MIDTERMS
GOP Good 1NC
Republicans will win the Senate now – they’re winning the mobilization race
Jim Malone, 7-3-14, http://www.voanews.com/content/political-forecast-moregridlock/1950498.html
Given that the chances for agreement on substantial legislation in Congress are now fleeting,
both sides are ramping up their arguments for midterm voters. Democrats start with a huge
disadvantage. A lot of their folks are much less inclined to turn out in midterm congressional
elections than they are for a presidential contest. Obama and other Democrats are now heavily
focused on encouraging core Democratic supporters, especially what they like to call the “rising
electorate”, to get off their rumps and out to the polls in November. That rising electorate
includes younger voters, especially unmarried women, as well as Hispanic and Asian-American
voters. In fact, many Democrats see motivating younger unmarried women as the key to
boosting turnout enough that it could save their majority in the U.S. Senate. There is general
consensus among political analysts and pundit-types that Republicans appear to have a big
advantage in holding on to their majority in the House of Representatives. In fact, by some
estimates, they could add seats. The real battle is for control of the Senate, where 36 of the 100
seats are at stake. Republicans need to gain six Democratic seats to reclaim a majority. That
would normally be a tall order in any election year but this year there are far more Democratic
seats at stake than Republican, and many of the Democratic seats are in states where
Republicans have an advantage.
New policy is key to boost Democratic votes. No risk of a link turn – the
Republican base is already mobilized
Sargent 7/9 [Greg Sargent, Washington Post writer, “Morning Plum: Obama to set off bomb in
middle of midterms”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plumline/wp/2014/07/09/morning-plum-obama-to-set-off-bomb-in-middle-of-midterm-elections/,
7/9/14]
Now that Republicans have made it clear that they will not participate on any level in basic
problem solving when it comes to our immigration crisis, it is now on Obama to determine just
how far he can go unilaterally, particularly when it comes to easing the pace of deportations.
This is going to be one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency in substantive,
moral, and legal terms, and politically, it could set off a bomb this fall, in the middle of the
midterm elections. I’m told there are currently internal discussions underway among Democrats over whether ambitious
action by Obama could be politically harmful in tough races. According to two sources familiar with internal discussions, some top
Dems have wondered aloud whether Obama going big would further inflame the GOP base, with little payoff for Dems in red states
where Latinos might not be a key factor. I don’t want to overstate this: These are merely discussions, not necessarily worries.
Indeed, some Dems are making the opposite case, and that argument is described well in a new Politico piece out this morning. The
story notes that Obama has privately told immigration advocates demanding ambitious action that they might not get what they
advocates still hope for
aggressive action and believe Dems see it as in their own political interests: Adding to the
elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that
immigration reform is a clear political winner: The people who will be opposed to reform or to
the president taking action on his own are already likely prime Republican base voters. But
voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and
progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats
want, telling them: “We need to right-size expectations.” And yet, according to Politico, some
are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends
favor GOP turnout.
[insert evidence that the plan is popular / supported by liberals]
GOP win  immigration reform
May, 5-22 (Caroline May, 22 May 2014, IMMIGRATION MAY COME BACK WITH A VENGEANCE
IN 2015, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/22/Immigration-May-ComeBack-With-A-Vengeance-In-2015)
Republicans are already in the beginning stages of planning their legislative agenda if they take
control of the Senate in November, and many say immigration reform would be a top priority,
even while President Obama's trustworthiness as a legislative partner remains in doubt. “I don’t
know anyone who thinks the immigration system is working the way it should, so we’re gonna
have some ideas and we’re going to move them across the floor in smaller consensus — on a
consensus basis. And not the sort of divisive, all-or-nothing, pig-in-the-python sort of method,”
Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn told Breitbart News last week when asked about the
prospect of a GOP-controlled Senate pushing its own immigration reform agenda. Days earlier,
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Republicans would “absolutely” try to pass better
immigration reform legislation if the GOP wins the Senate in November. Even some noted antiamnesty hawks sounded relatively optimistic. “I think there is a better prospect that we would
go forward with some immigration initiative if the Republicans control the Senate, but we still
have the problem of trusting the president. But I think we’d be in a better position to try and
enforce the law if we have both the House and the Senate,” Texas Republican Lamar Smith told
Breitbart Tuesday. House Republicans are quick to point out the lack of confidence many have
in the Obama administration’s willingness to fully implement what Congress passes. South
Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy noted that the GOP has controlled the Senate before
without passing immigration reform and alluded to concerns about Obama’s lack of
enforcement of immigration law.
