
foreign policy idea is that of international accommodation, sparked by American example. He pursues that
leadership. They underestimate him. Actually he has a very definite idea of where he wants to take the United States.
overarching concept with great tactical pliability but without any sign of ideological or basic revision since coming into office. Yet
empirically, in one case after another, the strategy is not working. This is a kind of leadership, to be sure, but leadership in the wrong
direction. Obama
believes that liberal domestic initiatives will bolster American economic
power and competitiveness. How can the Obama administration adapt and adjust to the failures of its strategy of
accommodation? It can admit that the attempted diplomatic engagement of Iran has failed, and shift toward a strategy of
comprehensive pressure against that regime. It can make it abundantly clear to both the Taliban and al Qaeda that the United States
will not walk away from Afghanistan, despite the beginning drawdown. It can start treating Russia as a geopolitical rival, which it is,
rather than simply as a diplomatic partner. It can strengthen U.S. missile defenses as a form of insurance against nuclear proliferators.
There is a long list of policy recommendations that can be made on specific regional and functional matters, but the prior and most
important point is the need for a change in mentality. President Obama needs to stop working on the assumption that U.S. foreign
policy concessions or gestures directed at the gallery of elite transatlantic opinion — whether on nuclear arms control,
counterterrorism, or climate change — will somehow be reciprocated by specific foreign governments in the absence of some very
hard bargaining. He needs to grasp that U.S. strategic disengagement from specific regional theaters, whether promised or underway,
is taken as a sign of weakness in those regions and not simply as a sign of benevolent restraint. He needs to recognize that America’s
international reputation consists not only of working toward his own definition of the moral high ground, but also very much of a
reputation for strength, and specifically of a reputation for the willingness to use force. He needs to stop operating on the premise that
past American foreign policy decisions are the ultimate source of much violent discord in the world today. He needs to be willing to
divide the international system conceptually and operationally into friends and enemies, as they actually exist, and to support
America’s friends while pressuring and opposing its enemies relentlessly. Finally, he needs to admit the limited effect of his own
personal charisma on the foreign policies of other governments. The president of the United States is not an international community
organizer. If the conceptual framework that underpins Obama’s foreign policy strategy is altered, then better policies will flow on a
wide range of specific issues. Obama needs to be willing to support America’s friends while pressuring and opposing its enemies
relentlessly. Admittedly, there is little chance that Obama will concede any of this. One of the things we know from historical example
is that presidents tend to keep operating on their own inbuilt foreign policy assumptions, even as contrary evidence piles up. It usually
takes either a dramatic external shock, or a new administration altogether, to bring about a major revaluation of existing assumptions.
Curiously, this resistance to contrary evidence in foreign policy appears to be even truer of highly educated, self-confident, and
intelligent people with core ideological convictions — a description that certainly fits President Obama. Obama
is malleable
on tactics, and he takes great care to project an aura of sensible calm, but in truth he is a conviction president powered
by certain core ideological beliefs and vaulting policy ambitions. His characteristic response when these core beliefs and
ambitions are truly tested by opponents or events is not to bend, but to bristle. He is therefore particularly unlikely to admit or even
perceive that a foreign policy strategy based upon faulty assumptions of international accommodation is failing or has failed. Nor is it
politically convenient for him to do so. More likely, he will continue along his chosen path, offering nothing more than tactical
adjustments, until some truly dramatic event occurs which brings his whole foreign policy strategy into question — an Iranian nuclear
test, for example.
49
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Appeasement/Cuba Lobby Links
GOP and Cuba lobby HATE Venezuela and spin plan as appeasement
Boothroyd, 12
Rachel Boothroyd, journalist in Caracas, Venezuela. She contributes to Venezuelanalysis, Pulsamerica and Correo del Orinoco
International, and has had pieces published on other sites such as the Latin American Bureau, Green Left Weekly, Znet and Global
Research.9/25/12, http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283
Republicans Vow to Halt “Policy of Appeasement” in Venezuela
Caracas, September 23 2012
(Venezuelanalysis.com) – Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul Ryan, has vowed that a Romney administration
would get
“tough on Castro, tough on Chavez” and to end what he described as a “policy of appeasement”
applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba and Venezuela. Ryan made the comments from
the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was accompanied by staunch members of the
anti-Castro lobby , including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is a
member of the Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to be aimed at
practising this policy of
appeasement, we will be tough on this brutal dictator (Castro). All it has done is reward more despotism ...
We will help those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro, tough on Chavez. And it's because we
know that's the right policy for our country,” said Ryan. The nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to
speeding up Cuba’s “transition to democracy”. "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep
win over the majority Latino vote two months ahead of the US elections. Florida is currently thought to be a “swing state” and could
prove a determining vote for the overall election results. Results of a recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news
show that Obama currently has a 5% lead over Romney, with a voting intention of 49% to 44%. ‘I learned from these friends, from
Mario (Diaz-Balart), from Lincoln (Diaz-Balart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how brutal the Castro regime is, just how this
president's policy of appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education, lots of us in Congress, about how we need to
to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a “loyal friend” to
those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues. Ryan's statements have caused some Democrats to
clamp down on the Castro regime,” said Ryan. According
accuse him of hypocrisy after he appears to have dramatically changed his stance on Cuba-US relations. Prior to 2007, the Republican
had called for “free trade” between all nations, which included voting to lift the trade embargo on Cuba. "To paraphrase President
Clinton, it takes real brass to vote three times against economic sanctions on the Cuban regime and then come to Little Havana and ask
Cuban-Americans for their vote," said Giancarlo Sopo, a Cuban-American supporter who told the US' Sun Sentinel that he would vote
for Obama. "It's one thing to have a genuine disagreement with someone on a policy. It's something else to change your position from
one day to the next just to pander in order to win votes,” added Sopo. Recently leaked footage of a meeting between Romney and
party donors also showed the presidential hopeful lambasting Obama for believing that “his magnetism and his
charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that
they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things”. The leaked
recording also shows Romney referring to Iranian President Ahmadinejad as a “crazed fanatic” and Iranian mullahs as “crazy people”.
He also commented that, in his view, the Palestinian people have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace”. With the presidential
elections now drawing near, the
Republican party is beginning to increasingly outline its prospective domestic and
foreign policy, which Romney has said would be principally based on an attempt to implement a neo-liberal “Reagan economic
zone” in Latin America and other regions, such as the Middle East. The Republican presidential candidate has been
outspoken in his criticism of the “anti-American” views purported by the governments of
Venezuela, Cuba and Iran and has described them as one of the biggest threats to the United
States today. Earlier in July, Romney branded the Venezuelan government as a “threat to national
security” and accused the country's president, Hugo Chavez, of “spreading dictatorships and
tyranny throughout Latin America”. The Republican National Committee also circulated a video of Obama
shaking hands with Chavez at the OAS “Summit of the Americas” in Trinidad and Tobago 2009 at the same
time. Romney has often claimed that the leader of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution has links to “terrorist”
organisations such as Hezbollah and has access to weapons that could “harm the US”. He has
never presented any evidence in support of these accusations.
50
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Powerful cuba lobby hates Venezuela economic engagement – even under
maduro
Kozloff, 13 (Nikolas, doctorate in Latin American history from Oxford University, author of Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics and
the Challenge to the U.S. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave Macmillan,
2008), No Rain in the Amazon: How South America's Climate Change Affects the Entire Planet (Palgrave Macmilan, 2010),
)
Huffington Post, 4/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/maduro-elections-venezuela_b_3078387.html
Déjà Vu? Washington's
War on Cuba and Venezuela: From the Kissinger Files to 'Cable Gate' If the polls are to
successor Nicolás Maduro will probably defeat the political opposition in
Sunday's presidential election, thus securing and solidifying Cuban-Venezuelan ties yet further . Such
be believed, Hugo Chávez's
an outcome will come as a severe disappointment to Washington, which has spent the
better part of 40 years trying to prevent such a diplomatic alliance from developing in the first
place. For evidence of U.S. paranoia over Cuba , one need only consult the so-called "Kissinger files,"
sensitive State Department cables recently made accessible by whistle-blowing outfit WikiLeaks. The
correspondence, which dates between 1973 and 1976, underscores Henry Kissinger's single-minded
obsession with quarantining Cuba lest Castro's influence be felt far afield. In late 1973, U.S.
diplomats expressed concern about Venezuelan moves to end Cuba's diplomatic isolation,
and were particularly worried that Caracas might "put together Organization of American States [OAS] majority in support resolution
permitting reestablishment relations with Cuba." Washington was also perturbed by reports that Venezuelan Navy vessels had
departed for Cuba in order to load up on large shipments of sugar, and diplomats contemplated
a possible cutoff of aid
to Caracas in retaliation. Not only had the State Department grown alarmed about such
developments, but rightist anti-Castro exiles were becoming restive as well. According to the U.S.
Embassy in Caracas, the exiles were "appalled" at the prospect that COPEI, the current party in power, might renew
relations with Cuba. In an ominous move, the exiles planned to publish full page newspaper ads against the COPEI administration.
Hoping to punish COPEI at the polls, exiles threw their support to opposing party Acción Democrática (or AD) in the 1973
presidential election. Ultimately, the Americans noted, such support proved critical and " highly
influential CubanVenezuelan entrepreneurs, backed by Cuban money from Miami" helped AD candidate Carlos
Andrés Pérez secure an electoral victory. The Rise of CAP If Kissinger or the Cuban exile community however hoped that
Pérez, sometimes known simply as "CAP," would prove amenable to their designs they would be sorely disappointed. History has not
been kind to CAP, largely due to the latter's second and disastrous presidency which lasted from 1989 to 1993, during which time the
veteran politician followed the diktats of the International Monetary Fund and nearly drove Venezuela to the point of social collapse.
Nevertheless, during his first incarnation in the 1970s CAP was regarded as a nationalist and something of a galvanizing figure on the
Third World circuit. From 1974 to 1979, during his first presidency, CAP nationalized U.S. oil companies and oversaw a program of
massive social spending. Writing to Kissinger in Washington, the
U.S. ambassador in Caracas fretted that
Venezuela now had "the economic strength and political leadership in president Pérez to make
her will felt beyond her borders." Indeed, the diplomat added, "the energy crisis and president Carlos Andrés Pérez's
electoral victory in December 1973 coincided and together have changed Venezuela's perception of herself and her world role." Just
like Chávez some 20 years later, CAP was "rapidly emerging as a hemisphere figure." Taking advantage of windfall oil prices, CAP
had turned Venezuela into a large international donor of development assistance. Personally, the ambassador feared that CAP had
grown too large for his britches as the youthful firebrand politician was fast becoming "a Latin American spokesman for the
developing third world countries vis-a-vis the developed nations, especially the Unites States." Reading through the Kissinger files,
one is possessed with an incredible sense of déjà vu. Combing through paranoid U.S. telegrams, it's easy to
imagine that diplomats might have been referring not to CAP but to charismatic Hugo Chávez. Indeed, if anything the
correspondence underscores just how hostile Washington has been to any nationalist
politician emerging in Venezuela , particularly if such a figure threatened U.S. priorities in
the Caribbean. Specifically,
U.S. diplomats and anti-Castro exiles worried that CAP might use
his newfound diplomatic clout to edge closer to Fidel.
Congress and GOP backlash and media spin ensure perceived as
appeasement, weak on security and soft on Castro– also a flip flop Robertson, 12
Ewan Robertson, 4/11/12, Latin America Bureau analyst @ Venezuala Analysis, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6916
51
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
As both countries head toward important presidential elections this year, the United States has been intensifying its
interventionist policy in Venezuela. However, US attempts to influence Venezuela’s domestic politics while
casting it a “rogue state” on an international level, is leaving the Obama administration increasingly out-of-sync with Latin
America’s new political reality. US Intervention in Venezuela Since the election of President Hugo Chávez in 1998, US policy has
aimed at removing the Venezuelan president from power and ending the Bolivarian Revolution which he leads. This policy has
included support by the Bush presidency for the short-lived April 2002 coup in Venezuela, which failed after mass protests returned
Chávez to power. Since then the US has focused on nurturing Venezuela’s conservative opposition, channelling over US$100 million
to groups opposed to Chávez since 2002. Meanwhile Washington
and US corporate mass media have attempted
to de-legitimise his government internationally in a propaganda campaign, portraying Venezuela as a
threat to the US and its president as a “dangerous dictator” who has trampled upon democracy and human rights. Any hopes that
the Obama administration would usher a new era of respect for Venezuelan sovereignty have long been dashed, with intervention
intensifying as Venezuela’s October 7th presidential election draws closer and Chavez seeks his third term in office. In the last twelve
months the US government has imposed
sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA for trading with
the Venezuelan consul in Miami based on a suspect documentary implicating the Venezuelan
diplomat in plotting a cyber-attack against the US, and publicly criticised the appointment
of Venezuela’s new Defence Minister Henry Rangel Silva. While direct US actions have maintained a
constant rhythm of pressure against Venezuela, Washington’s hopes of removing Chávez from power
Iran, expelled
undoubtedly lie in the possibility of the conservative Democratic Unity Table (MUD) opposition coalition defeating Chávez in this
year’s presidential election. According to investigative journalist Eva Golinger, the US is providing the opposition in Venezuela with
political advice and financial support to the tune of US$20 million $20 million this year. This funding for anti-Chávez groups comes
from the US national budget, State Department-linked agencies, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, along
with the US Embassy in Caracas. A curious detail suggests that the US Embassy has become a key conduit for the distribution of this
money. While the Embassy currently only maintains a Charge D’Affairs responsible for diplomatic operations, and overall staff levels
remain unchanged, the Embassy budget jumped from almost $16 million in 2011 to over $24 million for 2012, an unexplained
increase of over $8 million. Washington has long worked to see the development of a united Venezuelan opposition capable of
defeating Chávez. With the current MUD coalition displaying relative unity behind opposition presidential candidate Henrique
Capriles Radonski, and the still popular Chávez currently undergoing treatment for cancer, the US is likely hoping 2012 is the year to
see an end to Chávez’s administration. Indeed, the make-up of Venezuela’s opposition reads like a “who’s who” of figures who have
received advice and financial support from US sources over the previous decade. Several of those who ran in the opposition’s
February primary elections to elect the MUD presidential candidate have ties with US financial aid, including the winner Radonski.
His political party Primero Justicia has been a key recipient of funding and political training since its founding in 1999, which has
helped it to grow into a national force. US funding has also followed fellow primaries candidate Leopoldo López throughout his
political career, first in Primero Justicia, then in Un Nuevo Tiempo from 2002, before receiving NED and USAID funding to support
his own organisation Voluntad Popular. MUD National Assembly deputy and primaries candidate Maria Machado Corina has also
received heavy US financial support, as well as holding a private meeting with George W Bush in 2004. Machado has recently been
appointed as a coordinator for Radonski’s “Tricolour Command” presidential election campaign, while Leopoldo López is now a
member of the Radonski campaign’s select Political Strategic Command. The Political Strategic Command is headed by experienced
opposition figure Professor Ramón Guillermo Aveledo, who with his close political colleagues “assists US sponsors in pouring money
into the MUD,” according to analyst Nil Nikandrov. The importance of US funding in helping to shape the current Venezuelan
opposition should not be underestimated. Indeed, according to US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks, in 2009 US Embassy chargé
d’affaires John Caulfield argued for increased US funding of opposition groups, as “without our continued assistance, it is possible
that the organizations we helped create ... could be forced to close...Our funding will provide those organizations a much-needed
lifeline”. Another aspect of Washington’s
approach to Venezuela moving into 2012 has been the increase
of aggressive rhetoric designed to de-legitimise the government and open the possibility of more direct
intervention. At a special Organisation of American States (OAS) session held in Washington in March, Democrat
Congressman Eliot Engel said Venezuelan democracy was being “trampled” by the Chávez
administration and advocated a “robust” OAS mission be sent to the country to monitor the October presidential
elections. Not to be outdone by their Democratic counterparts, Republicans have continued to
wind up the rhetorical dial on Venezuela . In a presidential nomination debate in Florida this January, Mitt
Romney made a commitment to “punish those who are following” Hugo Chávez and his ally Fidel
Castro, ex-president of Cuba. He claims that Obama has “failed to respond with resolve” to Chávez’s
growing international influence, arguing in his October 2011 foreign policy white paper foreign policy white paper that he would
“chart a different course” in US policy toward Venezuela and other leftist governments in
Latin America. Of course, US foreign policy has nothing to do with concern for democracy nor fabrications that Venezuela is
involved in plotting an attack against the US.