Immigration reform key to the economy
Kelley and Wollgin, 11 (Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy at
American Progression, and Philip Wolgin, Senior Policy Analyst on the Immigration Policy team
at American Progress, 9-29-11 “10 Reasons Why Immigration Reform Is Important to Our Fiscal
Health,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2011/09/29/10375/10reasons-why-immigration-reform-is-important-to-our-fiscal-health/-- WH)
Here are the top 10 reasons why immigration reform, or the lack thereof, affects our economy.¶
Additions to the U.S. economy¶ 1. $1.5 trillion—The amount of money that would be added to
America’s cumulative g ross d omestic p roduct—the largest measure of economic growth—
over 10 years with a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes legalization for all
undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.¶ 2. 3.4 percent—The potential
GDP growth rate over the past two years if comprehensive immigration reform had gone into
effect two years ago, in mid-2009. (see Figure 1)¶ figure 1¶ 3. 309,000—The number of jobs
that would have been gained if comprehensive immigration reform had gone into effect two
years ago, in mid-2009. A GDP growth rate of 0.2 percent above the actual growth rate
translates into, based on the relationship between economic growth and unemployment, a
decrease in unemployment by 0.1 percent, or 154,400 jobs, per year.¶ 4. $4.5 billion to $5.4
billion—The amount of additional net tax revenue that would accrue to the federal
government over three years if all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United
States were legalized.¶ Revenue generated by immigrants¶ 5. $4.2 trillion—The amount of
revenue generated by Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants and their children,
representing 40 percent of all Fortune 500 companies.¶ 6. $67 billion—The amount of money
that immigrant business owners generated in the 2000 census, 12 percent of all business
income. In addition, engineering and technology companies with at least one key immigrant
founder generated $52 billion between 1995 and 2005 and created roughly 450,000 jobs.¶
Taxes generated by immigrants¶ 7. $11.2 billion—The amount of tax revenue that states alone
collected from undocumented immigrants in 2010.¶ Negative consequences of mass
deportation¶ 8. $2.6 trillion—The amount of money that would evaporate from cumulative
U.S. GDP over 10 years if all undocumented immigrants in the country were deported.¶ 9.
618,000—The number of jobs that would have been lost had a program of mass deportation
gone into effect two years ago, in mid-2009. A mass deportation program would have caused
GDP to decrease by 0.5 percent per year, which, based on the relationship between economic
growth and unemployment, translates to an increase in unemployment by 0.2 percent, or
309,000 jobs, per year.¶ 10. $285 billion—The amount of money it would cost to deport all
undocumented immigrants in the United States over five years.¶ The upshot¶ Most Americans
and their elected representatives in Congress would be pleasantly surprised to learn about the
substantial benefits of comprehensive immigration reform to our nation’s broad-based
economic growth and prosperity, and thus our ability to reduce our federal budget deficit over
the next 10 years. Given how difficult a challenge the super committee faces, we cannot afford
to ignore any viable options for strengthening our economy. We hope the super committee
takes these top 10 economic reasons into account as they move forward with their
deliberations.
Dem Focus on Women Now
Democrats are focusing their agenda on women- they’re key to midterms- (the
plan reverses that?)
Walsh 7/16/14(Deirdre, CNN Senior Congressional Producer, “Need any more proof Congress is done legislating?”, July 16
2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/politics/congress-done/, C.B.)
Congressional Democrats on both sides of the Capitol are directing much of their
message toward women, who they view as the critical voting bloc. Obama won reelection in 2012 with support from 55% of women compared to 44% for GOP nominee
Mitt Romney. In an off-year congressional election, Democrats know they can't expect
the same turnout. But they're talking about child care, contraception coverage, and
education to maximize their chances. Democrats unveiled their "100 Day Action plan"
on Wednesday, pledging to hold votes on bills focusing on women, if they win back the
House. Those measures would be targeted at raising the minimum wage, ensuring
equal pay for equal work, and boosting access to early childhood education. "Our
agenda for women and families is 'When Women Succeed, America Succeeds,'" Pelosi
said. This is not just the title of our agenda. This is a statement of absolute fact. And
our agenda presents a stark contrast to what the Republicans have done to roll back
women's rights and limit women's opportunities." Women's work: The GOP's glass
ceiling Dems in the Senate In the Senate, Democrats seized on the Supreme Court's big
Obamacare decision last month that employers of some for-profit companies were not
required to provide insurance plans that covered contraception if they opposed on
religious grounds. A Democratic bill to reverse that decision was blocked this week.
But the Democratic narrative on the Supreme Court fits with what many in the party
have labeled a Republican "war on women." Pelosi and other Democrats emphasized
that decision was made by "five men" who were effectively dictating whether or not
women could get access to contraceptives. 'Over and over again' "This is 2014, not
1914. Most Americans thought this was settled long, long ago. But for some reason,
Republicans keep dragging us back here - over and over and over again," Sen. Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts said. But the GOP is positioned well to retake control of the
Senate in November, and top Republican leaders recognized that the issue could
damage their standing among women if they didn't respond.
Dems are focused on women now- that focus is key to their support
Associated Press 7/16/14(Donna Cassata, Congressional Reporter, Jennifer Agiesta, Associated Press director of
polling, and others (not mentioned) contributed to the article, “Democrats try to capitalize on contraception ruling, motivate female
voters for midterm races”, July 16 2014, http://www.newser.com/article/6992ff9706e14d7fbf9df3ce296fb4e8/democrats-try-tocapitalize-on-contraception-ruling-motivate-female-voters-for-midterm-races.html, C.B.)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats see a political winner in the stinging defeat they
suffered when the Supreme Court ruled that businesses with religious objections may
deny coverage for contraceptives under President Barack Obama's health care law. A
four-term senator — Washington state's Patty Murray — and a vulnerable freshman —
Mark Udall of Colorado — have pushed legislation that would counter last month's
court ruling and reinstate free contraception for women who are on health insurance
plans of objecting companies. The Senate was expected to vote Wednesday on
moving ahead on the bill, which backers have dubbed the "Not My Boss' Business Act."
The White House expressed its strong support for the measure in a statement, saying
it "believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves,
rather than their employers deciding for them." Republicans who have endorsed the
court's decision as upholding the constitutional right of religious freedom are expected
to block the measure. The GOP has dismissed the bill as an election-year political stunt,
designed to boost struggling incumbents. The contraception bill, Republicans say, has no
chance of becoming law. That hasn't stopped Democrats from trying to use the issue to
motivate female voters, crucial to the party's hopes of keeping its tenuous Senate
majority, in typically low-turnout midterm elections in November. "Women across the
country are watching," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Tuesday, leaving no
doubt that GOP opposition will be part of an upcoming campaign ad or news release. Countering the
Democrats was Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who stood with male GOP leaders and accused
Democrats of peddling erroneous information about the impact of the court's decision. Nothing in it
"allows a company to stop a woman from getting or filling a prescription for contraception," Ayotte, one
of four female GOP senators, told reporters. On the Senate floor, female Democratic senators — and a
few males — spoke out in support of the legislation as they warned of further discrimination against
women and more changes in health coverage for millions. Democrats are counting on their argument
resonating with female voters. "Women should call the shots when it comes to their health
care decisions," Murray said. National statistics from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention show that more than 99 percent of women ages 15 to 44 who have had
sexual intercourse have used at least one form of contraception. "I trust women to