52
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Nationalized industries and trade ties ensure economic engagement can’t
avoid backlash as soft on Venezuela regime, national security, Cuba and
terrorism
Robertson, 12
Ewan Robertson, 4/11/12, Latin America Bureau analyst @ Venezuala Analysis, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6916
Venezuela is one of the region’s most vibrant democracies, witnessing a huge increase in political participation in the previous
decade, both in internationally-certified free and fair elections and in new grassroots forms, such as the thousands of communal
councils which have sprung up around the country. Figures
in Washington routinely ignore the facts and the
evidence regarding Venezuela, for example never mentioning the Chilean-based Latinobarometro regional poll in which
Venezuelan citizens regularly demonstrate they have one of the highest levels of support for democracy, and satisfaction with how
their democracy works in practice, in Latin America. Rather, the
issue for policy makers in Washington is that
since the arrival of Chávez Venezuela has refused to play its designated role within US imperial strategy. That is, to
offer a reliable supply of cheap oil controlled by US companies, to act as a market for US-based private foreign investment, and to
conduct itself as a submissive ally in US diplomacy. It is the Chávez administration’s policies
of national control over
oil and using the resource to fund social programmes, nationalising strategically important industries, and
vocally opposing US foreign policy while pursuing regional integration on principles contrary to “free trade” that
have made Venezuela a “problem” for US foreign policy. The Regional Dynamic One of the Chávez’s
administration’s key regional integration initiatives is the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
(ALBA), established by Cuba and Venezuela in 2004 as an alternative to US free trade
agreements by emphasising mutual solidarity and joint development between member states. The
group now contains eight members in Latin America and the Caribbean. Venezuela has also reached out to the Caribbean with the
Petrocaribe initiative, in which Venezuela sells oil at preferential rates to participating nations to support their development, with 18
Caribbean states now participating. The
US has responded by trying to isolate Venezuela
and discredit the
ALBA. Romney has described
it as a “ virulently anti-American ‘Bolivarian’ movement across
Latin America that seeks to undermine institutions of democratic governance and economic
opportunity”. Meanwhile, Council of Foreign Relations analyst Joe Hirst rather fancifully tried to paint the
organisation’s inclusion of social movements as a mechanism for promoting international terrorism ,
using information from the long-discredited Farc laptops . The US has also applied diplomatic pressure to
discourage other states from strengthening ties with Venezuela. These have included using intimidation
and diplomatic manoeuvres to try to prevent an alliance between Nicaragua and Venezuela after the 2006 election of leftist Daniel
Ortega to the Nicaraguan presidency, and using threats and pressure against Haiti in 2006-7 to scupper the Préval government’s plan
to join Petrocaribe. This strategy failed, with Nicaragua joining the ALBA at Ortega’s inauguration in early 2007 and the first
Petrocaribe oil shipment reaching Haiti in March 2008.
53
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Debt Ceiling
54
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Shell
Uniqueness: Obama will win showdown on debt ceiling—Republicans will
ultimately fold
The People’s View July 7th [2013 “Republicans Revive Empty Debt Ceiling Threats in Suicide
Move” http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/07/republicans-revive-empty-debtceiling.html?showComment=1373221439918]
But fret not, think Boehner and Ryan, maybe the President's policies took that candy from their petulant hands back in May, but we
will reach the debt ceiling again. At some point. So they have helpfully come forward and offered "options" - i.e. the
Ryan budget rehashed - that the president can
have if he wants to raise the debt limit when it's reached clobber the Republicans with in 2014:
For a long-term deal, one that gives Treasury borrowing authority for three-and-a-half years, Obama would have to agree to
premium support. The plan to privatize Medicare, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Ryan budget, is the holy grail for
conservatives who say major deficit-reduction can only be achieved by making this type of cut to mandatory spending. "If the
president wants to go big, there's a big idea," said Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
For a medium-sized increase in the debt-limit, Republicans want Obama
food stamp program, block-grant Medicaid, or tinker with chained CPI.
to agree to cut spending in the SNAP
For a smaller increase, there is talk of means-testing Social Security, for example, or ending certain agricultural subsidies.
Isn't that nice of Republicans to remind voters of why they hate the Republican party (i.e. the Ryan budget) mere months before an
election year, considering that the debt ceiling will not be reached, at the earliest, until October?
Let me outline what has already happened on the debt ceiling: President Obama
made it clear in December that
he is not playing this game, and subsequently, the GOP folded like a cheap wallet in January,
"suspending" the debt limit for a few months, which was then followed up by the news devastating for Republicans and fantastic
for the rest of the country that we were paying down the debt and rising revenues would mean that the debt ceiling got pushed
further back. Ironically, the
Republican sequester - difficult and short sighted as it may be - is actually helping push
the debt ceiling debate closer to the election, giving the president and the Democrats even more
leverage.
Even in these "offers," there is GOP acknowledgment that there isn't any more discretionary
spending to cut. That is the reason they say they must now go after mandatory spending and the big three - Social Security,
Medicaid and Medicare, along with food stamps. I can pretty well foresee the devastating blow coming from the president: he's
going to and say, as he always has, that he would be willing to accept Chained CPI in the context of other reforms designed to
strengthen Social Security to be more sustainble and increase benefits to those who need the most, and demand that Congress
needs to do its damn job.
He will offer that to the Republicans as a last chance for them to save face. Because he knows, as well as John Boehner his team
on the Hill, that big business will not tolerate Republican intransigence on the debt limit. They
can work with the
President and look like they got something, or be rolled over in a very public humiliation - their choice.
The President will be able take the case to the American people and correctly point at the Republicans for once again holding the
global economy hostage to try to force their draconian social Darwinism down the throats of the American people. I doubt very
much even the most incompetent Speaker in recent history can't see this one coming from a mile away. The Republicans
know that their posturing is just that - empty threats.
So, I say to Republicans: Game on. Or perhaps, please proceed.
55
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
[Insert link]
Obama political capital key getting debt ceiling raise
The Telegraph 2013 [3/19 “lamb and lobster, and a mission to woo the Republicans”
The president's personal outreach comes alongside substantive policy outreach as well. The White
House publicly released a detailed planof spending cuts, revenue increases and entitlement reforms that include Social Security
savings estimated at $130 billion, and more means testing for Medicare health care for the elderly - proposals that infuriate liberal
congressmen.
Now the question is whether Republicans will agree to close some tax loopholes to raise revenue at the risk of angering their activist
class - or risk compounding their reputation for recalcitrance. With
another dumb debt ceiling fight looming in May,
now is the time for the president to use his re-election political capital to push for resolution.
The passage of other ambitious but achievable priorities, including immigration reform, hangs in the balance.
The basic fact of divided government means that compromise is required. All politics is personal and at the end of the day, in
a representative democracy, decisions are made by people in a room.
But the poisonous atmosphere of hyper-partisanship has made reasoning together more difficult, despite significant areas of policy
overlap. That's why President Obama's
renewed personal diplomacy to Republicans matters real outreach from the bully pulpit can help break through the groupthink gridlock that is holding
America's recovery hostage.
Failure to raise debt ceiling triggers immediate depression
Baker 11 (Dean, Dr. Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in
Washington, D.C. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, The Endgame on the Debt
Ceiling, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Endgame-on-the-Debt-Ce-by-Dean-Baker-110620-413.html, MM)
However the actual picture is a bit different. There is no doubt that the
failure to raise the debt ceiling would be
very bad news for the economy. If the government had to default on its debt, it would shake the
financial markets even more than the collapse of Lehman in September of 2008. We would see a freeze-up
of lending and companies would be forced to dump millions of workers, as they could no longer meet
their payrolls. But, even in this disaster scenario, there would still be a tomorrow. In other words, after the financial crisis, the
economy would still be there. We would still have the same capital stock, infrastructure, skilled work force and state of technical
knowledge as we did the day before the crisis. The government and the Federal Reserve Board would have the power to reflate the
economy to get it back on its feet just as they did when they engaged in the massive spending needed to fight World War II. While
the country will still be left standing after a debt default, there is one important
sector that will not be standing:
Wall Street. A debt default would almost certainly make all the major banks insolvent as they would
have to mark down the value of U.S. government debt, which had been held as a completely safe asset. The loss of value
would also apply to all the assets backed by the government, such as the mortgage backed securities issued
by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even when the economy revived, the U.S. financial sector would never hold the same place in the
world as it does today. Without the ironclad financial backing of the U.S. government standing behind them, the Wall Street gang
could never again be the dominant actor in international financial markets. This fact is essential in understanding the endgame on
the debt ceiling. Suppose that we get to the dates in August when the Treasury has reached the limit of its ability to shuffle accounts
and literally can no longer pay its bills. Secretary Geithner will at that point make an announcement that in three days there is an X
billion payment on Treasury bonds coming due. He will say that the government does not have the money in the bank and will
therefore have to miss this payment. The markets will then go into turmoil. We will see the same sort of plunge in the
stock market that we saw when the House voted down the TARP the first time back in September of 2008. At that point, the Wall
Street boys will be screaming their heads off at Speaker Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership. The news media would
all be running clips with depression footage, telling us that another
Great Depression looms just around the
horizon. In this context the Republicans will do exactly what they did with the TARP.
56
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
US economic decline makes global nuclear war likely
O’Hanlon and Lieberthal 12 Michael O’Hanlon, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at The Brookings
Institution, specializing in defense and foreign policy issues. Kenneth Lieberthal, Ph.D., is a
senior fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at Brookings. “The real
national security threat: America's debt,” July 3, LA Times Op-Ed,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/03/opinion/la-oe-ohanlon-fiscal-reform-20120703
Lastly, American
economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our
weakness and wonder about our purported 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 friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue
nuclear weapons for their own security,
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.
for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be
57
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC UQ
Obama will force the GOP to compromise on the debt ceiling
National Journal July 7th [2013 “House Republicans Draft Their Debt-Ceiling Playbook”
With an anxious eye toward the coming debt-ceiling negotiations, House Republicans
call a “menu”
are drafting what members
of mandatory spending cuts to offer the White House in exchange for raising the country’s
borrowing limit.
This menu is more a matrix of politically fraught options for the Obama administration to consider: Go small on cuts and
get a short extension of the debt ceiling. Go big – by agreeing to privatize Social Security, for example – and get a deal that
will raise the ceiling for the rest of Obama’s term.
It’s a strategy meant
to show the GOP is ready to deal. But even conservatives admit that this gambit might
do little to help them avoid blame should the negotiations reach a crisis stage.
President Obama says he will not negotiate the debt ceiling, warning that Congress should not threaten the creditworthiness of the United States by bartering over the borrowing limit. And while House Republicans think he’s
bluffing, they fear Obama will
stall until the last minute and then strike a bipartisan deal with the
Senate, forcing the lower chamber to either accept an unfavorable agreement or take heat for a
default on the nation’s obligations and a downgrade on the U.S. credit rating.
Obama and Republicans will come to a debt ceiling deal, but it will be
controversial in the House
The National Journal June 27th [2013 “If You Thought the Fiscal Cliff Was Bad, Wait Until This
Year's Debt-Ceiling Showdown”]
The closer the debt-ceiling fight gets to 2014 and the midterm elections, however, the less appetite
there may be for a showdownat least, among a majority of Republicans and Democrats. "Most people have come
to the conclusion that messing around with the debt ceiling is not politically constructive," says former
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "I don't think leadership sees it as a significant moment
for brinksmanship."
Yet the loud and influential tea-party group in the House, specifically sent to Washington by its constituents to cut
spending, may pose problems for the House Republican leadership, particularly Speaker John Boehner.
These tea partiers are not pushing for a default, but they have been loath to support budget legislation not deemed conservative
enough. And they do not always line up behind the speaker, regardless of the public-relations damage it inflicts on the caucus.
(Exhibit A: the recent failure of the farm bill in the House. Conservative Republicans did not support the measure despite deep cuts
to the food-stamp program.)
Many congressional aides and budget experts predict
replacement for sequestration, and
the fall's To Do list of appropriations, a potential
the debt-ceiling increase will get wrapped into one big legislative
package. Obama and congressional Democrats insist they will not negotiate around the debt ceiling, but folding it into a broader
package would give Democrats more room to maneuver. It would also give Republicans the opportunity to push for some items on
their legislative wish list, such as tax reform, the Keystone pipeline, or some smaller-scale entitlement changesincluding ones Obama
previously proposed, such as cutting reimbursements to hospitals and doctors.
There is even less of an appetite now among Democrats for wholesale entitlement changes, given the recent slowdown in federal
health care spending and the
rapid decline in the annual budget deficit. This political reality has forced even
58
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
House Republicans to shift their message as they look to the fall. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, for instance,
now promotes tax reform instead of major entitlement cuts as the next big legislative priority for the House, come September and
October.
The only concrete takeaway, so far, from the debt-ceiling fight is that no one on either side is predicting a historic budget deal, as
some lawmakers did with the super committee and the fiscal-cliff showdown. After two years of basically nonstop budget fights, the
political will and appetite for a grand bargain may no longer exist.
House leadership will compromise on the debt ceiling
CNBC June 24th [2013 “Cantor Urges Obama to Enter Talks on Debt”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100838939]
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Monday entertained the possibility of raising the debt ceiling,
an idea that's out of the question for some of his fiscally conservative colleagues in Congress. But the Virginia Republican
urged PresidentBarack Obama to come to the negotiation table.
"I want to see, first of all, an indication from the White House that they're willing to sit down and work this out and avoid some kind
of dramatic incident," Cantor told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo on "Closing Bell."
He criticized the president for what he characterized as a lack of leadership on the issue.
"Most Americans expect both sides to come together," he said. "It's about leadership, and I'd like to see the
president start by meeting us, sitting down at the table and discussing how we're going to resolve these problems of the debt and
deficit."
Debt ceiling will ultimately pass
US Business Forecast Report June 21st [2013 Major Reform Drives Increasingly In Doubt”]
But The Must-Pass Bills Will Be Passed
Despite our less rosy outlook on the two major reform bills described above, we maintain our view that the
US government
will take care of the must-pass legislative business this year: raising the debt ceiling bill by
October or early-November and reaching a funding deal for the federal government for the next fiscal year by September 30.
While the fiscal budget deficit is narrowing, the US government will come up against its self-imposed borrowing limit this fall.
Although this ceiling was once routinely raised as a matter of course, the issue became politicized in 2011, when conservative
members of the House of Representatives tried to exact spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Indeed, the final
bargain that saw the debt ceiling raised in 2011 was what set up the budget sequester that went into effect this year.