make their own health care decisions, and I don't believe their employers should have
a say in them," said Udall, who faces a tough race against Republican Rep. Cory
Gardner in November. In Colorado in 2008, female voters were critical to Udall's
election to the Senate, favoring his candidacy 56 percent to 41 percent while men
backed him 50 percent to 46 percent, according to exit polls conducted by Edison
Research for The Associated Press and other news organizations. In the 2012
presidential election, Democrats overall captured the female vote by double digit
margins as did the party in House races — 55 percent to 44 percent — as Obama won
re-election. Democrats enjoyed a slightly better edge in the 2008 elections as Obama
captured the presidency and Democrats maintained their congressional majority. It
was far different in the 2010 midterm elections, some eight months after Obama signed
the health care law and as the tea party energized the GOP. Female voters backed
Republicans 49 percent to the Democrats' 48 percent, basically an even split, in a lowturnout election that enabled the GOP takeover of the House. No wonder that on the
other side of the Capitol on Tuesday, Democrats stood with various women's groups to
speak out for the legislation. They cast the Supreme Court decision in the case of Hobby
Lobby, the Oklahoma-based chain of arts and craft stores that challenged the
contraceptives provision, as five male justices on the court voting against the interests
of women. "I wish they could have had a conversation with their mothers, their wives,
their daughters," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. Ilyse Hogue, president of
NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the court's decision has "awakened the pro-choice
majority in this country."
links
Environment unpopular
Congress hates environmental movements
Valentine, 7/15, (Katie, reporter for Climate Progress, “Congressional Candidate: Most
Energy Problems ‘Are Caused By Environmentalists’,” Climate Progress, JULY 15, 2014,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460398/congressional-candidateenvironment/)//erg
In the eyes of one candidate running for office in Washington, environmentalists aren’t the ones
looking to solve the country’s energy problems — they’re the ones at fault for them . George
Cicotte, a Republican candidate for Washington’s fourth congressional district, said at a candidate forum Saturday that if
environmentalists hadn’t “stopped nuclear in its tracks” in the 1970s, there would be a lot less
greenhouse gas pollution today. “Really, when we talk about energy problems, most of the energy
problems are caused by environmentalists, ” he said. Cicotte’s comments came as part of a longer
statement on his views on environment and energy issues, during which he spoke of his “all of the
above” energy preferences but made comments that were dismissive of wind energy — a
resource he claims to support on his campaign website. “Wind energy? I’ll be honest — give me a break,” he said. “There would
not be a single windmill in this entire state were it not for tons of irrational federal government
spending. They’re trying to light a brush fire for wind and it ain’t working.”
Republicans hate pro-environmental policies
COCKERHAM, 2014
SEAN; MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU; July 17, 2014; “Opponents say Alaska mine would
devastate salmon, Washington state fishing industry”;
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/07/17/3755000/opponents-say-alaska-minewould.html
WASHINGTON — Supporters of the embattled Pebble Mine project in Alaska are making a
desperate effort in Congress and the courts to keep it alive in the face of warnings from the
Environmental Protection Agency that it could devastate the finest run of wild salmon left on
the globe.¶ Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing a bill to keep the EPA
from blocking the mine, despite opposition from Washington state lawmakers who say the
project could be devastating to the fishing industry in their state.¶ The mine developer, Northern
Dynasty Minerals, is suing the EPA, seeking an injunction to prevent the agency from moving to
stop the project.¶ The developer is in trouble. Mining giants Anglo American and Rio Tinto pulled
out of the project in the midst of the controversy, leaving Northern Dynasty scrambling for
another partner to provide financial support for the mine. Getting the EPA to back off would
help.¶ After a long series of setbacks, the mine won a small victory Wednesday when the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bill for a vote in the full House.¶ EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Pebble Mine would "likely have significant and
irreversible negative impacts on the salmon of Bristol Bay."¶ Washington state lawmakers are
leading the fight in Congress against the mine. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., asked the White
House to stop the mine and participated in a rally earlier this year on the Seattle waterfront that
included 250 chefs and other food workers protesting the project.¶ Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett,