We see two reasons why the debt-related legislative brinksmanship of 2011 is unlikely to make a comeback on this issue. First, it is
now fairly clear that the
public supports passage of raising the debt ceiling, as failure to do so would
result in the US defaulting on its debts. With the fiscal position improving substantially since 2011, we
believe the public will be less sympathetic to attempts to hold the debt ceiling issue captive to other
legislative demands. Second, there will be significant pressure within the national Republican Party to
avoid being perceived as reckless on the debt issue. With Republicans poised to pick up seats in the Senate in 2014, we
believe there will be strong pressure on Boehner to ensure that his caucus is not seen as
unnecessarily obstructionist, as this would hurt their chances at the polls. Similarly, we believe that these dynamics will
ultimately ensure that a government shutdown is avoided and some form of spending package for fiscal year 2014 is passed.
Obama standing strong on debt ceiling, will get action by labor day
The Frontrunner June 13th [2013 “Boehner Affirms Eponymous Rule As Lew Pushes For DebtCeiling Rise”]
CQ Roll Call (6/13, Ota, Subscription Publication, 19K) reported yesterday morning that Speaker John Boehner
reaffirmed the
"Boehner rule" on ABC's "Good Morning America," saying, "I believe that if we're going to increase the debt limit, there ought to be
cuts and reforms in place that are greater than the increase in the debt limit." Roll Call says that Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew
and other Administration officials have held talks with lawmakers on the debt limit in
59
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
recent days, pushing for action close to Labor Day. Roll Call says that "several Republicans" were "skeptical" of
Lew's request, quoting Sen. John Thune
(R-SD) as saying, "I think that we're all for doing it. We'd just like to see some debt
reduction."
The Los Angeles Times (6/13, Puzzanghera, 692K) also discusses Lew's position on the debt limit, noting that he "held a private
meeting with Senate Finance Committee members last week" on a debt ceiling hike. The Times says that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
yesterday announced legislation preventing lawmakers from being paid if they do not raise the debt limit in order to pressure
lawmakers to act.
The Hill (6/13, Wasson, 21K) reports on the legislation in its "On The Money" blog, quoting Boxer as saying,
"President
Obama is clear he is not going to allow hostage taking over thedebt ceiling." Politico
(6/13, Everett, 25K) also reports on the debt ceiling debate.
GOP will agree to debt ceiling in return for spending cuts
The Frontrunner June 21st [2013 “Boehner: Debt Limit Increase Must Be Paired With Spending
Cuts”]
The Huffington Post
(6/20, Johnson) reported that in an appearance on CNBC Thursday, House Speaker Boehner
insisted that House Republicans will "negotiate a debt-ceiling increase with spending cuts," despite
President Obama having declared, "I'm not going to negotiate on the debt limit." Boehner is quoted as saying, "We're spending
more money than what we're bringing in. We have to deal with this problem. And if we're going to raise the debt limit
then we've got to do something about what's causing us to spend more money than what we bring in."
60
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC UQ… AT: Immigration Thumper
Debt ceiling trumps everything else, including immigration
National Journal June 23rd [2013 “Time's Up. Immigration Won't Pass This Year”]
When lawmakers return to the Capitol in September, they will be facing another financial crisis as they debate
raising the country's debt ceiling. The four- to six-week countdown toward extreme limitations on government
payments to Social Security or military operations will do two things: It will suck all the life out of any deliberative
legislative effort, immigration included, and it will polarize the political parties. It will be far from fertile ground for the
biggest immigration overhaul in 30 years.
61
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC UQ—AT: GOP demands spending cuts
Even Republicans admit that demanding further cuts in exchange for debt
ceiling is impossible
National Journal July 7th [2013 “House Republicans Draft Their Debt-Ceiling Playbook”
BOEHNER’S DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR RULE IS OUT
The menu concept’s focus on adjustments to mandatory spending programs marks a strategic shift from Boehner’s previous demand
for a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in new debt.
The dollar-for-dollar rule was meant to produce immediate savings and reduce the short-term deficit. But
now, thanks to sequestration, discretionary spending has been slashed to the point where even
conservatives say there aren't significant savings to be found.
"Dollar for dollar is difficult," Price said. "The discretionary spending itself is $1 trillion a year, and if you're running a $1 trillion deficit
annually, it's tough to find the savings solely in discretionary spending to match the increase in debt-limit."
62
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Brink/TF
Now is the key time for debt ceiling negotiations—We’re on the brink of default
Huffman June 11th [Jared, Democratic Rep from California, “Straight Talk on America-s Budget”
Congressional Documents and Publications]
Now we are at a pivotal point that will determine whether Congress breaks out of the
dysfunctional pattern of political standoffs that has taken the place of deliberative budgeting over the past few
years. The House and Senate both passed budget resolutions in March, and President Obama presented his budget proposal to
Congress in April. All that remains to reach a budget agreement for the upcoming fiscal year is for congressional leaders to appoint a
Conference Committee and start the hard work of negotiation.
Unfortunately, after months of criticizing the Senate for not producing a budget proposal, Speaker Boehner is refusing to
work out differences between the chambers and refusing to negotiate with President Obama. He believes his party-s agenda is
better served by allowing the "sequester" to take effect, and leveraging
concessions this fall when the country
drifts back to the brink of default as the debt ceiling is reached.
Summer politics determines Obama’s future success over the debt ceiling
New York Times June 23rd [2013 “2 Alternatives for Obama's Summer”
There are two widely discussed scenarios that could unfold in Washington this summer.
The first, embraced by the White House and some Democrats, is upbeat: The immigration bill passes the Senate with a big
margin, making it almost impossible for House Republicans to resist; more people start signing up for President Barack
Obama’s health care law, and even though no fiscal grand bargain is in the offing, an
improving economy gives the
president a stronger hand in dealing with Republicans on extending the debt ceiling and spending
bills.
The so-called scandals recede: It becomes clear there was no political interference with the Internal Revenue Service, and the other
controversies don’t resonate. The Middle East is still a cauldron, but it hasn’t gotten worse and the administration’s pivot to Asia
seems sensible.
The second sequence of events, foreseen by many Republicans and a few Democrats, is more dire: The once bright
hopes for an immigration bill this year slip amid the usual petty partisanship; all other legislation and appointments are stalled, and
an ugly fight over the debt limit rattles markets and hampers the economy.
Interest in the health care exchanges remains lackadaisical as insurance premiums increase in anticipation of the law taking effect.
An investigation by the Justice Department of the I.R.S. controversy lacks credibility, and the scandal persists. In Syria and Iran,
either the United States becomes embroiled in dangerous confrontations or Mr. Obama is seen as a feckless wimp. Republicans are
licking their chops about winning control of the Senate next year and increasing their majority in the House, making the final Obama
years a nightmare of recrimination, investigations and veto fights.
Mr. Obama, who prides himself on taking the long view and not getting caught up in the passions of the moment, rejects the notion
of such make-or-break moments. Only a little more than 10 percent of the second term is complete.
Yet it
isn’t unusual to establish a framework for success or failure of U.S. presidencies by the end
of the first summer of the second term.
Eight years ago, George W. Bush’s high post-re-election hopes were dashed by Labor Day after an ill-considered effort to
overhaul Social Security, a botched response to Hurricane Katrina and an increasingly discredited war in Iraq.
Two decades earlier, Ronald Reagan, despite the subsequent Iran-Contra debacle, set the benchmark for success: He was guided by
Treasury Secretary James A. Baker 3d on the domestic front, and a sweeping tax overhaul measure was on course. In foreign policy,
Secretary of State George P. Schultz, working privately with Nancy Reagan, was taking control of a more measured, less bellicose
approach.
There are, to be sure, events that could change the dynamics of the final three years: a real scandal, a war or terrorist act, or a
national tragedy that rallies the public. Nevertheless, if the bad-case scenario plays out, it’s hard to see how the president recovers
momentum. Alternatively, if he is able to make progress in enacting two of the most significant domestic achievements in years —
health care and immigration reform — while presiding over an economy recovering from the worst crisis since the Depression and
the ending of two wars, the question might be: Which coin or dollar denomination will eventually bear his likeness? In general,
there’s not that much Mr. Obama can do this summer to affect the outcome. The administration has been slow in the critical task of
enlisting people to sign up for the health exchanges. Ultimately, success will depend on the psychology of healthy young people,
whether they see a perceived need for health insurance.
63
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
On immigration, success or failure largely rests with inside calculations on Capitol Hill.
There also isn’t much in the president’s toolbox to improve the economy. Congressional Republicans are interested only in thwarting
Mr. Obama. What matters are the Federal Reserve and consumer confidence. The president has much more latitude on foreign
affairs, although there is little indication so far of any clear policy.
It may be that on all these issues, he comes out even, doing better in some, less well in others.
It’s just as likely that the
next three months will be either be Mr. Obama’s seminal season or his
summer of discontent.
64
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC t/f
Debt ceiling limit coming in October
Politico June 10th [2013 “D.C. fall: Shutdown, debt ceiling fight”]
Separately, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee met behind closed doors with Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew
about whether there should be conditions tied to boosting the U.S. debt limit. But the two sides remain at an impasse on
how to proceed on that hugely controversial issue. The
Treasury Department expects to hit the borrowing
limit in October.
Debt Ceiling will run out this fall
The National Journal June 27th [2013 “If You Thought the Fiscal Cliff Was Bad, Wait Until This
Year's Debt-Ceiling Showdown”]
Congress and the administration will return to fiscal issues after Labor Day. The latest continuing resolution expires Sept. 30, and
Congress will need to vote again to keep the government funded past the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1. The Senate and
House appropriations bills are on a collision course, because the two bodies are using different spending caps as their guides. Then
there's sequestration. The start of fiscal 2014 brings a fresh round of cuts to discretionary spending and federal agencies. All of this
will collide with the need to raise the debt ceiling in the fall.
Independent budget analysts estimate that the Treasury Department should hit the debt-ceiling
deadline in October or November, depending on tax receipts and federal spending over the next few months.
65
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Brink… AT: UQ o/w Link
Debt ceiling raise likely but not certain
Wall Street Journal June 30th [2013 “How Next Debt-Ceiling Fight Could Play Out”
Washington's policy makers could still hit a triple bank shot and reach a big budget agreement later this
year. Or the whole thing could end in an epic fiasco: They don't raise the debt ceiling and Treasury runs
out of enough money to pay all its bills, causing turmoil in financial markets and damage to the economy.
A third possibility is Washington does what it does best and cobbles together a small deal, punting the tough
decisions until later.
Here is how each scenario could play out:
Triple bank shot. The White House's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and its budget director, Sylvia Mathews Burwell,
continue reaching out to Senate Democrats and Republicans to see which tax and spending changes could be part of a large-scale
budget deal.
House Republican leaders continue to rethink their 2011 debt-ceiling strategy, in which they demanded spending cuts in exchange
for a vote to increase the borrowing limit. They rebrand the GOP economic platform, focusing more on growth and less on austerity
measures.
Budget negotiations intensify in the early fall, and the two sides agree to a large package including some sort of "tax reform" that
enables both parties to claim victory. They make changes to the Medicare and Social Security programs that go far enough to win
Republican support but not too far for most Democrats.
Chance of this happening: 10%
Epic fiasco. The immigration fight turns ugly, poisoning the well for any compromise. The White House gives up trying to broker
a big budget agreement, assuming Capitol Hill will come up with some short-term fix. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama knows he
has a limited amount of political capital left and doesn't want to use it on more deficit-reduction talks.
The liberal wing of the Senate digs in and says it won't accept a bipartisan compromise, believing that there is little need for cuts to
Medicare given estimates that the program's finances have improved slightly. Perhaps this wing grows larger than the White House
thought was possible.
Conservative House and Senate Republicans say they won't agree to any deal that could raise taxes. They insist that any debt-ceiling
increase include a repeal of Mr. Obama's signature health law. House GOP support never jells around a specific proposal.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who is up for re-election in 2014, stays on the sidelines. Business leaders refuse to
get involved, still stung by the failure of their efforts to push for a big budget deal late last year during the fiscal-cliff fracas.
The situation begins to resemble a pop fly into shallow center field where two outfielders and an infielder converge, and then
retreat thinking the ball will be caught by someone else. The ball drops in between them all, the markets crash, and frantic finger
pointing ensues.
Chance of this happening: 25%
Punt. The White House says it won't negotiate but also doesn't want a politically created financial crisis to derail Mr. Obama's
second-term agenda.
Some Senate Democrats, particularly those facing re-election in 2014, decide they need something to show for a vote to raise the
debt ceiling, which could be used in campaign ads against them. They propose midsize deficit reductions, via spending cuts and tax
changes, that reduce the deficit by roughly $500 billion over 10 years.
Mr. Boehner persuades many rank-and-file House Republicans not to risk taking a stand that could lead to a stock-market plunge,
worried that a negative reaction could harm them at the ballot in 2014. They offer their own proposed budget changes but avoid
politically charged issues like the health law.
Negotiations go down to the wire—both sides must look like they are holding out for the best possible deal—but the
House proposal is similar enough to the Senate plan that Democrats and Republicans hash out a
compromise that raises the debt ceiling $500 billion or so.
Then they revisit the whole issue again sometime in 2014 or 2015.
Chance of this happening: 65%
Debt ceiling crisis is still possible—Republicans don’t care about default
The Fine Print June 12th [2013 “Playing with Armageddon: The Politics of the Debt Ceiling”]
66
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Although federal budget deficits are on the wane, Republicans
in Congress are still playing politics with the
debt ceiling. House Speaker John Boehner
(R-OH) has demanded[1] additional spending cuts as a
condition for another debt ceiling increase.
Are we really on the road to another debt ceiling crisis? How serious is this?
One of the best sources of insight into the thinking of those who will face this decision can be found in Bob Woodward's book, The
Price of Politics, which provided a behind-the-scenes account of the debt ceiling crisis in 2011.
That crisis may seem like a long time ago. But while
the year was different, the players were the same and
the stakes were just as high. According to Woodward's account:
Bruce Reed, Biden's chief of staff, thought it felt like a modern-day Cuban Missile Crisis. But instead of the fate of the planet being at
stake, it was the fate of the economy. It was harrowing. Reed, a Rhodes Scholar, former chief domestic advisor to President Clinton,
and executive director of the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, was soft-spoken and known for his calmness. But he wasn't calm
this day. They didn't dare tell anyone on the outside how bad it looked, he concluded, but it looked pretty bad. He felt they were
staring into the abyss with no idea what the outcome might be.
A task force was created at the Treasury Department to work out how a default would work. They called it the "Armageddon
Project."
Despite the stakes, President Obama
felt like he was being pulled in two directions.
Even at great political cost, he was going to have to be responsible, be the adult.
There was the chance that the economy would go under. If that happened, it would be on his head. The Republicans would bear
some responsibility, but the headlines and the history books would record unambiguously that the economy sank during
the Obama
presidency.
[White House advisor David] Plouffe had been sitting in on the pre-briefs. There was no more important business. He agreed with
the president's constant assertion, "We can't default."
But the president's instincts to be the "responsible adult" ran in two directions. The issue was not just about the economics, it was
also about the presidency. After weighing his decision, the president met with his budget and economic team in the Oval Office on
July 13, 2011 and told them unequivocally that he would not buckle under a debt limit threat.
"I want you to understand, I am not going to do it. This is altering the presidency. I am not going to take a short-term extension, no
matter what. I want everyone to understand it, and I want it to be in all your body language when you talk. Because you need to
understand: I have made a decision. I am not going to do this."
People, Republicans, anyone can criticize us, he said, they can fight, they can shut down the government. He would not permit the
Republicans or anyone else to hold the creditworthiness of the United States hostage, to threaten to put the country into default as
a budget or political tactic. "I am not going to do it. This hurts the presidency."
Obama
knew that if he gave in, Republicans would keep using the tactic again and again. It would not end until he brought it
to an end. When the final deal was struck on the Budget Control Act that year, Obama
turned to his White House staff and
told them, "We're not going to negotiate on the debt limit ever again."
The president's hard line seemed to pay dividends early this year when, faced with another debt ceiling standoff, Boehner decided
to shuffle the deck[2], shifting the fight to sequestration and the possibility of a government shutdown.
Despite this decision, however, the fight
may not be over. The reason? Former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had
many members of Congress
do not fear a crisis, they want one.
Republicans, Geithner said, some in the Senate and many in the House, did not understand the risk of default.
insights about this from the fight in 2011. According to Woodward, Geithner felt that too
Some of these people talked openly and publicly about how a default was the only way to get Washington to change, and how a
downgrade in the nation's credit would be good.
On the one hand, Geithner knew from his contacts on Wall Street that Boehner himself was not willing to go that far.
As the former New York Fed president and current treasury secretary, he had direct pipelines to Wall Street. The current masters of
the universe there reported to him that Boehner was making calls to reassure the markets--and the Republicans' growing campaign
base--that everything was going to be fine.
"Boehner was calling New York," Geithner reported to his senior staff. "They were calling all the guys in New York who were f--king
tearing their hair out saying, 'Don't worry, it's just a bunch of politics. We're not going to take it to the edge, and we're not going to
default.'"
On the other hand,
Boehner did not control his caucus. "Get your ass in line," Boehner told them in a closed-door
meeting before an important budget vote that year. "I didn't put my neck on the line and go toe-to-toe with Obama
to not
have an army behind me."
But his troops did not listen and Boehner had to pull the bill. When the Budget Control Act finally passed the House, it needed
67
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
support from Democrats to cross the finish line.
Boehner's weak hold on his own caucus became most apparent last December when his caucus
refused to back his plan to avert the fiscal cliff, dubbed 'Plan B.' Embarrassed, he pulled that bill from the floor, too, and
has retreated from direct negotiations with the president on the budget ever since.
68
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC I-L
Obama has finite political capital—He’ll have to save it to raise the debt ceiling
Australian Financial Review 2013 [2/13 “Speech is political skills test”]
But there are big risks with both approaches. The
political capital of re-elected presidents is often more
limited than they think. If the President is too combative, he risks squandering his capital by putting
off independent voters and his more centrist supporters.
The glaring omission from most of the previews is deficits. If Obama
doesn't make an overture here, Republicans aren't likely
to vote for other initiatives they find unappealing - such as new taxes in place of some automatic budget cuts. Most House
Republicans, with comfortable majorities in partisan districts, aren't susceptible to the presidential bully pulpit.
Republicans may be open to a deal on budgets, University of Akron political scientist John Green argues. But Obama
will need
to offer larger future spending cuts in exchange for, say, closing tax lurks and spending more money to try to boost jobs and growth
now.
For the President, there's the chance of a long-term debt-ceiling extension if he meets some of
the Republicans' demands. That would be valuable. The Republicans took the debt ceilingoff the table for a few months to
allow more time for talks. But they can bring it back later if they don't like what they see in the coming weeks.
Empirically Obama political capital key to raising debt ceiling
Tampa Bay Times 2013 [2/17 “BLAMING OR CREDITING OBAMA
TO GUESSWORK”
FOR ECONOMY AMOUNTS
If you're grading Obama's
performance, it's important to note that he could only do so much with the House in Republican
hands. His ideas were often non-starters with the Republican-controlled House - and likewise, the Republican ideas were stymied
by Obama
and the Democrats who controlled the Senate.
Instead, the
White House had to battle House Republicans in two seemingly avoidable crises the debt ceiling in 2011 and the fiscal cliff in 2012. In both cases, the White House ended up as the nominal
winner, but the administration had to spend a lot of political capital to do it.
Obama needs to stand up to conservatives to get debt ceiling raised
The Huffington Post July 7th [2013 “Austerity Discredited, Not Defeated. Time to Fight for Jobs
and Growth”
Step One: we need to break the grip of conservative austerity policies.
Cong. John Conyers and colleagues have introduced a simple bill[4] that would get rid of the sequester. Conservative economists a
Macroeconomic Advisers estimate that would prevent the eradication of at least 700,000 jobs and allow the economy to grow by
close to 1 percentage point faster. So, let's convince Congress to act[5]. Another
debt ceiling fight is looming.
has promised that this time (in September or October), he won't give in to conservatives
demands for job-killing conditions. Let's back him up: No more damage to our fragile recovery.
President Obama
69
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC I-L… AT: Obama won’t negotiate
Obama will inevitably have to negotiate over the debt ceiling
The Main Wire June 21st [2013 “US Budget Week: GOP Farm Bill Chaos Is Bad Omen For Debt
Hike”]
On the matter of the debt ceiling, House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday in an interview with CNBC that President
Barack Obama
despite Obama's
will have to negotiate with Republicans on increasing the debt ceiling,
protestations that he will never negotiate again over the debt ceiling.
"Get over it," Boehner said in reference to the president's debt ceiling stance.
Obama
has said he is willing to discuss additional deficit reduction, but only in a separate negotiation.
Bixby said Obama's
insistence the debt ceiling be discussed separately from deficit reduction is largely a
semantic distinction.
"You can say the two negotiations are separate if you want. Or you can say you're not really negotiating. But
the fact is the president and Congress need to find an accommodation on the debt ceiling. I think that's a
negotiation," Bixby said.
Obama and Boehner will inevitably have a showdown over the debt ceiling
The Huffington Post June 20th [2013 “HUFFPOST HILL - Let Them Buy Their Own Cake”]
BOEHNER WARNS OF ANOTHER DEBT CEILING SHOWDOWN - Jen Bendery: "House Speaker John Boehner (ROhio) said Thursday that he would negotiate a debt-ceiling increase with spending cuts, potentially
setting up another fight with President Barack Obama
and congressional Democrats. 'Well, you know, I could say
the sun's not going to come up tomorrow, but guess what? It is. So the president can say, "I'm not going to
negotiate on the debt limit." Get over it,' he told CNBC, in an interview scheduled to air later Thursday. 'We're
spending more money than what we're bringing in. We have to deal with this problem. And if we're going to raise the debt limit then
we've got to do something about what's causing us to spend more money than what we bring in.' 'So guess what? We're
going
to have a debate and we're going to have a negotiation,' said Boehner." [HuffPost[3]]
70
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC I-L: Crowd Out
The House calendar is filled—It can’t handle any issues beyond debt ceiling and
immigration
Politico July 8th [2013 “NSA backlash hits privacy legislation”]
Now, it’s an even easier lift. Reforming the electronic communications law allows legislators to check the privacy box without wading
into the intelligence debate.
Rank-and-file lawmakers have recognized this — and want a piece. A House companion to the Leahy-Lee reform bill — introduced by
GOP Reps. Kevin Yoder of Kansas and Tom Graves of Georgia — has more than 100 co-sponsors, 22 of whom came after the first
NSA disclosures.
“Everyone’s hearing about it from their constituents from home, and so they want to have legislation they can sign on to respond to
it,” Yoder said.
That’s if they can move the bill forward. The Senate, in particular, needs to figure out how to handle civil agencies that don’t have
the authority to secure a warrant. They fear the requirement would crush their investigative capabilities. And in
the House, it
comes down to time. Reforms face a legislative calendar already jammed with immigration
legislation and a debt ceiling debate.
Agenda already filled for the next year with debt ceiling and immigration
Bloomberg News July 7th [2013 “Vilified U.S. Congress Shows Few Signs of Ending Gridlock”]
Representative Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat, said he
sees the measures most likely to pass this year -farm legislation, a debt-limit increase, an annual bill to reauthorize defense programs and
perhaps immigration -- as small items considering that Americans are still struggling in a slow economy. Even less will
probably get done next year as midterm elections loom, he said.
“That’s close to the agenda for the rest of the year,” Connolly said in an interview. “There’s so much not
addressed, in terms of jobs and infrastructure and dealing with sequestration,” he said, referring to automatic budget cuts that
kicked in earlier this year.
71
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact
Impact: Refusal to increase debt limit leads to economic collapse, history
proves Congress has always acted in the past.
US Department of the Treasury, 6/26/2013 ["Debt
Limit", http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx]
Page Content
The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations,
including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. The debt
limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses
and presidents of both parties have made in the past.
Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on
its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. That would precipitate another financial crisis and threaten
the jobs and savings of everyday Americans – putting the United States right back in a deep economic hole, just as the country is
recovering from the recent recession.
Congress has always acted when called upon to raise the debt limit. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to
permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29
times under Democratic presidents. In the coming weeks, Congress must act to increase the debt limit. Congressional leaders in
both parties have recognized that this is necessary. Recently, however, a number of myths about this issue have begun to surface.
72
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Economy
Failure to pass the debt ceiling will be catastrophic
Montopoli 11 – Political analyst for CBS ( 7/12/11, Brian, “The debt limit fight: A primer”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078566-503544.html,bs)
What happens if no deal is reached? Nothing short of economic catastrophe, according to the
administration and most economists. Though it's impossible to say exactly how a breach of the
debt ceiling - something that has never occurred - will play out, lack of action could mean the
U.S. dollar loses its "dominant role in the international financial system," as Treasury Secretary
Timothy Geithner has put it, as the failure of the nation to meet its obligations prompts the
world's creditors to seek alternatives to U.S. debt.
If the U.S. defaults to its creditors it could create worldwide economic chaos as U.S. Treasuries long considered the safest bet there is, and thus held by governments worldwide - suddenly
become less attractive. Some in Congress say the nation could potentially avoid default by
prioritizing payments to creditors like China once it can no longer borrow money. But that would
mean some extremely painful choices, such as suspending pay for military personnel, cutting off
Social Security checks and/or many other seemingly unthinkable options. Not only is that
politically untenable, the administration and many economist consider it default by another
name.
Rastello 7 - 10 – 11 Reporter for Bloomberg news (Sandrine, “IMF’s Lagarde Says Failure on U.S.
Debt Limit Will Be a ‘Shock’”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-10/imf-s-lagarde-saysfailure-on-u-s-debt-limit-will-be-a-shock-.html)
Christine Lagarde, the new head
of the International Monetary Fund, said failure to find agreement on raising
the U.S. debt ceiling will jeopardize global economic stability. The former French finance minister
said today on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” that the IMF is “concerned” and “very much
hoping” American lawmakers will compromise on raising the debt limit before an Aug. 2
deadline. She said she expects an agreement, adding that she can’t “imagine for a second” that the U.S. would default. A
default “would be a real shock” to the world’s largest economy, said Lagarde, who took her post July 5. It
would cause interest rates to jump, “stock markets taking a huge hit, and real nasty
consequences, not just for the United States, but for the entire global economy, because the U.S. is
such a big player and matters so much for other countries,” President Barack Obama is meeting with
congressional leaders today to break a partisan impasse over reducing the budget deficit and
increasing the government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit. The Treasury Department has said the ceiling must be raised
before Aug. 2 to avoid a default.
Debt Ceiling key to the global economy
Wolf 6/16/11 (Richard, political analyst for USA Today, Debate over U.S. debt limit is going down to the wire,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-15-debt-limit-debate_n.htm?csp=34news, MM)
In just seven weeks, America could run out of borrowed money. Exactly one month ago, the
Treasury Department began issuing IOUs rather than bonds to some government pension funds.
That allowed for continued auctions of so-called "risk-free" Treasury bonds until Aug. 2. Unless
Congress acts by then, the world's richest nation — unable to borrow $4 billion a day to pay its bills — would
risk default. Or would it? To hear Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tell it, interest rates would spike, stock and
home values would sink, savings and investment would dry up, jobs would disappear, businesses
would fail, and everything from tax refunds to troops' salaries would go unpaid. Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke says it would lead to "severe disruptions" in financial markets, lower credit
73
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
ratings and damage to the dollar and Treasury securities. The centrist Democratic think tank Third Way claims
the gyrations in labor, financial and stock markets would cost 642,500 jobs, add $19,175 to every mortgage in process and lop
$8,816 from the typical 401(k) account. Others say the doomsday scenarios are hogwash. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., says it would take
a simple law laying out who gets paid first when the government no longer can borrow 41 cents of each dollar it spends. As long as
bond holders collect interest on time, he says, there would be no default — just "sudden, drastic spending cuts" such as furloughing
federal workers or delaying welfare payments. Virtually no one expects this to happen, but the
White House and
Congress haven't yet found a way to avoid it. During the past six months, Washington has faced
partisan showdowns over tax cuts, then spending cuts. Now comes the need to increase the
government's $14.3 trillion debt limit — the amount of money it can owe creditors ranging from
China to the Social Security Trust Fund. The ceiling was reached May 16, and only action by a reluctant
Congress can raise it. The federal government relies on borrowed money like a fish needs water.
Threaten to take it away, and you risk a global crisis with economic, political, diplomatic and
even moral implications.
Freeze in the economy will spillover worldwide
Chin Hon 4/18 (Chau, US Bureau Chief, The Straits Times “IMF must be on high alert to ward off major crisis: Tharman; World
economy still fragile and significant risks remain, he says” Lexis)
The US is fast approaching its debt ceiling of US $14.29trillion (S $17.7trillion), and only Congress can raise this limit. A failure to
do so would lead to Washington defaulting
on some of its obligations, an event that could trigger a
financial crisis worse than the one in 2008.
On top of these policy dilemmas, there are also concerns about how the ongoing unrest in the
Middle East and the disasters in Japan will impact economic growth going ahead.
'A very important theme in our discussions (involved) developing the Fund's ability to anticipate crises, and
member countries' ability to collaborate in trying to avoid or reduce prospects of the next
crisis,' Mr Tharman noted.
'We have seen in the last two years that nothing is isolated. The risks in one region, one sphere can
rapidly be transmitted to the rest of the world.'
74
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Economy—AT Default Short
Even short-term default screws the economy and turns the case
Reuters, 1-6-2011
[“Republicans acknowledge debt limit should rise,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/07/us-usa-debt-idUSTRE70606E20110107]
Geithner said the federal government may hit the ceiling by March 31 on the amount of debt it is legally allowed to issue, and urged
Congress to raise it before then to avoid pushing the United States into default. "Even
a short-term or limited default
would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades," Geithner said in a letter
to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in November elections
on a promise to cut government spending and reduce debt but are faced with having to compromise on the debt limit. They say any
vote to increase the ceiling must be paired with a commitment to lower federal costs over the long term. "The American people will
not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending," House
Speaker John Boehner said. DEFAULT DANGERS A debt
default would throw markets into turmoil and
dramatically increase government borrowing costs for years to come, further increasing the U.S.
debt burden and sapping resources from the economy. Bond investors remain wary of the safety and soundness
of sovereign debt after the bailouts of Greece and Ireland last year, but Treasury officials said they did not see any evidence of such
concerns pushing up U.S. debt yields at this time.
75
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Economy—AT: Impact = Slow**/Impact Defense
Impact will happen quick – based off investor perception
Ward 4/22/2011 - Jon, senior political reporter, was Washington Correspondent for The Daily.
He was previously White House Correspondent for The Daily Caller (Conservative Strategists
Warn GOP About Economic Risks Of Pushing Debt Ceiling Debate Too Far, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/22/conservative-debt-ceiling-debate_n_852718.html)
Conservative strategists are warning that the
breaking point.
GOP should not push the debt ceiling debate too close to the
“If there is a vote on raising the debt ceiling and it fails, there will be a significant market reaction,” said Tony
Fratto, a former Treasury and White House official in the Bush administration. “Investors
already believe that
Congress doesn’t understand the financial markets. A failure to raise the debt ceiling will
confirm this to them." If the markets get spooked, U.S. treasury bond yields will spike, driving up interest rates and
increasing the price of borrowing money for everyone from the federal government to municipalities to consumers, Fratto warned.