attempted to stop the bill Wednesday in the committee. He said thousands of fishermen and
processors from Washington state depended on the Bristol Bay fishery in Alaska. The EPA's
decision to consider vetoing the mine followed three years of study of the damage that North
America's largest open-pit mine could do to the salmon, he said.¶ "If this bill goes forward it
could lead to the construction of a mine that would have devastating economic impacts for
many people in Washington state," Larsen said.¶ Sue Aspelund, the executive director of the
Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, complained that fishermen weren't
given a chance to testify.¶ "It's incredibly unfortunate that Congress is debating legislation that
would directly impact Bristol Bay's commercial fishermen while thousands of them are currently
contributing to yet another historic sockeye salmon season in southwest Alaska," Aspelund
said.¶ The measure would have scant chance of making it through the Democratic-controlled
Senate and surviving a likely presidential veto. But mine opponents fear it might become a
platform to revive the project's fortunes, particularly if Republicans take control of the Senate
after the November midterm elections.¶ The fishing and conservation group Trout Unlimited said
it planned to launch a social media campaign to rally fishermen to campaign against the bill.¶ The
mine developer "has lost most of its financial backing because of the inherent risks of the
proposed mine, and its many failures to produce a viable mining plan. But now the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is rushing to take up the beleaguered cause,"
Trout Unlimited said in an email.¶ McCarthy said the EPA would take action to protect the
salmon under the Clean Water Act. That could lead to a veto of the project prior to its permit
applications.¶ Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, sponsor of the bill, said the mine should be allowed a
chance. His measure would forbid the EPA from halting a project before the permit process.¶
"It's un-American to tell a private company or anybody that you can't even apply for a permit,
cannot even consider doing any operations on this land because the government has blocked it
out," he said.¶ The National Mining Association also criticized the EPA, with its president, Hal
Quinn, saying investors need confidence that the agency won't pre-emptively block a project.¶
"EPA's actions trampled the authority of the state of Alaska, pre-empted the role of other
federal and state agencies and potentially stranded the mining company's $700 million in capital
investment," Quinn said.¶ The EPA said it began studying the mine at the request of Alaska tribes
and others concerned about the salmon. Mine advocates assert the agency was biased and that
agency staffers themselves initiated the effort to block the project. The EPA's inspector general
is investigating those allegations.¶ While the Pebble Mine project may appear near death,
tensions still run high.¶ Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, lashed out at a hearing Wednesday when a
Maryland congresswoman charged that the bill is nothing but a giveaway to the mine
developer.¶ Young said his state should get to decide whether to build the massive open-pit
copper mine, not the EPA or members of Congress from outside Alaska.¶ "Now we have
somebody from Maryland telling me how we should represent that state. Disgusting," said
Young, who started shouting and pointing his finger.¶ "I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and
watch somebody from Maryland or any other state start telling me or anybody in Alaska how we
should be running our state."
Environment unpopular – unions
Ecological regulations for oceans greatly upset unions
Phuong Le, 16 June 2014, Unions join fight over Washington fish consumption,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-06-16/unions-join-fight-over-washington-fishconsumption
SEATTLE (AP) — Unions representing Boeing machinists and mill workers are siding with businesses in a bitter fight over
how much fish people eat, and thus how clean Washington state waters should be. The
Machinists union and others are worried a new water quality standard being developed by
the state would hurt jobs and economic development — concerns that Boeing Co. and other
industry groups have also raised. The unlikely allies have found common ground, uniting over the topic of
environmental regulations. "We have some common interests because we want to save jobs. I think we
have the same goal," said Tanya Hutchins, a spokeswoman for the Machinists union, which represents more than 32,000 workers in
the Puget Sound region. She added, "We just want to make sure it's a proposal that works for everyone." Officials from the
Machinists union, the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, and others held a news conference Monday in Olympia to
urge Gov. Jay Inslee to take a balanced approach. The
state Department of Ecology appears ready to sharply
increase Washington's fish consumption rate, an obscure number that has huge implications
because it helps set water quality standards. A higher number means fewer toxic pollutants
would be permitted in waters.
Unions will affect the fate of the democrats
Enten 7/1
Harry Enten, 1 July 2014, How Much Do Democrats Depend on the Union Vote,
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/supreme-court-ruling-wounds-both-democrats-and-unionsneither-fatally/ [Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight]
Toward the middle of the list is the effect of union membership and living with a union member. The effect is not as large as most
demographic variables. But it’s not nothing; being
a member of a union or living with a union member did
make a person more likely to vote Democratic. At least according to the 2012 ANES, the effects of the two
different union variables were pretty much identical. And the impact was about the same as the 1.7 percentage points it was in
2008. In the ANES data set, 58 percent of union members or those living with a union member voted for Obama. If every union
member or member of a union household voted as if they were not one and every other characteristic was kept constant, 51.1
percent of them still would have voted Democratic. Obama
would have lost 1.4 percentage points off his
vote share in 2012 without unions. Instead of his margin of victory over Romney being 3.9
percentage points, it would have been 1.1 points. Obviously, this sort of analysis doesn’t take into account what
would really happen without the union vote. The two parties would go about courting voters differently. And unions also play a big
role in fundraising and organizing for Democratic candidates. But the
2.8 percentage-point difference in the
presidential vote margin is nothing to sneeze at either. It’s larger than the margin in two of the
past four elections, and it’s about the same as it was in 2008. Even if unions make up a lower percentage of voters than at
any point in the past 60 years, they are a player in presidential elections. And if a future Supreme Court decision
suppresses union power further, it would not be good news for Democrats.
Union support key for democrats – Obama’s actions swing vote
Jordan M. Grossman, 30 April 2014, Trends and Surprises in Union Political Spending on the
2014 Elections, http://onlabor.org/2014/04/30/trends-and-surprises-in-union-politicalspending-on-the-2014-elections/
The 2014 congressional elections do not take place until November, but unions have already provided millions of
dollars in campaign contributions to candidates, political parties, and outside groups – including
to some surprising recipients. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which counts all donations from
political action committees (PACs), individual contributions of more than $200 to federal candidates and parties, and “donations
from individuals, PACs and other organizations . . . to outside interest groups that report to the Federal Election Commission,”
five of the top ten overall donors in the 2014 election cycle have been labor groups, edging
out even some of America’s largest corporations like AT&T, Lockheed Martin, and Comcast.
Which unions are the biggest donors? The National Education Association (NEA), the fourth biggest overall contributor, leads the
way for labor with $6,877,977 in contributions. They are followed by the Carpenters and Joiners Union at $4,981,217, the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) at $3,130,875, the AFL-CIO at $2,543,200, and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) at $2,004,185. Two other unions are also in the top twenty: the Operating
Engineers Union comes in at number 13, with $1,617,983 in donations, and the Laborers Unions is ranked 20th, with $1,431,600.