The cascading effects on the economy would be severe and long-lasting. The negative market
reaction would "come quickly,” Fratto said. “I think you can virtually guarantee that, and I hear it from everyone that I
talk to in the markets, here and abroad.” He added, “I’m uncomfortable about the number of [Congress] members who don’t seem
to understand that.” But the market’s reaction to any debt vote will depend on what expectations are set by political actors in
Washington, cautions Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former top adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign.
Impact is linear – the longer we wait, the worse the economic recession will be
International Business Times 4/26/2011 - Boehner: 'Chance' of No Vote on U.S. Debt Ceiling,
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/138126/20110426/debt-ceiling-vote-john-boehner-timothygeithner.htm#ixzz1KeV1H57M
The U.S. would reach the limit by May 16 and that extraordinary measures could be taken to borrow within the limit by July 8,
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a letter on April 4. "At that point the Treasury would
have no remaining borrowing authority," Geithner said, noting that the U.S. would not have enough cash "to meet our commitments
securely." "The
longer Congress fails to act, the more we risk that investors here and around the world will
lose confidence in our ability to meet our commitments and our obligations," Geithner said. In a
previous letter on January 6, Geithner told Reid that "never in our history has Congress failed to increase the
debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States.
Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to
the loss of millions of American jobs. Even
a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic
economic consequences that would last for decades. Failure to increase the limit would be deeply
irresponsible."
76
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Economy—AT: No Default
Even if there’s no default the impacts will still occur
Masters 4/22/2011 - Jonathan, Associate Staff writer for the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.
Debt Ceiling: Costs and Consequences, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/international-finance/us-debt-ceiling-costs-consequences/p24751)
Most economists, including those in the White House and from former administrations, agree that the impact of a government
default would be severe. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
has labeled a U.S. default a "recovery-ending
event" (WSJ) that would likely spark another financial crisis. But short of default, officials
warn that legislative delays in raising the debt ceiling could also inflict significant harm
on the U.S. economy.
Geithner has argued that congressional gridlock will sow significant uncertainty in the bond markets and
place upward pressure on interest rates. He warns that the increase would not only hike future borrowing costs of the federal
government, but would also raise capital costs for struggling U.S. businesses and cash-strapped homebuyers. In addition, rising
interest rates would divert future taxpayer money away from much-needed capital investments
such as infrastructure, education, and health care. Estimates suggest that even an increase of twenty-five basis
points on Treasury yields could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million more per month.
Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase & Co., cautioned against "playing chicken" with the debt cap, asserting that the
consequences of inaction would start to accelerate in the weeks ahead of an actual default. He added that JP
Morgan would take drastic precautionary measures "way ahead of time."
77
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Hegemony
Turns the aff we control the better internal link to hegemony – debt
crisis kills heg
Khalilzad, 2-8-2011
[Zalmay, was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during
the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense
Department from 1990 to 1992, “The Economy and National Security,” 2-8,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmaykhalilzad]
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous
proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget
— would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if
unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be
unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical
retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic
devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their
empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.”
Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan,
abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If
the U.S. debt problem goes
critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and
shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing
rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social,
demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter
the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals
could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play
major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises
because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the
great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems
produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an
American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario,
there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in
seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States.
Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.
Default collapses hegemony, ushers in an age of multipolarity that breeds prolif, miscalc,
Asian war, and Chinese aggression – WWII empirically proves
Khalizad 11 (Zalmay, former US ambassador to Afghanistan, former US ambassador to Iraq, United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations, counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2/8/11, National Review, “The
Economy and National Security” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024) Today, economic
and fiscal
trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader.
While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of
rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from
American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry
and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis,
not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the
78
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling
almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector.
When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax
revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt
rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions
to reduce deficits,
publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise
significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or
require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse,
if unanticipated events trigger
what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be
unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would
almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios
would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France
during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their
empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to
maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to
their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union
to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench,
reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while
other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil
have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours,
and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar
world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether
but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could
intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play
major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international
crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace
among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have
been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers.
Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could
have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in
an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in
seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States.
Either way,
hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival
powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s
economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic
missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed,
ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties
in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following
crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and
Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given
the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking
and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges,
the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing
enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic
trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education,
and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically,
Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we
face today.
79
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Proliferation will cause global nuclear war
Taylor, 1 (Theodore, Chairman of NOVA, Former Nuclear Weapons Designer, Recipient of the US Atomic Energy Commission’s
1965 Lawrence Memorial Award and former Deputy Dir. of Defense Nuclear Agency, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, in
“Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking”, http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html)
Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence
on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons
will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the
world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons
under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this
Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear
weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers . For example, a nation in an
advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete
the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should
happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small
nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.
type can be constructed.
80
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Cyber Attacks Scenario
Failure to reach a deal guarantees government shutdown. – empirics
prove
Farry, 1-19-2011
[Yanira, Junior Editor – Veterans Today, Military & Foreign Affairs Journal, “GOP-Tea Party Play
Chicken With U.S. Credit, Courting Catastrophe,”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/19/gop-tea-party-play-chicken-with-u-s-creditcourting-catastrophe/]
SHUTTING DOWN GOVERNMENT: If the
debt limit is reached, the government is forced to move to a
purely cash-flow budget, paying bills with only the tax revenue that comes in. Interest payments on the debt would get paid
first, but what is the order of payment after that? Government activities that could fail to be funded range from
Social Security and Medicare to military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1995-96, when House Republicans,
led by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, refused to raise the debt ceiling for a short time, it caused “two temporary
shutdowns of all ‘nonessential’ federal government activities, including a cessation of toxic
waste cleanups, disease control activities, and a suspension of many law enforcement and drug control operations,”
ultimately costing the U.S. taxpayer more than $800 million. The Clinton Treasury Department was required to employ some
creative accounting — “including a temporary use of retirement funds for former government employees” — to stave off even
worse outcomes. Analysts at Deutsche Bank have found that such efforts would not work as well today, and the
government
would “not be able to stave off a government shutdown (or possible suspension of bond payments) for long” if
the debt ceiling isn’t raised. But still, some Republicans, such as former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R), have said this is the
route Congress should choose. As Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers put it, “If we get to the point
where we damage the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”
That causes cyberattacks.
Sideman, 2-23-2011
[Alysha, Federal Computer Week Contributor, “Agencies must determine computer security
teams in face of potential federal shutdown” http://fcw.com/Articles/2011/02/23/Agenciesmust-determine-computer-security-teams-in-face-of-shutdown.aspx?Page=1]
With the WikiLeaks hacks and other threats to cybersecurity present, guarding against cyberattacks has become a
significant part of governing -- especially because most government agencies have moved to
online systems. As a potential government shutdown comes closer, agencies must face new questions about
defining “essential” computer personnel. Cyber threats weren’t as significant during the 1995 furlough as
they are today, reports NextGov. The publication adds that agencies need to buck up and be organized. In late January,
government officials, NATO and the European Union banded together in Brussels to formulate a plan to battle cyber bandits,
according to Defense Systems. Leaders there agreed that existing
cybersecurity measures were incomplete and
decided to fast-track a new plan for cyber incident response. Meanwhile, observers are wondering whether the U.S.
government has a plan to deal with cyberattacks in the case of a shutdown. The lists of essential
computer security personnel drawn up 15 years ago are irrelevant today, computer specialists told NextGov. In 1995, the only
agencies concerned about cybersecurity were entities such as the FBI and CIA. Today, before any potential government shutdown
happens, a plan of essential IT personnel should be determined, the specialists add. Agencies should be figuring out which systems
will need daily surveillance and strategic defense, as well as evaluating the job descriptions of the people operating in those
systems, former federal executives told NextGov. Hord Tipton, a former Interior Department CIO, agrees. “If
they haven’t
done it, there’s going to be a mad scramble, and there’s going to be a hole in the system,” he told
the site. All government departments are supposed to have contingency plans on deck that spell out essential systems and the
employees associated with them, according to federal rules. Meanwhile, some experts say determining which IT workers are
essential depends more on the length of the shutdown. Jeffrey Wheatman, a security and privacy analyst with the Gartner research
group, tells NextGov that a shutdown lasting a couple of weeks “would require incident response personnel, network administrators
and staff who monitor firewall logs for potential intrusions.” If a shutdown lasted a month or longer, more employees would need to
81
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
report, he said, adding: “New
threats could emerge during that time frame, which demands people
with strategy-oriented job functions to devise new lines of defense.” Employees who are deemed
“essential” are critical to national security. Cyber warfare or holes in cybersecurity can threaten a nation’s infrastructure. In
particular, the electric grid, the nation’s military assets, financial sector and telecommunications networks can be vulnerable in the
face of an attack, reports Federal Computer Week.
Great power escalation.
Fritz, 2009
[Jason, researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament,
former Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond
University, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control,” July,
http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf]
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source
knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through
computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If
access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually cause one
nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear
power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty
bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed,
removal of geographical distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies
which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide
responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear
weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals. All computers which are
connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed network may also
be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded
exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have
access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly
transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal
how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer networks, including
experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad
capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps
isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There
is evidence to suggest multiple attempts
have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US Navy to
send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as
Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet
leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet
leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking
communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the system.
Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network operations. By using
proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to
launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China
was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and
disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction.
Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a
nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so
they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out
communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional largescale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military
response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent
to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all
encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber
terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear
weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.
82
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Impact—Cyber Attacks ext
Cyber warfare can escalate
Harwood 9 - writer in Washington DC. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, the
Huffington Post, the Columbia Journalism Review ( 6/7/2009, Matthew, “America's
cybersecurity threat”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/01/obama-us-cybersecuritytsar, bs )
Obama alluded to such a scenario in his speech when he said: "Indeed, in today's world, acts of
terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes
on the computer – a weapon of mass disruption." He also cited a cyber-exploit last year where
malicious software – malware – infected thousands of military computers, as well as the cyberattacks, presumably from Russia, that crippled Georgia's digital infrastructure before Russian
tanks rolled in. The idea that trading cyber-attacks between nations could lead to war isn't
science fiction.
Mutually assured destruction does not apply to cyber terrorism
Harwood 9 - writer in Washington DC. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, the
Huffington Post, the Columbia Journalism Review ( 6/7/2009, Matthew, “America's
cybersecurity threat”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/01/obama-us-cybersecuritytsar, bs )
When there can be no certainty who the attacker is, the cold war maxim of mutually assured
destruction loses its morbid appeal. No one should forget that November's terrorist attacks on
Mumbai were an attempt by Pakistani jihadists to provoke war between India and Pakistan. It
isn't crazy to assume that terrorists might dress up a cyber-attack to look like the first volley of
a coordinated military attack by one nation against another. If a nation believes a cyber-attack
is a prelude to an invasion, you can bet they will respond in kind, if technically feasible, or
escalate the conflict to deter continuing attacks, whether physical or cyber.
83
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC N/U
Republicans are resisting a raise in the debt ceiling—Obama’s political power
on the budget is dead
NCSHA July 1st [2013, National Council of State Housing Agencies, “South Carolina: The
sequester's long, slow burn” US Official News]
Making matters worse: Washington’s attention has shifted away from the fiscal fight and the fallout that comes with $1.2 trillion
slashed from the Pentagon and most domestic agencies. The budget debate will inevitably return when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30
and a House-Senate-White House deal is required to avert a government shutdown. House Republicans
are also still
demanding concessions from President Barack Obama before they approve an extension to the
country’s debt limit.
But the notion of a grand bargain that turns off sequestration is also long gone. Obama has been stuck playing
defense on a string of scandals while fighting to keep alive his second-term agenda. Capitol Hill
leaders essentially tuned out months ago.
Republicans won’t compromise on the debt ceiling—immigration proves
Chait July 2nd [Jonathan, staff writer for New York Magazine, 2013 “Democratic Deficit Scolds Get
Desperate and Weird” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/democratic-deficit-scoldsget-desperate-weird.html]
What? Have these men not been following the news? There’s a Republican-controlled House that does not want
to raise taxes. At all. Not even a tiny bit. They don’t want to compromise on anything, not even on
things, like raising the debt ceiling, that they agree need to happen, let alone on things they don’t
want to happen. And the current immigration-reform negotiations show just how impossible any
deal with the House GOP is. You have the entire Republican donor base, backed by a persuasive case for long-term
partisan self-interest, and numerous arch-conservative Republicans, like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, vocally urging their
party to make a deal. I thought an immigration deal would get done, but House Republicans appear to be even more
obstinate than I thought, and I already thought they were borderline insane. You’re seeing how hard it is to pass
immigration reform through the House. A deal with tax increases would be vastly harder.
Republicans will hold the debt ceiling hostage
The Cap Times July 8th [2013 “Morning briefing: School vouchers, bus union officials, downtown
bars”: http://host.madison.com/news/local/morning-briefing-school-vouchers-bus-unionofficials-downtown-bars/article_0e78fbe8-e7c8-11e2-a955-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz2YSo27eGg]
GOP may hold debt ceiling hostage to enact Paul Ryan’s budget: Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress.org reports: "House Republicans
will hold the national debt ceiling increase hostage until President Obama agrees to mandatory
spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the National Journal reports, and will seek to use the
leverage of default to force Democrats to enact the policies in Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget. Since
slashing discretionary spending to historic lows — the discretionary side of the ledger has grown at a slower rate than inflation since
2007 and now makes up a smaller share of the economy than it did before the Great Recession — the GOP has shifted from
demanding dollar-for-dollar immediate spending cuts and is now focusing on drafting a range of options to significantly restructure
mandatory benefit programs."
Obama and Republicans deadlocked on debt ceiling
Wall Street Journal June 30th [2013 “How Next Debt-Ceiling Fight Could Play Out”
84
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
For the first time in three years, Washington is in the midst of a multimonth stretch without facing a fiscal deadline. Business owners
and households seem to be enjoying the breather, and the economy is trying to stretch its legs. But consider yourself forewarned—it
probably won't last much longer.
Sometime this fall, perhaps as soon as September but potentially as late as November, Democrats and Republicans
are expected to lock horns again over one of Washington's least pleasant (and that's saying something) topics:
whether to raise the government's borrowing limit. These debates can get ugly.
Bipartisan efforts earlier this year to broker a budget deal and raise the debt ceiling have
faltered amid the deadlock on taxes, the shrinking deficit and near-term improvements in Medicare's financial
footing.
Meanwhile, Washington has become consumed by the debate over an immigration overhaul,
national-security leaks and the Internal Revenue Service's practices.
Obama won’t agree to GOP demands on the debt ceiling
PoliticUSA.com July 7th [2013 “Stupid Linings Playbook: Boehner & Ryan Cook Up A Plan That
Hands Dems the 2014 Election” http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/07/boehner-ryan-cookdebt-ceiling-plan-hands-democrats-2014-election.html]
The House is responsible for raising the debt ceiling. President Obama doesn’t have to agree to
any of these options, because he isn’t running for reelection ever again. Obama can say no to them all, and
Democrats can use these options against Republicans in the 2014 election campaign. Boehner and Ryan are setting the whole
Republican Party up for failure next year.
House Republicans may think they are safe, but how safe will they be if they vote to privatize Medicare and Social Security before
their reelection campaigns kick off? If House Republicans stay on this course, they will also force Republican Senate candidates to
say whether they support privatizing Medicare and Social Security.
President Obama isn’t going to agree to any of this, and on the off chance that he would, Senate Democrats have
repeatedly vowed to kill anything that touches Social Security and Medicare. In short, the
Boehner/Ryan/House GOP plan is already DOA.