Even in the post-Citizens United environment – in which presidential and congressional campaigns, political parties, and PACs
spent $7 billion in the 2012 election cycle - over
$22 million from top labor organizations is significant,
particularly in a midterm election that does not feature a presidential race. For context, according to
data compiled by experts at the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, the average winning congressional
candidate in 2012 spent approximately $1.6 million - “a 344% increase since 1986″ – with incumbents typically outspending their
challengers $1.7 million to $587,000. Put
simply, despite the conventional wisdom that the political
power of unions is dwindling due to declining membership, this level of political giving
ensures that they still remain a major force in electoral politics. In fact, the data on labor
donations challenges another piece of conventional wisdom: that unions solely support
Democrats , especially at the national level. The numbers from the Center for Responsive Politics illustrate that unions direct
a notable amount of donations to congressional Republicans. For example, the largest union giver, the NEA, donated $15,000 to
the National Republican Senatorial Committee and another $15,000 to the National Republican Campaign Committee - the official
Republican Party entities charged with winning seats in Congress. The NEA has also donated $1,000 each to Senators Lindsey
Graham and Jerry Moran, both Republicans, and between $500 and $4,000 to 19 House Republicans. This support may seem
surprising considering the hostility toward unions, particularly public sector unions, expressed by leading Republicans in recent
years. As one article put it, “House Republicans are ready for war against public sector unions,” and Senator Graham himself has
called the NLRB, typically seen as an ally of labor, “the Grim Reaper of job creation.” The NRCC itself has criticized the NEA as a
“well-funded liberal special interest[]” that is part of a Democratic establishment that has spent millions to “save their pawn[s]”
in congressional races, and the NEA has given Senator Graham grades of D, F, and F in the past three congresses, respectively.
Interestingly, it is difficult to find any public materials from the NEA explaining their support of the Republican campaign
committees or officeholders like Graham ( while
both the NEA and some Republicans have recently
criticized the Obama Administration’s approach to Common Core education standards, the
NEA has been donating to Republicans
a polarizing issue).
for the past several election cycles, before Common Core emerged as such
Topicality
VIOLATION – NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE
DEVELOPMENT
T – not substantially increase development
A. Substantially requires at least a 2% increase – this is the lowest
percentage we could find
Word and Phrases 1960
'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable."
Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from
taxation; such expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission
of Ohio v. American Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App.
B. The plan violates
At least a $5 billion annual increase is needed. The US ocean economy is over
$250 billion per year
Kildow 14 Dr. Judith T. Kildow, et al, Founding Director, The National Ocean Economics
Program (NOEP)—currently based at the Center for the Blue Economy—received her PhD in
International Relations and Science Policyfrom the Fletcher School at Tufts University. She has
taught, performed research, published and spoken widely in the fields of marine policy and
ocean economics at MIT, Harvard, USC and other universities. Throughout her career she has
served government and the private sector in numerous roles.
State of the U.S. Ocean and Coastal Economies 2014 Center for the Blue Economy at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://maine.sierraclub.org/NOEP_National_Report_2014.pdf
In 2010 the ocean economy comprised over 2.7 million jobs and contributed over $258
billion to the GDP of the United States. The largest sector by both employment and GDP is
the Tourism & Recreation sector, accounting for 1.9 million jobs and $89 billion in economic
output. (Table ES.2).
C. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash. Without the
requirement to substantially increase, Affs can claim limitless points of possible
ocean development
Steinberg 99 Philip E. Steinberg, Florida State University Professional Geographer, 51(3)
1999, pages 366–375 Navigating to Multiple Horizons: Toward a Geography of Ocean-Space*
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~psteinbe/garnet-psteinbe/pgfocus.pdf
Ocean-space has also provided a foundational, if somewhat ephemeral, grounding for some
of the major geopolitical, geocultural, and geoeconomic referents of our time, including the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Pacific Rim. With reference to the Pacific Rim in
particular, Wilson and Dirlik (1995) discuss how the discursive construction of a geographical
identity focused around the “rim” of a supposedly essence-free center reproduces modernist
images of placelessness, an unbounded potential for progress and development, and—quite
literally—the liquidity and fungabil- ity of capital. Through the manipulation of ma- rine
imagery, the focal space of capital is defined solely as a space of movement, leaving the
places on its borders defined as points of limitless opportunity for investment and
“development” (see also Dirlik 1993; Steinberg 1999).
D. The affirmative must defend an interpretation
They cannot just quibble with our definition. They have to counter-define and
defend the limits of their definition. Substantially must be given meaning
CJS 83 Corpus Juris Secundum, 1983 , 765.
“Substantially. A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with
the context in which it isused. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it
must, nevertheless, be given effect.” 48
E. T is voter because it's necessary for good, well-prepared debating