Republicans and Democrats have no strategy for agreeing to a debt ceiling rise
The National Journal June 27th [2013 “If You Thought the Fiscal Cliff Was Bad, Wait Until This
Year's Debt-Ceiling Showdown”]
In a week filled with landmark Supreme Court decisions and significant movement in the Senate on overhauling immigration laws,
it's hard to wrap one's mind around the prospect of yet another budget battle. Yet
lurking on the other side of the
August recess are more fiscal deadlines and potential chaos, culminating in the need to increase
the debt ceiling, probably in October or November.
The battle lines of the upcoming debt-ceiling fight will seem familiar to anyone who's paid attention since
the summer of 2011, when the country came close to defaulting on its obligations. Democrats, including President Obama, do
not believe the debt ceiling should be a bargaining chip in broader budget wars; they say Congress
should increase the debt ceiling without any strings attached, as it's traditionally done.
But in the era of $1 trillion-plus deficits from 2009 to 2012 and with the rise of the tea party, Republicans
began to insist
that any increase in the country's borrowing capacity be accompanied by equal cuts in spending.
The last standoff brought us the legacies of the failed super committee, the fiscal-cliff compromise that extended the majority of the
2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and the new realities of the across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester. No one is quite sure
yet what the debt-ceiling fight of 2013 will bring.
Nor do Democratic and Republican aides on Capitol Hill
have a clear sense of strategy on how best to approach the fall's "mini-cliffs." (It's a fact of life in
Congress that the path forward does not usually present itself until lawmakers are faced with a deadline.)
85
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
"Maybe we'll have a clearer sense in August," one House Republican aide said. "The items in play, though, are changes to
entitlement programs, pro-growth tax reform, and energy and regulatory policy."
Farm Bill proves debt ceiling negotiations will fail
The Main Wire June 21st [2013 “US Budget Week: GOP Farm Bill Chaos Is Bad Omen For Debt
Hike”]
Budget experts say the House vote on the farm bill is a troubling omen as key fiscal issues loom later
this year. Congress is expected to need to pass debt ceiling legislation this fall. Additionally, Congress will need to pass a bill
funding the government for the 2014 fiscal year that begins October 1.
"The
farm bill vote augurs badly for more important bills that are coming down the pike,
including immigration and the debt ceiling," says Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman who is now a guest scholar
at the Brookings Institution.
"I'm not convinced this shows the Republican leadership is that bad. Maybe it's the followership that's the real problem. The farm
vote sure looks like a revolt of the (House Republican) caucus. And that is something that
Speaker Boehner and his leadership team can't feel good about," Frenzel said.
Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, said the defeat of the farm bill is troubling because the bill is often passed on
a large bipartisan vote. Additionally, he said the
failure of the House GOP leadership raises questions about
their legislative acumen.
"The farm bill is a major bill and the majority party is not supposed to bring up a major bill unless it's confident that it can pass it.
This level of miscalculation should not occur," he said.
"There is a pattern of House Republican leaders not being able
has to be of concern for anyone who has to negotiate with them," Bixby added.
to deliver on critical votes and this
Debt ceiling negotiations are at an impasse
Politico June 10th [2013 “D.C. fall: Shutdown, debt ceiling fight”]
Separately, Republicans
and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee met behind closed doors with Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew
about whether there should be conditions tied to boosting the U.S. debt limit. But the two
sides remain at an impasse on how to proceed on that hugely controversial issue. The Treasury Department expects to hit
the borrowing limit in October.
At that meeting, according to attendees, Republicans
demanded that any increase in the debt ceiling be
tied to an overhaul of the federal Tax Code as well as potentially major changes to entitlement programs.
"Sen. [Orrin] Hatch believes that any debt ceiling increase should include spending reductions and reforms and that it's time the
president get in the game to come to a meaningful resolution instead of creating a false fight," said Antonia Ferrier, his
spokeswoman. Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and GOP leaders have ruled out any tax increases as
part of a budget deal.
Lew, though, flatly rejected that idea, saying that tax reform should be held off until the debt limit is increased and that
the national borrowing limit should be increased without preconditions. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a senior member of the
Democratic leadership, strongly backed Lew's position, several sources said.
Debt ceiling will fail because civil liberties scandals have destroyed Obama’s
credibility with his base
The Washington Post June 13th [2013 “The man guarding Obama's
legacy”]
Pfeiffer said his communications experience has made him more mindful above all of projecting the president's strength. The
2011 debt-ceiling negotiations, he said, showed him the importance of Obama
perceived as weak or taking the base for granted.
not being
86
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
"The
greatest danger zone a president can be in is when he is being attacked on the left and the
right," Pfeiffer said, recalling the negative reaction to the debt deal. "When they are reading off the same talking points, that's
when presidencies fall apart."
That is, of course, precisely the situation Obama
is in again, as civil liberties advocates on
both ends of the political spectrum criticize his aggressive surveillance programs. Some people who
have worked with Pfeiffer questioned whether he is up to the task, describing him as more a daily planner than a long-term
strategist. Others with knowledge of the administration's inner workings find the characterization of Pfeiffer as the base's champion
in the budget deliberations exaggerated and said he played no role in frequent White House discussions on gun policy strategy.
Obama efforts to persuade GOP on debt ceiling failing
Politico June 13th [2013 “W.H. rediscovers House GOP's phone numbers”]
When Obama
wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build
pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a failure. Now, the White House recognizes that it
must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, according to sources involved.
The administration has put a full-court press on
Senate Republicans, dining with them and bringing them onto the golf course. The White House also
This quiet outreach isn't Obama's
only action on the Hill.
recently reached out to top Republican senators about a deficit deal.
There have also been two recent conversations between House Speaker John Boehner's office and the
White House about lifting the debt ceiling -- but they have not yet been fruitful.
87
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
AT I-L
Obama leadership irrelevant to debt ceiling—GOP will resist out of spite
US News & World Reports June 19th [2013 “A GOP With a Death Wish”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2013/06/19/obama-boehner-and-thegop-crisis-of-leadership]
There's no doubt that Washington in general and Congress in particular are at an historic level of dysfunction. They
can't agree on a budget, can't manage to do even the basic work of the legislative body, let alone put their heads together for bigidea proposals to address climate change, entitlements or education. But there's
chattering class to throw up one's collective hands and accuse
an unfortunate tendency in the
Obama – and sometimes Boehner – of failing to show
"leadership."
[See a collection of political cartoons on the tea party.]
The problem with that accusation is that it
assumes either the president or the speaker has the power to tell
people what to do. They can fire their own staffs, but they can't fire elected members of Congress. And the old ways
of cajoling and intimidating lawmakers – such as threatening to take away pet projects for their districts – don't work
anymore. There's a solid group of House members (and some senators as well) who simply don't care if they don't get anything
for the home front, and some who actively reject it.
On a broader scale, there
are members who don't care if failing to raise the debt ceiling could throw
the world into a global recession and permanently damage the nation's credit rating. It's like negotiating with terrorists:
people who think they have nothing to lose won't stop until they get everything they want. There's simply no incentive to
compromise.
When Congress is at a stalemate, Obama gets accused of being a "weak leader," as if he could somehow bring lawmakers to his side
by sheer force of personality. Anyone who's baby-sat a two year old knows how silly this argument is. Someone who isn't concerned
about the impact his or her own behavior has on the community at-large isn't going to be moved by strong words or a stern face.
Adding to Obama's particular challenge is that there is a group of congressmen who are
so resentful (still) that Obama
is president that they won't participate in anything that will keep Obama from being the "failure" they have
deemed him since day one. If Obama tries to let Congress take some ownership of legislation by writing much of it themselves, he is
called "weak." If
he asserts his authority by nominating someone for his administration that Republicans don't like, he is
called arrogant.
Obama won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling
Khaleej Times June 24th [2013 “Why Obama must prevail for a 'grand bargain'”]
We can't afford to wait that long. Agreeing on a framework is still possible this year. It can be achieved as part of congressional
appropriations negotiations. To be clear, a deal should not be pursued as part of the coming debt ceiling faceoff. President
Barack Obama
has already said that he won't negotiate over the debt ceiling. So it should be off
the table as a bargaining tool. We should instead lift the debt ceiling through the 2014 election, and eventually replace it
with statutory debttoGDP targets and a constitutional amendment establishing a debttoGDP "credit card" limit. What makes good
sense, however, is to link a grand bargain framework to the current negotiations over next year's appropriations.
88
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC AT: Impact
89
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Default/Impact = Inevitable
Debt limit doesn’t solve the cumulative debt, means impact is inevitable
Gowdy 11 (Trey, US Representative, 6/5/11, Spartanburg Herald – Journal, “ Any debt ceiling deal must include wholesale fiscal
reforms” ProQuest)
On the other hand, Republicans
have also consistently voted to raise the debt ceiling oftentimes
without sounding the alarm that systemic reform was necessary or that peril was looming if we did
not stop the spending.
To be clear, our
debt represents the greatest threat to our national security. The cumulative debt is
$14 trillion. The annual deficit exceeds $1.5 trillion. Even eliminating all discretionary spending
would leave the United States with an annual deficit approaching $1 trillion. So cutting discretionary
spending alone will not get us out of this fiscal slough of despond; neither will cutting defense
spending -- which as a percentage of GDP has gone down over the past decade.
90
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
DC Not Key to Econ
Debt limit not key to the economy – no default would occur
Tanner 11 (Michael D, Senior Fellow at the CATO institute, 5/13/11, National Post, “ Top myths on the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis”
ProQuest)
The next big fiscal fight will be over when and how to increase the debt limit. The
administration has been hard at
work trying to shape the message and public opinion. Unsurprisingly, much of that message is less than 100%
accurate. Here are some myths about the debt ceiling and the upcoming debate about raising it:
Failure to pass means defaulting on our debts. If there has been one consistent message from the White House, it
that the United States can't afford to "default on our debts." That is almost certainly true. However, refusing to raise the
debt limit does not mean defaulting on our debts. The U.S. Treasury currently takes in more than
enough revenue to pay both the interest and the principal on the debts we currently owe. And if
the Obama administration is truly worried about whether it will do so, then it should urge Congress to
pass the legislation proposed by Senator Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) requiring the Treasury
Department to pay those bills first. It is true that, once we had paid our debt-service bills, there
wouldn't be enough money left over to pay for everything else the Obama administration wants to spend
money on. The government would have to prioritize its expenditures -sending out cheques for the troops' pay and Social Security
first. Other spending would have to wait. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says that not spending money Congress has
appropriated is "the same as default." It is not. It is economizing, which is what you do when you are out of money.
No default – funds could be shifted and impact claims are alarmism
Ackerman 11 (Andrew, Dow Jones, WSJ, “ Sen. Pat Toomey: No Scenario In Which US Default Is Necessary”
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201106031755dowjonesdjonline000601&title=senpattoomeyno-scenario-in-which-us-default-is-necessary)
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Despite a warning by Moody's Investors Service that it might downgrade its credit rating for the U.S. if
progress isn't made soon on raising the federal debt ceiling, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Penn) insists
that a failure to
increase the debt cap need not have adverse credit implications for the country or lead to an
immediate default.
In an interview Friday, Toomey said President Barack Obama could prioritize federal payments to ensure that
principal and interest payments are made to bondholders even if the federal government must
partially shut down most of its other operations.
"There's no scenario in which a default is necessary," Toomey said. He suggested that Moody's was
reacting to the "shrill alarmism" of the Obama administration, which has warned a failure to raise the debt
limit before an Aug. 2 deadline would have catastrophic consequences.
Increasing the debt ceiling is based on flaw logic – spending and taxes are the larger problem
Dallas News 11 - Let’s focus on the national debt, not the debt ceiling
Emotional chest-thumping about the debt ceiling is a poor prescription for healing our nation’s
fiscal illness. Although most Americans are rightly worried about the dangers of the upwardly spiraling IOUs, we too
willingly accept flawed, simplistic proposals that aren’t real remedies. This reaction empowers our federal
government to be irresponsible and ignores the shared sacrifice needed to tug the nation out of its financial quicksand. In public
opinion polls, Americans say they want action to trim the budget deficit and national debt —
just as long as the steps don’t involve spending cuts or higher taxes. Would anyone seriously try that with
your personal checkbook and expect results? While it is tempting to say “enough is enough” and urge Congress not to increase the
$14.2 trillion debt ceiling this year, the action would be imprudent and move the United States no closer to putting its financial
house in order. This may seem contradictory, but most of the
needed money has already been committed,
and the tax cut compromise passed in December created obligations requiring Congress to raise
the debt ceiling. In essence, lawmakers are arguing over whether to pay existing bills. The only sensible answer to that debate:
It’s never wise to stiff your creditors, even if you’re Uncle Sam. If lawmakers fail to raise the debt ceiling, they will face two
91
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
catastrophic choices: huge spending cuts or tax hikes of several hundred billion dollars to meet this fiscal year’s financial obligations,
or a decision by the world’s biggest economy to not pay its debts. Both would shred the country’s economic credibility in the eyes of
foreign investors, who, for some time, have been funding our lifestyles, excesses and all. Racking
up long-term debt on
the national credit card without a credible repayment plan has severe consequences. It’s those
concerns — and signs that Congress might again gridlock on the debt — that most recently prompted the rating agency Standard &
Poor’s to change its outlook on U.S. securities to “negative” from “stable.” The
real unaddressed problem is
Congress’ repeated failure to adhere to its own spending targets and to reform massively
expensive entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Congress must commit to
spending cuts and carefully reform the tax code so the burden is fairly shared, even if it means a tax
increase for some. Those are among the key recommendations of the president’s bipartisan fiscal commission, which tried to rise
above the political gridlock. So far, only small parts of the solution have emerged in competing deficit-curbing plans from Rep. Paul
Ryan, R-Wis., and President Barack Obama . This newspaper is looking to the budget work by the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate
Anything less is an ineffective financial prescription that will
leave the nation in even worse economic health.
to offer something far more comprehensive.
Debt ceiling wont solve the economy
Montopoli 11 – Political analyst for CBS ( 7/11/11, Brian, “Obama: Debt deal alone won't fix
economy” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078451503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody, bs)
Laying the groundwork for a long-term improvement to the fiscal health of the United States
does not solve the short-term weakness in the jobs market and Congress should take action to
create jobs, including simulative measures like extending payroll tax cuts for individuals and
businesses, President Obama said on Monday.
"I am not somebody who believes that just because we solve the deficit and debt problems
short-term, medium-term or long-term, that that automatically solves the unemployment
problem," he said at a White House news conference Monday. "I think we're still gonna have to
do a bunch of stuff, including, for example, trade deals that are before Congress right now that
could add tens of thousands of jobs."
The president again made the case for the extension of last year's cut of two percent of the
payroll tax paid by employees, even though he said it "might not be exactly the kind of program
that I would design in order to boost employment." Still, he said, the tax cut is the sort of
simulative bill that can get through the GOP-held House of Representatives, and "puts money in
the pockets of people who are then spending it at businesses large and small."
Mr. Obama defended the $830 billion stimulus package of federal spending and tax breaks he
pushed in the first year of his presidency, arguing that it "created a whole bunch of jobs" and he
would push for more economic stimulus if he could.
Raising the Debt Limit doesn’t solve anything, and long term sustainable economic policy,
like the plan, solves
ABC 11 (“Why Raising the Debt Ceiling Might Not Be Enough”, http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/why-raising-the-debt-ceiling-might-not-be-enough.html,
Hemanth)
Congress has so tangled itself in the thorny vines of its partisan divisions that even if it does find a
way to raise the debt ceiling ahead of an August 2nd deadline, that might not be enough to satisfy
global markets and credit ratings agencies. While it’s obvious that some members are trying to figure out a way back from the ledge of default,
they might be too close to the edge to back away now. All this talk about fiscal responsibility has set expectations in the
global markets (and probably on Main Street, too) that Congress and the Administration are going to
actually make some tough choices and make headway on getting Uncle Sam’s financial house in
92
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
order. If they don’t make real headway, the Federal government might get dinged by the ratings
agencies even if they succeed in increasing the debt limit and avoiding technical default. Standard & Poor’s
hinted that real deficit/debt reform (not just a debt limit increase) is needed when they revised its outlook for U.S. ratings to negative in April: “Some compromise that achieves
agreement on a comprehensive budgetary consolidation program--containing deficit-reduction measures in amounts near those recently proposed [ed: $4T], and combined with
meaningful steps toward implementation by 2013--is our baseline assumption and could lead us to revise the outlook back to stable,” writes S&P. “Alternatively, the lack of such
an agreement or a significant further fiscal deterioration for any reason could lead us to lower the rating.” The warning shots from Fitch Ratings and Moody’s sound similar notes.
It would not be surprising to see Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke asked about this escape hatch during his semi-annual testimony on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. In June, the
I believe, lies in recognizing
that our nation's fiscal problems are inherently long-term in nature. Consequently, the appropriate
response is to move quickly to enact a credible, long-term plan for fiscal consolidation. By taking
decisions today that lead to fiscal consolidation over a longer horizon, policymakers can avoid a
sudden fiscal contraction that could put the recovery at risk. At the same time, establishing a credible
plan for reducing future deficits now would not only enhance economic performance in the long run,
but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates and increased
consumer and business confidence.”
Chairman offered these words of advice (echoing several years of calls for fiscal changes): “The solution to this dilemma,
93
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
AT: China Impact
No impact, China economy will inevitably pass the US
Leonard 11 (Andrew, 6/21/11, Salon, “The Chinese Debt Ceiling Invasion”
http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/?story=/tech/htww/2011/06/21/chinese_invasion_debt_ceiling)
The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins brings us the news that Mark Amodei, a Republican running in a special election to fill
Nevada's 2nd Congressional District seat, is airing
a campaign ad making the intriguing argument that a
vote to raise the debt ceiling is a vote to enable Chinese imperial world domination.
Cue the ominous narration, from a stereotypically accented Chinese TV anchorwoman:
"Obama just kept raising the debt limit and their independence became a new dependence. As their debt grew, our fortune
grew. And that is how our great empire rose again."
Whether or not the debt ceiling is raised, the Chinese economy will one day surpass the
United States. That doesn't necessarily mean the People's Liberation Army will establish beachheads near the Washington
Monument and Jefferson Memorial, but at the very least some overinflated American egos are due to be punctured. The U.S.
can't put of that day of reckoning forever, but there are some ways we could hasten its arrival.
94
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
AT: Heg
Hitting the debt ceiling good- solves economic collapse, dollar drop and fiscal stability
Solomon 11 (Lawrence, writer for the Financial Post and an expert on fiscal matters, Lawrence Solomon: Raising U.S. debt
ceiling is real threat, http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/21/lawrence-solomon-raising-u-s-debt-ceiling-is-real-threat/, MM)
The United States may soon do something “unthinkable [that] must be avoided,” something that
“could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs,” something “deeply irresponsible” that
would trigger “catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades.” These warnings and
others are packed into a remarkable 1,500-word letter from U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to all 535 members of the
U.S. Congress, spelling out in detail why a failure by Congress to raise the U.S. debt ceiling would
“compromise America’s creditworthiness in the eyes of the world,” undermine “the dollar’s
dominant role in the international financial system” and “raise all borrowing costs,” leading to
the “loss of the nation’s triple-A credit rating, sky-high interest rates and rapid inflation, all of which would make a
return to prosperity, job growth, and balanced budgets an impossibility.” Geithner’s pull-out-all-the stops letter is
remarkable because, on almost every count, he has it exactly backwards. It is the prospect of a
higher debt ceiling and thus higher U.S. borrowing that led Standard & Poor’s this week to give the
U.S. government a negative outlook for the first time in history — tellingly, S&P did not once
express angst over the existing debt ceiling. It is the level of U.S. borrowing that undermines the
dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency and raises the prospect of rapid inflation — in
the United States, as well as around the world. As The Wall Street Journal reported this week, with the debasement of
the dollar continuing unabated, “the world is starting to protect, and perhaps ultimately free, itself from
America’s weak dollar standard. The European Central Bank recently raised interest rates and may do so
again to prevent an inflation breakout…. At a meeting of developing countries — the so-called BRICs — in China
recently, leaders called for ‘a broad-based international reserve currency system providing
stability and certainty.’ They weren’t referring to the dollar.” Unlike most other major Western economies, the
U.S. economy is experiencing unusually high unemployment coupled with unusually low growth in GDP. Forecasters at firms such as
Morgan Stanley and RBS Securities have been revising their U.S.
GDP estimates downward, and Capital Economics this
week painted an especially grim picture, speculating that its forecast of a paltry 1% GDP growth may actually be optimistic: “there
is now even a decent outside chance that the economy contracted outright,” it advised its clients. If
Geithner’s worst fear came to pass and the U.S. Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling, his
litany of horrors would evaporate. With the U.S. government unable to borrow willy-nilly, the
Federal Reserve would not print the dollars that now spur the government’s stimulus spending
spree. The lenders who hold $9-trillion in marketable U.S. debt would immediately see its value
appreciate, quelling their fear of being repaid in grossly inflated dollars and eliminating any need
to abandon U.S. bonds, as some fear may have begun with China’s unloading in January and February of $6-billion in U.S.
bonds. With the U.S. dollar solidifying, talk of switching to a new world currency would vanish.
U.S. borrowing costs would decline. And Standard & Poor’s would reverse its negative outlook, no
longer concerned, as it is, that the U.S. has “very large budget deficits and rising government
indebtedness [without a clear] path to addressing these.” How could Geithner have things so wrong? His listof-horrors-letter equates a failure to raise the debt ceiling with a default on the U.S. debt. They are
entirely different matters. Should Congress refuse to give the Obama administration more money to
spend, the government would continue to service its bondholders — foreign and domestic — with ease.
The government’s net interest payments on the debt this year are projected to be $225-billion, a
mere 10% of the $2.2-trillion in taxes and other receipts that it will be bringing in.
Default and dollar drop is harmless and the Treasury can solve the impact
Beutler 11 (Brian, political analyst, Toomey, Top Republicans: Not Raising The Debt Ceiling? No Biggie!,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/toomey-top-republicans-not-raising-the-debt-ceiling-no-biggie.php, MM)
95
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Top Republicans
in Congress are advancing the idea that allowing the U.S. to default on its debts
for a short time will be fairly harmless, and is a far better option than lifting the debt ceiling
without simultaneous, dramatic spending cuts. The new push comes just days after the country hit its statutory
debt limit. In essence, the GOP is arming itself with a rationale to continue to oppose a debt ceiling
hike, despite dire warning from economists, finance experts, and the Obama administration
about the consequences of default. At an event at the conservative American Enterprise Institute Wednesday morning,
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) laid out the case. "This problem is so urgent that there is -- an alternative school of thought has emerged
recently," Toomey said. "The most high-profile advocate for this was Stanley Druckenmiller ... one of the world's most
successful hedge-fund managers, extraordinarily wealthy from his knowledge of the markets, a big money manager now, and a big
holder of Treasury securities -- and he has said that he would actually accept even a delay in interest payments on the Treasuries
that he holds. And he would
prefer that if it meant that the Congress would right this ship." On Tuesday,
this view, saying he believes bond traders
would shrug off a situation wherein the U.S. defaults on its payment obligations for a few days while Congress
hashes out a grand fiscal bargain to slash spending. Toomey's preference would be for the Treasury to avoid
defaulting altogether by prioritizing outlays of incoming revenue on interest payment to U.S.
debt holders -- thus slashing spending on a host of other obligations, including, perhaps, Social
Security benefits, vendor reimbursements, and the military. Pulling all that money out of the
economy during a downturn is not a desirable outcome, Toomey said, but ultimately not all that
bad.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) echoed
No impact to default and hitting the ceiling is key to stop wasteful spending
McCarthy 11 (Andrew, writer for the National Review, Don’t raise the debt ceiling,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265466/dont-raise-debt-ceiling-andrew-c-mccarthy, MM)
Senator Pat Toomey has an important op-ed today at Real Clear Politics (see the NRO web briefing), pointing out that
refusing to raise the already gargantuan debt ceiling would not cause a catastrophic U.S. default.
Such a default could only be caused by the reckless Obama administration’s fear-mongering
treasury secretary. Sen. Toomey writes: On last Sunday morning’s talk shows, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once
again implied that, if the debt limit is not promptly raised, the United States will default on its debt
and the resulting catastrophe will be the fault of congressional Republicans. But Secretary Geithner
knows that congressional delay in raising the debt limit will in no way cause a default on our
national debt. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have
more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, about 7 percent of all projected federal
government expenditures will go to interest on our debt. Tax revenue is projected to cover at least 70 percent of all government
expenditures. So, under any circumstances, there
will be plenty of money to pay our creditors. Moreover, as the
Treasury secretary himself has the discretion to decide which
bills to pay first in the event that a cash flow shortage occurs. Thus, it is he who would have to
consciously, and needlessly, choose to default on our debt if the debt ceiling is not promptly
raised upon reaching it. It takes a lot of chutzpah to preemptively blame congressional Republicans for a default only he
Congressional Research Service has noted, the
could cause. Our Cornerite, Veronique de Rugy, in a terrific Washington Times op-ed co-authored with Jason Fichtner last month,
convincingly made the same point: While
it is true Congress has never before refused to raise the debt
ceiling, it has frequently taken its sweet time to do so. In 1985, Congress waited nearly three
months after the debt limit was reached before authorizing a permanent increase. In 1995, 4
1/2 months passed between hitting the ceiling and congressional action. And in 2002, Congress
delayed raising the debt ceiling for three months. In each case, the U.S. and the economy
survived. Obviously, without enormous increases in taxes that the public does not want, there is not enough money to pay for
the Leviathan the Obama Left insists we must have (and to which we have been led by the years of out-of-control spending by both
parties that President Obama has wildly intensified). This impasse will saddle us with another $1.7 trillion deficit for this year …
adding to the already accumulated trillions of debt (reputedly $14 trillion but, as our Kevin D. Williamson has shown again and again,
actually more like ten times that unfathomable amount). That is why Sen. Toomey (along with Senator David Vitter) proposed the
Full Faith and Credit Act, which would require Treasury to prioritize the payment of interest to America’s creditors — a
96
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
demonstration of seriousness that we will not default. That would force the government and the country to deal with urgent choices
we can no longer afford to ignore. As Veronique and Mr. Fichtner elaborated: [F]ederal revenues will reach $2.17 trillion this fiscal
year. Interest payments on the nation’s debt are estimated to be $205 billion this year, or about 10 percent of revenues. Taking that
payment off the top, as Mr. Toomey’s plan would, leaves $1.9 trillion for Congress to spend. That’s enough to pay for Social Security
($741 billion), Medicare ($488 billion), and Medicaid ($276 billion), with $395 billion left for other programs. Clearly $395 billion is
not going to pay for the massive government the country has come to assume without thinking about how to pay for it. Assuming
entitlements are not touched, that $395 billion wouldn’t come close to paying the defense budget alone — DoD having requested a
staggering $553 billion for next year … and that’s without the additional $118 billion the Pentagon says “overseas contingency
operations” will cost us (long before we know what the contingencies may turn out to be). There is no more money. The $395 billion
can’t cover the nearly $700 billion for the Pentagon, and it certainly can’t be further stretched to cover another $115 billion or so for
homeland security, $82 billion for HHS, $77 billion for Education, $42 billion for HUD, $21 billion for DOJ, $22 billion for agriculture,
$14 billion for Treasury, $13 billion each for the Labor and Transportation Departments, $12 billion for Interior, $10 billion for EPA,
and on and on and on (see here for relevant OMB tables — discretionary spending is table S-11). And all of that doesn’t count the
prohibitive costs of Obamacare down the road. The
people running this government are never going to deal
with this untenable situation unless and until it becomes untenable for them. The only way that
will happen is if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling and forces the administration to
prioritize payment of those obligations that must be paid to maintain our full faith and credit —
for as Kevin and Veronique point out, this already perilous situation could be blown sky high if the interest
rate we must pay to borrow spikes. Only when there is no way around it will we get serious
consideration of what government should and should not do, and what kind of welfare state the
public is willing to pay for. If we put it off, if we expand the credit card of a bankrupt Washington
whose credit card needs to be cut to pieces right now, not only will our dire straits get worse. We
won’t get to deal with them — we will be at the mercy of how they deal with us when the music finally stops.
97
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
IMMIGRATION
98
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
1NC Imm UQ
House moving towards compromise on immigration
Los Angeles Times July 11th [2013 “House GOP scales back on immigration”]
Facing deep resistance among House Republicans to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants in the country illegally,
GOP leaders are trying to muster support for a stripped-down immigration reform bill that would
offer citizenship only to those brought into the country as children.
The plan, which would almost certainly be a nonstarter for President Obama and Democrats who control the Senate, makes clear
there will be no quick agreement on a Senate-passed bill and illustrates how wide the gap remains over
fundamental immigration reform.
The immigration bill that passed the Senate last month would provide provisional legal status followed by a 13-year path to
citizenship for most of those who currently live in the country without legal authorization. Democratic leaders repeatedly have said
they would not accept any bill that falls short of that.
But, along
with border security provisions that House committees already have worked on, the "kids first" plan,
as supporters refer to it, might provide an alternative on which the House could act, keeping alive the
possibility of an eventual compromise.
The proposal, pushed by Majority Leader Eric Cantor
(R-Va.), has gained ground among Republicans.
Cantor discussed it during a free-flowing, two-hour, closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday in which lawmakers
lined up dozens deep in the Capitol's basement to air their views on the best way to proceed.
Party leaders repeatedly warned their members about the dangers of inaction on immigration.
Speaker John A. Boehner
(R-Ohio) told his troops the House would not consider the Senate bill, which most House
Republicans oppose. But he warned them the party would pay a price for failing to pass some immigration legislation.
Boehner said at the meeting that "we need to move something," said Rep. Bill Shuster
Rep. Paul D. Ryan
(R-Pa.), an ally.
(R-Wis.), last year's Republican vice presidential nominee, said at the meeting that immigration reform
would be good for economic growth. He echoed Boehner in saying that doing nothing was not an option.
99
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Imm UQ
Republicans will pass immigration because they need to appeal to Hispanics
Associated Press July 11th [2013 “Bush nudges GOP on immigration as lawmakers meet”]
Still, the
timing and substance of Bush's remarks were reminders of the imperative that many
national party leaders feel that Republicans must broaden their appeal among Hispanic voters to
compete successfully in future presidential elections. President Barack Obama
took more than 70 percent of their votes in
winning a second term last fall.
"America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," Bush said at a naturalization ceremony at his
presidential library in Dallas.
For their part, Democrats quickly embraced the former president's message, challenging House Speaker John Boehner to proceed in
the same spirit.
The meeting in the Capitol was arranged as a listening session for the House GOP, their first such meeting since the Senate approved
sweeping legislation last month on a bipartisan vote of 68-32.
Lawmakers said after the session there was strong support for a bill to create a path to citizenship for
immigrants who were brought to the country as children illegally by family members, an idea advanced by Majority Leader Eric
Cantor of Virginia. Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va.., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his panel would soon begin work
on legislation covering that group.
Several members of
the rank and file said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., had made a particularly strong appeal
for a comprehensive approach, which includes possible citizenship for the 11 million.
House coming to agreement on immigration reform
CNN News July 11th [2013 “House GOP split over immigration reform”]
On the House side, the bipartisan group working on an immigration package would require that
border security measures be in place before any process toward residency for undocumented immigrants could begin.
GOP legislators endorsed that strategy after Wednesday's caucus meeting.
"The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen
our economy," said a joint statement by House GOP leaders that expressed distrust in Obama and Democrats to fully enact tougher
security laws before legalizing undocumented immigrants.
GOP Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California told reporters the
end result in the House would be "fully
comprehensive immigration reform" that would address undocumented immigrants.
Obama pressuring GOP on immigration
USA Today July 10th [2013 “Obama, allies pressure GOP on immigration”]
WASHINGTON — President Obama and allies are ramping up efforts to apply political pressure to House
Republicans over immigration.
Obama plotted strategy Wednesday with Democratic members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, while his team released a
report saying "common sense immigration reform" would have major economic benefits.
"It's time for the House to act," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
Bush’s support will push immigration over the top
The Guardian July 10th [2013 “George W Bush urges Congress to find a 'positive resolution' on
immigration”]
100
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
George W Bush dipped a toe into the turbulent waters of the immigration debate on Wednesday when he
urged Congress to find a "positive resolution" to a problem that proved to be resistant to change during his presidency.
The 43rd incumbent of the White House used a naturalization ceremony at his recently-opened presidential center in Dallas, Texas
as a stage from which to make a rare entry to the current political debate. Since he stepped down from office on 20 January 2009,
Bush has kept a scrupulously low profile at home in Dallas and at the family ranch in Crawford.
But with the highly partisan battle over comprehensive immigration reform reaching a crucial state in the House of Representatives,
Bush told the 20 newly-naturalized US citizens in front of him: "The laws governing the immigration system aren't working. The
system is broken. We are now in an important debate on reforming those laws, and that's good."
Bush said he had no intention to "get involved in the politics or the specifics of policy". But he added: "I do hope there is a positive
resolution to the debate, and I hope during the debate we keep a benevolent spirit in mind and that we understand the
contributions immigrants make to our country.
"We are a nation of immigrants and we must uphold that tradition which has strengthened our country in so many ways."
The Bush comments could not have come at a more critical moment within the tortuous immigration
debate. House Republicans began meeting on Wednesday about how to find a way forward in the
heated dispute, having roundly rejected a Senate bill that passed last month.
The Senate version would offer the 11 million mainly Latino migrants in the US without documentation a pathway to citizenship, but
only after 13 years, and on the proviso that the border with Mexico has been substantially secured by then. The reforms envisage a
"border surge" of patrol officers and high-tech gadgetry that would cost a total of $46bn.
But Republican leaders in the House have expressed dissatisfaction with the Senate bill, and are proposing their own iteration that
may involve splitting up the reforms into individual parcels, beginning with border security. House speaker John Boehner has bluntly
stated that he will not allow the Senate bill to be considered on the floor of his chamber.
The fractious relations between parties, and between chambers, must appear all too familiar to Bush,
whose own attempt at bringing millions of undocumented migrants out of the shadows collapsed in 2007. His plan had contained
similar elements of increased border security and a pathway to citizenship, but came unstuck after members of his own party
described the pathway as a form of "amnesty" for illegal behaviour.
Bush paid lip service to the enduring political rifts over immigration in his speech on Wednesday, but implied there was a
way of bridging the gap. "We can uphold our traditions of assimilating immigrants and honouring our heritage of a nation
built on the rule of law. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," he said.
The search for a solution to the US immigration conundrum has provided a rare element of
ideological consistency between Bush and his successor in the White House. President Obamapraised his
predecessor at the inauguration of the Bush presidential center in April for having "restarted an important conversation by speaking
with the American people about our history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants".
Immigration Reform will pass the House
Rajkovic 7/9 [2013. Nik Rajkovic, an award-winning journalist who joined the KTRH newsroom in August 2010."TX Dems
Hopeful Immigration Reform Will Pass." Online. (Dhruv Soni)] http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/tx-demshopeful-immigration-reform-will-11464285/
Some fear immigration reform is dead on arrival in the Republican-led U.S. House. However, Democrats such as Texas
Congressman Gene Green remains hopeful a pathway to citizenship is still possible.¶ “A lot of them have U.S.
Citizen children, we need to treat them fairly if they haven't broken any laws other than coming here without permission, and we
ought to deal with that and let them get on the road toward citizenship,” he says.¶ Border security also is a big concern for both
sides.¶ “We are doing a lot better job than we were 10 years ago, or even 15 years ago for that matter, but that doesn't mean we
should stop doing it,” says Green.¶ Democrat leaders
have released a list of Republicans who could
possibly help push the legislation through. They believe 20 is all they'll need, but that's only if
House leaders agree to take up much of the Senate's plan.¶ Congressman Henry Cuellar also believes reform
can pass, if it includes three key elements.¶ “Will it have border security? I think so. Will it have some sort of guest worker plan with
visas? I think so,” Cuellar tells KTRH News. “But the big question will be does it have some sort of legalization for the 11 or 12 million
of undocumented we already have?Ӧ Cuellar says it's
now or never for comprehensive reform.¶ “Which means
a window this year, and
if we don't do it this year the window will close.”
the 2014 elections will be here, and of course the 2016 presidential election,” he says. “There's
101
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Imm UQ—Brink
House split on immigration—It could go either way
CNN News July 11th [2013 “House GOP split over immigration reform”]
Immigration reform entered an uncertain new phase on Wednesday as House Republicans
signaled some willingness to compromise with President BarackObama
and Democrats but rejected a
Senate-passed bill and insisted they would take their time drafting their own version.
Following more than two hours of talks on how to proceed, GOP legislators said the biggest question was whether to give the 11
million immigrants living illegally in the United States a path to eventual citizenship, as provided by the Senate measure.
Participants in the Republican caucus meeting described a 50-50 split over the undocumented
immigrant issue, with more consensus on the need to produce some kind of legislation to show the party's commitment to
fixing a broken system and addressing concerns of Hispanic Americans -- the nation's largest minority demographic.
102
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Imm UQ—AT: Debt ceiling thumper
Immigration is dominating the agenda now—Debt ceiling comes down the road
Politico July 9th [2013 “IRS releases thousands of Social Security numbers - $200 billion budget
could help tax reform – Camp, Baucus ditch beltway to build tax reform support”
CAMP, BAUCUS DITCH BELTWAY TO BUILD TAX REFORM SUPPORT. From Kelsey Snell in St. Paul, Minn., “House Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) kicked off a summerlong “road show” with a pair of campaign-style stops here. They played with new technology from manufacturing giant 3M and
ditched their suit coats for hard hats to tour the new facilities of a family-owned bakery. They cracked jokes, listened to workers and,
at one point, even held hands. “There is a bit of a bubble in Washington. It’s true,” Baucus told an auditorium filled with about 100
employees at the 3M innovation center. “We are trying to break it.”…[But] It’s not clear that such events will move the dial on tax
reform. There was no talk about how they expect to move a complex overhaul package when the
congressional calendar
is currently dominated by immigration reform and will soon become consumed by efforts to raise
the debt ceiling.” Read more here: http://politi.co/13I01N7
Debt negotiations won’t begin until Christmas
National Journal July 7th [2013 “House Republicans Draft Their Debt-Ceiling Playbook”
At this point, it's
unclear when Treasury will hit its debt ceiling – a date lawmakers refer to as “X-date.”
After the January extension, the deadline for raising the debt limit has steadily moved back,
thanks to lower spending levels and higher tax revenues. And it could continue to do so. Lawmakers
are already looking to mid-October and November, and one member even said he wouldn't be surprised if the
negotiations wound up butting up against December's holiday recess, again.
No matter the actual date, Republicans expect Obama to wait until the last minute to negotiate.
103
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Imm PC I-L Update
Obama’s political pressure key to passing immigration
Businessweek July 11th [2013 “Obama Set to Make Public Case Amid Immigration Opposition”]
President Barack Obama
will step up his efforts to drive an immigration bill through the U.S. House
by using a tool that has failed him on issues from gun control to budget cuts -- the bully pulpit.
The White House realizes the legislation is in danger and a public campaign is the last option at the
president’s disposal, said a former Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified to speak candidly about administration
strategy.
“He’s had trouble when he’s done this,” said Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. “It didn’t work on health
care. The budget ended up with sequestration,” he said, referring to the automatic federal spending cuts that Obama unsuccessfully
tried to halt.
The president’s prospects for a second-term legislative legacy are at stake in the battle over immigration, with his gun-control push
defeated, Republicans opposed to action on climate change, and partisan gridlock jeopardizing work on the budget. While the
Senate passed immigration legislation last month with a 68-vote majority, House Republicans are signaling opposition to key
provisions.
The president’s advisers recognize that if, at some point, the legislation is headed for failure
they must first mount an all-out public campaign that demonstrates a commitment to an immigration overhaul to
supporters, including Hispanic and Asian voters, said the former White House official.
Electoral Battlegrounds
Obama, who mostly stayed in the background during debate on the Senate bill, is considering visiting electoral battlegrounds with
important Hispanic constituencies such as Nevada, Colorado or Florida to press for action in the Republican-run House,
administration officials said.
Plans are already under way to send Cabinet members around the country and for Obama to rally support through interviews with
Spanish-language media. The administration officials asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations.
Sensitive to the prospect that a more prominent role by the Democratic president will antagonize Republicans determined to deny
him a victory, the White House will calibrate the campaign, based on the bill’s momentum in the House, said one administration
official. Obama is ready to increase
the legislation is on track, the official said.
his efforts if prospects for a bill are flagging or to scale them back if
“It’s a tricky balance,” said Patrick Griffin, who was chief lobbyist for President Bill Clinton. Obama
needs to put pressure
on opposition party leaders and promote an expectation among voters that “something should
get done and will get done” while trying not to fuel resistance from party members hostile to him, he said.
104
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Imm AT PC I-L Update
Obama’s has no ability to persuade Republicans on immigration
Businessweek July 11th [2013 “Obama Set to Make Public Case Amid Immigration Opposition”]
Rank-and-file Republican
members of Congress warned that an open campaign by Obama on behalf
of immigration legislation wouldn’t be effective.
“The president is not going to pressure House Republicans,” said Representative James Lankford, an Oklahoma
Republican.
105
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Imm N/Unique
Immigration headed for a slow death in the House—Republicans only fear
primary voters
Deutsche Presse Agentur July 11th [2013 “Dreamers keep hope alive for immigration reform in
Congress”]
Conservative opposition Republicans, who hold the majority in the House of Representatives, met Wednesday behind closed doors
to discuss how to tackle the Senate legislation. Washington
pundits say that the immigration issue could be
vital for the Republican Party's future, with Latinos a growing part of the electorate.
Badly losing the Latino vote in key states was a decisive factor
for Republicans in the 2012 presidential election, in which Democrat
Barack Obama was reelected with 50 per cent to 48 per cent in the popular vote. Hardline Republican rhetoric on illegal immigration
was widely blamed for turning off Latinos.
Next year, however, Republican House members in mostly safe districts will face mid-term
legislative elections, in which their stiffest challenges could come not from Democrats on the left but from
intra-party primary challengers on the right. Giving "amnesty" to people who knowingly entered the US illegally inflames
some conservatives, who argue against an erosion of the rule of law.
The Senate last month passed immigration reform legislation that links tightened security on the US southern border with a
drawn-out path to legalization for migrants in the country before 2012. It is the farthest any major immigration measure has
progressed in Congress since a 1986 reform signed by then-president Ronald Reagan.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner
has already made it clear that the lower chamber will not
simply vote on the Senate legislation, instead crafting its own version, which would require arduous negotiations on a
congressional compromise.
"Immigration
reform heads for slow death," the Washington daily Politico said in a headline Wednesday.
House Republicans won’t pass a comprehensive bill
Associated Press July 11th [2013 “Bush nudges GOP on immigration as lawmakers meet”]
Divided on immigration, House Republicans
bluntly challenged President Barack Obama's
willingness to
secure the nation's borders on Wednesday, and appeared unimpressed by George W. Bush's advice to carry a "benevolent
spirit" into a debate that includes a possible path to citizenship for millions.
Emerging from a closed-door meeting, GOP
leaders affirmed a step-by-step approach to immigration but
offered neither specifics nor a timetable nor any mention of possible citizenship for an estimated 11
million immigrants living in the country unlawfully.
Instead, in a written statement noting
that the White House recently delayed a key part of the health
care law, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other leaders said the action raised concerns that the
administration "cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as
part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate."
House not willing to compromise on immigration
The New York Times July 11th [2013 “G.O.P. In House Resists Overhaul For Immigration”]
Meeting for the first time as a group to hash out their approach to immigration, House
Republicans on Wednesday came
down overwhelmingly against a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, putting in
jeopardy the future of sweeping legislation that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Despite the resistance, Speaker John A. Boehner
warned about the steep price of inaction, telling House Republicans that they
would be in a weaker political position against a bipartisan Senate coalition and President Obama if they did nothing to answer
the immigration measure passed by the Senate last month.
106
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
House Republicans huddled in a crucial two-and-a-half-hour session in the basement of the Capitol as their leaders tried to devise
some response to the demand for immigrationlegislation, especially the Senate provision that would grant a path to citizenship for
the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. The bill also mandates tough border security provisions that must
be in place before the immigrants can gain legal status.
The bottom line was clear: The Republican-controlled House does not plan to take up anything
resembling the Senate bill, which many believe is bad policy and smacks of an amnesty strongly opposed by the
conservatives who hold sway over much of the rank and file. The House also does not intend to move very
quickly, and some Republicans are wary of passing any measure at all that could lead to negotiations
with the Senate, talks that could add pressure to the House to consider a broader plan.
House Republicans fear primary voters more than Hispanics
Associated Press July 11th [2013 “Bush nudges GOP on immigration as lawmakers meet”]
Bush's campaign to overhaul immigration legislation while in the White House included the political
calculation that Republicans needed to take steps to appeal to Hispanic voters who are an increasingly
large part of the population, particularly in states like Texas, Florida, Nevada and Colorado.
At the same time, relatively few House Republicans represents districts with substantial Hispanic
populations, and many say they fear primary election challenges from the right if they support
citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally.
Debt ceiling kills immigration
National Journal June 23rd [2013 “Time's Up. Immigration Won't Pass This Year”]
When lawmakers return to the Capitol in September, they will be facing another financial crisis
as they debate raising the country's debt ceiling. The four- to six-week countdown toward extreme limitations on
government payments to Social Security or military operations will do two things: It will suck all the life out of any
deliberative legislative effort, immigration included, and it will polarize the political parties. It will be far from
fertile ground for the biggest immigration overhaul in 30 years.
107
UTNIF 2013
Politics Supplement
Focus Link
Obama’s plate is full—Plan costs him political capital he needs for immigration
Washington Post June 26th [2013 “Why the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision
puts Obama
in a tough spot”]
But Obama
can't be everywhere at once. He has to pick and choose the issues he will put
substantial political capital behind.
With no other major asks of Congress, applying pressure on lawmakers would be a tall task. A
CNN/ORC poll shows the public is split on the necessity of the Voting Rights Act. It's an even taller one considering the
president is also hoping to get a sweeping immigration bill done. And he hasn't given up hopes of striking a
long-term deficit reduction deal. Gun control is another issue advocates of tighter restrictions on firearms are hopeful the president
will revisit.
In addition, Obama
has been beset by a flurry of controversies over his administration's surveillance efforts, the IRS's singling
out of conservative groups and the Justice Department's scrutiny of journalists.
108