ddi11SpendingGeneric

Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________................................................................................................................................. 7 ***Fiscal Discipline DA*** ................................................................................................................................... 7 Fiscal Discipline 1NC ............................................................................................................................................. 8 ________________________................................................................................................................................. 9 ***Uniquenesss*** ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Fiscal Discipline High Now .................................................................................................................................. 10 Fiscal Discipline High Now .................................................................................................................................. 15 Economy High Now ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Inflation Low Now ................................................................................................................................................ 17 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 18 ***Links*** ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 General Space Links ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Space Militarization Links .................................................................................................................................... 21 Space Debris Links ............................................................................................................................................... 23 SPS/SBSP Links ................................................................................................................................................... 24 AT: SPS Stimulates the Economy ........................................................................................................................ 26 Space Colonization Links ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Mining Links ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 International Space Station Links ......................................................................................................................... 29 Asteroid Detection Links ...................................................................................................................................... 30 DSCOVR/Triana Links ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Solar Flares Links ................................................................................................................................................. 32 Supplemental Spending Links .............................................................................................................................. 33 Spending Spills Over ............................................................................................................................................ 36 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 37 ***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 37 Spending Kills the Economy – General ................................................................................................................ 38 Spending Leads to Unemployment ....................................................................................................................... 40 Spending Kills Investor Confidence ..................................................................................................................... 41 Spending Causes Dollar Dumping ........................................................................................................................ 44 Spending Causes Crowd Out ................................................................................................................................ 48 Spending Raises Interest Rates ............................................................................................................................. 50 Spending Raises Taxes ......................................................................................................................................... 51 AT: Tax Hikes Solve ............................................................................................................................................ 52 AT: Spending Key to Stimulus ............................................................................................................................. 54 AT: Keynes ........................................................................................................................................................... 55 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 56 ***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 War Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 1 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 58 ***Military Tradeoff DA*** ................................................................................................................................ 58 Military Tradeoff DA – 1NC Shell ....................................................................................................................... 59 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 62 ***Uniqueness*** ................................................................................................................................................ 62 No Military Cuts Now .......................................................................................................................................... 63 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 64 ***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 64 Spending Trades Off with F-35 ............................................................................................................................ 65 Spending Trades Off with MPF ............................................................................................................................ 68 AT: Military Spending is Off the Table ................................................................................................................ 69 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 70 ***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 Military Spending Key to Heg .............................................................................................................................. 71 Military Spending Key to the Economy ............................................................................................................... 74 F-35 Key to Heg.................................................................................................................................................... 75 F-35 Key to Asia/Pacific ....................................................................................................................................... 78 F-35 Key to the Economy ..................................................................................................................................... 81 AT: F-35 Ineffective ............................................................................................................................................. 82 Air Power Key to Heg........................................................................................................................................... 83 MPF Key to Heg ................................................................................................................................................... 86 AT: SQ Prepositioning Solves .............................................................................................................................. 90 AT: MPF Too Costly ............................................................................................................................................ 91 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 2 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 92 ***NASA Tradeoff DA*** .................................................................................................................................. 92 NASA Tradeoff 1NC ............................................................................................................................................ 93 ________________________............................................................................................................................... 97 ***Uniqueness*** ................................................................................................................................................ 97 No NASA Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................................. 98 No SLS Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................................. 99 AT: No SLS—Obama ......................................................................................................................................... 101 No Earth Sciences Cuts Now .............................................................................................................................. 102 No Telescope Cuts Now ..................................................................................................................................... 105 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 108 ***Internal Links*** .......................................................................................................................................... 108 Spending Trades Off within NASA .................................................................................................................... 109 Spending Trades Off with SLS ........................................................................................................................... 110 Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy ............................................................................................................. 114 Spending Trades Off with Earth Sciences .......................................................................................................... 115 Spending Trades Off with Telescope .................................................................................................................. 116 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 117 ***Impacts*** .................................................................................................................................................... 117 SLS Key to Heg .................................................................................................................................................. 118 Heg Impact .......................................................................................................................................................... 119 SLS Key to Space Exploration ........................................................................................................................... 120 SLS Key to Leadership ....................................................................................................................................... 121 SLS Key to Econ/Innovation .............................................................................................................................. 122 Competitiveness/Tech Impact—Econ ................................................................................................................ 124 Competitiveness/Tech Impact—Terror .............................................................................................................. 126 SLS Key to Mars ................................................................................................................................................. 128 Mars Colonization Impact................................................................................................................................... 130 SLS Key to Moon ............................................................................................................................................... 131 SLS Key to ISS ................................................................................................................................................... 132 Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership ............................................................................................................ 133 Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership ............................................................................................................ 135 Earth Sciences Key to Solve Warming ............................................................................................................... 136 Earth Sciences Key to Innovation ....................................................................................................................... 137 Telescope Key to Competitiveness ..................................................................................................................... 138 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 3 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 139 ***Fiscal Discipline Aff*** ............................................................................................................................... 139 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 140 ***Non-Uniques*** ........................................................................................................................................... 140 Default Inevitable................................................................................................................................................ 141 AT: Gang of Six Plan Solves Fiscal Discipline .................................................................................................. 142 Economy Low Now ............................................................................................................................................ 145 Dollar Dumping Now ......................................................................................................................................... 150 Inflation High Now ............................................................................................................................................. 152 Consumer Spending Low Now ........................................................................................................................... 155 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 156 ***Link Takeouts*** ......................................................................................................................................... 156 AT: Space Militarization Links .......................................................................................................................... 157 AT: Space Debris Links ...................................................................................................................................... 158 AT: SPS/SBSP Links .......................................................................................................................................... 159 AT: Space Colonization Links ............................................................................................................................ 161 AT: Mining Links ............................................................................................................................................... 162 AT: International Space Station Links ................................................................................................................ 163 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 164 ***Internal Link Takeouts/Turns*** ................................................................................................................. 164 AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General ...................................................................................................... 165 AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence ............................................................................................................ 167 AT: Spending Causes Dollar Dumping .............................................................................................................. 169 AT: Spending Causes Crowd Out ....................................................................................................................... 170 AT: Spending Raises Taxes ................................................................................................................................ 171 AT: Greece Analogy ........................................................................................................................................... 174 Spending Key to Stimulus .................................................................................................................................. 175 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 4 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 177 ***Military Tradeoff DA Aff*** ....................................................................................................................... 177 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 178 ***Non-Uniques*** ........................................................................................................................................... 178 Military Cuts Now .............................................................................................................................................. 179 MPF Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................................... 181 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 182 ***Internal Link Takeouts*** ............................................................................................................................ 182 Spending Trades Off with Other Stuff ................................................................................................................ 183 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 184 ***Impact Turns and Takeouts*** ..................................................................................................................... 184 AT: Military Spending Key to Heg .................................................................................................................... 185 AT: F-35 Key to Heg .......................................................................................................................................... 186 Defense Cuts Good ............................................................................................................................................. 187 MPF Cuts Good .................................................................................................................................................. 189 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 5 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 190 ***NASA Tradeoff DA Aff*** ......................................................................................................................... 190 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 191 ***Non-Uniques*** ........................................................................................................................................... 191 NASA Cuts Now................................................................................................................................................. 192 Earth Sciences Cuts Now .................................................................................................................................... 193 Telescope Cuts Now ........................................................................................................................................... 194 SLS Cuts Now..................................................................................................................................................... 198 ________________________............................................................................................................................. 201 ***Impact Takeouts*** ...................................................................................................................................... 201 AT: SLS Key (General) ...................................................................................................................................... 202 AT: SLS Key to ISS ............................................................................................................................................ 205 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 6 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Fiscal Discipline DA*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 7 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline 1NC A. The budget will rein in spending enough to prevent a fiscal crisis The New York Times 2/15/11, lexis On paper, President Obama's new $3.7 trillion budget is encouraging. It makes a number of tough choices to cut the deficit by a projected $1.1 trillion over 10 years, which is enough to prevent an uncontrolled explosion of debt in the next decade and, as a result, reduce the risk of a fiscal crisis. B. Space development is costly – launch costs are ten thousand dollars per pound Thomas Paul Gabriele Jr, Captain, USAF, 3/07, “ACTIVE CONTROL OF A THIN DEFORMABLE IN-PLANE ACTUATED MIRROR,” Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Graduate School of Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?moduleid=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe670c0822a153&mode=user&action=lresearch&objectid=3acbac26-86d8-4b4a-8765-b0fdc0fba152 Traditional large glass mirrors are not a viable option for space applications because their rigidity limits the mirror diameter which can be placed on orbit. Capabilities of current generation launch vehicles are limited to approximately four meters. Moreover, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, launch costs currently average around $10,000 per pound for a geostationary launch. These costs, coupled with the large areal density of glass, make traditional optics in space costly [38]. C. Increased spending will contract the economy – two hundred years of data proves Knight Ridder 1/8/10, lexis WASHINGTON _ A new report that reviewed 200 years of economic data from 44 nations has reached an ominous conclusion for the world's largest economy: Almost without exception, countries that are as highly indebted as the United States is today grow at sub-par rates. The report, "Growth in a Time of Debt," was written by two respected academic researchers who recently published a thick book on eight centuries of economic crises. The study by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff _ well-regarded economists from the University of Maryland and Harvard University, respectively _ found statistical breaks at different points in the relationship between a country's national debt and its gross domestic product. GDP is the broadest measure of a country's trade in goods and services. When a nation's debt exceeds 60 percent of its GDP, its growth rate slows precipitously, the study found. When that ratio exceeds 90 percent, nations' economies barely grow, and can even contract. The U.S. national debt is at roughly 84 percent of the country's GDP, and it's projected to cross the authors' 90 percent threshold late this year or early next year. D. Economic decline causes world war Mead 09 Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow, US Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/09, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2) History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 8 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Uniquenesss*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 9 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline High Now Massive congressional cuts now AP 7/19/11 “House bill requires spending cuts, balanced budget” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSgVWaDagIo65UBrtQfb8AVUp6ew?docId=a7bdb009b87a49a997179ba0be d5f42b Highlights of a Republican-written "cut, cap and balance" bill the House plans to consider Tuesday: Cuts next year's projected $3.6 trillion in spending by $111 billion. Roughly two-thirds of cuts from department and agency budgets, onethird from automatically paid benefits, but leaves decisions to Congress about which programs would be cut. Exempts defense, security, veterans, Medicare and Social Security. Gradually decreases, or "caps," spending over the coming decade from 24.1 percent of the economy this year to 19.9 percent in 2021. Over the decade, that would mean about $6 trillion less spending than President Barack Obama proposed in his most recent budget. Congress would decide details. If a cap was exceeded, spending would automatically be cut, exempting Social Security, Medicare, military personnel, veterans and interest due on the debt. Large cuts are inevitable and bipartisan – public support Cheri Jacobus 6/23/11 “Cut, cap and balance” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/cheri-jacobus/168237-cut-cap-and-balance With the general public, the worm has turned and Americans are now more fearful of the looming European-style debt crisis and dismal future the left is creating than they are of the pain of large spending cuts. A Bloomberg poll shows 76 percent of Americans think the economy is getting worse or is stagnant, and only three in 10 would reelect Obama. An Associated Press poll shows four out of five think the economy is in bad shape and 59 percent disapprove of how Obama is handling the economy and unemployment. And a new poll by Public Notice shows 62 percent of Americans, including 40 percent of Democrats, are worried Congress will not cut enough spending, which means people are watching what Congress does rather closely. Fifty-one percent of Democrats say they would be more inclined to vote for a member of Congress who raised the debt ceiling only with significant spending cuts. Similarly, 54 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters, 54 percent of Independents and 58 percent of Republicans share the sentiment. Women more than men believe the debt ceiling should not be raised, along with 52 percent of Hispanic/Latino voters. So there appears to be nowhere for Obama and congressional Democrats to hide on the issue of massive spending cuts and strict fiscal discipline when broaching the issue of raising the debt ceiling. So what does a Democrat do with so little wiggle room? Look for Democrats to start acting more like Republicans and embracing the Tea Party, rather than embracing the top of their own ticket with Obama’s bottom-of-the-barrel poll numbers. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 10 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline High Now No new spending period, only massive cuts Representative John Culberson, Republican, former governor of Texas, Tea Party Caucus, 2/14/11 “The Spending Spree is Over” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/143833-the-spending-spree-is-over As the debate over the budget begins, all sides must acknowledge one sad and inescapable fact: Every dollar Congress spends is borrowed money. More specifically, each of the $2.23 trillion dollars that the Treasury takes in this fiscal year will go directly to pay for entitlement programs and interest on our massive, spiraling debt. Worse still, the federal government will need to borrow $105 billion to cover existing obligations before the fiscal year has even begun. The Obama Administration's profligacy - evidenced by a $3 trillion increase in the national debt and a nearly 50% increase in spending - has made the hole cavernous. The only way we can begin to dig ourselves out of it is to cut spending immediately and drastically, which is exactly what House conservatives have done. In the first four weeks of the new Republican majority, the House has cut spending by $656 billion and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers announced the largest cut in discretionary spending in our nation's history. Compare that to the first four weeks of the 111th Congress, when the Democrat-led House approved $682 billion of new spending. We cannot have any long term impact on the budget without cutting mandatory spending. Social Security and Medicare together are amassing unfunded obligations at the alarming rate of $6.5 trillion a year. The dramatic increase in the number of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries coupled with the simultaneous decline in the number of workers paying into Social Security, not to mention the high unemployment rate, keeps money flowing out of the depleted Social Security Trust Fund. The path we're on is simply unsustainable. And while there's still time to save the health care industry from shutdown due to the myopic Obamacare law, let's reverse it and implement sensible, effective health reform. The last thing we need in a period of severe economic contraction is massive government spending that weighs down the private sector, preventing job growth and innovation. Repealing this destructive law would save more than $2.6 trillion. Making decisions on where and how to cut spending is a difficult but necessary first step in a long road to financial recovery. We need to fix our broken budget process and remove job-destroying regulations. While we continue to work on these fronts, the message has been sent. The spending spree in Washington, D.C. is over. Debt deal will get done even without any Republican support Times of Oman 7/18/11 “White House Confident of Averting Debt Crisis” Library Press Display WASHINGTON: White House budget director Jack Lew said yesterday there was still time to clinch a major deficit reduction deal and he was confident that congressional leaders know a US debt default is not an option. State governors, fearing the effects of the debt talks on their own credit ratings, pressured Washington to get a deal. “This is a dangerous and equally ridiculous situation that’s playing itself out,” Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said at a National Governors Association meeting in Salt Lake City. “It takes one sentence to solve this problem — and that’s to lift the debt ceiling.” “It would be an embarrassment for the United States of America to default on its obligations,” said Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican. Experts say it would be much more than an embarrassment. With time running short, President Barack Obama and lawmakers were struggling for ways to lift the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit as an August 2 deadline to prevent a default draws dangerously close. “I think it’s not insignificant that all the leaders understand it would be irresponsible to get to August 2 and not extend the ability of the United States to pay its obligations,” Lew said on CNN’s “State of the Union” programme. Lew, appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows to push Obama’s case for a sweeping deficit reduction deal along with the debt ceiling increase, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” programme: “There’s still time to get something big done. The president has made it clear he wants to do something substantial.” Obama’s call for a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal snagged when Republicans in Congress rejected his demand that tax increases on the wealthy be part of the plan. Congress must raise the $14.3 trillion limit on US borrowing by August 2 or the government will run out of money to pay its bills, causing turmoil in global financial markets and potentially forcing the United States into another recession. Lew told CNN there has been “activity and progress” in talks among Senate leaders “to make sure that at a minimum Congress has a way to take action and avoid default on the US debt” through a plan offered by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell that would clear the way for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling without Republican help. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 11 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline High Now A new debt deal will pass Andrew Leonard, 7/19/11, “The Senate’s Deficit Reduction Magic Trick”, http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/tech/htww/2011/07/19/senate_deficit_reduction_plan Be still, my beating debt ceiling heart! Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Ok., has rejoined the Gang of Six! And suddenly, a new deficit reduction plan is emerging from the Senate, to the soundtrack of mega-hype from the likes of Politico and the Wall Street Journal. If you haven't been following this soap opera, here's a quick recap: The "Gang of Six" is a bipartisan group of senators who have been toiling for months to come up with a plan that can get to 60 votes. But its deliberations were thrown awry in May, when Coburn jumped ship, declaring that negotiations were at an "impasse." But now he's back! And on cue, the Senate has a new plan to cut $3.7 trillion over 10 years. Progressives will find all kinds of nasty things in this plan -- cuts to Medicare and Social Security, etc. But we'll lambaste that another day: The only pertinent question right now, with the debt ceiling deadline hurtling toward us, is how the Senate's plan addresses the key stumbling block preventing the White House and House Republicans from making a deal: taxes. Obama has supposedly drawn a line -- no big deal without new revenues. But the House is equally obstinate: no tax hikes, no matter how they are defined, period. Magically, the Gang of Six's plan simultaneously raises revenue and cuts taxes! Everybody wins! From the Wall Street Journal: A key question remains whether the plan might receive any support in the House, where Republicans have strongly resisted any new proposal that could bring in new taxes. The gang's plan would bring in $1 trillion in new tax revenue over 10 years by narrowing several tax breaks. But Mr. Conrad said it would also lower tax rates and end the alternative minimum tax. He said the combination of tax changes would be viewed by budget experts as a $1.5 trillion tax cut. Get that? It raises $1 trillion in revenue, but gets scored as $1.5 trillion tax cut. Nice work! How does this magic trick work? The key is in the phrase "end the alternative minimum tax." This is exactly the gimmick I discussed here two weeks ago: ...the Alternative Minimum Tax "offset" is the all-important fig leaf in this deal. Originally intended to prevent wealthy Americans from claiming too many deductions on their taxes, for years the AMT has threatened to gouge progressively bigger chunks of flesh from middle-class Americans. But "threatened" is the operative word here, because Congress keeps patching the tax code on a regular basis to let millions of taxpayers off the hook. By applying revenue increases derived from closing loopholes and ending tax breaks to permanently fixing the AMT, Republicans and Democrats can make a real dent in the deficit while claiming that there has been no net increase in taxes. This is precisely the kind of thing that both sides can declare victory on. There will be no "net" increase in tax revenues because fixing the AMT is an expensive proposition. The Tea Party hardcore in the House may still vote no, but with people like Tom Coburn in the Senate giving the plan their imprimatur, enough Republicans will join with Democrats to get the necessary votes for passage. Obama has already announced his support for the plan. Next step: The Senate and the White House force it down House Republican throats. The ‘gang of six’ plan will raise the debt ceiling and stop spending The Atlantic 7/20/11 “The Gang of Six Is Our Best Chance for a Debt Deal in This Congress” http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-gang-of-six-is-our-best-chance-for-a-debt-deal-in-this-congress/242233/ There is a big idea out there, and it is gaining traction in the Senate. A bipartisan group of Senators known as the "Gang of Six" released their own plan yesterday, to a group of nearly 50 senators. Despite calling for reductions in Social Security and tax expenditures -- the sacred cows of the left and the right, respectively -- this $4 trillion plan has shown its power to inspire. The Senate's third ranking Republican, Lamar Alexander, declared that "this is a serious, bipartisan proposal that will help stop Washington from spending money that we don't have, and I support it." Senator John Kerry also approved, saying "I think it could be a component of whatever the debt deal is, because I think a lot of people would feel comfortable doing the debt if they saw this as part of the package." As one Senator reported, the Gang of 6 is hoping to transform into a "Mob of 50." The Gang proposal would combine a deficit-reduction down payment with a process that forces Congressional Committees to report further deficit reduction, along with comprehensive tax reform, Social Security reform, and long-term health reform. Unlike the Reid-McConnell plan, as it stands, the Gang's approach would offer specific instructions and tough enforcement mechanisms.The debt ceiling has been a difficult and possibly dangerous news peg for deficit discussions. But by focusing on getting Washington to think long about the debt, it's produced a once-in-ageneration opportunity. At this moment, we could get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, reduce tax rates to their lowest levels since Reagan, and still be able to put $1 trillion aside for deficit reduction. We could make Social Security sustainably solvent, so that current and future generations can count on it to be there for them and don't have to fear to 23% across-the-board benefit cut scheduled into current law. We could address the cost growth of Medicare and Medicaid in a way that maintains the guaranteed benefit for those who need it but also ensures these programs don't bankrupt us. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 12 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline High Now Obama and U.S. government are serious about making cuts and reducing federal deficit. Gang of Six plan spells out 3.7 trillion dollars in savings Manu Raju, Reporter, 07/19/11, “Gang of Six back from the brink”, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1A5B7DC1-3E474249-832E-D25C243DD9B2 The House Republican leadership staff is reviewing the Gang of Six proposal, but has several concerns, according to aides. They are unclear how the plan gets to $3.7 trillion in savings, and want to see a more detailed plan, the aides say. From what they’ve seen of the plan, they Medicare and Medicaid proposals need to go further. And they’re already branding the plan as having tax increases. House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor both reacted cautiously to the plan, calling for deeper cuts and with Cantor singling out the group’s goal to raise tax revenues. And groups like the Heritage Foundation on the right, and MoveOn.org on the left, were already panning the proposal hours after it was released, underscoring the major political hurdles ahead. According to a copy of a summary of the Gang of Six plan, obtained by POLITICO, the group would impose a two-step legislative process that would make $500 billion worth of cuts immediately followed by a second bill to create a “fast-track process” that would propose a comprehensive bill aimed at dramatically restructuring tax and spending programs. The plan calls for changes to Social Security to move on a separate track, and establishes an elaborate procedure for considering the measures on the floor. The $500 billion in cuts would come from a range of sources, including shifting to a new consumer price index to make cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security. The plan would impose statutory spending caps through 2015, freeze congressional pay and sell unused federal property. To enact a comprehensive deficit plan, the group calls for congressional committees to report legislation within six months that would “deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years,” the plan says. It calls on the Finance Committee to permanently reform or replace Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate - an outdated formula aimed at determining the amount to reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients - by $298 billion. The Finance Committee would be instructed to deliver “real deficit savings” through simplifying the tax code and raise as much as $1 trillion. It would do this by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. It would permanently repeal the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax. And it calls for establishing a single corporate tax rate, between 23 percent and 29 percent, and to move to a competitive territorial tax system. Overall, the group claims it would result in a $1.5 trillion net tax decrease. The group punts many of the specifics to other committees, which would be asked to find savings in discretionary and mandatory spending. This includes: $80 billion out of Armed Services; $70 billion out of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; $65 billion out of Homeland Security and Government Affairs; $11 billion out of Agriculture; $11 billion out of Commerce; $6 billion out of Energy and Natural Resources. The Judiciary Committee would be asked to find savings through medical malpractice reform. The group spent ample time proposing ways to expedite the legislative process should there be a stalemate in committee. If any committee cannot propose cuts, it would impose “across-the-board” cuts to programs under the panel’s jurisdiction. It would exempt programs aimed at low-income communities. Moreover, the group proposed a mechanism to allow other senators to move forward with deficit-cutting proposals if a Senate committee stalled on its task. It would allow five senators from each party to push a resolution laying out how they would achieve those cuts, and if that won 60 votes on the floor, those proposals would be added to the comprehensive bill. To avoid gridlock, floor amendments that upset the deficit-reduction goals would be ruled out of order. Any bill that could receive 60 votes would be held at the desk until the Senate considers the separate Social Security bill. Once a comprehensive deficit plan has the votes, a measure aimed at ensuring 75-years of solvency of Social Security would head to the floor. The Finance Committee would be required to recommend the Social Security changes. Senators in the Gang of Six - Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Coburn - discussed the proposal with 43 senators Tuesday morning on the first floor of the Senate, after more than six months of struggling to broker a deal. Coburn left the group in May but suddenly rejoined after the group added $115 billion in additional health care cuts and included the provision allowing senators to circumvent the stalled committees. “I’m back,” Coburn told the big group Tuesday, prompting a round of applause. The devil, of course, will be in the details. The group will have to write the plan into legislation and try to win over a bipartisan majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, not an easy task with two weeks before the U.S is at risk of defaulting on its loans. The group has modeled its approach after the president’s deficit reduction commission that proposed a report last December recommending a sweeping array of cuts worth $4 trillion. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 13 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline High Now Barack Obama continues to push deficit-reduction committee and pushes Congress to find ways to cut and save money. New bipartisan bill comes out with results of 3.7 trillion dollars to save Janet Hook, reporter, 7/20/11,“Obama Backs Latest Bargain”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576456042405686316.html?mod=djemalertNEWS President Barack Obama, in a last-ditch bid for a bipartisan "grand bargain" on the budget, threw his weight Tuesday behind a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan unveiled by six Republican and Democratic senators The plan, which would span a decade, has scant chance of passing intact as the solution to the current debate over raising the government's borrowing limit. Some Republicans were wary of the plan's changes in tax rules. Democrats said it would be near impossible to draft legislative language and pass it quickly. Still, some elements from the so-called Gang of Six senators could be incorporated into a final deal to shrink the deficit and raise the government's $14.29 trillion debt cap by Aug. 2. That's when the Treasury Department says the government will run out of cash to pay all its bills without an increase in borrowing authority. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.,Va.), one of the party's most combative conservatives, didn't dismiss the plan out of hand. "While there are still portions that are unclear and need more detail, this bipartisan plan does seem to include some constructive ideas to deal with our debt." The developments come against a backdrop of a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward the debt ceiling. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found a plurality of Americans—38%—now say the debt ceiling should be raised, while 31% say it shouldn't. A month ago, sentiment was the reverse, with 39% opposing the idea while just 28% said it should be raised. The senators backing the new proposal say 74% of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts and 26% from new taxes. It would impose spending cuts and caps, and make changes in Social Security to make the program solvent over 75 years. It would direct congressional committees to reduce the deficit by specific levels in their areas of jurisdiction, likely including major entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid. The plan also would make big changes to the tax code. It would lower personal and corporate tax rates eliminate the unpopular Alternative Minimum Tax and many deductions and tax breaks. Comparing the Gang of Six plan to current law, which provides that all Bush tax cuts expire in 2012, it would cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, making it attractive to some Republicans. By another commonly used Washington yardstick—one that assumes, as the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan fiscal commission did, that Congress was certain to extend several expiring tax breaks—it would raise roughly an additional $1 trillion over 10 years, which could make it attractive to some Democrats. Gang of Six bipartisan bill to make serious cuts in federal spending Robert Schroeder, 7/19/11“House approves bill to raise debt ceiling”, http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=C844CF36-B208-11E0-9236-002128049AD6 The House’s vote came on the same day that Obama cited progress in negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and lauded a newly released Senate “Gang of Six” plan that would cut $3.7 trillion from deficits over 10 years. The House bill was approved on a vote of 234-190. Republicans say that they offered the plan to avoid a default by the U.S. government and that cutting and capping spending will ensure that Washington lives within its means. “Today, the House will vote on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act; our balanced plan to meet the president’s request for a debt-limit increase while achieving serious spending cuts, binding budget reforms, and putting in place a balanced-budget amendment to ensure we don’t continue to kick the can down the road,” said a statement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office before the vote on Tuesday. The White House said the bill sets up an “unacceptable choice” between lifting the debt ceiling or passing a balanced budget amendment that would cut Medicare and Social Security too deeply. The Obama administration has repeatedly urged Congress to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2 or else the government will face default on its obligations. The plan from the Senate group known as the “Gang of Six” aims to immediately cut $500 billion in deficits; make Social Security solvent over 75 years; and reduce marginal income tax rates, among other things. Obama said Tuesday that he’ll urge congressional leaders to get down to business on Wednesday and craft a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress in time for the Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt limit. With “Cut, Cap and Balance” expected to fail in the Senate and never reach Obama’s desk, Senate lawmakers are also working on a backup plan to raise the debt ceiling in addition to the newly released plan from the “Gang of Six” senators. The backup plan, which Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid have been crafting, would allow the debt ceiling to rise in exchange for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a decade. The bill passed in the House Tuesday would raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion but would be accompanied by mandatory spending cuts of $380 billion in fiscal year 2012 in addition to a balanced-budget amendment. Read a summary of the Republican bill. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 14 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Fiscal Discipline High Now New Gang of Six plan will cut govt. spending and ensure that overall spending is reasonable in relation to the well being of the economy David Espo, Associated Press writer, 7/19/11 “Gang of Six Plan gains favor”, http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/jul/19/gangof-six-debt-plan-gains-favor/ Yet a few hours after Obama spoke at the White House, supporters of the newly passed House measure breathed defiance. “Let me be clear. This is the compromise. This is the best plan out there,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, head of a conservative group inside the House known as the Republican Study Committee. The legislation, dubbed “Cut, Cap and Balance” by supporters and backed by Tea Party activists, would make an estimated $111 billion in immediate reductions and ensure that overall spending declined in the future in relation to the overall size of the economy. It also would require both houses of Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification. The amendment itself would require a supermajority vote in both houses of Congress for any future tax raises. With time dwindling, the day’s events did little to suggest a harmonious end was imminent in a defining clash between the two political parties. Senate Democrats have announced they will oppose the House passed-measure, although it could take two or three days to reject it. Yet there were signs that with Tuesday night’s vote behind them, House Republican leaders might pivot swiftly. Even before the vote, Speaker John Boehner told reporters that it also was “responsible to look at what Plan B would look like.” And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor issued a statement saying of the Gang of Six proposal: “This bipartisan plan does seem to include some constructive ideas to deal with our debt.” Debate in the House was along predictable lines, and only nine Republicans opposed the bill and five Democrats supported it on final passage. The Gang of Six briefed other senators on the group’s plan after a seemingly quixotic quest that took months, drew disdain at times from the leaders of both parties and appeared near failure more than once. It calls for deficit cuts of slightly less than $4 trillion over a decade and includes steps to slow the growth of Social Security payments, cut at least $500 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs and wring billions in savings from programs across the face of government. It envisions tax changes that would reduce existing breaks for a number of popular items while reducing the top income bracket from the current 35 percent to 29 percent or less. The tax overhaul “must be estimated to provide $1 trillion in additional revenue to meet plan targets,” according to a summary that circulated in the Capitol. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 15 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Economy High Now Economy is rising right now, it’s in the DNA of the US Gerri Willis, CNN anchor and reporter, July 1, 2011, http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2011/07/01/americadecline-hell-no No doubt, our economy is suffering. Too few Americans are working. The housing market is in disarray. Prices are on the rise while incomes are stagnant. But there are reasons for optimism and many reasons to believe that the current malaise is just that - a temporary setback. Consider: The US is still the No. 1 economy in the world - at $14.7 trillion - our economic output outpaces everyone, even China - for now. And, the figure that you never hear: We produce more goods and services than any other country on the planet with a population less than a quarter of the size of China. Increasingly, companies are noticing the productivity of our workers - a factor motivating companies like GE, NCR and Caterpillar that brought some operations back to the US from emerging markets over the last year. Innovation - the founding stone of economic growth -is one of our defining characteristics. The US Patent Office is inundated with so many applications that it can take four to seven years to get a ruling on a patent request. Our legal system - though riddled with shortcomings -- ensures a fair playing field for companies and consumers alike. In short, we are built for economic growth - it is in our DNA. To be sure, we are going to have to make smarter decisions to keep America No. 1 - but it is well within our grasp. Happy Fourth of July! United States economy is strong and growing in the status quo Econ Post, Economic News, February 14, 2011, http://econpost.com/unitedstateseconomy/us-economic-outlook-index-forecastsstronger-growth The United States economy is predicted to have stroner growth in the months ahead based on positive signs in January 2011 in an index that measures the strength of the U.S. economy. The USA Today/IHS Global Insight Economic Outlook index's January indicators forecast a growth rate of 3.7% for the U.S. economy in March and April 2011. This growth rate is up from the Index's earlier forecast for the same period of 2.1% back in September 2010. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 16 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Inflation Low Now Inflation below 2% target and only a temporary rise EC Pulse ’11 (5/8/11, “Inflation, Trade, and Retail Highlight U.S. Data for Next Week,” pg online @ lexisnexis) The Federal Reserve Bank is still unconcerned with rising inflation risks, where the Fed signaled on many occasions that the recent rise in inflation will prove to be temporary, since the rise in inflation is solely based on rising energy prices, where energy prices continued to rise over the past few months for different reasons, whether from the political unrest in the Middle East, or the weak value of the U.S. dollar, which drove dollar denominated assets including oil prices to rise. The Fed though are still comfortable with inflation, since core inflation remains well below the 2 percent target preferred by the Fed, and of the recent economic slowdown witnessed during the first quarter prevails for a longer period, we should expect inflation rates to ease or at least stabilize, even if energy prices remain elevated, since the economic weakness will put downward pressure on prices, although a significant rise in energy prices will make this scenario worthless. Inflation increase temporary, will shift lower – weak labor market Reuters ’11 (7/20/11, “Analysis: Core Concept: Underlying inflation should ease,” pg online @ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-usa-economy-inflation-idUSTRE76I6GN20110720) Don't expect recent increases in underlying U.S. inflation to stick or to prevent the Federal Reserve from seriously considering more monetary policy stimulus if the recovery looks at risk. The core consumer price index -- which excludes volatile food and energy prices -- rose a relatively stiff 0.3 percent in June, pushing the year-on-year rate to 1.6 percent. It was the largest year-on-year gain since January 2010. But the run-up in core inflation has reflected supply chain disruptions from the March earthquake in Japan and a delayed pass-through from high oil prices. In fact, economists generally believe core inflation will soon shift lower. "I don't think we have a real inflation problem here, as a matter of fact, the odds are favoring a move back into a disinflationary environment," said Howard Simons, an analyst at Bianco Research in Chicago. While the year-on-year core inflation rate has moved up quickly from its record low of 0.6 percent in October and is expected to breach the U.S. central bank's preferred 2 percent level this year, a weak labor market that is keeping wage growth subdued should hold price pressures in check. Consumer prices falling, so does inflation Business News, 7/15/11, “U.S. Consumer Inflation Down in June”, http://www.ourbusinessnews.com/u-s-consumer-inflationdown-in-june/ Overall consumer prices fell final month given of a high dump in gasoline costs, a Labor Department reported Friday, though Americans paid some-more for autos as good as clothes. The Labor Department says a Consumer Price Index fell 0.2 percent given of a decrease in gas. After incompatible flighty food as good as gas costs, supposed core prices rose 0.3 percent. That was a second true monthly benefit as good as a largest back-to-back increases given a summer of 2008. Many of a trends pushing a enlarge in a core index have been approaching to blur after this year. New automobile prices rose 0.6 in June, after jumping 1.1 percent in May. Those increases simulate supply shortages stemming from Japans earthquake, which will palliate in a fall. Rising gas as good as food prices caused acceleration concerns progressing this year. In a 12month duration from Jul 2010 to Jul 2011, consumer prices rose 3.6 percent. The each year benefit in a index was usually 1.1 percent as not long ago as November. Core prices have been many tamer. In a final year, they increasing usually 1.6 percent, next a Federal Reserves elite aim of 2 percent. Some acceleration can be full of health for a manage to buy given it encourages people to outlay as good as deposit rsther than than lay upon their cash. More spending drives corporate growth, which creates businesses some-more approaching to sinecure people. Low acceleration allows a executive bank to keep a short-term seductiveness rate it controls during a jot down low nearby zero, where it has been given Dec 2008. Oil prices have come down from their climb this spring, as good as gas costs have followed. The normal inhabitant cost per gallon was scarcely $4 in early May. On Friday, a gallon of gas averaged $3.66 nationwide, according to AAA. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 17 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Links*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 18 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 General Space Links NASA’s inaccurate cost estimates historically make space programs subject to underfunding and cost overruns GAO ’05 (2/05, “NASA’s Space Vision: Business Case for Prometheus 1 Needed to Ensure Requirements Match Available Resources,” pg 10, 05-242) Adding to these complexities, NASA has historically had difficulty establishing life-cycle cost estimates. In May 2004, we reported that NASA’s basic cost-estimating processes—an important tool for managing programs—lack the discipline needed to ensure that program estimates are reasonable.8 Specifically, we found that 10 NASA programs that we reviewed in detail did not meet all of our cost-estimating criteria—based on criteria developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute. Moreover, none of the 10 programs fully met certain key criteria—including clearly defining the program’s life cycle to establish program commitment and manage program costs, as required by NASA. In addition, only three programs provided a breakdown of the work to be performed. Without this knowledge, we reported that the programs’ estimated costs may be understated and thereby subject to underfunding and cost overruns, putting programs at risk of being reduced in scope or requiring additional funding to meet their objectives. In this report we recommended that NASA take a number of actions to improve its cost - estimating practices. NASA concurred noting that our recommendations validated and reinforced the importance of activities underway at NASA. Space launch costs are high and rising Spaceflight Now ’11 (“Rising launch costs could curtail NASA science missions,” 4/4/11, pg online @ http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/04launchcosts/) A previous NLS contract expired last year and held provisions for heavily discounted rocket costs due to projections of a more robust U.S. commercial launch services market when it was signed in 2000. "The expectation at that time was there was a large commercial market," Cline said. "That did not materialize. As opposed to government being a secondary customer buying on the margin, government became the primary customer." With government as the anchor customer, marginal launch costs for NASA and the Air Force are on the rise. "Rocket costs are going crazy and mostly up," said Steve Squyres, a respected planetary scientist and chair of a panel of researchers that issued recommendations in March for NASA to address the possibility of a declining budget matched against rising launch prices. Squyres led the National Research Council's planetary science decadal survey, an independent report ranking a slate of robotic solar system missions for the next 10 years. "Launch vehicle costs are high," Squyres said. "They're growing. They're growing in a somewhat volatile and unpreditable fashion. They're becoming an increasingly large fraction of the cost of planetary missions, which is a trend we view with some alarm." Launch costs are expensive - $10,000 per pound Gabriele ’07 (Thomas Paul Gabriele Jr, Captain, USAF, 3/07, “Active Control of a Thin Deformable In-Plane Actuated Mirror,” pg online @ https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?moduleid=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe670c0822a153&mode=user&action=lresearch&objectid=3acbac26-86d8-4b4a-8765-b0fdc0fba152) Traditional large glass mirrors are not a viable option for space applications because their rigidity limits the mirror diameter which can be placed on orbit. Capabilities of current generation launch vehicles are limited to approximately four meters. Moreover, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, launch costs currently average around $10,000 per pound for a geostationary launch. These costs, coupled with the large areal density of glass, make traditional optics in space costly [38]. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 19 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 General Space Links Space launches historically costly Radford ’11 (Tim Radford, freelance journalist, 6/30/11, “NASA’s costly space ride,” pg online @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/30/nasas-costly-space-ride) The investment in each launch was colossal. The solid rocket boosters alone burn fuel at the rate of 5,000kg a second at each launch and the temperatures inside the shuttle's main engine get high enough to make iron boil. And the vessel had to take with it everything humans might need to survive in space, every time. But reusable did not mean cheap. Every flight into space involved stress and abrasion as the machine tore through the air on the way up, and then went from sub-zero temperatures in orbit to more than 1,500C as it hit the atmosphere on the way down. As the fleet aged, the pit stops became longer and launches less frequent. Two scientists at the University of Colorado calculated an average cost for each launch of $1.2bn. Nasa – begetter and guardian of the International Space Station, the Hubble space telescope and the yet to be launched James Webb space telescope – already has more financial demands than it can meet. President Obama cancelled plans for a new manned mission to the moon; the long-promised manned mission to Mars now looks very distant. Once Atlantis returns, it will join its fellow survivors Discovery and Endeavour as US museum exhibits. And when the crew aboard the ISS need any more tea and sugar, or fuel and fresh air, these will be delivered by a Russian robot Progress cargo vehicle, or a European Space Agency automated transfer vehicle, neither of which is reusable. For years to come, the only carrier available to get people to and from the space station will be the Russian Soyuz, descendant of a line launched in 1966. The space shuttle broke all records; but in the end it all but broke Nasa. Launch costs for any future plans are rising-bad financial environment Space News ’10 (12/16/10, “Rising Costs Cast Shadow on NASA Planetary Program,” pg online @ http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101216-costs-cloud-planetary-program.html) While 2011 is expected to be a banner year for NASA’s planetary science program with three missions scheduled for launch, future initiatives are threatened by budget uncertainties and a dramatic spike in the price of launch vehicles, according to an agency official. “This is a really difficult financial environment,” Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary science, said Dec. 15 at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union here. Rides into orbit for NASA’s 2011 planetary missions, the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), the Juno mission to Jupiter and the Moon-bound Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL), were purchased under the first NASA Launch Services contract. That contract, which does not include specific quantities of rockets to be purchased or delivery dates, sets prices for launch vehicles and related services for NASA’s planetary, Earth observing, exploration and scientific satellites. In September, NASA awarded a second set of Launch Services contracts to Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and United Launch Alliance of Littleton, Colo. Prices in the second NASA Launch Services contract round are “significantly higher” than the prices in the first, Green said. He declined to be specific. “We are surprised at how extensive those cost increases are,” he said. “You start to wonder where we go from here. How do we get out of low Earth orbit on a regular basis?” Economic downturn makes spending more on space impossible LA Times ’11 (5/9/11, “Space: If you have the money, we have a program,” pg online @ http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/05/money-for-space-programs.html) Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with space and our space program. Supporters love the triumphs, the soaring inspiration of it all. Opponents argue: With so many problems here on Earth, why are we wasting money on space? Now, throw in the worst economic downturn in decades and you get this: With so many problems here on Earth, and the fact we're so deeply in debt, why waste money on space? Just how tight have things become? Heck, we don't even have enough money to keep searching for ET. Last week, in "SETI Institute's search for extraterrestrial life hits a budgetary black hole," Times staff writer Louis Sahagun reported that the guys sitting in Northern California listening for signals from other life in the universe are about out of money. Congress gave up and cut off funding in 1993, but private sources have kept the project running. Now? Well, it looks like it's mothball city: In mid-April, [Tom] Pierson [the institute's chief executive officer] delivered the bad news to stakeholders, just as the array was being prepared to survey more than 50 recently discovered planets beyond our solar system that astronomers believe may be habitable. Darn, just when we were this close. So, 50 years after Alan Shepard put America back in the space race, we don't even have the $2.5 million a year it takes to listen for fellow inhabitants of the galaxy, much less travel there. And Rodriguez thinks Americans are ready to spend really big bucks on space travel? No, here's where we really are: Like so much of what's going on in the real world, space is about to become a playground for the rich. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 20 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Space Militarization Links Space Militarization ineffective: Could require 20 + years and over $200 billion Greg Grant, 11/8/07, staff writer for governmentexecutive.com, “Report questions cost effectiveness of space weapons”, http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/110807g1.htm Putting weapons in space to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the United States or to destroy enemy satellites would be a poor investment, particularly when compared with ground-based weapons designed to do the same thing, according to a new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think tank. The report, "Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons," examined a number of potential space-based weapons systems, many of which remain largely theoretical, and attempted to quantify the costs of such systems and the likelihood that they would actually work. It acknowledged the difficulty of assessing space weapons, since most of the information on them is highly classified. But based on available information, the report concluded that a constellation of such weapons presents enormous costs, technological challenges, potential risk of escalation of an arms race in space, and is of questionable effectiveness. The most widely discussed option, stemming from the Reagan-era Star Wars missile defense proposal, is to build a constellation of satellites that would fire either missiles or lasers at incoming ballistic missiles. Considering the technological leaps required, particularly for a space-based laser, the report considered it unlikely that such a system could be built within 20 years. If the technology hurdles were overcome, the costs to build such a system could approach $200 billion. Space Militarization will exceed military budget William D. Hartung, 7/12/05, guest columnist for Seattle Pi, “Weapons in space put the world at risk”, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Weapons-in-space-put-the-world-at-risk-1178161.php In addition to the threats to U.S. security and our economy from sparking an arms race in space, the whole process would be extremely costly. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, launching an adequate number of Space-Based Interceptors to achieve total global coverage in a missile defense role could cost up to $60 billion over a decade's time. Space-Based Interceptors can also be adapted to work as anti-satellite weapons, although the numbers needed to reach an initial capability would be much smaller. And a Council on Foreign Relations study group estimates that placing just 40 rods in space for the "Rods from God" program would cost more than $8 billion. Given all the other space weapons projects on the drawing board, a concerted effort to weaponize space could eventually exceed the $100 billion-plus already spent on the missile defense program, which has been plagued by delays and technical difficulties from its inception. Witness the fact that in the last two major missile defense tests, the interceptor missile did not even make it out of its silo. Launching and maintaining hundreds or thousands of weapons in the harsh environment of space would pose its own technical obstacles, some of which may not be readily overcome. The better way to go would be to act now to establish some rules of the road for space-faring nations. The Henry L. Stimson Center has developed a model code of conduct for space that includes no flight-testing or deployment of space weapons, minimizing space debris that can destroy satellites and cooperating on space traffic management. The time to act on these ideas is now, while the United States still maintains unparalleled dominance in space. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 21 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Space Militarization Links Space Weapons are too Costly an Investment Considering their Low Survivability and High Risk Clay 07 (James Clay. Senior Software Engineer at United Space Alliance "Protecting Safe Access to Space: Lessons from the First 50 Years of Space Security." Space Policy. Vol. 23 (November 2007): 199-205. page 203 , TA) As implied above, another factor that has affected the prospects of space's weaponization has been the extremely high costs involved. The root of this problem lies in the great expense of placing any objects into space, but it is exacerbated by the fact that orbiting objects are difficult to maintain and modernize, particularly if there are changes in technical capabilities and/or targeting information. But perhaps the most damaging factor in regard to cost is the fact that orbital physics require that any militarily significant constellation of interceptors placed in space must be deployed in considerable numbers, given the "absentee problem"--i.e., the fact that a harmful attack could be undertaken by an adversary at an "inconvenient" time in the orbit of any defensive system. One recent report, for example, has estimated that for a constellation of space-based weapons for use in "global strikes" against ground targets within 45 min, the requirement is for nearly 50 individual interceptors to cover even a limited swath of the Earth's land mass.12 The report concludes that "acquiring the capability to attack a ground target within 45 minutes would be many tens of times more costly if done from space than from the ground". Of course, for an anti-ASAT system, the requirements are much higher, since an hour could mean the difference between defense and irrelevance. For this reason, the start of any arms race in space will involve extremely high costs. In addition, the deployment of such systems puts assets in space on hair-trigger alert, creating serious risks of misidentification of targets. Such events could lead to the destruction of property, inadvertent loss of life, or accidental war. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 22 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Space Debris Links Cleaning up space debris is cost ineffective Julie Beck, 11/29/10, staff writer for PopScience, “Russia Invests $2 Billion To Clean Up Space Debris”, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/russia-invests-2-billion-clean-space-debris Hare-brained schemes for cleaning up space debris have been batted around for some time, but Russia has finally put some money down on a real project. Russia’s space corporation, Energia, is going to invest $2 billion to build a space pod to fly around and knock the junk out of orbit and out of our way. Hopefully it will burn up in the atmosphere, or land in the ocean, and not rain down on Chinese villagers. This pod could help reopen orbits that are currently inaccessible to future spacecraft due to the amount of shredded metal and empty hulls of dead satellites floating around. Using an ion drive, it will gently nudge these useless scraps out of orbit. Energia plans to have completed testing on the pod, which will have a nuclear power core, by 2020, and have it in service no later than three years after. It will have a lifespan of about 15 years, enough time to make a significant dent in our space debris problem. Energia is also working on developing an “interceptor” spacecraft using similar technology. This craft would be able to derail any incoming comets or other outer-space projectiles that might be hurtling towards Earth, and change their trajectory just enough that they miss us. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 23 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SPS/SBSP Links Solar Powered Satellites will inevitably be cost ineffective National Space Society, October 2007, “Space Solar Power: Limitless Clean Energy From Space”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet. High development cost. Yes, space solar power development costs will be very large, although much smaller than American military presence in the Persian Gulf or the costs of global warming, climate change, or carbon sequestration. The cost of space solar power development always needs to be compared to the cost of not developing space solar power. Cost of Solar Powered Satellites would exceed any other system of production Kevin Chao and James Chang, 2/20/08, contributors to Design4Development.com, “The Power of Power”, http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/Solar+Power+Satellites Perhaps one of the greatest downfalls of the SPS system would be cost. In the range of 80 billion dollars, the costs of this system far exceed any of the other systems of production. Even the fact that the technology offers benefits far into the future would seem unreasonable in terms of cost. In comparing SPS to the two systems that generate most of the world’s power, nuclear and coal, the cost of SPS drastically outweighs. Take nuclear power for example. A typical reactor costs approximately 5 billion to build, a mere 20th of a SPS without taking into account, the base stations. Fossil fuels account for 65% of the world’s energy production and are even cheaper due to its availability and flexibility with regards to use. It would seem then, that currently established means of energy production are capable enough of handling the power needs of any developing nations. Yet with any growing society, energy demands are expected to rise and without stable energy sources, demand will exceed supply and costs will begin to rise. It is then that in terms of cost and sustainability, the true benefit of the SPS system begins to outweigh those monetary costs in the long run. Fossil fuels currently are highly available and consequently, the cost of this fuel is dramatically cheaper than that of any other power source. Space-Based Solar Power cost ineffective compared to other alternatives Tony Martin, Richard Varvill, and Alan Bond, September 2008, writers for Reaction Engines Ltd., “Solar Power Satellites and Spaceplanes-The SKYLON Initiative”, pg. 20 From the data in Table 2 it can be seen that the performance characteristics of SKYLON are very similar to the capabilities set out by the SBSP Study Group. Only one system is developed, rather than two design-independent systems. The development and production costs were derived using Reaction Engines internal costing models which give similar estimates to TRANSCOST, and are baseline costs without assuming any reduction for “cost engineering”. The total SKYLON development cost ($21,700M) is much lower than the SBSP Study Group Gen 1 and 1.5 systems ($75,000M). The production cost per vehicle is also much lower (40%). A properly implemented SKYLON launch infrastructure is capable of at least 10,000 flights per year with a worldwide fleet of 100 vehicles. This implies an average vehicle turnaround time of 3.65 days, which when combined with the Initial Operational Capability of 2 days, leaves ample downtime for maintenance, etc. These figures are very modest compared to typical airline models. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 24 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SPS/SBSP Links Space-Based Solar Power could potentially cost over 2 trillion yen ($25 billion), take over 15 years to fully develop Yomiuri Shibum, 2/24/11, Japanese magazine, “Space-based solar power set for 1st test”, http://www.ecodeonline.com/blog/?p=92 Jan. 22–A team of scientists from several organizations will begin tests this spring on a space-based power generation technology using satellites, it was learned Saturday. The technology would start by generating electricity from sunlight in space, convert the power into microwaves and then send it to Earth, the team said. The planned test will attempt to convert a strong electric current into microwaves and transmit them 10 meters away in a simulated outer space environment at Kyoto University. The group comprises scientists from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., IHI Corp. and Kyoto University. A successful test would likely accelerate the goal of putting a space-based power generation system into practical use by 2025. Space-based solar power generation, which is 10 times more efficient than earthbound generation, would be a major step forward in terms of fulfilling energy needs, as the strength of sunlight in space is about twice that on Earth, and there are four or five times the hours of sunlight due to the absence of clouds. Mitsubishi Electric has proposed what it calls the Solarbird project, in which 40 relatively small 200meter solar power generating satellites would be launched. This could produce 1 million kilowatts of electricity, equivalent to a nuclear power plant. The Solarbird system would collect sunlight using reflecting mirrors fitted onto satellites in geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the equator. After the electricity is generated, it would be converted into microwaves and transmitted to Earth. The microwaves–to be sent as harmless radio waves–would be received at ground stations 3 kilometers in diameter and placed on the sea or in sunny desert areas, and then converted back into electricity. The key to making the system practical hinges on the efficient conversion of electricity into microwaves. The experiment will be conducted in a room that does not reflect electromagnetic waves to mimic the conditions of space. If the team succeeds in converting a strong electrical current into microwaves and transmitting them about 10 meters, it will then start work on reducing the weight of the power generation equipment and improving the transmission technology. The team hopes to launch a trial satellite sometime after 2016. It is estimated that implementing a workable space-based solar power generation system will cost about 2 trillion yen. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 25 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SPS Stimulates the Economy Specifically, alternative energy technology grants don’t stimulate the economy David R. Henderson, PhD. in economics, research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an associate professor of economics at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School, previously the senior economist for energy policy with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers,’10 (The Hoover Institution, December 1st 2010, “Good on Taxes, Bad on Trade,” http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/58036) Moreover, note Hubbard and Navarro, Christina Romer, Obama’s first chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and her husband, David Romer, an economist at uc Berkeley, found that hiking taxes, as Obama has now done by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, leads to a strong negative effect on gross domestic product. The authors also point out, as did Obama adviser Lawrence Summers, that any increase in government spending should be targeted and temporary. They write that, instead, “the Democrats used their majorities in both houses of Congress to pass pet projects and programs that were only tangentially related to the stimulus” and these programs were designed to be permanent. Even Obama’s own budget director, Peter Orszag, they note, stated that grants for alternate energy sources “are totally impractical for countercyclical [anti-recession] policy.” But in January 2009, when the newly sworn-in President Obama was “at the height of his popularity and power,” he inexcusably outsourced the stimulus bill to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No wonder Romer, Summers, and Orszag are leaving or have left the sinking Obama ship. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 26 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Space Colonization Links Space Colonization is inordinately expensive Al Globus, 4/29/11, works for NASA Astrobiology, “Space Settlement Basics”, http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and operate. For example, the current cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20 million. To enable large scale space tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. Space tourism has launch requirements similar to space settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing technology my be necessary to enable space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per pound for operational vehicles. One candidate for a major improvement in manufacturing technology is molecular nanotechnology. An important branch of nanotechnology is concerned with developing diamonoid mechanosynthesis. This means building things out of diamond-like materials, placing each atom at a precise location (ignoring thermal motion). Diamond is 69 times stronger than titanium for the same weight and is much stiffer. If spacecraft were made of diamonoid materials rather than aluminum, they could be much lighter allowing more payload. For an excellent analysis applying nanotechnology to space development, see McKendree 1995 Diamond mechanosythesis may enable a radical transportation system that could allow millions of people to go to orbit each year -- an orbital tower. Space Colonization is cost ineffective HumansFuture, 2010, Future of Human Evolution Website, “Space Colonization”, http://www.humansfuture.org/space_colonization_economics.php.htm At the present time there is not a viable purely economic argument in favor of space exploration. With the cost of sending just one kilogram into orbit at around $10,000, access to space remains within the realm of governmental control. The cost of launching an object into space has not decreased since Apollo 11 went to the moon in 1969, and the cost of launching the space shuttle remains at a whopping $400 million a flight. This effectively allows governments (along with their associated bureaucracy and political chains) to control the space agenda, completely shutting out the private interests of capable, forward-thinking individuals and organizations. It is our opinion that the only way to make interstellar space travel a reality this century is through the introduction of competitive market forces to drive the cost of launch down to a fraction of current levels. This means, of course, the privatization of space. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 27 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Mining Links Effective Space Mine System would Cost $2 Billion Kosiak 07 ( Steven M. Kosiak, Steven M. Kosiak is Director of Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons. . Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, October 31, 2007. page 61, TA) The cost of developing and procuring space mines is difficult to estimate. Among other things, this is because the space mines could vary substantially in terms of size and sophistication. Based on historical cost relationships between satellite weight and costs, however, and assuming average system complexity, a reasonable estimate is that space mines in the 10100 kilogram class would cost an average of some $5–25 million to acquire. Assuming, consistent with the above discussion of SBI ASAT requirements, that the US military would want to be capable of targeting 10-100 enemy satellites, total acquisition costs for such a system would be projected to range from some $100–500 million for 10 space mines, to perhaps $500 million to $2 billion for 100 space mines. Development costs might account for as much as half of total acquisition costs in the case of a 10-satellite purchase, and 15 percent of those costs in the case of a 100-satellite buy. Mining in space is extremely expensive due to high transportation costs, technological challenges Gerlach 2005 (Charles, CEO Gerlach Space Systems, “Profitability Exploiting Near-Earth Object Resources.” 2005 International Space Development Conference, National Space Society, Washington DC, May 19-22 2005, http://abundantplanet.org/files/SpaceAst-Profitably-Exploiting-NEO-Gerlach-2005.pdf, p 1-2) Technology issues present many of the greatest challenges to successfully and economically executing an asteroid mining mission. The prohibitively high costs of sending astronauts and potentially long communications delays require that all operations be highly automated. Automated machinery must work perfectly; even minor failures can cause mission failure. However, terrestrial mining experience with automation has generally been poor, and operations will be complex and hard on equipment. New equipment will have to be developed and integrated. To handle industrial quantities of materials, bench-top processes are not sufficient. Developing industrial mining and refining processes will ultimately hinge on deployment of actual working equipment to learn what works and what does not. These systems will be different from those used in traditional robotic space science missions that essentially consist of one-of-a-kind instrument collections designed for generating very specific types of scientific data. Little research and development has been undertaken into the capabilities required for NEO mining. In 1999, Zealey, Sonter, and a team at the University of Wollongong Department of Engineering Physics in Australia, worked to create a “reasonably realistic design” for an asteroid drill that could one day allow spacecraft to extract volatiles from a comet. One aspect of this research required Zealey and Sonter to attempt to create low density comet core simulants on which to perform mining experiments. The drill design was to include a penetrator with a thermal tip and explosive functionality that could bore, melt, and blast through cometary materials. It would also include a “cold finger” that would sit at the surface and collect steam created by the penetrator. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 28 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 International Space Station Links NASA is still searching for ways to have cost-effective ISS experiments Kelly Rae Chi, 7/24/07, freelance science and technology journalist for TheScientist Magazine, “NIH In Space? NASA-NIH discuss life science experiments on the International Space Station”, http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/53389/ NASA has committed to covering the costs of operation on the ISS after construction is completed, an estimated $1.5 billion per year, and does not plan to charge a fee for station use. Three NASA crewmembers man the space station now, and the number could increase to six by 2009, said Bill Gerstenmaier, administrator of space operations at NASA, in a June 25 press teleconference. Experiments would be controlled robotically or by the NASA personnel, said Mark Uhran, an administrator of the ISS, in the teleconference. The U.S. portion of the ISS is scheduled for completion by 2010 and about half of this area, which amounts to 10 refrigerator-sized racks in a pressurized laboratory and several sites in the unpressurized environment, could be available for public and private use. The NIH has not told NASA how much space it might want, but so far has expressed interest in the pressurized section, Uhran told The Scientist. NIH researchers would pay for their own research as well as transporting the experiments to the ISS. Stephen Katz, director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, who is spearheading the agreement, declined to estimate how much such research would cost the NIH. Finding cost-effective ways to transport experiments to the station remains a ratelimiting step for success, according to a NASA report to Congress issued in May. NASA is working with a new U.S. commercial orbital transportation service to determine possible costs, according to the report. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 29 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Asteroid Detection Links Asteroid detection is too costly Borenstein ’07 (Seth Borenstein, Science writer at the Associated Press, 3/5/07, “NASA can’t pay for killer asteroid hunt,” pg online @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17473059/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-cant-pay-killer-asteroid-hunt/ ) NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding nearly all the asteroids that might pose a devastating hit to Earth, but there isn't enough money to pay for the task so it won't get done. The cost to find at least 90 percent of the 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a report NASA will release later this week. The report was previewed Monday at a Planetary Defense Conference in Washington. Lack of funding for asteroid detection due to high costs Daily Planet Media ’07 (“Billion Dollars to Track Deadly Asteroids,” pg online @ http://www.dailyplanetmedia.com/more_stories.php?id=4470&mode=10) The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) wants an international asteroid defense agency that can organize a proper mission to counter possible asteroid threats. The NRC says the planet's current lack of readiness to deal with giant space rocks flying at it is a major concern. Current sky surveys will not be able to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects that are 460 feet (140 m) or larger by 2020, as the U.S. Congress instructed NASA in 2005 to ensure they could due to a lack of funding. An asteroid-hunting space telescope could go a long way toward playing catch-up and reaching the survey goal by 2022, but at the hefty cost of more than $1 billion. Asteroid detection too expensive, not enough funds now NASA Report to Congress ‘07 (3/07, “Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Analysis of Alternatives,” pg online @ http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report2007.html) Currently, NASA carries out the "Spaceguard Survey" to find NEOs greater than 1 kilometer in diameter, and this program is currently budgeted at $4.1 million per year for FY 2006 through FY 2012. We also have benefited from knowledge gained in our Discovery space mission series, such as the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR), Deep Impact, and Stardust missions that have expanded our knowledge of near-Earth asteroids and comets. Participation by NASA in international collaborations such as Japan's Hayabusa mission to the NEO "Itokawa" also greatly benefited our understanding of these objects. NASA's Dawn mission, expected to launch in June 2007, will increase our understanding of the two largest known main belt asteroids, Ceres and Vesta, between the planets Mars and Jupiter. NASA conducts survey programs on many celestial objects - the existing Spaceguard program for NEOs, surveys for Kuiper Belt Objects, the search for extra-solar planets, and other objects of interest such as black holes to understand the origins of our universe. Our Discovery mission series in planetary science may offer additional opportunities in the future beyond our current survey efforts. NASA recommends that the program continue as currently planned, and we will also take advantage of opportunities using potential dual-use telescopes and spacecraft - and partner with other agencies as feasible - to attempt to achieve the legislated goal within 15 years. However, due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new program at this time. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 30 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 DSCOVR/Triana Links Congress unwilling to fund DSCOVR – too expensive Brinton ’11 (Turner Brinton, staff writer for Space News, 7/12/11, “House Panel Denies Funding for Pair of NOAA Satellite Projects,” pg online @ http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110718-house-panel-denies-funding-for-dscovr-cosmic-2-missions.html) In its 2011 budget request, NOAA sought $9.5 million to ready the long-shelved DSCOVR spacecraft for launch and $3.7 million to initiate development of COSMIC-2. Congress was unable to pass any of the 12 traditional federal spending bills for 2011 and instead passed an all-in-one spending bill that held most federal spending to 2010 levels. Funding was generally not provided for so-called new start programs such as DSCOVR and COSMIC-2. DSCOVR was originally outfitted with two climate sensors — a camera and a reflected solar radiance sensor — that would continuously monitor the Earth from the first Lagrange point some 1.6 million kilometers from Earth. The spacecraft was almost ready for launch in 2001 when the mission was abruptly canceled and put into storage at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. NOAA in 2008 funded a study to determine whether the spacecraft could take over for NASA’s aging Advanced Composition Explorer, said Robert Smith, NASA’s DSCOVR project manager. The Advanced Composition Explorer since 1997 has provided advance warning of coronal mass ejections and other solar events that have the potential to harm satellites and disrupt radio frequency communications. The satellite was designed to operate for only five years. If funds to refurbish DSCOVR are provided, the plan is to launch the satellite in January 2014, Smith said in a July 7 interview. The total cost to refurbish the satellite and prepare it for launch is between $63 million and $65 million, NOAA spokesman John Leslie said in a July 7 email. The Air Force, which is keenly interested in the space weather data DSCOVR would provide, agreed to pay for the satellite’s launch vehicle. The service requested $135 million for this purpose in 2012, but a defense spending bill passed July 8 by the House Appropriations Committee did not include this funding. The Air Force planned to allow new entrants such as Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to compete for the launch, government and industry sources said. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 31 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Solar Flares Links Efforts to protect against solar flares are expensive - $300 million Vastag ’11 (Brian Vastag, science reporter at the Washington Post, 6/21/11, “Sunburst could bea big blow,” Washington Post, pg online @ lexisnexis) Leaders do acknowledge that huge solar flares are a serious issue, one the industry is addressing. But "the idea of 130 million people out of power for 10 years is an overstatement," said Gerry Cauley, president of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., or NERC. In 2007, Congress gave NERC the power to make rules for electric utilities to prevent blackouts like the one that left an estimated 50 million people in the Midwest, the Northeast and Ontario without power for up to four days in August 2003. (That outage was caused not by a solar flare but by high demand and a tree that fell on a power line; a cascading failure knocked some 100 power plants offline.) "The potential is there for damage to equipment and possibly even outages," Cauley added. "But the grid itself is very resilient." The grid's weak spots In 1989, the grid got its most severe solar test, and sections did not fare well. A solar storm one-tenth the strength of the 1859 event triggered a cascade of failures in Quebec in just 90 seconds. Several million people went without power for nine to 12 hours, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. In South Africa, the storm destroyed huge transformers. Each the size of a house and costing several million dollars, transformers are the grid's weak spots. They boost the voltage of electricity for transmission along high-voltage lines, but they also absorb extra loads coming down those lines. During the 1989 event, two of South Africa's transformers overheated and fried during the storm, while nine more failed within a year, said Mark Lauby, a vice president at NERC. Legislation under consideration in the House would force utility companies to protect 350 critical transformers from a massive solar storm. Under the bill, called the SHIELD Act, the one-time cost of $100 million to $300 million would be passed on to customers. Last year the bill passed in the House unanimously, only to stall in the Senate. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 32 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Supplemental Spending Links Supplemental spending is not fiscally responsible Eric Lohnes, 2/17/06, economic policy analyst for The Freedom Foundation, “’Deficit’ Spending is not Fiscal Discipline”, http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/index.php/site/view/deficit_spending_is_not_fiscal_discipline You’ve probably heard that the Senate’s supplemental budget leaves approximately $950 million in various reserve accounts. Epitome of fiscal discipline, right? Not even close. Let’s pretend the state’s budget is your own personal family budget. Just like you, the state has a salary (revenue forecast) and savings accounts for various purposes. When building your own personal budget, if you’re prudent, you base your ongoing expenses on your salary, not all the possible money you can raid from your savings account. Then you prioritize all those things you need and want within your salary. You may even allocate a portion of it to save for a rainy day. Now let’s compare this with the state. The state’s “salary” for this biennium is just over $26.4 billion. The Senate’s supplemental budget, however, spends more than $26.5 billion (not counting $700 million of deposits into other state accounts). Don’t know about you, but if my family budget was unbalanced by more than $100 million, I wouldn’t be patting myself on the back. In fact, if you had to borrow money from your savings account to make up for the difference between your salary and your expenses, you would probably say you were deficit spending. The same can be said for the state. Just because the Senate supplemental shows a positive number in the state’s “savings” accounts doesn’t mean it’s fiscally responsible or even sustainable for that matter. If the Senate really wanted the accolades of taxpayers, it should have limited spending to the state’s revenue forecast and grow the state’s reserves to the recommended five percent. That would create an emergency reserve of more than $1.3 billion to address the next earthquake or volcanic eruption. Another thing to keep in mind concerning the Senate’s supplemental budget is its complete disregard for the people’s I-601 spending limit. Including last session’s I-601 shenanigans, the Senate budget artificially increases the spending limit by more than $2 billion from the biennium’s original limit. It’s past time for lawmakers to stop playing budget games and refrain from deficit spending. Living within both the state’s revenue forecast and the people’s spending limit would be real fiscal discipline. It would also be worthy of taxpayer praise for a job well done. It’s now up to the House to right the state’s fiscal course. Excessive supplemental spending is not wise public policy Jeff Flake, 9/15/05, has represented Arizona’s 6th district in the House of Representatives from 2002-present, “’No’ is a ‘yes’ for fiscal discipline, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0914flake15.html None of us would argue that relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina is not needed. The previous week we unanimously agreed to support a $10.5 billion supplemental appropriation bill for hurricane relief. I think each of us would have been glad to do so again. But giving the Federal Emergency Management Agency $50 billion at one time is simply not wise public policy. It makes effective oversight too difficult. When Congress is spending an amount of money this large ($50 billion in spending requires taking $600 from every family in America), we had better make sure that we know how it is being spent. Those of us who voted against the bill simply did not feel that proper safeguards were in place. Further, many of us voting "no" were troubled by the absence of offsets. In other words, this new $50 billion spending bill is not accompanied by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. We are simply adding to the deficit and piling more debt on future generations. Unfortunately, my request for offsets was ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike. This attitude toward emergency spending has not always been the case. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that we would be spending more on defense, so he cut non-defense spending by more than 20 percent. He even eliminated popular domestic programs. After the Korean War began in 1950, Harry S. Truman cut non-military spending by 28 percent. In both cases, Congress was a willing partner with the president in ensuring fiscal discipline. Not so today. Neither the president nor Congress even talks about offsets, for fear of being considered uncompassionate. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 33 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Supplemental Spending Links As supplemental spending increases, our economy worsens: trends prove Veronique de Rugy, 3/22/07, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, “Today’s Bipartisan Issue: Sneaky Spending”, http://www.american.com/archive/2007/march-0307/todays-bipartisan-issue-sneaky-spending The new congressional leadership talks a good game about bringing back fiscal discipline and ending the culture of porkbarrel spending, but their actions demonstrate that addiction to big government is a bipartisan problem. The new supplemental spending package, which is supposedly for war costs and hurricane relief, is one unseemly case in point. Not only are House lawmakers about to approve a $124 billion bill—after adding $22 billion over the President's request—but their add-ons are classic political earmarks. Items in the bill include $25 million for spinach growers hurt by last year's E. Coli scare, $75 million for peanut growers in Georgia, $120 million for the Gulf Coast fishing industry, and $400 million for rural schools and communities throughout the Northwest that have experienced losses in timber revenue. These are symptoms of a deeper problem: the ongoing abuse of the supplemental process. Supplemental spending, "emergency" spending in particular, has become Washington’s tool of choice for evading annual budget limits and increasing spending across the board. Funding predictable, non-emergency needs through supplementals hides skyrocketing military costs and allows Congress to boost regular appropriations for both defense and nondefense programs, thereby enabling the spending explosion of the last six years. In theory, supplemental appropriations provide additional funding to an agency during the course of a fiscal year for programs and activities that are considered too urgent to wait until the next year’s budget. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 gives emergency bills an even easier time, with special exemptions from pay-as-you-go rules. Moreover, the requests lack the level of detail needed in a responsible federal budget, making accountability more difficult—and supplemental funding is left out of the deficit projections that accompany the annual budget. Although there are no limits on the amount or type of spending that can be designated an emergency requirement, historically there has been an understanding that emergencies are sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary conditions that pose a threat to life, property, or national security. Not anymore. For years, Congress has abused its emergency spending powers. But things have gotten much worse in recent years. Except for a sharp spike in 1991 to fund the first Gulf War, supplemental appropriations remained at roughly 1 percent of new discretionary spending during most of the 1990s. After 1998, they started to rise as the federal budget began running surpluses and politicians looked for ways to spend the extra money. But in those days, the United States still enjoyed the benefits of divided government. After 2002, when they regained control of the senate, Republicans conveniently allowed the few budget rules meant to constrain their behavior to expire. Supplemental appropriations designated as emergency spending no longer count against the annual budget limits set by Congress and do not trigger automatic cuts if they push outlays above the spending caps. In fiscal year 2006, supplemental appropriations represented 18 percent of new discretionary spending and, adjusted for inflation, reached an all time high of $143 billion—up from $7 billion in fiscal year 1998, when supplementals accounted for 0.9 percent of new discretionary spending. The White House deserves some of the blame. The Bush administration has used supplementals to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Four years in, the Iraq war can hardly be called an emergency, or an unpredictable event. This is especially true since one of the largest expenditures is for the salaries and benefits of Army National Guard personnel and reservists called to active duty. Yet each year, President Bush leaves the war’s costs out of the defense budget he presents to Congress, knowing that he can then secure the funding through the supplemental process. Last year Congress appropriated nearly 20 percent—$120 billion—of total military spending via supplementals. According to a document released by the Senate Committee on the Budget, many items in the President’s request are by no means an emergency. For instance, the Committee writes that “an increase ($1.7 billion) for anything called a permanent change in military force structure should be funded in the regular, annual defense budget, not in an ‘emergency’ supplemental.” To make matter worse, the document lists a series of items amounting to $4.2 billion that are not even for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They include expenditures such as $0.5 billion for six electronic warfare plane (E/A-18 Growlers) when neither the insurgents in Iraq or Al Qaeda have an airforce or radars, or 0.4 billion for two development aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter-JSF) that will not see Air Force service until 2013. And now Congress is on the verge of adding another $22 billion in non-emergency spending. These expenditures include $120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries, $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program, $60.4 million for salmon fisheries, $100 million for California citrus growers, $50 million for asbestos mitigation at the U.S. Capitol Plant, $1 billion for Avian Flu and $1 billion for NASA. When Republican and Democrat lawmakers vote on the $124 billion supplemental bill today, they should wonder whether they really want to be responsible for the most expensive emergency legislation in American history. They should wonder whether sneaking a total of $4 billion for agriculture and drought relief into a bill nominally directed at hurricane Katrina’s victims or soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is conscionable. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 34 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Supplemental Spending Links Supplemental spending expensive – explodes the budget Fox News ‘11 (Chad Pergram, covers Congress for Fox News, 5/17/11, "An Unenviable Choice: Disaster Relief Versus Spending Cuts", pg online @ http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/17/unenviable-choice-disaster-relief-versus-spending-cuts) If the GOP wants to cut spending, it can't do supplemental spending bills on top of the regular spending bills. That's part of the reason why the national debt exploded. After all, supplemental spending bills to bankroll the war on terror and operations in Iraq helped explode the debt over the past decade. In addition, loading up bills with extras to coax lawmakers to vote for additional spending is a thing of the past in Washington. And it's definitely not what the voters want. Supplemental spending perceived as avoiding important budget decisions New York Times ’06 (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Edmund L. Andrews, staff writers for NYT, 4/25/06, “New Criticism Falls on ‘Supplemental’ Bills,” New York Times, pg online @ https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/washington/25spend.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311255215-o01w5OzI+y2Le/dn5sc0Sw) But critics of the spending bill say such provisions allow lawmakers to avoid making tough decisions about budget priorities. "A lot of these things are desirable, and some are even necessary, but they don't belong in an emergency spending bill," said Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "If you don't go through the normal budget process, you don't consider any of the trade-offs." While lawmakers wrestle about what deserves to be in a supplemental spending bill, some critics complain that such measures should no longer be used to finance the war. Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said supplemental bills amounted to "budget tricks" to evade spending limits. "We have been using supplementals to finance the war, and it might actually make sense the first year," she said. "But three or four years into the war, no war spending should be going through supplementals. It's not as if it's sudden, urgent and unforeseen, or temporary." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 35 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Spills Over Excessive government spending will lead to even more excessive government spending Michelle Malkin, 7/17/09, respected author and writer for CNSNews, “Inside the Monstrous Obamacare Bureaucracy”, http://www.cnsnews.com/node/51183 If you think government is too big and too costly, wait until Obamacare kicks in. The Congressional Budget Office put the price tag of the House Democrats’ health care takeover plans at $1.5 trillion over 10 years. But the CBO’s fine print included a telltale caveat: “We have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies, nor have we accounted for all of the proposal’s likely effects on spending for other federal programs.” You don’t need an accounting degree or clairvoyant powers. The administrative costs and spillover spending effects will be astronomical. Look at existing federal programs. In 1966, the Office of Management and Budget put the total taxpayer costs for Medicare at $64 million. In 2011, Medicare costs are expected to balloon to nearly $500 billion. Medicaid cost $770 million in 1966. By 2011, that program will cost taxpayers an estimated $264 billion. The Virginiabased Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimated that the administrative expenses of both programs last decade were 66 percent higher than those of private sector health insurance companies. And we ain’t seen nothing yet. House Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee sifted through their opponents’ 1,018-page health care bill and released a dizzying flow chart detailing the Byzantine bureaucracy Obamacare would create. Washington would become the home of at least 31 new federal programs, agencies and commissions to oversee the government-run health insurance regime. Because 32 “czars” isn’t enough, the Democratic plan would add another overlord to the Obama administration. The new “Health Choices Commissioner” would helm the new “Health Choices Administration” (section 141 of the bill) -- separate from the already existing Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), the Veterans Health Administration and the Indian Health Service. Because the government has done such a boffo job managing the near-bankrupt Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, the Democrats have proposed creating a “Public Health Investment Fund” and a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund.” The latter would create a “transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.” No matter that state insurance departments already operate such systems. Health care must be “fixed.” The federal cure is redundancy. The Obamacare bill also creates a new “Bureau of Health Information” (not to be confused with the already existing National Center for Health Statistics) within the department of Health and Human Services. A new “Assistant Secretary for Health Information” will lead the BHI. The new assistant secretary will coordinate with the recently created “National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”—who is responsible for monitoring the $19.5 billion in the stimulus law to implement “a nationwide interoperable, privacy-protected health information technology infrastructure.” New bureaucracies always have old special interests to appease. The Bureau of Health Information will house its own “Office of Civil Rights” and “Office of Minority Health.” The information czar will be required to collect health statistics in the “primary language” of ethnic minorities—and, thus, the need for a new “language demonstration program” to showcase their efforts. Obamacare will also ensure “cultural and linguistics competence training” and establish “a youth public health program to expose and recruit high-school students into public health careers.” The government health care juggernaut must be fed and staffed, after all. Providing more stimulus for taxpayer-funded jobs, the Democrats’ bill would add a new “Senior Advisor for Health Care Fraud” and require the Attorney General to appoint a “Senior Counsel for Health Care Fraud Enforcement.” There’s already a national Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program, but who’s counting? To coordinate all the new bureaucrats, Obamacare would create a new “Health Care Program Integrity Coordinating Council” to “to coordinate strategic planning among federal agencies involved in health care integrity and oversight.” To make sure all the existing local and state environmental public health agencies don’t feel lonely, the Democrats’ plan creates a new “Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network” to “build upon and coordinate among existing environmental and health data collection systems and create state environmental public health networks.” A new “National Health Care Workforce Commission” will be “tasked with reviewing health care workforce and projected workforce needs.” New funding will be available for a “demonstration program to improve immunization coverage” that would enable government busybodies to send reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or make home visits. Who’ll be looking out for you? The House bill creates a “public plan ombudsman” and a “special health insurance exchange inspector general” to police spending and guard against waste, fraud and abuse. Given the sad fate of aggressive watchdogs in the age of Obama, however, these positions will end up like every other new agency, commission, task force and office created to serve the federal health care beast: black holes. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 36 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Internal Links*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 37 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Kills the Economy – General Congressional Report shows spending cuts improve economy Peter Roff, News Reporter, “The GOP Case for Spending Cuts to Boost the Economy”, 3/25/11, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/03/25/the-gop-case-for-spending-cuts-to-boost-the-economy_print.html A recent report from Congressional Joint Economic Committee Republicans points the way out of the nation’s current fiscal morass: “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.” The report, which examines the behavior of all developed countries between 1970 and 2007, explains in rather simple language that the government’s financial problems do not come from revenue problems so much as they are the result of over-spending. “Clear and convincing empirical evidence proves countries that undertake programs to reduce government budget deficits and stabilize the level of government debt (known as fiscal consolidations) can boost economic growth and job creation in the short term.” Of the three key findings, the most obvious is perhaps that “Spending cuts work. Tax increases don’t.” “Countries that lower their debt-to-GDP ratio predominately or entirely through spending cuts are more likely to achieve their goals of government budget deficit reduction and government debt stabilization than debt reduction efforts in which tax increases play a significant role.” The second key finding is that “Spending cuts can boost the economy in the short term too.” “While most economists agree that reducing government spending increases economic growth the long term,” the JEC said, “empirical studies have found that reducing government spending can boost economic growth and job creation in the short term as well.” The third key finding is that “Spending cuts must be credible to realize short-term growth benefits.” This is an important point that is often over-looked, especially by those who would rather talk about cutting spending than actually do it. Examples of the kind of spending the committee analysts who prepared the report found to be “credible” include reducing the number and compensation of government workers, eliminating agencies and programs, eliminating transfer payments to businesses and reforming and reducing transfer payments to households. Fiscal discipline key to the economy – multiple warrants 1. 2. 3. Higher interest rates Higher taxes Investor confidence National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility ’10 (4/27/10, “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility Holds Its Inaugural Meeting,” pg online @ lexisnexis) The ultimate goal of the commission's efforts should be to put us on a path of fiscal sustainability. One widely accepted criterion for sustainability is that the ratio of federal debt held by the public to national income remain at least stable, or perhaps even decline in the longer term. This goal can be achieved by bringing spending, exclusive of interest payments, roughly into line with revenues. Unfortunately, most projections suggest that we are far from this goal, and that without significant changes to current policy, the ratio of federal debt to national income will continue to rise sharply. Thus, the reality is that the Congress, the administration and the American people will have to choose among making modifications to entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, restraining federal spending on everything else, accepting higher taxes, or some combination thereof. Achieving long-term fiscal sustainability will be difficult, but the costs of failing to do so could be very high. Increasing levels of government debt relative to the size of the economy can lead to higher interest rates, which inhibit capital formation and productivity growth and might even put the current economic recovery at risk. To the extent that higher debt increases our reliance on foreign borrowing, an ever-larger share of our future income would be devoted to interest payments on federal debt held abroad. Moreover, other things being equal, increased federal debt implies higher taxes in the future to cover the associated interest costs -- higher taxes that may create disincentives to work, save, hire and invest. High levels of debt also decrease the ability of policy-makers to respond to future economic and financial shocks. And, indeed, a loss of investor confidence in the ability of the government to achieve fiscal sustainability can itself be a source of significant economic and financial instability, as we have seen in a number of countries in recent decades. Neither experience nor economic theory clearly indicates the threshold at which government debt begins to endanger prosperity and economic stability. But given the significant costs and risks associated with a rapidly rising federal debt, our nation should soon put in place a credible plan for reducing deficits to sustainable levels over time. Doing so earlier, rather than later, will not only help maintain the U.S. government's credibility in financial markets, thereby holding down interest costs, but it will also ultimately prove less disruptive by avoiding abrupt shifts in policy and by giving those affected by budget changes more time to adapt. The path forward contains many difficult tradeoffs and choices, but postponing those choices and failing to put the nation's finances on a sustainable long-run trajectory would ultimately do great damage to our economy. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 38 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Kills the Economy US deficit spending hurts the global economy Chris Kitze, writer for the Market Oracle, ’11 (March 10 2011, “Signs of Impending Doom for Global Economy 2011,” http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26811.html) Meanwhile, the United States is also covered in a sea of red ink and the economic situation in the largest economy on earth continues to deteriorate rapidly. It is as if the entire world financial system has caught a virus that it just can't shake, and now it looks like another massive wave of financial disaster could be about to strike. Does the global economy have enough strength to weather a major oil crisis in 2011? How much debt can the largest nations in North America and Europe take on before the entire system collapses under the weight? Will 2011 be a repeat of 2008 or are we going to be able to get through the rest of the year okay? Only time will tell. But it is quickly becoming clear that we are reaching a tipping point. If the price of oil keeps going up, all hopes for any kind of an "economic recovery" will be completely wiped out. But if the globe does experience another economic slowdown, it could potentially turn the simmering sovereign debt crisis into an absolute nightmare. The U.S. and most nations in Europe are having a very difficult time servicing their debts and they desperately need tax revenues to increase. If another major economic downturn causes tax revenues to go down again it could unleash absolute chaos on world financial markets. The global economy is more interconnected than ever, and so a major crisis in one area of the world can have a cascading effect on the rest of the globe. Just as we saw back in 2008, if financial disaster strikes nobody is going to escape completely unscathed. Spending Increases perpetuate recession – we’re already beyond our means Israel Ortega, Editor of the Spanish Page of the Heritage Foundation, ’11 (The Heritage Foundation, April 22nd 2011, “Time to Face Economic Reality,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2011/04/Time-to-Face-Economic-Reality) Here are the official government numbers. According to the Department of the Treasury, our current total public debt is more than $14 trillion. Our public debt represents the sum of how much we currently owe to other financial institutions and foreign countries. To give you a sense of what $14 trillion looks like, imagine filling the entire Estadio Azteca in Mexico City (with a capacity of 104,000) with $100 bills from the bottom to the brim. This staggering debt is a burden to every single American. It’s also a sobering reminder that we are spending beyond our means. And yet, powerful voices are asking us to ignore the perilous reality and fight to increase federal spending at every turn. This hysteria was evident in Congress’ recent battle over last year’s budget spending bill when politicians calling for necessary spending cuts were labeled heartless and cruel. The irony of the recent debate is that it was dealing with only a fraction of our entire federal budget, and it pales in comparison to what’s necessary to get our financial house in order. The truth is that the federal government will need to exercise even more financial restraint if we are to ensure that our economy can get out of this recession and remain competitive in the global market. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 39 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Leads to Unemployment Lack of fiscal discipline hurts the economy – sustains unemployment and perpetuates recession Paul J. Sullivan, Professor at Georgetown University, 6/20 (Al Arabiya News – Washington, 6/20/2011, “Frightening profligacy, poor fiscal discipline, disputatious democracy and uncertain leadership in the United States,” http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/20/153996.html) Much of the fiscal indiscipline in many countries is due to the political invertebracy of many in the political leadership. The profligacy of the past is catching up with the present and could have deep repercussions in the future. The time for leadership, fiscal courage, and some hard thinking and choices is now. Otherwise, the financial crisis of the 2000s could seem quite mild compared to the brewing economic troubles out there. The effects of not getting things in order could spread far beyond the gates of Athens or the beltway of Washington. It is, however, not too late to get moving on the solutions and the tough decisions. I have an odd sense of foreboding mixed with cautious optimism about the US. In the past the US has worked its way out of very difficult times. One can think of the Great Depression and other deep recessions in its past going back even to the start of the country. One can also see a lot of strength in the inventiveness and entrepreneurial nature of the US. It is a powerful economy and society with many very hard working people. However, this situation seems fundamentally different than in difficult times in the past because the culture of discipline, and especially fiscal discipline, and the society’s and governments views toward debts have changed – even since the 1980s – considerably. If anyone is struggling to figure out why the US unemployment rate will likely remain high for some time to come, and it could take many years to get back down to 5 to 6 percent unemployment rates, then look to the government, household and other debts that are drags on the economy. Also, debt is what got the US economy and a good part of the rest of the world economy into the difficult positions they have been in recent years. Let’s hope our leaders in business, government, thought leaders in society, and others can do the right things on time, and the US economy, and by implication much of the rest of the world economy, can get back on track before the next economic storms hammer so many lives once again. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 40 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Kills Investor Confidence Deficit reduction key to investor confidence and a strong economy Thornburgh ’11 (Dick Thornburgh, former U.S. Attorney General and two-term governor of Pennsylvania, 7/20/11, “Deficits Need Balanced-Budget Amendment Fix: Dick Thornburgh,” Bloomberg, pg online @ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0721/deficits-need-balanced-budget-amendment-fix-dick-thornburgh.html) Second, critics will argue that the adoption of a balanced- budget amendment wouldn’t solve the deficit problem overnight. This is absolutely correct, but begs the issue. Serious supporters of the amendment recognize that a phasing-in of five to 10 years would be required. During this interim period, however, budget makers would have to meet declining deficit targets in order to reach a final balanced budget by the established deadline. As pointed out by former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, such “steady progress toward eliminating the deficit will maintain investor confidence, keep long-term interest rates headed down and keep our economy growing.” Third, it will be argued that such an amendment would require vast cuts in social services, entitlements and defense spending. Not necessarily. True, these programs would have to be paid for on a current basis rather than heaped on the backs of future generations. Difficult choices would have to be made about priorities and program funding. But the very purpose of the amendment is to discipline the executive and legislative branches, not to propose or perpetuate vast spending programs without providing the revenue to fund them. Failure to reduce the deficit kills the economy – increased interest rates, crowd out, and loss of investor confidence National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ’10 (12/1/10, “The Moment of Truth: Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,” pg online @ lexisnexis) Federal debt this high is unsustainable. It will drive up interest rates for all borrowers - businesses and individuals - and curtail economic growth by crowding out private investment. By making it more expensive for entrepreneurs and businesses to raise capital, innovate, and create jobs, rising debt could reduce per-capita GDP, each American's share of the nation's economy, by as much as 15 percent by 2035. Rising debt will also hamstring the government, depriving it of the resources needed to respond to future crises and invest in other priorities. Deficit spending is often used to respond to shortterm financial "emergency" needs such as wars or recessions. If our national debt grows higher, the federal government may even have difficulty borrowing funds at an affordable interest rate, preventing it from effectively responding. Large debt will put America at risk by exposing it to foreign creditors. They currently own more than half our public debt, and the interest we pay them reduces our own standard of living. The single largest foreign holder of our debt is China, a nation that may not share our country's aspirations and strategic interests. In a worst- case scenario, investors could lose confidence that our nation is able or willing to repay its loans - possibly triggering a debt crisis that would force the government to implement the most stringent of austerity measures. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 41 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Kills Investor Confidence Excessive government spending hurts investor confidence Sharon Wrobel, 11/22/07, business writer for the Jerusalem Post, “Higher gov’t spending could jeopardize investor confidence”, http://www.jpost.com/Business/BusinessNews/Article.aspx?id=82842 Economists warned on Wednesday that increasing the government's annual spending ceiling in the 2008 budget, as proposed by a new bill this week, could damage international investor confidence and threaten the positive momentum spurring economic growth. Labor MK Avishay Braverman submitted a private bill on Tuesday to increase the spending growth target of the 2008 state budget by 2.5 percent, or NIS 2 billion, instead of the 1.7% originally set by the Finance Ministry. "After the government already passed the 2008 budget in a first reading, changes to the spending ceiling would have a very severe impact on the markets and damage investor confidence of the international community," Prof. Rafi Melnick, Dean of the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya and former senior economist at the Bank of Israel told The Jerusalem Post. "This is not the right time for Israel to deviate from investors' expectations, a time when there is much uncertainty over the state of the global economy, which is poised to slow down and when borrowing money could become more expensive." Prof. Melnick added that relative to other economies, Israel's economy was very stable and is growing at a fast pace; driven by foreign investor confidence and adherence to fiscal discipline, which the government would not want to jeopardize. Discussing the bill proposal at the Knesset Finance Committee this week, Braverman argued that in a situation such as now in which the economy is prospering and enjoying a budget surplus, money should be allocated to serve socio-economic issues such as investment into welfare, schools and hospitals. According to Braverman, the bill was backed by 69 of the 120 members of parliament. "Braverman's proposal to raise government spending by two thirds of the growth rate is based on a procyclic policy- one that moves in the same direction as the economy, which has proven in the past to be destabilizing, while government spending growth of 1.7% pertains to a countercyclic rule and one that moves in the opposite direction as the economy is stabilizing," Melnick said. Since the beginning of the year, the government has registered a budget surplus of NIS 8.7b. "2007 is likely to conclude with a budget surplus reaching up to 0.5% of GDP. This is in contrast to an original budget deficit target of 2.9% of GDP," Dr. Gil Bufman, chief economist at Bank Leumi wrote in a recent economic update. Other economists raised skepticism over the bill proposal. "What's important is not so much the height of the spending ceiling, but the structure of the budget. If spending is being raised to invest into infrastructure to improve schools, education and welfare, then we might see an economic benefit but not if money is spent on raising benefits," said Shlomo Maoz, chief economist at Excellence Nessuah. Only a few weeks ago, representatives of the international credit rating agency Standard & Poor's came to Israel to meet with Prof. Stanley Fischer, the governor of the Bank of Israel, and Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On, for a review of Israel's economy. Fischer has been boasting about the growth of the local economy warranting an upgrade of Israel's credit rating, saying that debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen to 80%, the economy has not been affected by the US sub-prime mortgage crisis and that Israel was a candidate for membership in the OECD. S&P is in the process of reviewing Israel's credit rating and is expected to publish its update by mid-February. "Fiscal performance is an important component, which has an impact on our rating," VÃ©ronique Paillat-Chayrigues, credit analyst at S&P told the Post. "It's never good news if expenditures are increased. We would consider a downgrade of Israel's rating in the case of significant deviations from the fiscal policy expectations set by the Finance Ministry, although there are other components which determine the rating." In July, S&P warned that the country's credit rating outlook could be at risk if the government failed to maintain budget discipline. S&P warned that it would lower Israel's credit rating from "positive" to "stable" if the 2008 budget deviates from fiscal policy lines set by the government between 2005 and 2007. "Our positive outlook on the Israeli rating incorporates our expectation that fiscal strengthening will remain a key political priority and that the debt burden will fall at a regular pace. Should these expectations be misplaced, the outlook on the ratings could revert to 'stable,'" S&P cautioned. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 42 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Kills Investor Confidence A spending cap will boost investor confidence: empirically proven by Republic of Georgia Helena Bedwell, 10/15/09, reporter for Bloomberg Business & Financial News, “IMF Says Georgian Spending Cap Will Boost Investor Confidence”, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXcUhNAqCN28 Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s plan to cap government spending, budget deficits and state debt will boost investor confidence in the former Soviet republic’s economy, according to the IMF. Saakashvili’s proposed Economic Liberty Act “will reinforce the government’s credibility and have a positive impact on investment,” Edward Gardner, the International Monetary Fund’s senior resident representative in Georgia, said in an interview in the capital Tbilisi today. Foreign investment fell to $92.2 million in the second quarter from $605.4 million in the year-earlier period as Georgia struggled to recover from an August 2008 war with Russia and the global economic slump. Georgia’s $12.8 billion economy is shrinking for the first time since the so-called Rose Revolution in 2003 that swept Saakashvili to power. The government forecasts a contraction of 1.5 percent in 2009 and 2 percent growth in 2010. The economy may rebound in the fourth quarter, a year after it entered a recession, though 2009 foreign investment won’t exceed $1 billion, compared with $2 billion initially forecast by the government, Finance Minister Kakha Baindurashvili said on Oct. 6. Gardner said the IMF had “always projected no more than $1 billion in investment.” He agreed with Baindurashvili that the economy may resume growth in the fourth quarter. To achieve this, “you need quite a considerable pick-up in the second half of the year,” he said. In addition to spending and debt caps, Saakashvili called for referenda for tax changes and a ban on creating new regulatory agencies. His proposals must be approved by parliament. Massive spending increases hurts investor confidence The Bank for International Settlements, organization of central banks, 6/26 (June 26th 2011, “Overview of the economic chapters,” http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2011e_ov.htm) Over the past year, the global economy has continued to improve. In emerging markets, growth has been strong, and advanced economies have been moving towards a self-sustaining recovery. But it would be a mistake for policymakers to relax. From our vantage point, numerous legacies and lessons of the financial crisis require attention. In many advanced economies, high debt levels still burden households as well as financial and non-financial institutions, and the consolidation of fiscal accounts has barely started. International financial imbalances are re-emerging. Highly accommodative monetary policies are fast becoming a threat to price stability. Financial reforms have yet to be completed and fully implemented. And the data frameworks that should serve as an early warning system for financial stress remain underdeveloped. These are the challenges we examine in this year's Annual Report. Interrelated imbalances made pre-crisis growth in several advanced countries unsustainable. Rapidly increasing debt and asset prices resulted in bloated housing and financial sectors. The boom also masked serious longterm fiscal vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could trigger the next crisis. We should make no mistake here: the market turbulence surrounding the fiscal crises in Greece, Ireland and Portugal would pale beside the devastation that would follow a loss of investor confidence in the sovereign debt of a major economy. Addressing overindebtedness, private as well as public, is the key to building a solid foundation for high, balanced real growth and a stable financial system. That means both driving up private saving and taking substantial action now to reduce deficits in the countries that were at the core of the crisis. Government cuts improve stock market Columbia Tribune, 7/20/11, “‘Gang of Six’ progress helps stocks rebound”, http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/20/gang-of-six-progress-helps-stocks-rebound/ Strong profits and a bipartisan plan to lift the U.S. debt limit drove a stock market rebound yesterday. Stock indexes rose after Coca-Cola, IBM and other companies reported better second-quarter earnings. The indexes added to their gains in the afternoon after President Barack Obama backed a proposal by six senators that would cut debt by $3.7 trillion over the next decade and raise the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The Dow Jones industrial average posted its largest one-day jump this year. “The stock market had been looking for a reason to have a relief rally, said Burt White, chief investment officer at LPL Financial in Boston. “And it looks like they got the start of one today. “ Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 43 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Causes Dollar Dumping Increased spending causes credit downgrade – kills dollar leadership and hurts US The Washington Post, News Source, 4/19 (April 19th 2011, “U.S. credit rating downgrade: the Armageddon scenario,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-economy/post/us-ratings-downgrade-the-armageddonscenario/2011/04/19/AFnE0n5D_blog.html) A credit rating downgrade for the United States would spell even more financial trouble for the U.S. government, hampering its ability to borrow money as investors demand higher yields to make up for the increased risk. That would cause its national debt to balloon further and increase the need to hike taxes or make even more painful cuts in spending. But the real Armageddon scenario would occur when the impact of a sovereign downgrade hit the rest of the U.S. economy. The U.S. “risks eroding its standing at the core of the global monetary system,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and cochief investment officer at PIMCO, wrote in a commentary piece for the Financial Times. Pension funds and investment trusts that are bound by covenant to invest only in AAA-rated debt could be forced to dump U.S. holdings. Banks that do the bulk of their business in the U.S. could themselves face downgrades. Eventually, the dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency. The ripple effects of Standard & Poors’ decision to downgrade its outlook for the U.S. were already spreading on Monday. The agency also downgraded its outlook for five AAA-rated U.S. insurance groups: Knights of Columbus, New York Life Insurance, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America and United Services Automobile Association. In downgrading their outlook from stable to negative, S&P noted that these companies are “constrained by the U.S. sovereign credit rating because their businesses and assets are highly concentrated in the U.S.” S&P analyst David Zuber and his colleagues wrote that they took into account “direct and indirect sovereign risks—such as the impact of macroeconomic volatility, currency devaluation, asset impairment, and investment portfolio deterioration.” How likely is this nightmare scenario to happen? There are 19 sovereigns rated AAA by the S&P. Of those, only the United States has a negative outlook. There are a number of countries that have lost AAA ratings over the past 20 years—including Canada, Denmark, Finland and Sweden—but they ended up regaining them. Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a research note on Tuesday that while he agrees with S&P that the “current trajectory of fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long-term” and that the U.S. “already appears to be on the edge of AAA territory,” he has a somewhat more optimistic view of the U.S. situation over the next few years and assumes that some fiscal tightening is likely to occur. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 44 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Causes Dollar Dumping Deficit spending makes default more likely – impact is catastrophic The Los Angeles Times, News Source, 6/2 (June 2nd 2011, “Moody's warns of U.S. credit rating downgrade if no debt ceiling deal comes soon,” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/06/moodys-warns-it-could-downgrade-us-credit-rating-if-no-dealcomes-soon-on-debt-ceiling.html) Moody's Investors Service warned Thursday that it could downgrade the U.S. government's AAA credit rating if there is no progress in the next six weeks on a deal to raise the nation's $14.29-trillion debt ceiling. The credit rating agency said it saw a "very small but rising risk of a short-lived default" by the government on its obligations to holders of Treasury bonds and other debt. The nation reached the debt ceiling May 16. But the Treasury Department has been juggling some finances to keep the government from default as President Obama negotiates over significant spending cuts that congressional Republicans have made a condition to any increase in the debt ceiling. Those "extraordinary measures" will run out Aug. 2, the Treasury said. Moody's said that although it "expected political wrangling" in Washington, "the degree of entrenchment into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations." "The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the odds of a short-lived default," Moody's said. "If this situation remains unchanged in coming weeks, Moody's will place the rating under review." A meeting at the White House on Wednesday between Obama and House Republicans failed to make any progress. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Thursday met with the large House freshman class -- many of which are Tea Party supporters opposed to increasing the debt limit -- to make the case that a U.S. default would be catastrophic to the economy. Moody's said "if progress in negotiations is not evident by the middle of July" it would place the U.S. credit rating on review for possible downgrade because of the risk of a short default. Moody's probably would downgrade the rating to AA shortly after such a default occurred. If default were avoided and a deal struck, the rating probably would not be reduced, Moody's said. "Any loss to bondholders would likely be minimal or nonexistent, as Moody's anticipates that a default would be cured quickly," Moody's said. Thursday's warning came after another leading credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, last month lowered its outlook for the U.S. to "negative" because of the lack of progress on its large debt and budget deficit. S&P kept the U.S. at a AAA rating, but the downgrade to the outlook meant that there was at least a 33% chance the rating would be lowered in the next two years. Moody's said Thursday it had kept a stable outlook on the U.S. credit rating because it assumed there would be "meaningful progress" over the next 18 months in dealing with the nation's increasing debt. But that outlook could change to negative if there was no deal to address the deficit as part of the debt-ceiling negotiations, the agency said. The U.S. would probably keep its AAA rating if a default is avoided, but "whether the outlook on the rating would be stable or negative would depend on whether the outcome of the negotiations included meaningful progress toward substantial and credible long-term deficit reduction," Moody's said. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 45 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Causes Dollar Dumping A credit downgrade will ultimately have disastrous results Kevin D. Williamson, 7/19/11, deputy managing editor of the National Review, “The Democrat Downgrade: Reality and Repercussions”, http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/272257/democrat-downgrade-reality-and-repercussions The direct consequences of a downgrade of Uncle Sam’s credit on U.S. public finances would be pretty bad. But, as with natural disasters, the aftershocks of this man-made catastrophe might prove more devastating than the main event. In this case, imagine a tsunami of rolling corporate downgrades following the earthquake of a Treasury downgrade, a run on the banks, a discredited FDIC, frozen money-market funds, and a plunging dollar. It’s not Beijing that’s going to take it in the shorts — it’s our still-fragile financial system. Standard & Poor currently gives AAA ratings to six major insurance companies: New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, etc. Those companies already are on the watch-list for a downgrade, simply because of their extensive holdings of U.S. Treasury securities — regardless of the fact that Treasuries themselves have not yet been downgraded. Many banks could find themselves downgraded as well, just because of all the U.S. government debt on their balance sheets. One of our old friends from the bailout days, the AAA-rated Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, could get downgraded as well, along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and, critically, the FDIC. And Fannie and Freddie still prop up a bunch of mortgage-backed securities. What happens to them? Here’s what Fitch says: “Ratings on bonds with direct credit enhancement provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or other GSEs would generally reflect the ratings of the credit enhancement provider.” In English: If the government isn’t AAA, nothing that the government backs is AAA, either. Fitch also warns that money-market funds could face “liquidity pressure,” something to keep in mind if there’s a run on downgraded banks backed by a downgraded FDIC. So, who’s who in this world of hurt? The ten major holders of U.S. Treasury debt are, in order: 1. the Fed, which has more than doubled its holdings of U.S. sovereign debt in the past few years; 2. individual investors, mostly in the United States; 3. the Chinese; 4. the Japanese; 5. pension funds; 6. mutual funds; 7. state and local governments; 8. the Brits; 9. the banks; and 10. insurance companies. (More here.) The national governments have worries of their own already — some of them are in pretty dire straits (the Japanese national debt is 200 percent of GDP) and some of their situations are basically unknowable (China). God alone knows what the Fed will do. Even if the banks and insurances companies don’t get downgraded, a Treasury downgrade is still going to be enormously disruptive to their businesses. Typically, regulated financial institutions are required to hold “investment grade” assets, which does not limit them to AAA bonds. AA is still “investment grade.” So they don’t have to dump all their Treasuries. (Which is not to say they won’t.) But capital-requirement rules — which govern the amount of money a financial institution has to hold in reserve — naturally take into account whether bonds are AAA, AA, or something else. That’s because $1 worth of Exxon debt is not really worth the same thing as $1 worth of debt from Barney’s Subprime Bait-’n’-Tackle, and $1 million in Swiss bonds is not the same thing as $1 million in Haitian bonds. A downgrade of U.S. Treasuries would mean that basically every bank and insurance company of any stature would immediately have to raise a great deal of capital to offset the downgrade of the more than $1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury debt they are holding. They’ll have to try to raise that capital in a market suffering a jacklighted panic over that sovereign downgrade, scrambling for investment in an environment in which the U.S. government is no longer considered a goldplated, top-shelf safe haven. In terms of a “credit event,” that’s probably going to make 2008 look like a day relaxing upon the sandy beaches of Calais with tropical-themed umbrella-garnished drinks. State and local governments are holding another $1 trillion or so in Treasuries, meaning that the credit profile of our already struggling states and cities would have about as much credibility as Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s wedding vows. A lot of that pension-fund exposure to Treasury debt is for state and local government retirees, too, so Austin and Sacramento and Boise and Augusta will be right between the hammer and the anvil, getting pounded. And so will Springfield — the Typhoid Mary of fiscal contagion at the state level. As I’ve written before, I suspect that Illinois will be the first state to go into something like a full-blown insolvency, largely due to its unfunded pension liabilities. Just Monday, Ben Bernanke confessed himself worried about the situation in Illinois and California. And if I may be forgiven for repeating myself: Most states have either statutory or constitutional obligations to pay those pensions, so they cannot just reduce them or walk away. There’s really no such thing as a statebankruptcy law, so nobody knows how a default would unfold. How’s that for uncertainty in the markets? Back to those banks and insurance guys: Contrary to what our dear leaders in Washington have claimed, the world’s financial system has not been reformed. In fact, a great deal of the bailouts and the legislation that followed them was designed specifically to prevent the kind of fundamental reforms that are needed. A global financial system brought to its knees by a raft of bad mortgages is going to be knocked ass-over-teakettle by a downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 46 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Causes Dollar Dumping I was in Washington Monday, debating Cato’s erudite Dan Mitchell about the no-new-taxes pledge. Mr. Mitchell and I agree on the fundamentals and differ on the politics. What I found mildly despair-inducing, however, was the question-andanswer session, during which the predominant concern expressed by the audience was how to ensure that our guys “win” the debt-ceiling debate. While I understand that you have to win elections to get things done, we simply must head off a downgrade, even if at great political cost. Nobody is going to “win” a downgrade. The thing that has not been sufficiently understood, I think, is this: The United States is not on a downgrade watch because the markets fear we won’t raise the debt ceiling in time to avoid a default; the United States is on a downgrade watch because the markets believe the debt-ceiling debate presents the last real opportunity for the government to enact a meaningful fiscal-reform program before it is well and truly too late to avoid a national crisis. The credit agencies, wisely or not, aren’t worried about the short-term political fight leading to an immediate default, but about the near- to medium-term fiscal situation, which is plainly unsustainable. I sincerely hope that in five or ten years, I will have to sheepishly admit that I was among the alarmists back in 2011. But right now, I believe that the question isn’t how to “win” the debt-ceiling fight, but how to survive the underlying economic disorder it represents. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 47 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Causes Crowd Out Excessive government spending will crowd out private investors Stephen Dinan, 2/4/09, contributor for The Washington Times, “CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long-term”, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing. CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary. The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts. But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won’t produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill. The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill — forcing the crowd-out. CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter. CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010. The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent. CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 48 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Causes Crowd Out More evidence: spending causes a crowd out Scott Walter and Sandra Swirski, 3/26/10, By Scott Walter, former Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy in the last Administration, and Sandra Swirski, co-founder of Venn Strategies and a tax attorney, “Crowding Out Private Money: Why A Growing Government Undercuts American Philanthropy”, http://www.wlf.org/publishing/publication_detail.asp?id=2150 The dramatic growth of government now underway makes most Americans rather uneasy. Economists in particular fear that higher spending by government causes long-term harm to business investment and economic growth, especially when the country already struggles under heavy public debt. But another danger must not be overlooked: the harm governmental expansion does to philanthropy. This vital sector of society will see its productivity drained as private dollars that would have been spent by charitable and philanthropic entrepreneurs are channeled instead into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who may have short-sighted needs. The danger was detailed in a report on the nonprofit sector issued this past holiday season by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS). It warned that government spending "can potentially crowd out private support for charities" and also "cause charities to reduce their fund-raising efforts." The effect is stark. One study cited by CRS estimated that government largess typically "crowds out" private donations by around 56 percent. That means every $1,000 in government grant money can reduce private donations by $560. See Molly F. Sherlock and Jane G. Gravelle, An Overview of the Nonprofit and Charitable Sector, Congressional Research Service report, Nov. 17, 2009. But the immediate cost in dollars is just the beginning of the harm, because $1,000 guided by private hands isn't the same as $1,000 doled out by government. Innovation and efficiency are the hallmarks of independent entrepreneurs, not the federal government, and that is especially true in philanthropy. Yet despite the great potential for harm, few in the political class have raised any alarms. Perhaps that isn't surprising. After all, for two years in a row proposals have been advanced which would take big chunks out of the charitable income tax deduction -- that mighty Mississippi of American generosity through which billions flow each year towards those most in need, such as schools, the aged, the arts, and those reeling from economic upheaval. Nor is the charitable deduction cut the only threat. Indeed, the aforementioned proposal won't even take effect unless Congress enacts it through new legislation, which lawmakers declined to do last year. But two other threats to the charitable sector require no action by Congress to become reality, namely, a jump-up in tax rates for the nation's biggest taxpayers and a cut in the same people's ability to claim itemized deductions. Specifically, if congressional inaction allows the 2003 tax cuts to expire at year's end, persons earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples) will see their marginal income tax rates rise around 10 percent, and their tax rates on capital gains and dividends rise 33 percent. This drain on upper-income taxpayers will have a significant effect on philanthropy, because households whose wealth exceeds $1 million (roughly 7 percent of the population) provide around half of all charitable donations. See Arthur C. Brooks, WHO REALLY CARES: AMERICA'S CHARITY DIVIDE--WHO GIVES, WHO DOESN'T, AND WHY IT MATTERS (New York: Basic Books, 2006). Taking more money out of these Americans' pockets, in short, means less money for charity. By contrast, a vigorous economy that spins off greater income for all Americans sends more dollars flowing into the philanthropic sector. As researcher Arthur Brooks observes, the booming economy of 1995-2000 saw real income per capita rise by 12 percent, while household giving, spurred by stock market and home value gains, exploded by 54 percent. Id. Too many in Washington seem to have forgotten that America's greatness, and her liberty, are tightly linked to the fact that her citizens are the most charitable on earth. Nearly two centuries ago the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville observed that while Frenchmen would wait on government to deal with their problems, and Englishmen would await a nobleman's aid and leadership, Americans spontaneously join together in private groups, voluntarily giving time and treasure to respond to the day's most pressing needs. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 49 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Raises Interest Rates Increased government spending will raise interest rates Reed Garfield, 3/27/95, senior economist for Joint Economic Committee of the Congress of the U.S., “Government Spending and Economic Growth”, http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/spending/spending.htm The growth of plant and equipment, or capital investment, is negatively impacted by government spending. Simply put, government spending "crowds out" private investment. When government uses resources, there are fewer resources for private purposes. Temporarily, government spending and private investment can be complementary. Government's grab for resources can be met through reduction in savings or capital inflows from abroad. In the long-run, private investment must fall as government increases spending. Government may invest the resources it controls in productive areas, but political forces are less likely than private markets to allocate resources where the returns are the highest. The state invests resources where the political demands are greatest not where the profit opportunities are large. Government spending also can raise interest rates. Higher interest rates discourage private sector investment because it ends up costing the investor more over the long run. As interest rates rise, the returns to investment fall. Capital projects that made economic sense at lower interest rates are no longer viable. All these effects serve to lower the long-term growth rate of the capital stock. Rent-Seeking Economic growth is adversely impacted when the government imposes itself through spending and regulations. As more resources are channeled through the political process, the opportunities for rent-seeking increase. Rent-seeking is the manipulation of the political process for personal gain. Individuals, or special interests, attempt to create governmentsanctioned monopolies or impose costs upon other people without those people receiving the full, or any, benefit from the action. Rent-seekers expend government resources to capture these monopoly gains. The resources expended on rentseeking are a net loss to society. As the state grows, it provides increasing opportunities for transfers of rents. It also increases the profitability of rent-seeking. Expanding the opportunity for rent-seeking increases waste and permanently lowers the growth rate of the economy. The productivity of rent-seeking activity is zero, or negative, for the economy because rent-seeking reduces potential economic output. Conclusion Some government spending is crucial for a wellfunctioning economy. However, currently the United States and most developed countries' governments spend excessively which reduces economic growth.[3] In other words, as governments divert resources away from private entrepreneurs, jobs, investment, and productivity decline which ultimately slows down the economy. Government spending will continue to push interest rates way up: empirically proven by Nigeria Nigerian Business Community, 5/5/11, Business Community Platform for Nigeria, “Government borrowing, spending push interest rates way up”, http://www.nigerianpro.com/content/government-borrowing-spending-push-interest-rate-upwards The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has said that as long as the federal government continues to patronize the bond market, it would be difficult to achieve low interest rates. CBN deputy governor, economic policy, Sarah Alade, said while the central bank is striving to achieve an inclusive economy that would capture more Nigerians, that effort was being made difficult by the huge borrowing and expenditure of government. According to her, government needs to begin to control its level of spending in order for the real economy to have access to cheap funds. "In terms of interest rate being high, when government borrows money, offering banks higher rates than the private sector can offer, banks naturally lend to government. So as long as the Debt Management Office keeps selling bonds, this expansionary fiscal policy, and interest rate will remain high." She said when control is placed on government spending, then ordinary Nigerians can enjoy low interest rate. Speaking at the presentation of the regional outlook for sub-Saharan Africa by the International Monetary Fund in Lagos on Tuesday, Mrs Alade said the central bank was working at improving access to finance for Nigerians by reforms of the payment system. "We are thinking about agency banking where you use the post office, so that more people will be able to save and receive money. For access to finance, we are doing a lot of things," she said. Permanent secretary in the ministry of finance, Danladi Kifase who represented the finance minister, Olusegun Aganga, said government has already embarked on measures that would cut down on its expensive and improve the quality of its expenditure. "Government is determined to bring the budget back to balance. We are working to diversify our revenue base away from oil and gas by strengthening the tax base. The use of performance-based budgeting will help toward delivering efficiency in spending," the minister said. He said the establishment of the sovereign wealth fund was geared towards ensuring discipline in government spending and to ensure that excess revenue are saved for judiciously applied. According to Mr Kifase, government needs to continue to spend money in order to keep the economy running. "We cannot keep money in the bank when people need roads. The problem is the quality of spending." He said government would improve on its expenditure to achieve growth in the economy. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 50 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Raises Taxes Government spending raises taxes – healthcare proves David R. Henderson, PhD. in economics, research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an associate professor of economics at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School, previously the senior economist for energy policy with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers,’10 (The Hoover Institution, December 1st 2010, “Good on Taxes, Bad on Trade,” http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/58036) The chapter on tax policy is also one of the book’s strengths. Hubbard and Navarro lay out just how destructive the federal tax system is or soon will be. They point out that by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, President Obama and the U.S. Congress are letting the long-term capital gains tax rate rise from fifteen percent to twenty percent and the top rate on dividends rise from fifteen percent to a whopping 39.6 percent. Moreover, they point out, the new health care law will impose a further 3.8-percentage-point increase in the tax rate on so-called “unearned income,” the term used for income from realized capital gains, interest, and dividends. That means that the top rate on capital gains will rise from fifteen percent to 23.8 percent and on dividend income from fifteen percent to 43.4 percent, almost tripling. Meanwhile, the United States has one of the highest tax rates on corporate income in the world. High corporate tax rates discourage capital formation and, therefore, people’s real wages. The authors cite a finding in a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that corporate taxes harm economic growth more than other taxes. They write, “America’s current tax system is a train wreck when it comes to capital formation, job creation, and long-term economic growth.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 51 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Tax Hikes Solve High taxes crush small businesses and kill jobs The Essene, a Daily Kos Community Site, ‘9 (July 16th 2009, “A Universal Tax to Pay for Universal Health Care,” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/16/754259/-A-Universal-Tax-to-Pay-for-Universal-Health-Care) However, the high income tax surtax is not painless for the middle class. Its cost will fall principally on those small family businesses that create 80% of our jobs, and the middle class already suffers from a desperate shortage of jobs. Politicians can be sure that the middle class will notice a jobless recovery, assuming recovery can even begin. Almost all small businesses have "pass-through treatment" where the owners include the business income in their federal income tax returns and then pay tax on it, whether they receive cash or not. Thus, family and other small businesses pay tax not at corporate rates, but at individual rates. Small business owners, therefore, have to pay the surtax or any tax increase in marginal rates on their business income whether they spend the money or reinvest it in their businesses, leaving the owners with less capital to expand or hire. On the other hand, big international corporations pay nothing more in tax, leaving small businesses at a competitive disadvantage and unable to raise prices to offset the increased tax. Republicans will oppose any tax increase – it’s their dogma Albert R. Hurt, Executive Editor for Bloomberg News, 7/17/11, “Republicans’ Idealogy Dooms Deal on U.S. Debt” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/us/18iht-letter18.html WASHINGTON — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in the heat of the high-level budget deliberations, told Republicans that their intransigence over taxes was a matter of ideology, not economics. It’s also about coalitions and contributors. Congressional Republicans rejected a grand-bargain deficit reduction plan that would have slashed spending, including on entitlements, while raising revenue. Raising taxes, charged Republicans like the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, would be a job killer in a struggling economy. Mr. Cantor pulled the rug out from the efforts of a fellow Republican, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, and President Barack Obama to strike a historic deal. It was about politics, not jobs. Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton engineered big tax increases that were followed by robust economic gains. Politically, however, tax cuts are the glue that holds together the Republican coalition. It used to be anti-Communism until the Berlin Wall came down. There’s still a divide on social issues, and even a number of antiabortion or anti-gay rights Republicans don’t consider these questions priorities. With the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, it’s tough to distinguish between the foreign policy positions of conservatives and those of liberals. There is no such confusion when it comes to taxes. With enforcers like the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist looking over their shoulders, Republican politicians know that if they even entertain the idea of higher taxes, they throw away any national ambitions, may be threatened in a primary, and, if in a position of leadership, face a revolt from the rank and file. No tax raises – Norquisit’s anti-tax pledge Jason Hanna, 7/15/11, “Politicians’ pledges show interest groups’ sway” http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/14/pledges.interest.groups/ Some political analysts watching the debt ceiling talks in Washington lament that the no-tax-hike pledge signed by most congressional Republicans may prevent a grand compromise in which tax increases accompany spending cuts. To the man who leads the interest group behind the pledge, that's pretty much the idea.Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform -- the group whose oppose-all-tax-increases vow was signed by 235 House members and 41 senators, almost all of them Republicans -- said the pledge is doing what it's supposed to: preventing what he says are mistakes of 1982 and 1990, namely agreeing to tax increases and watching promised spending cuts evaporate."When you take the pledge, it ends the constant badgering of people asking you to raise taxes here, there and everywhere," said Norquist, whose group wants to shrink the federal government and believes any new revenue would enable continued government growth. "Once you keep putting a tax increase on the table, spending cuts disappear." "If someone says that this makes it difficult to make a big budget deal (with tax increases), that's the point," he said. "... The only reason that (President Barack) Obama is even talking spending restraints is because of this pledge." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 52 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Tax Hikes Solve Tax hikes won’t happen – Republican refusal CNN 6/29/11 Deirdre Walsh, Xuan Thai, and Kate Bolduan, “Republicans reject president’s call to include tax revenues in debt deal” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/republicans-reject-presidents-call-to-include-tax-revenues-in-debt-deal/ Republican congressional leaders Wednesday rejected President Barack Obama's call to include tax revenues as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Obama said at a White House press conference Wednesday that he's already made concessions to significantly cut spending for government programs. In return, he said, Republicans should now accept proposals to end corporate tax subsidies, such as those given to oil and gas companies or tax breaks for hedge fund managers. The president tried to label Republicans as more interested in protecting special interests than getting a deal done before the U.S. defaults on its financial obligations later this summer. He singled out one tax break that gives corporations a deduction for buying company planes. "You'll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You'll just have to pay a little more." Obama said. But House Speaker John Boehner flatly dismissed any proposal that would add revenues to a debt limit agreement. "The president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House," Boehner said in a written statement. Boehner repeated his position that any deal to up the nation's borrowing authority must include spending cuts greater than the amount the debt limit is raised, reforms to control spending over the long term and be "free from tax hikes." "The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process," Boehner stated. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 53 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Key to Stimulus Government spending is the worst stimulus – most comprehensive studies David R. Henderson, PhD. in economics, research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an associate professor of economics at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School, previously the senior economist for energy policy with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, ’10 (The Hoover Institution, December 1st 2010, “Good on Taxes, Bad on Trade,” http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/58036) Start with the positives. The strongest chapter, by far, is the one titled, “Why You Can’t Stimulate Your Way to Prosperity.” This case against using increases in government spending as a countercyclical policy to end a recession is a nice blend of economic and political analysis. Hubbard and Navarro point out what has long been an argument against such policies: the often long lag between when a law increases spending and when the spending actually occurs. But they go further and draw on some more-recent research by Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna that has justifiably received much attention. Alesina and Ardagna, examining fiscal stimulus in 21 countries, found that the most successful ones relied “almost entirely on cuts in business and income taxes” and that the least successful relied on increased government spending. Cutting spending creates a better stimulus than raising spending A. Adrianson, the Heritage Foundation, ’10 (September 16th 2010, "Spending Cuts Are Good for the Economy," http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/spending-cuts-are-good-for-the-economy/) Reducing budget deficits by cutting government spending has a stronger record of economic stimulus than either reducing the deficit with tax increases or increasing government spending. That’s what Harvard economists Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna have found in their recent research. They examined 107 instances of large reductions (at least 1.5 percent in one year) in budget deficits as well as 91 instances of large increases (over 1.5 percent in one year) in budget deficits over the past 40 years. They found that when an economy expands following deficit reduction, spending cuts were the largest part of the adjustment. At the same time, when recessions followed deficit reduction, tax increases were the predominant policy. The authors also found that when budget deficits increased, tax cuts had a more expansionary impact on the economy than spending increases. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 54 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Keynes Their authors are wrong – Keynesian economics is too outdated Jason Bradley, former military member, ‘11 (June 27th 2011, “Keynesians Are both Wrong and Dangerous,” http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/06/27/keynesians-are-both-wrong-and-dangerous/) The Keynesian school of thought on the economy is that of the potential instability of the private sector and the undependability of the market driven self-adjustment factor. Keynes during his day said that in times of depression (or deep recessions) the government should focus entirely on spending by injecting the national economy with lots of cash. So the task was simple: spend more on goods and services thereby shifting aggregate demand in the other direction and presto we are out of the recession. However, Keynes put forth these thoughts during the Great Depression. In which inflation was not a threat, prices were falling, and unemployment was reaching 25 percent. Since the goal was to get the national economy back to full employment, the only model used for analysis was the aggregate demand curve in relation to real GDP gaps. There was no need to study aggregate supply and aggregate demand, prices and real job growth because he was only interested in what market participants would buy during the depression if the economy was producing at full capacity. So a new model called the Keynesian Cross was coined which basically focuses on the differences in total spending to the value of total output. It doesn’t account for true distinctions for price levels and real output, i.e., real job growth. An increase in aggregate demand effects real output and prices but doesn’t always translate to a dollar-for-dollar improvement in real GDP. Again, and to his defense, Keynes’ ideas were during the Great Depression — falling prices, etc., — this is not the Great Depression, so when supply and demand increases so do prices. As a result we still stay short of full employment, consumer spending stays down, wages become relatively low, the economy fails to rebound and possibly falls back into recession. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 55 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Impacts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 56 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 War Impacts RECESSION NOW WOULD LEAD TO GLOBAL WAR AND UNCONTROLLABLE REVOLUTION Cooke ’10 ( Writer for the Global Research Society March 10 2010)< http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19080> A quick glance around the globe reveals a ruined international economy, wars and more wars in the works, and revolutionary movements aplenty — all connected phenomena. No, the apocalypse is not coming; but the international economic system currently used to arrange the social order is crumbling, taking everyone down with it. The global capitalist system is in far worse shape than most people realize: it may only take the tiny economy of Greece to go bankrupt to break this camel’s back — and finally the word “recession” will be antiquated and “depression” will be in vogue. A great economic downturn would have happened years ago were it not for the monstrous debt that many governments created — consumer, corporate, and state — to prop up the economic system, since debt was needed to fuel the consumption that corporations depended on for the purchase of their products. When this global debt bubble burst, the current crisis was ignited. The debts started going unpaid and the banks stopped lending, creating the “credit crunch.” Giant corporations thus began failing, and the governments that are heavily “influenced” by these corporations went on a bailout frenzy: billions and trillions of taxpayer money poured into these companies, keeping them alive to plunder another day. After the bailouts, stupid politicians everywhere declared the capitalist system “saved,” and the crisis over. But bigger crises were already visible on the horizon. The debt that nations used to bailout private corporations was too massive. If these countries’ currencies are to retain any value, the debt must be trimmed (the Euro for example, is widely believed to be “finished”). The battle over how this trimming takes place can be properly referred to as “class war” — a revolution in Greece is brewing over such an issue, with Portugal, Spain, and Italy not far behind. All over Europe and the U.S. the corporate elite is demanding that the giant government debts — due to bailouts and wars — be reduced by lowering wages, gutting social services, slashing public education, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Labor unions and progressive groups are demanding that the rich and corporations, instead, pay for the crisis that they created through progressive taxation, eliminating tax havens, and if need be, nationalization. This tug of war over society’s resources is class war. The global crisis has developed to such a degree that no middle ground can be safely bargained. This revolution-creating dynamic also spawns wars. Corporations demand that wages and benefits be reduced during a recession so that “profitability is restored.” This is the only way out of a global recession, since nothing is produced under capitalism if it doesn’t create a profit; and recessions destroy profit. But there are other ways to restore profits.While corporate-controlled governments work to restore domestic profitability by attacking the living standards of workers, they likewise look abroad to fix their problems. A sure-fire way to increase profits is to export more products overseas, something Obama has mentioned in dozens of speeches. One way to ensure that a foreign country will accept/market your exported goods is by threatening them, or attacking them. An occupied country, like Iraq for example, was forced to allow a flood of U.S. corporations inside to pillage as they saw fit — an automatic export boom.When the world market shrinks during a recession — since consumers can afford to buy fewer goods — the urge to dominate markets via war increases dramatically. These same shrinking markets compel international corporations, based in different nations, to insanely compete for markets, raw materials, and cheap labor. War is a very logical outcome in such circumstances. President Obama reminds us: “The world’s fastest-growing markets are outside our borders. We need to compete for those customers because other nations are competing for them.” Having a giant military establishment to back them up enables U.S. corporations to be better “competitors” than other nations. War also serves as a valuable distraction to an angry public which is demanding jobs, higher wages, health care, well funded public education, and taxes on the wealthy. Better to channel this anger into hatred toward a “foreign enemy.” The above issues are the ones certain to dominate major events in the coming years. The class war that is erupting as a result of the global depression will effect the majority of people in many nations, through joblessness, shrinking wages, the destruction of government services, or war. As working people in the U.S. begin a fight against these policies, the corporate elite will stop at nothing to implement them, and the social unrest in Europe will be transferred to the U.S. More working people will come to the realization that an economic system owned by giant corporations — themselves owned by very wealthy individuals — is irrational, and needs to be replaced. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 57 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Military Tradeoff DA*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 58 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Tradeoff DA – 1NC Shell A. F35 passing now but on the chopping block Bennet 7/13 (John T. Bennett, staff writer for TheHill,07/13/11, Pentagon tells Congress of new $771 million F-35 cost spike, http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/171327-pentagon-tells-congress-of-new-771-million-f-35-cost-spike) Pentagon officials have asked Congress to let them shift $264 million from other accounts to begin paying for new F-35 program cost overruns totaling nearly three times that much. Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised eyebrows Tuesday when he posted this on Twitter: "Congress notified that first F-35 jets have cost overruns of $771M." McCain, long a critic of the Lockheed Martin-led program, and one of the Senate's most outspoken and blunt members let his feelings about the new cost spikes be known in the same tweet. "Outrageous! Pentagon asking for $264M downpayment now. Disgraceful," he tweeted. A McCain aide, in an email Wednesday, said the $771 million overrun covers the first 28 F-35s the Pentagon is buying. The Pentagon informed lawmakers on Monday of a need to move monies within its budget for a $264 million "downpayment," as the aide called it, via a reprogramming request sent last month, the aide said. Lockheed defended the F-35 program via its official Twitter account. "The F-35 team is focused on reducing costs of the jets and is showing significant improvement in key areas," it said. But McCain took issue with that phrasing. He responded, "@lockheedmartin To most observers, a $771M cost overrun for 28 F-35s doesn’t qualify as "significant improvement." Taxpayers deserve better." The F-35 program is the most expensive in Pentagon history, and is being developed for three U.S. military services and eight American allies. But it has a long history of developmental problems that have triggered lengthy schedule delays and pricey cost spikes. The Pentagon is planning to buy over 2,400 models at a cost of $382 billion -- far more costly than first projected. Defense experts agree that the program will be on many "cut lists" as Washington attempts to fix its broken finances -- at least until it conquers its remaining technical demons. B. Space launch costs are high and rising Spaceflight Now ’11 (“Rising launch costs could curtail NASA science missions,” 4/4/11, pg online @ http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/04launchcosts/) A previous NLS contract expired last year and held provisions for heavily discounted rocket costs due to projections of a more robust U.S. commercial launch services market when it was signed in 2000. "The expectation at that time was there was a large commercial market," Cline said. "That did not materialize. As opposed to government being a secondary customer buying on the margin, government became the primary customer." With government as the anchor customer, marginal launch costs for NASA and the Air Force are on the rise. "Rocket costs are going crazy and mostly up," said Steve Squyres, a respected planetary scientist and chair of a panel of researchers that issued recommendations in March for NASA to address the possibility of a declining budget matched against rising launch prices. Squyres led the National Research Council's planetary science decadal survey, an independent report ranking a slate of robotic solar system missions for the next 10 years. "Launch vehicle costs are high," Squyres said. "They're growing. They're growing in a somewhat volatile and unpreditable fashion. They're becoming an increasingly large fraction of the cost of planetary missions, which is a trend we view with some alarm." C. Military budget trades off with other spending Tasini 10 (Jonathan Tasini, Executive Director, Labor Research Association, August 13, 2007, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/guns-versus-butter-our-re_b_60150.html) Guns versus butter. It's the classic debate that really tells us a lot about our priorities that we set for the kind of society we can expect to live in -- how much money a country spends on the military versus how much money is expended on nonmilitary, domestic needs. To perhaps explain the obvious, buying a gun (or missile defense or a sophisticated bomber) means you don't have those dollars for butter (or a national health care plan or free college education). At some basic level, we all know that those tradeoffs exist but, sometimes, numbers bring home the meaning of this equation in stunning fashion. What made me think of this is a set of revealing numbers that jumped out at me the other day -- numbers that underscore why there is, in my opinion, something lacking in the message of most of the Democratic presidential candidates and our party's leadership. The numbers come from an article in the June 30th edition of the well-known leftwing magazine, The Economist entitled "The Hobbled Hegemon." The theme of the article is that, surprise, the Iraq war and occupation have weakened the U.S. militarily but, The Economist reassures its readers, "America is likely to remain the dominant superpower." What struck me in the lengthy piece were three pie charts. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 59 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Tradeoff DA – 1NC Shell D. F-35 cuts would kill heg – by putting US airpower behind that of China, India, and Russia Eaglen 7/21 (Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow for National Security Studies, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, July 21, 2011 Slashing Defense Makes America Less Safe While Allowing Politicians to Kick the Can down the Road on Entitlement Reform, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/Slashing-Defense-Makes-America-Less-Safe) This plan, along with several others like it, reduces procurement spending by 15 percent through 2015. Much of this is achieved through the cancellation of the Marine Corps’s Maritime Prepositioning Force, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the V-22 Osprey. Procurement of the much-needed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter takes a large hit, as well. The Air Force and Navy versions of the F-35 are cut by fully one-half, while the Marine Corps version is outright cancelled—even though this is the only aircraft set to replace three different Marine air capabilities today. These cuts would only increase the looming technological gap between the United States and others, such as India, Russia, and China, all of which are seeking to build fifth-generation-plus tactical fighters. Even before the introduction of China’s stealthy J-20, multiple simulations of air combat scenarios in the South China Sea have the United States losing to China because of a sheer disadvantage in numbers. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a stop-gap capability but cannot serve as a next-generation air superiority and strike fighter in combat environments where stealth is increasingly rendered less effective. The F-18 is not organically stealthy, and it lacks the electronic warfare suite of the F-35. Ironically, these types of program cuts are typical of those policymakers should want to keep if they are trying to save money. President Eisenhower cut defense spending and the size of the Army in the 1950s, but he bolstered America’s strategic nuclear arsenal. He knew that the deterrent factor of nuclear weapons would cover for the military’s reduced force levels. The strategy behind defense cuts today is of opposite and dangerous logic: cut end strength, eliminate long-range strike, and slash the offensive and defense strategic forces arsenal. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 60 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Tradeoff DA – 1NC Shell E. Decline in Hegemony sparks major power wars Zhang ’11 (Carnegie Endowment of International Peace at Columbia University January 22 nd 2011) < http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/> Paul Kennedy was probably right: the US will go the way of all great powers — down. The individual dramas of the past decade — the September 2001 terrorist attacks, prolonged wars in the Middle East and the financial crisis — have delivered the world a message: US primacy is in decline.This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the world’s largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation.Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts.However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid.As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law.Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations.However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations.For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy.Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973).A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 61 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Uniqueness*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 62 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Military Cuts Now Military spending is increasing, no risk of DOD cuts now Donna Cassata 7/8/11, Associated Press, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43688283/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. The strong bipartisan embrace of the measure came as White House and congressional negotiators face an Aug. 2 deadline on agreeing to trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts and raising the borrowing limit so the U.S. does not default on debt payments. While House Republican leaders agreed to slash billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account beginning Oct. 1 Concerns about undermining national security, cutting military dollars at a time of war and losing defense jobs back home trumped fiscal discipline in the House. Only 12 Republicans and 75 Democrats opposed the overall bill. "In the midst of a serious discussion about our nation's debt crisis, House Republicans demonstrated responsible leadership that sets priorities and does not jeopardize our national security interests and our nation's ongoing military efforts," Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said in a statement. But Rep. Barney Frank, DMass, scoffed at the suggestion that "everything is on the table" in budget negotiations between the Obama administration and congressional leaders. "The military budget is not on the table," he said. "The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch." The bill would provide $530 billion to the Pentagon and $119 billion to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would provide a 1.6 percent increase in pay and buy various warships, aircraft and weapons, including a C-17 cargo plane that the Pentagon did not request but is good news for the Boeing production line in Long Beach, Calif. During three days of debate, the House easily turned back several efforts to cut military spending, including amendments by Frank on the Democratic side and and tea party-backed freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C. No defense cuts in sight – house divided Alexander 06/23 (David Alexander, Staff writer for newsdaily.com, 2011/06/23, White House criticizes House defense spending bill, http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre75m803-us-usa-budget-defense/, TA) WASHINGTON, June 23, 2011 (Reuters) — The Obama administration sharply criticized a $649 billion defense spending bill in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday as lawmakers began debating next year's Pentagon funding, including the war in Afghanistan. The White House said in a policy statement it strongly opposed elements of the defense appropriations bill in the House because of proposed spending cuts and restrictions on the handling of Guantanamo detainees. "If a bill is presented to the president that undermines his ability as commander-in-chief or includes ideological or political policy riders, the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto," the statement said. The White House raised its concerns as the House began debating the bill to set levels for most military spending for the 2012 fiscal year beginning in October. The measure was expected to face a large number of amendments, including a move to halt U.S. participation in the NATO-led campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi by barring any spending on the effort. With President Barack Obama struggling to reduce the nation's $1.4 trillion deficit, war-weary lawmakers facing cuts to social programs used the debate to press the administration to end the war more quickly and cut defense spending more deeply. The current House measure cuts Obama's spending request by $8.9 billion. "As we spend over $2 billion a week on this decade-long war, critical programs, like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, food stamps and Medicare are on the chopping block. Enough is enough. There is no military solution in Afghanistan," said Representative Barbara Lee, who pledged to seek an amendment to end funding for the Afghan war. Representative Alcee Hastings said the United States needed a "lean and powerful" military but "we also have great needs in this country and we cannot continue to slash funding for essential programs here at home in favor of ever-increasing funding for wars abroad." The appropriations bill is a long way from final passage. The Senate's version of the bill is still in committee. Whatever version is ultimately passed by the House would have to be reconciled with a bill adopted by the Democratic-led Senate before it would go to Obama for his signature. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 63 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Internal Links*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 64 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with F-35 F35 on the chopping block Farmham 7/19 ( Alan Farnham, Pentagon Budget Cuts: Who Loses, Who Wins? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/400-billiondefense-cuts-kill-weapons-programs-hurt/story?id=14083111, TA) Production lines for all the following military aircraft are already set to close: C-17 (Long Beach, Calif.); C-130 (Marietta, Ga) and F-18 (Seattle, Wash.). Also under attack: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Lockheed Martin at sites that include Fort Worth, Texas. The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, it became even more expensive in July when additional costs of $771 million were announced, earning the censure of Sen. John McCain, a long-term critic of the program. The Congressional Budget Office has proposed cutting the F-35 program altogether, which it says would produce a savings of $27 billion over the next five years and $260 billion longer-term. CBO recommends that the Pentagon, instead of continuing with the F-35, upgrade F-16s and F/A-18s to give them some of the costlier plane's capabilities. Other CBO recommendations include such unspectacular but cost-effective changes as consolidating into one entity the three duplicative systems of military commissaries and retail stores that now serve current and retired military. Gordon England, a former secretary of the Navy and former deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush, advised Panetta in New York Times op-ed piece to "resist the temptation to quickly kill procurement programs" or to make "proportional cuts to programs across the board." He suggests the new Secretary instead find savings by sharing weapon development costs with U.S. allies. "Manufacturing equipment for the American and foreign militaries simultaneously saves Washington money because more units are produced and overhead costs are shared," he says. Further, it could create "thousands of American jobs." The F-35 is vulnerable to cuts Cassata 11 ( Donna Cassata, AP's political editor, Apr 13, 2011, Spending Cuts Bill Hits Defense and Foreign Aid, http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/13/spending-cuts-bill-hits-defense-and-foreign-aid/, TA) House GOP freshmen led the charge to cancel $450 million for a second engine for the nearly 2,500 F-35 fighters the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps plan to buy and fly over the next 40 years. Neither Obama nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates wanted the second engine, with Gates telling Congress that it required an additional $3 billion to develop and that spending such money "in a time of economic distress" was a waste. But Boehner and other House GOP leaders backed the extra engine built by General Electric and Rolls Royce in Ohio and Indiana. F35 cuts possible – leaving the air force vulnerable Martin 10 (David Martin, David Martin is CBS News' National Security Correspondent. December 2, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/01/eveningnews/main7107869.shtml, TA) The Challenge: The challenge is to build 2,500 radar-evading stealth fighters - at $382 billion the country's single most expensive weapons program - without breaking the pentagon bank. "We obviously have a huge investment in this aircraft," Defense Secretary Gates said on Aug. 31, 2009. "It is the heart of the future of tactical combat aviation for our services, so the importance of this program can hardly be overstated." CBS Evening News Series: "Tough Choices" The Air Force, Navy and Marines are all counting on the F-35. But it is already four years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over budget, a fact that prompted Gates to fire the program manager. "Progress and performance on the F-35 over the past two years has not been what it should be," Gates said in February of this year. It's a tough choice," said Winslow T. Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information. "He banks the ranch on the F-35 and it failed him." The Choice: The choice suggested by the Deficit Reduction Commission is to kill the short take-off and landing version of the F-35 being built for the Marine Corps, saving an estimated $17.6 billion between now and 2015. Then, cut the number of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy in half, saving $9.5 billion. Tough Choices: The F-35 The F-35 fighter is America's single most expensive weapons program. Should the government keep it, or cut it? Keep itCut itVOTEView Results "Doing that would save $27.1 billion over five years, but it would also leave the services having to depend on current-generation fighters. Not stealthy, these current fighters are becoming increasingly vulnerable to modern air defenses. Buying fewer F-35s would also increase the cost of each airplane. "If you reduce the buy-down to a few hundred for the Air Force and a few hundred for the Navy," Wheeler said, "we're going to be paying well in excess of $250 million per copy for this airplane." The F-35 is too big to fail, but without making some tough choices it is also too expensive to afford. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 65 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with F-35 GOVERNMENT UNDER PRESSURE TO CUT THE F35 PROGRAM WITN ’09 ( WITN Credible News Agency March 13th 2009) <http://www.witn.com/military/headlines/41199997.html> Hungry budget cutters are eyeing some tasty targets at the Pentagon. Specifically: two of the largest weapons contracts ever awarded by the Pentagon. The Joint Strike Fighter program is building 2,500 high-tech warplanes and could cost more than $1 trillion. The program would build F-35s, which are the same jets the Navy is considering placing at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Havelock. The Navy has said it could put as many as eleven F-35 squadrons at Cherry Point, while other squadrons would go to the base in Beaufort, S.C. New squadrons of fighter jets would bring a significant economic impact to any military base and surrounding town. The Government Accountability Office, in a report Thursday, says costs for the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the Army's Future Combat Systems are likely to balloon because the technology is not fully proven. The Army's vision of high-tech, interconnected battlefield equipment has a $158-billion pricetag. The military is under pressure to cut costs as the government devotes trillions of dollars toward righting the economy. The Obama administration has promised a rigorous review of weapons programs with a view toward making sure their technology is proven before they go into production. F35 AT TIPPING POINT, REPUBLICANS WANT TO CUT NOW, DEFENSE TRADEOFFS WOULD TRIGGER THE F35s BEING CUT Cappacio ’11 (Staff writer for the Bloomberg, authoritative publication on economics and politics July 19th 2011) < http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-19/lockheed-pratt-to-pay-283m-in-f-35-overruns.html> Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and United Technologies Corp. (UTX) will pay as much as $283 million to defray about one-third of a $918 million cost overrun on the first 28 U.S. F-35 fighters, the Pentagon’s program office said today. The government will cover the remaining $635 million, Vice AdmiralDavid Venlet, the program manager, said in an e-mailed statement. In addition, the Pentagon needs to spend $136 million to make improvements to the aircraft that are not considered part of the contract overrun, he said. “The F-35 Program Office is working with the services to make necessary adjustments to pay the bills,” Venlet said. “Going forward, controlling costs is an absolute must.” Venlet told Bloomberg News in April that in the worst-case scenario, the three initial production contracts were projected to exceed target costs by 11 to 15 percent, or by as much $964 million. The figure was calculated based on $6.43 billion in aircraft and engine costs for 28 planes, according to F-35 program data. “Delivering specified capabilities at target cost is required for success,” Venlet said. “The F-35cost growth experienced on early production contracts is an extreme and problematic burden to the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Costs must come down significantly to make this aircraft one we can afford.” Still, Venlet said “we are pleased with signs of emerging stability in the manufacturing flow at Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and in their supplier teams.” Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies, supplies engines for the jet. “Early production aircraft always have higher costs that come down a learning curve,” he said. “The number you are seeing is still being scrubbed and is worst case scenario,” said Lockheed Martin spokesman Mike Rein. “On the Lockheed side, we are working hard to lower it,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “That said, whatever the final total is we will pay approximately 30 percent of the overrun.” Pratt & Whitney spokeswoman Stephanie Duvall said in an e- mail that the company’s “costs to the government for the propulsion content of the LRIP 1-3 contracts is approximately 6% above contract value, which is approximately $1 billion.”The figures include development and production “concurrency pressures,” costs related to Rolls-Royce Plc’s components for the Marine Corps’ vertical-lift version of the jet, and the impact of foreign exchange rate changes, she said. The Pentagon is seeking congressional approval to reallocate, or shift from other accounts, $264 million in fiscal year 2011 funds to cover part of the F-35 overrun. The funding shift, or “reprogramming,” must be approved by the four congressional defense committees.The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, and the panel’s top Republican, John McCain of Arizona, told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a July 14 letter that they needed more information before approving the shift. Among six questions they put to Panetta: What is the Pentagon’s legal obligation to pay these increases, and what would be the effect if the funding shift was denied? Levin and McCain also requested the Pentagon’s cost to terminate the entire program. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 66 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with F-35 F-35 program on the brink of termination due to cost Brannen 7/14 (KATE BRANNEN, Staff writer for defense news, Senators Question Move to Shift Funds to JSF, 14 Jul 2011 , http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7099888&c=AME&s=AIR) The top two senators from the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee are threatening to oppose the Pentagon's request to shift $264 million from other areas of the defense budget to cover cost overruns in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. "Based on the current information submitted to the Senate, I intend to oppose the Department's 'reprogramming request' to transfer $264 million for unacceptable cost overruns on the F-35 program," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement. They even want to know how much it would cost to terminate the F-35 program right now. In addition to the $264 million, the Defense Department has told the Senate panel it needs to find an additional $496 million to pay for the remainder of the cost overruns on the first three lots of production aircraft, the letter said. "The Committee is concerned about three quarters of a billion dollars in increases in these three contracts since last year," the senators wrote. The proposal to shift funds to the F-35 program was part of a $5 billion reprogramming request signed June 30 by Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale and sent to Congress for approval. For starters, McCain and Levin want to know whether the government is legally bound to pay for these cost overruns. If they do not approve the reprogramming request, they want to know what the consequences will be. The senators also want know if there are any alternatives to reprogramming for covering these costs. "How does the Department intend to prevent excessive overruns in the future and how will the Department ensure that taxpayers will not have to pay for them?" McCain and Levin wrote. Their letter is not the first sign that the Senate panel is fed up with the growing costs associated with the Pentagon's most expensive weapon system. The 2012 defense authorization bill passed by the Senate committee in June included language that would require prime contractor Lockheed Martin to absorb 100 percent of the cost overruns for the next buy of F-35 aircraft. It would also require the Pentagon to use a fixed-price contract for Lot 5, the buy currently being negotiated. Although the Pentagon is already using a fixed-price contract for Lot 4, it still shares the burden of any cost overruns with the contractor. During the committee's markup of the bill, McCain put forward an even stricter amendment that would place the program on probation if costs rose by 10 percent. And, if costs continued to rise at that rate for more than a year, the program would be terminated. The amendment never made it into the bill as the committee failed to pass it by a vote of 15-15. But McCain has promised to introduce it again when the full Senate debates the bill later this summer. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 67 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with MPF Maritime Prepositioning Force on the chopping block for spending Kennedy 11 (Sean Kennedy, Sean leads the information systems optimization program, manages the Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense relationships, and facilitates the development of the science programs .January 27, 2011, Planned Spending Cuts Do Not Include Defense, http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watcher/2011/january/rail-1.html In addition to the alternate engine, other prime examples of wasteful programs exist within the DoD budget. For instance, President Obama’s deficit reduction commission proposed eliminating several major weapons systems, including the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the Future Maritime Prepositioning Force. With a national debt of $14.1 trillion, the time is ripe for stronger fiscal responsibility. Riding such sentiment, Republican leaders came to office with a mandate to trim wasteful spending. However, Republicans cannot afford to be choosy when it comes to finding savings. While considering wider budget cuts, Congress should also take a hard look at Defense spending. To this end, on November 30, 2010 the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste cosigned with other leading national fiscally conservative organizations a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and then-Minority Leader Boehner asking that Republicans consider reductions in defense spending Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 68 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Military Spending is Off the Table Defense cuts are on the table – putting national security at risk Lochhead 11 (Carolyn Lochhead, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington bureau chief. She has been a DC correspondent for the Chronicle since 1991. February 07, 2011 http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-07/news/27105642_1_defense-budget-defense-spending-defense-cuts/2, TA) Leading conservative defense experts have begun to ask how much is enough. Kori Schake, a former Bush administration national security official, called the debt "the major threat to American security." "While I don't think defense should be the only thing cut," Schake said, "defense should make a contribution to the broader national goal of solvency." The new budget plan that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., issued Thursday slashes domestic spending but allows defense spending to rise $8 billion this year. Still, that is half the amount Obama requested. Outside groups are calling for much bigger savings of $1 trillion over a decade. Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, first proposed cuts that size last summer but had few takers. Since then, the president's bipartisan deficit commission and the Domenici-Rivlin study called for similar $1 trillion-range cuts. Even cuts this size would preserve massive U.S. military superiority, Adams said. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy for the libertarian Cato Institute, argued for scaling back the global military mission, such as bases in Germany and Japan and nuclear arsenals that were aimed against the Soviets. Frank said current budgets support "intervention in the affairs of other countries" and are "irrelevant to our own security." Since the November election, GOP leaders have shifted course on defense cuts, saying they are on the table. But Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would "oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or jeopardize our national security." Conservative voices A group of conservative leaders influential in the Tea Party movement, including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Freedom Works and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, wrote to GOP leaders in December saying it was "outrageous" to say reducing military spending to Bush-era levels is insufficiently pro-military. Politicians are willing to cut the defense budget RILEY '11 (Staff writer for CNN Money Global Authority on economic and fiscal policies “Pentagon budget: Time to cut” April 21 2011) <http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/economy/pentagon_budget/index.htm > In the final days of the 2011 budget debate, lawmakers gave the Pentagon a small boost, while they slashed funding for almost every other government agency. But the Pentagon wanted tens of billions more. Still, lawmakers refused to pony up, a sign that Washington's budget cutting ambition might soon creep into the defense budget. Since 2001, defense spending has just about doubled, rising to almost $700 billion in 2010. That is more than half of the discretionary budget and about 20% of the entire federal budget. A few months ago, budget experts stood alone, clamoring for steep reductions in military spending to help put the nation back on a sustainable path. Most politicians, however, displayed no such appetite. Now cracks in the armor are starting to emerge. Last week, President Obama backtracked on his earlier budget and outlined a new plan that would cut security spending by $400 billion by 2023."It's a meaningful cut, but not catastrophic," said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University's School of International Service and a former Clinton administration budget official who specialized in defense spending. The impact of that cut is likely to be blunted because it includes the entire national security apparatus, including parts of the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 69 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Impacts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 70 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Spending Key to Heg Defense cuts to our overstretched military would be catastrophic - hegemony and national security Schoen 11 (Douglas Schoen is a political strategist, January 08, 2011, The Risky Rush to Cut Defense Spending, http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/08/the-risky-rush-to-cut-defense-spending.html, TA) As we begin a new year, the United States is at a major crossroads in foreign policy. The end of 2010 saw North Korea’s assault on the disputed Yeonpyeong Island, the revelation that Pyongyang had developed a secret, highly sophisticated uranium enrichment plant with 2,000 centrifuges, and, of course, the massive WikiLeaks dump that jeopardized diplomacy around the world. These incidents are just a few highlights of the foreign policy complications the U.S. must deal with, in addition to the ongoing challenges to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, prevent al Qaeda threats from around the globe, and fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet for mostly good and some bad reasons, all the discussion back at home is about how to reduce defense spending, without giving any serious attention to what we need to do to maintain the strongest possible defense to meet the myriad challenges before us. The country faces a soaring federal deficit, out-of-control government spending, and mandates from the American electorate to reduce spending, cut the deficit, and balance the budget. As the next Congress implements spending cuts to accomplish the latter, it is almost certain that the defense budget will be a prime candidate for cuts, as defense spending now constitutes about 19 percent of the federal budget and more than half of all U.S. discretionary spending. Moreover, the election of a number of new Republican members of Congress who have a profound skepticism of defense will increase pressure across the board to reduce our level of expenditures at precisely a time when our challenges, at the very least, are getting more complicated. The United States’ defense is overstretched as it attempts to fight two wars, terrorism, and dangerous nuclear development. We are facing a national crisis, as we must figure out how to maintain a strong defense while trying to reduce defense spending. The bottom line is that we know that cuts in defense are coming, but if those cuts are too substantial and without real thought to the full international picture, we run a grave risk to our well-being as a nation. We could compromise our position as a world leader and would potentially even undermine the capability of our armed forces. Presently, neither the “elite” nor the general public has figured out how to make cuts without jeopardizing security and our place as a world leader. Voters support sweeping cuts of federal spending and believe that defense can be cut, as there is no sense that the U.S. is at risk in a way that requires more defense spending. In polling I conducted earlier this month, almost half, 47 percent, say federal spending should be cut by 20 percent, and 36 percent say federal spending should be cut by at least 5 percent. The area of federal spending voters say should be cut first is defense. Twenty-nine percent say they would reduce national security spending in order to cut government spending, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Further, my recent poll shows that voters favor decreasing defense spending rather than increasing it to fund the war in Afghanistan, 44 percent to 21 percent. But while Americans want to decrease federal spending and particularly defense spending, they also want the U.S. to play a leadership role in the world. Fifty-eight percent say the United States has the responsibility to be a leader of the world, while 34 percent say the U.S. should not try to be a leader of the world, according to my poll data. A look at opinions among elites and policy makers shows that they also lack an agreement about how defense spending should be cut. The consensus that has emerged at the elite level among Democrats on the left, Republicans on the right, and those in the center is that defense spending should be cut. The Democrats have always been hostile toward the military and prefer cutting defense spending to entitlements. Conservative Republicans and Tea Party advocates are skeptical of foreign incursions and are also willing to cut defense. The center’s embrace of cutting defense spending is largely a result of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In 2009, Gates called for a significant reduction in weapons systems as part of his 2010 Defense Department budget, which amounted to $300 billion in savings. Last year, Gates advocated for personnel-related cuts by calling for sweeping cuts in defense contractors and a freeze on the growing number of senior leadership positions and written reports. Additionally, he proposed eliminating the Joint Forces Command in Virginia. Gates, however, views these cuts as a redeployment of resources rather than a reduction of defense spending. He does not support an overall reduction of the defense budget—he believes that the money saved from these cuts should be used more intelligently for alternate, highpriority needs. Meanwhile, Erskine Bowles, co-head of the federal deficit-reduction commission established by the White House, supports Gates’ proposed defense cuts but believes that they should be permanent as part of the reduction of overall federal spending. In the commission’s proposal to cut spending and reduce the deficit, it identifies $200 billion in discretionary spending cuts by 2015, with half the savings coming from reductions to Pentagon spending. Of the $100 billion proposed defense cuts, $28 billion would come from the overhead savings Secretary Gates has promised, assuming that these savings would be used to reduce spending rather than be used in other defense areas. Twenty billion dollars would come from reducing procurement by 15 percent and $9.2 billion would come from freezing noncombat military pay at 2011 for three years. Gates has called the commission’s proposed defense cuts “catastrophic” and says they would hurt our defense significantly. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 71 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Spending Key to Heg Obama has endorsed Gates’ defense cuts and will likely endorse the deficit commission’s proposed spending cuts in some form. But Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which is responsive to the bipartisan Perry-Schlesinger commission, which advocated this year for an immediate upgrade of our nuclear armaments. This would add substantially and unpredictably to defense costs going forward, even though there is no sense of how this money would be appropriated by Congress. Such conflicting opinions and actions only add to the confusion surrounding this issue. Defense cuts would be massive – jeopardizing security needs Hellman 10 (Christopher Hellman, military policy analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Senior Research Analyst at the Center for Defense Information, Jul 15, 2010, Pentagon Spending on the Chopping Block, http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/at-long-last-pentagon-spending-on-the-chopping-block, TA) The Task Force’s report proposes cuts such as reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,000 and cutting the number of submarines and missiles which carry them; cutting the total number of active duty members of the Army and Marine Corps to 50,000 below their levels before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; cutting certain weapons programs including the Joint Strike Fighter, the V-22 “Osprey” tilt-rotor aircraft, and the total number of Navy aircraft carriers; and reforming the Pentagon’s health care and compensation systems. As one might expect, reaction to the Task Force Report has been mixed, with traditional Pentagon supporters attacking it for being poorly timed, given that the nation is at war, and claiming it will lead us toward a military ill-prepared to meet our nation’s security needs. Meanwhile, moderates and fiscal conservatives view it as a responsible way to make defense cuts in a time of severe budget austerity. Those who have spent years arguing that military spending is a drain on more important domestic priorities welcome it as a step towards a more common sense approach to military budgeting. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 72 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Spending Key to Heg Military cuts would cripple readiness Eaglen 7/21 (Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow for National Security Studies, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, July 21, 2011 Slashing Defense Makes America Less Safe While Allowing Politicians to Kick the Can down the Road on Entitlement Reform, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/Slashing-Defense-Makes-America-Less-Safe) Booms and busts—that is the typical funding pattern for America’s military. And it almost never saves money in the long run. Trying to force another “bust” while the military continues fighting is much riskier today. The Reagan buildup created a cushion that allowed defense investment to be deferred in the 1990s and even in this decade while military operations escalated. But defense budget increases since 9/11 have generated little cushion. They have largely been consumed by current operations, not on future preparedness. Exacerbating the strain is the fact that the war in Iraq was not preceded by a mobilization. In April, President Obama denounced his own 2012 budget request sitting on Capitol Hill and called for $400 billion in security cuts over the next decade. One of the first consequences of $400–$500 billion in military cuts would be to slice soldiers and Marines from the force and return the Army and Marine Corps to their 1990s levels. These personnel levels would allow the nation to sustain only one protracted operation overseas, but they would be insufficient to conduct two simultaneous ground efforts. This would eliminate the Pentagon’s longstanding two-war force planning construct through the back door. Most worrisome, this size force would immediately reduce options available to the commander in chief if a crisis arises while American forces are already committed elsewhere. This level of cuts would also see the elimination of many overseas bases that serve as stops on a global highway the U.S. military needs to access forward assets and evacuate and treat the wounded from the Central Command region. This would increase the cost and length of time to surge forces from the continental United States. These cuts would also see the cancellation of what is left of the Pentagon’s meager modernization plans for future military equipment. Some of the many pending long-term projects crucial to winning future conflicts—as well as deterrence, which saves money—such as a new bomber, next-generation stealthy helicopter, new nuclear submarine, and various space, satellite, and missile defense capabilities could become victims of this plan. Not only would this effectively turn the nuclear triad into a diad or worse, but it could essentially leave submarines as the only realistic long-range strike platform to confront the growing threat of anti-access and area-denial capabilities. Since submarines face long trips back to port after firing their missiles, the sortie generation rate of a longrange strike force consisting almost exclusively of submarines would be extremely low. In this kind of scenario, the United States could easily be “locked out” of the vital Asian littorals. Implications of Up to $1 Trillion in Defense Cuts As in the $400 billion scenario, Army and Marine Corps end strength return to 1990s levels, reducing capabilities to conduct any operations, including humanitarian aid and allied partner capacity building. Many other vital elements of force structure would also disappear, such as one or two Navy carrier strike groups. A large part of America’s missile defense program would be scaled back as well. This means not only cuts to missile sites on U.S. soil but also to sea-based missile defense platforms, such as Aegis cruisers and destroyers needed to maintain America’s nuclear umbrella. Nuclear forces would be a major casualty under these reductions. Not only would the nation see drastic reductions in stockpiles of ground-based nuclear weapons, but nuclear modernization programs—like those promised as part of a deal to pass the New START treaty—would be left behind. It would become ever more likely that the Air Force’s next generation bomber would be eliminated entirely, along with the Navy’s Ohio-class replacement submarine. The so-called Bowles–Simpson plan implicitly assumes that the U.S. will be engaged in one medium-sized conflict in 2015 and does not achieve savings by end strength reductions. Instead, most of the cuts come from modernization accounts or procurement and research and development. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 73 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Spending Key to the Economy Defense spending stimulates the economy Kagan 10 ( FREDERICK W. KAGAN, professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. APR 23, 2010, Guns vs. Butter, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/guns-vs-butter) It’s time to set straight a myth that has persisted for many decades, perpetuated most recently by Arianna Huffington in her post, “Guns vs. Butter 2010.” The myth is that, as she put it quoting Eisenhower, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.” The fact is that the idea that a dollar spent on defense is a dollar not spent on helping Americans is entirely false. Leave aside the debate over the wisdom of American involvement in the world or the desirability of winning ongoing conflicts rather than losing them. The simple fact is that the overwhelming proportion of every dollar spent on defense goes straight back into the American economy. Defense spending has long been recognized as one of the single strongest stimulants to any economy. World War II brought America out of the Great Depression and into an era of enormous prosperity, just to cite the most obvious example. Current defense spending will not have that effect because it is so small compared to the size of the economy—it hovers at or below 4 percent of GDP. But forget those statistics and precedents as well and focus on something more concrete. A very large portion of the defense budget goes to paying the salaries of something like 5 million Americans. Since American forces deployed overseas do not live on the local economy, almost all of that money goes either to their families here at home or to the concessions that serve them abroad generally run by U.S. contractors. One can feel about contractors however one pleases, but U.S. contractors are American firms and their earnings and most of their wages also go back into the American economy. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 74 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to Heg The F-35 revolutionizes our air force Pike 7/7 (John Pike, one of the world's leading experts on defense, space and intelligence policy, is Director of GlobalSecurity.org, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Lightning II, 07-07-2011, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm, TA) For much of the free world's military forces, the F-35 represents the future- a new family of affordable, stealthy combat aircraft designed to meet the twenty-first-century requirements of the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. The program is truly international in its scope and participation: Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Australia, and Norway recently joined the F-35's system development and demonstration (SDD) phase. All SDD partners will be active in the F-35's development process and stand to gain economically from the program. The JSF aircraft design has three variants: conventional takeoff and landing variant for the Air Force, aircraft carrier-suitable variant for the Navy, and short takeoff and vertical landing variant for the Marine Corps, the United Kingdom, and the Air Force. These aircraft are intended to replace aging fighter and attack aircraft currently in the inventory. Historically, the 1970s saw development and production of many outstanding aircraft which comprise much of today's U.S. fighter inventory. The combination of service-life exhaustion and escalating threats will require all three services to slowly retire their current fighter aircraft. The British Royal Air Force Harriers and Royal Navy Sea Harriers aircraft that first flew more than 30 years ago - are encountering similar problems. The F-35 JSF will affordably replace the aging fleets, while also supporting the existing and expanding roles and requirements of F-35 JSF customers. The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F- 16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B. The Marines want new aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British want to replace Sea Harriers and GR.7 Tornado fighters. The Navy's F-35C version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be: Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint The program's objective is to develop and deploy a technically superior and affordable fleet of aircraft that support the warfighter in performing a wide range of missions in a variety of theaters. The single-seat, single-engine aircraft is being designed to be self-sufficient or part of a multisystem and multiservice operation, and to rapidly transition between air-to-surface and air-to-air missions while still airborne. To achieve its mission, the JSF will incorporate low observable technologies, defensive avionics, advanced onboard and offboard sensor fusion, and internal and external weapons. Plans call for the F-35 to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040. It will provide air- to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter. The plane will allow the Air Force forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy and Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-aspect" stealth airplane. The goals for the F-35 are ambitious: to be a single-pilot, survivable, firstday-of-the-war combat fighter with a precision, all-weather strike capability that uses a wide variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons- and that defends itself in a dogfight. The F-35 program emphasizes low unit-flyaway cost and radically reduced life-cycle costs, while meeting a wide range of operational requirements. The stretch in combat radius means that the pilot can operate with reduced dependence on air refueling and can have significantly greater time on station for close air support or combat air patrol missions. Survivability, a cornerstone of F-35 design, is enhanced foremost by the aircraft's radar-evading properties. Stealth capability, available for the first time in a multirole fighter, will minimize the threat to the pilot during operations in heavily defended areas. The aircraft also is configured with advanced countermeasures to reduce the effectiveness of enemy defenses. Integral to the aircraft's low-observable equation is the large internal-weapons bay. When stealth is not required, the F-35 also can carry wingtip air-to-air missiles and up to 15,000 pounds of external ordnance mounted on underwing pylons. A pneumatically powered ordnance-release system replaces the traditional cartridge-powered equipment. This new design greatly reduces maintenance requirements. The internal 25 mm cannon will enable pilots to engage targets from higher altitudes and longer range. The F-35's mission systems are designed to return the pilot to the role of tactician and to increase combat effectiveness dramatically. Next-generation sensors will provide the pilot coherent and fused information from a variety of onboard and off-board systems. Sophisticated data links will connect the aircraft to both ground-combat elements and airborne platforms. In addition to fighter-to-fighter data links, the F-35 will be equipped with satellite-communications capability for both transmitting and receiving. The aircraft's onboard sensor suite is optimized to locate, identify, and destroy movable or moving ground targets under adverse weather conditions. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 75 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to Heg This all-weather capability is achieved with the aircraft's advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar built by Northrop Grumman. The AESA enables simultaneous air-to-ground and air-to-air operations. It can track moving ground targets and display them on a radar-generated terrain image, enabling precise target location relative to terrain features. These instruments, coupled with off-board sensors, will make the F-35 capable of all-weather close air support under the most demanding conditions. An internally mounted electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) is installed in the nose of the F-35, enhancing both air-to-ground and air-to-air capabilities. The EOTS will provide long-range, high-resolution targetinginfrared imagery; laser-target designation; and battle-damage-assessment capability. This system will provide pinpoint weapons-delivery accuracy for close air support and deep-strike missions. A distributed-aperture-infrared sensor system will provide full spherical infrared coverage around the aircraft. In addition to providing warnings of missile launches, information from the system can be displayed on the pilot's helmet visor, permitting the pilot to see "through" the airplane's structure in all directions, and eliminating the need for night-vision goggles. This system will dramatically increase the ability of the F-35 to conduct any type of mission at night. The F-35 team is crafting an exceptionally lethal, survivable, and supportable next-generation strike aircraft. Compared with the aircraft it will replace, the F-35 will provide significant improvements in range, payload, lethality, survivability, and mission effectiveness. Uniting stealth with advanced mission systems and high maneuverability, the F-35 will bring revolutionary twenty-first-century capabilities to the battle space. F-35 key to hegemony – cuts would endanger national security Mather 11 (Don Mather, ( I need to find quals, all I know so far is this guy is a veteran ) June 16, 2011, Reducing our air power and hurting the the local economy, http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times_news/opinion/letters_to_editor/reducingour-air-power-and-hurting-the-the-local-economy/article_9f47972e-5c99-5956-bf60-78bc908e83c2.html, TA) Air superiority has been the keystone in America's defense strategy since WWII, and here in the Keystone State, we have the opportunity to make sure that we maintain that superiority well into the 21st Century. With our current fighter fleet rapidly aging, production on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be ramping up, not slowing down. The plane is primed to be the centerpiece of our next-generation fighter fleet and will give our Navy, Air Force and Marines the ability to respond to today's military challenges. The F-35 is the most advanced fighter ever produced and will secure America's continued air dominance. Unfortunately, some in Congress who are looking to cut corners are threatening the program and putting our national security and Pennsylvania jobs in jeopardy. As veterans, we know all too well the importance of air cover and a well-equipped, well-maintained fighter fleet. For decades, the knowledge alone that American planes can respond quickly and decisively has kept enemies at bay and saved untold lives. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking on our current fleet of fighter planes, many of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s. With countries like China and Russia producing ever more advanced fighters, it is important that the F-35 is delivered to our Armed Forces. When the next major conflict arises, we need to make sure the F-35 is there to support, protect and defend our men and women in uniform. Beyond its strategic military importance, the F-35 provides economic stability to our country and our state, where many components for the plane are being manufactured. Here in Pennsylvania, we have several companies acting as major suppliers for the F-35, producing essential components. These components represent just a fraction of the cutting-edge technology going into each and every F-35 — technology that creates jobs and economic investment in our manufacturing sector. More than 1,000 direct and indirect jobs are supported through F-35 production. Shockingly, some in Congress are looking to delay production and reduce the number of planes ordered, all while artificially extending the life of our aging fleet. This shortsighted move will put men and women in danger. Reducing the number of F-35s we invest in also means less investment into a sector that provides much needed jobs. Now is not the time to waver on this essential new tool in our air combat arsenal. To protect our men and women abroad, as well as our workers here at home, we need to make sure the F35 is fully funded, fully supported and ready to take to the air when it is needed. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 76 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to Heg F-35 cuts jeopardize readiness McQuain 4/22 (Bruce McQuain, Editor at QandO.net Lieutenant Colonel at USAR, 04/22/11, Budget cuts - 400 billion from DoD? What goes, what stays?http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/04/budget-cuts-400-billion-dod-what-goeswhat-stays) Having lived and served in the military during the post-Vietnam drawdown and the end of the Cold War "peace dividend," I'm very aware of the negative impact cuts at DoD had on military readiness during those times. I'm also very aware of how expensive it was in the long run to bring our military back up to necessary levels again, both in troops and equipment. That's not to say that DoD can't save money and shouldn't be tasked to do so, but it also warns us that we need to be exceedingly careful when we commit to cuts there so we are sure that we cut unnecessary costs and not necessary future capbilities. Yet there are again calls out there to cut capabilites, not just cost. What am I talking about? Amazingly after cutting back on the F-22 raptor from an initial buy that was supposed to be in the several hundreds, we ended up with only 187. Consider that this 5th generation air superiority fighter was to replace approximately 800 4th generation air superiority fighters. Is it any wonder, when you cut production like that, that the cost of the airplane shoots up over a 100 million per copy? Of course not. Not only did we see the cost increase, but we cut our capability. Anyone who can make the argument that 187 aircraft can replace 800 others in the same role, do it well and cover all our possible future commitments and contingencies is a wizard. Even the Airforce made it clear that at a minimum they needed about 240 of the aircraft just to cover most of the contingencies they identified. We're hearing rumbles now that the same sort of thing is going to happen to the F-35. The F-35 is different than the F-22 in that it is a strike fighter - meaning it is used in multiple roles, but mostly in support of troops on the ground. It will be the most advanced fighter in the world. Already the F-35's more advanced stealth technology is being streamed to the F-22 to upgrade its stealth capabilities. We have plans on the books to build 2,443 of the F-35. At that production number, the F-35 will cost about the same as a mission capabile 4th generation fighter we're flying today - except it will be stealthy and instead of looking like a beach ball on enemy radar, it will be more like a BB if it is seen at all. It will bring advanced avionics as well. A fused sensor system will be a huge upgrade from the federated system now operational in 4th generation fighters. A federated system means that a pilot, in addition to flying the aircraft, has to monitor all sorts of sensor displays and absorb the information on them. The "fusion" of that information takes place in the pilot's head as he tries to decide what is or isn't a threat. In a fused system, the aircraft's software does that for the pilot and on a single display in front of him identifies threats and helps prioritize and engage them as well. He concentrates on the mission and flying the aircraft. That's a huge technological leap forward, increases survivability incredibly and is exactly how we'll maintain our 60 year edge in the skies. And don't forget - from 5th generation fighters 6th generation fighters are born. But if we begin chopping and chipping away at those planned numbers, and given that we've already radically reduced our F-22 fleet, what F-35s we build are going to be very expensive. Not only that, but reduced numbers will hurt our capabilities. Less airplanes mean fewer availble to fulfill the multiple roles this aircraft must fill. And that could mean troops in combat don't have the close air support they may desperately need at a critical time. While I support spending cuts in general and cuts in cost at DoD specifically, I draw the line at programs where such cuts cost us capability. That would be the case with cuts to the F-35 program. With China in the early stages of developing their own stealth 5th generation fighter and Russia well on the way with its fighter, cuts in our program would be cuts to capability and, in the long run, possibly jeopardize our national security. Intelligent cuts to costs at the Pentagon are a no-brainer. No one is arguing against them. However, cuts to capabilities are not "intelligent cuts" and that's why the F-35 program, among other programs that increase and maintain our combat edge, should be left alone. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 77 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to Asia/Pacific F-35s KEY TO COMPETE WITH CHINA AND PRESERVE ASIA-PACIFIC HEGEMONY FOR THE U.S. PLAN WITH SPACE MILITIARIZATION DOES NOT SOLVE FOR COMPETITION WITH CHINA ONLY F-35s DO, CUTTING F-35s WOULD DESTROY ASIA-PACIFIC DOMINANCE RICHARSON ’10 ( Scholar of Asian and East Asian studies January 10 th 2010) < http://web1.iseas.edu.sg/sino-us-arms-race-is-thegap-closing> US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is in China this week seeking to repair military relations ruptured a year ago when Washington announced a big arms sale to Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a rebel province.Some American and Asian analysts have expressed concern at China’s development of weapons that may counter the dominance of US forces in the Asia-Pacific region – in space, at sea and, most recently, in the air.Last week, photographs appeared on Chinese websites of what purported to be China’s first stealth fighter carrying out runway tests. Quoting Chinese military sources, Japan’s Asahi Shimbun reported that test flights of the twin-engine jet, known as the J-20, were planned as soon as this month, with deployment of the aircraft as early as 2017.Such a timetable would be a considerable advance on most assessments by foreign intelligence agencies. It follows a warning last month by a senior US commander that China, again well ahead of expectations, had developed and started fielding a ballistic missile that may be capable of hitting a US aircraft carriers and other large warships 1,500 kilometres or more from the Chinese coastline.In the past few years, China has shown it could challenge US primacy in space-based satellite communications critical to long-range military operations. China deliberately shot down one of its own orbiting satellites in 2008.The J-20 photographs have prompted speculation that China is hot on the heels of the US and Russia in developing so-called fifth generation stealth combat planes.At present, the US Air Force’s F-22, an air defence fighter, is the world’s only fully operational 5-G stealth aircraft capable of avoiding detection by radar and other sensors. However, the Chinese version is considerably larger, which suggests it may have been designed as a fighter-bomber with a longer range and heavier weapon loads.If this were so, it would add to the concern of many neighbouring countries at China’s rapidly growing ability to enforce its claims to disputed land, island and sea territory, including a vast swathe of the South China Sea in the maritime heart of Southeast Asia.Predicting continuing US “command of the skies” for the next 20 – 25 years, Mr Gates said back in September 2009 that America would have “more than 1,000 F-22s and F-35s before China fields its first fully operational fifth-generation fighter – a gap that will grow well into the 2020s.”The F-35, also an advanced stealth aircraft, is scheduled to start entering training service later this year. However, production of more than 3,000 of the planes for the US and foreign allies will be slowed by cuts in the military budget announced last week.In 2009, the Pentagon decided to reduce funding for the F-22, partly on the grounds that China would not have similar aircraft for at least 15 years.Is it time for a reality check? The performance capabilities of the J-20 are as yet unknown. But it is almost certainly well behind the two US 5-G stealth aircraft, the F22 and F-35, in technical sophistication and ability to evade detection.While the US may have under-estimated some key aspects of China’s military modernization program, a top Navy intelligence officer said in Washington last week that the US should not over-estimate Beijing’s military prowess and that China had not yet demonstrated an ability to use its different weapons systems together in proficient warfare.The officer, Vice Admiral David Dorsett, said that although China had developed some weapons faster than the US expected, he was not alarmed overall. “Have you seen them deploy large groups of naval forces?” he said. “No. Have we seen large, joint, sophisticated exercises? No.”China’s lack of recent combat experience makes it difficult to assess progress in its military transformation. The US has been involved in a wide range of conflicts for much of period since the end of World War Two.China has taken part in only a few conflicts, all of them with nearby countries. Its last large-scale engagement was in 1979, when it invaded northern Vietnam to punish Hanoi for toppling the Beijing-supported Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, but was fought to a standstill by defending troops using mainly Soviet weapons and experience from the Vietnam War.China is reported to be refitting a Soviet-era aircraft carrier for deployment in the South China Sea as soon as next year. It is building two other relatively small carriers, with the first to be launched by 2014. More and perhaps bigger vessels are expected to follow as the Chinese navy gains operational experience. Meanwhile, the US Navy and Air Force are working together to develop a new airborne long-range strike capability. Known as the Air-Sea Battle concept, it would among other things extend the range from China at which America’s 11 giant nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and their escorts can fight and refuel.Mr Gates said in May that the strategy would involve greater use of long-range unmanned aircraft, new sea-based missile defences, and submarines and high-speed Littoral Combat Ships for coastal operations close to target zones.China and the US are in a military modernisation race. China is striving to catch up as fast as possible. The US aims to maintain the big capability gap that has long been in its favour. At stake is the future balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 78 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to Asia/Pacific AND ASIA-PACIFIC DOMINANCY IS KEY TO U.S. HEGEMONY AROUND THE WORLD GERSON ’11 (Political Writer June 20th 2011) < http://www.justicewithpeace.org/node/2816> Bruce asked to say a few words about the U.S. approach to China, about bases, missile defenses and nuclear weapons. Even as the U.S. remains at war in Central Asia and now Yemen and Libya, as Secretary of War Gates and Assistant Secretary of State Campbell repeated in recent weeks, the drive to contain China is driving U.S. military and foreign policies.Two years ago, AFSC hosted a high level delegation from the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament just months after President Obama’s inauguration. In meetings with U.S. officials, we repeatedly heard that the U.S.-China relationship is the most important bi-lateral relationship in the world. In fact, it is widely understood by both Washington and Beijing that the relationship’s essence is competitive interdependence. And, when it comes to military and strategic competition, each side is preparing for the worst. For the U.S., the worst means serious challenges to its hegemony on the eastern periphery of Eurasia, and thus to its global dominance. President Obama recognizes that there are limits to U.S. military power and he therefore turned away from Bush’s unilateralism and back toward Washington’s 20th century style of imperialism: preserving and expanding its dominant role through a hierarchy of multilateral alliances, coalition building, and international organizations. Obama and company are committed to honoring Brzezinski’s geopolitical imperatives. They are reinforcing Washington’s reach and influence across Eurasia by pressing the military build up across the AsiaPacific, deepening its alliances from Japan to India, by creating NATO’s new “strategic concept” which we see at work in Libya, and by working to bring a new generation of what Brzezinski described as “vassal” governments to power on Eurasia’s southern flanks (Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.) The political source of continuity in Obama’s Asia-Pacific policies lies in the analysis articulated most cogently by Joseph Nye, the Assistant Secretary of Defense and a lead player in conceiving and implementing President Clinton’s Asia policies. Nye has repeatedly warned that during the 20th century the dominant powers (the U.S. and Britain) failed to integrate rising powers (Germany and Japan) into their global system, resulting in two catastrophic world wars. It is of utmost importance, Nye argues, to ensure China’s integration into (U.S. dominated) global systems through engagement and, as necessary, military containment to avoid a repetition of the last century’s catastrophic history. More recently Nye wrote that there are “three major powers in the region — the United States, Japan and China — and that maintaining our alliance with Japan will shape the environment into which China is emerging. Yet, as China is integrated into the international system” Nye urges that we but we hedge against the danger that a future and stronger China might turn aggressive.” Reinforcing the commitment to containment, Obama’s National Security Strategy explains that “Our alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the bedrock of security [read U.S. hegemony] in Asia….” It stresses that “Japan and South Korea are increasingly important leaders in addressing regional and global issues…” The “Strategy” states that the U.S. seeks “to pursue a positive, constructive, and comprehensive relationship with China”, but it also warns that “We will monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare… to ensure that U.S. interests and allies… are not negatively affected” Thus, earlier this month as the New York Times reported, at the Shangri-la conference in Singapore Secretary Gates reiterated “that the United States would sustain its military presence and diplomatic involvement in Asia” He pledged that the U.S. will not retreat from its commitments to allies, and will “counterbalance regional threats”, a euphemism for China as the two contend for dominance in the strategically vital and resource rich East and South China Seas. He maintained that “from our forward deployed forces to exercises with regional partners — [we] will continue to play an indispensable role in the stability of the region.” As former U.S. Ambassador to China R. Stapleton Roy put it, this approach means that the U.S. can and should “poke China in the eye” from time to time, as we did during this winter’s Korean crisis by sending the nuclear powered and nuclear capable aircraft carrier the U.S.S. George Washington into the Yellow Sea “because we can.” Remember that in many ways the Yellow Sa is to Beijing what Chesapeake Bay is to Washington. Gates explained that the U.S. is revitalizing and dispersing its bases and military presence “across the AsiaPacific ”to be more resilient and politically sustainable.” He stressed the centrality of U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea and promised that the Pentagon will “enhance the U.S. presence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean.” Gates guaranteed that the Pentagon’s budget will include funding for “air superiority…long-range strike, nuclear deterrence [read first strike capacities], maritime access, space and cyber, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.” In addition to advertising Washington’s new “air-sea battle” strategy, Gates boasted that the U.S. and Australia are deepening naval cooperation, including greater U.S. access to bases there to augment U.S. power in the Indian Ocean, where a U.S. – Chinese-Indian arms race is under way.Elsewhere, the U.S. is seeking the return of U.S. bases to the Philippines, negotiating with Singapore to expand the current access agreement, and threatening the survival of the Chamorro people of Guam with a vast expansion of the U.S. bases there. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 79 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to Asia/Pacific (To give you an idea of the impacts of these bases, let me recall my first meeting with anti-bases activists from Guam twenty-five years ago in Hiroshima. They displayed two maps of Guam. One showed where the small island’s best drinking and fishing waters were located, and the nation’s best agricultural land. The other showed the location of the U.S. bases. They were the same map. Today U.S. bases occupy nearly a third of Guam and massive expansions of the Air Force, Marine and Naval bases is under way, threatening the foundations of Chamorro life, culture and security.) Of course, China, with its resolve never again to suffer the humiliations of Western and Japanese colonialism, and with its surging economy, is hardly supine. Several years ago it signaled its ability to challenge U.S. hegemony in space by shooting down one of its own satellites. It has built up its coastal missile and other military forces to ensure Taiwan’s ultimate reintegration, peacefully or otherwise. Before recently publicly identifying Japan - not the United States - as its primary historic strategic concern, China’s naval and air forces set off alarms by penetrating Okinawan waters and air space. And, the conflict over sovereignty of the Sekaku/Diaoyu Islands (sever large and uninhabitable rocks) provides an excuse to maintain tensions for years to come.There is also China’s growing military presence and exercises in the South China Sea, where it has competing territorial claims for the oil, gas and mineral-rich sea beds with six nations, leading many ASEAN nations to turn to the U.S. to counter Chinese power. Vietnam joined the U.S. in naval military exercise and has even begun discussions about who would be drafted should there be renewed war with China. And, just yesterday we could read that the Philippines is dispatching its largest warship – a World War II era destroyer – to reassert its territorial clams against what it perceives are China’s imperial ambitions.The recent U.S.-Chinese rift began to become serious with the undiplomatic elbows thrown at the Copenhagen climate change summit. Since then, differences over monetary and trade policies, cyber security, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and President Obama’s not uncomplicated meeting with the Dalai Lama. These events were followed by the “military chill.” Rear Adm. Guan Youfei’s “biting lecture on American ‘hegemony’” in the first Strategic and Economic Dialogue and the sharp exchange between Secretary Gates and General Ma Xiaotian at last year’s Shangri-La Dialog were experienced by Washington as unexpected and unwelcome challenges to the respect the hegemon believes is its due. And, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) chose to unveil its post-modern jet fighter on the eve of what was supposed to be Secretary Gates’ confidence visit to Beijing on the eve of the Obama-Hu summit earlier this year. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 80 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 F-35 Key to the Economy F35s KEY TO THE ECONOMY, CUTTING F35s WOULD LEAD TO ANOTHER “GREAT RECESSION” ECKSTROM ’11 (Staff writer for Pickens Sentinel) < http://www.pickenssentinel.com/view/full_story/10675267/article-F-35s-aregood-economic-news> On Thursday, December 9th, the U.S. Department of Defense announced its decision to base many of its new F-35 fighter jets in South Carolina. Two training squadrons and three operational squadron – altogether almost 90 new jets – have been designated for Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. That’s great news, especially given South Carolina’s current economy. The new jets will mean hundreds of new jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in new construction projects for the state. South Carolina’s military bases are vital not just to our national defense, but to our state’s economy as well. In fact, economists say the “Great Recession” might have been much worse in South Carolina if not for our state’s military installations, which provide a tremendous boost to our economy. Recent studies have shown the state’s military installations have an annual economic impact in the billions of dollars.That’s why, in 2003, Gov. Sanford established the S.C. Military Base Task Force, which is responsible for coordinating efforts among the public and private sectors to maintain our significant military presence in South Carolina. I’ve been honored to serve as the group’s chairman since 2003.The Military Base Task Force consists of representatives from the Governor’s Office of Veteran Affairs, the SC Department of Commerce, the Adjutant General’s Office, as well as business and civic leaders from the communities in S.C. that host our federal military installations. Most importantly, our Task Force also includes many highly-respected, senior-ranking military retirees who continue to wield tremendous influence with the Department of Defense.The Military Base Task Force deals with issues affecting military bases and the quality of life of military personnel and their families – issues such as stopping overdevelopment from encroaching on a base’s perimeter, or simply ensuring that the needs of military personnel and their dependents are being met. During the Defense Department’s most recent round of baseclosings in 2005, the Task Force brought together the state’s four military communities (Beaufort, Charleston, Columbia, and Sumter) to present a unified voice on our support of the state's military installations. Our goal was to remind Washington of South Carolina’s vital role in keeping our nation safe and secure. The Military Base Task Force has been supporting Beaufort’s campaign to bring the F35s to South Carolina. These efforts were successful, as is evidenced by the fact that five F-35 squadrons are now on their way to the Palmetto State. (North Carolina’s governor and Congressional delegation also wanted these F-35s for their state, and lobbied the Department of Defense heavily.) I applaud the members of the Task Force for their hard work and dedication, and congratulate them on a job well done. I also applaud our State’s legislative leaders, including Senators Hugh Leatherman (Florence) and Tom Davis (Beaufort), for their critical support of our state’s Military Base Task Force. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 81 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: F-35 Ineffective Critics of the F-35 are uninformed and unqualified Majumdar 08 (Dave Majumdar, Staff Writer at Defense News, 07 November 2008, New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet, http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html, TA) Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future. The JSF accomplishes this feat by relying on its incredible suite of sensors, its stealthy airframe, and a surprising level of agility. The F-35 is not only equipped with the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA), which according to Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley, is the most advanced fighter radar system in the world, but also a host of other sensors. The radar can track an enormous numbers of targets in the air at phenomenal ranges while simultaneously operating air to ground modes, Beesley said. Complementing the radar, the F-35's airframe is also lined with antennas that gather vast amounts of electronic information from the jets surroundings. The system allows the fighter to target and identify the electronic emissions of hostile radars in the air or on the ground with startling precision, Beesley said. The data gathered from these sensors allows the aircraft to track, identify and attack the sources of these signals without giving away the F-35s' position. Furthermore, the F-35 has two separate types of infrared sensors that allow the jet to track targets passively. The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is a system of cameras that feeds an infrared image of the planes' surrounding to the pilots' helmet, Beesley explained. The computer fuses the images from the six cameras and merges the images into a single seamless picture that allows the pilot to see 360 degrees around the aircraft, including through the cockpit floor and indeed the pilots' own body. The DAS also acts as a missile warning system (MWS) that alerts the pilot to incoming missiles. The second infrared sensor, called the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), allows the aircraft to target, track, and identify object in the air or on the ground at long ranges and high resolutions, Beesley said. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 82 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Air Power Key to Heg Next generation Air power key to Heg - deterrence, defending allies, and power projection Goure 10 (Daniel Goure, Ph.D. Dr Goure has held senior positions Department of Defense, spent two years in the U.S. Government as the director of the Office of Strategic Competitiveness in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director, International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, directed analyses of emerging security issues with a special emphasis on U.S. military capabilities in the next century, served as a senior analyst on national security and defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses, April 23, 2010, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/say-goodbye-to-us-air-dominance----and-perhaps-tovictory-in-the-next-war?a=1&c=1171, TA) Some militaries are defeated in battle; others lose the war before the firing even begins. For example, it is the general consensus among military historians that the French military lost in World War Two before the first German panzer had crossed the frontier. A combination of preparing to fight the last war, inadequate investment in modern air and ground power, the wrong organization and French politics basically ensured that Germany would defeat France. The United States may be replicating the French experience. Rather than maintaining control of the high ground and with it control of the initiative in future conflicts, the U.S. Air Force is choosing to just get by. In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz made the following startling statement: “To handle multiplying missions without more people, the Air Force won’t be able to do all its assigned tasks as comprehensively as it once did, and will be aiming instead for simple sufficiency in areas where it’s been accustomed to dominance.” This is akin to the head of the French Air Force saying in the late 1930s that he was willing to cede air superiority to the Luftwaffe. In essence, the Air Force (like the other services) is being worn down by a political leadership that does not know how to limit its international commitments or to limit its employment of the military instrument of national power. The Secretary of Defense has made plain his desire to employ the other instruments of national power, particularly diplomatic and economic, in ways that would take some of the strain off the Department of Defense. He has even offered up resources, something almost unheard of in Washington but necessary as a bribe to the other departments and agencies to pull more weight. Yet, whether it is the war against Al Qaeda, the security of vital U.S. overseas interests or assistance to earthquake-ravaged Haiti, it is the U.S. military that continues to carry the burden. The U.S. Air Force is faced with a series of challenges in the next several decades that could well undermine the ability of the United States to deter aggression, defend key allies and interests or project power into vital regions. First, there are the growing anti-access and air denial threats, including that to U.S. systems. Second is the development of fourth and almost fifth-generation aircraft by potential adversaries. Third is the growing capability and interest of rogue regimes to disperse, conceal and bury critical assets. Finally, there is the effort by current and future adversaries to use complex and inaccessible terrain such as cities, mountains and jungles as their primary defense against ground attack leaving the U.S. with no way to access the enemy except through the air. So how is the Air Force responding to the greatest set of challenges to its ability to dominate the aerospace environment and deliver precision effects where, when and as needed? According to the Chief of Staff it is with “calibrated ambition -- reaching for only those systems that are urgently needed, and with high confidence of near-term success.” While not saying so directly, even when pressed on the question of the F-22 versus the F-35, the Chief’s words imply a willingness to cede at least a measure of air dominance to potential adversaries such as Russia and China. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 83 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Air Power Key to Heg Airpower is more efficient than ground troops and avoids backlash Buono 03 (Major Suzanne C. Buono, Executive Officer to the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, JUNE 2003, MITIGATING THE BACKLASH: US AIRPOWER AS A MILITARY INSTRUMENT OF POLICY) Airpower is also less intrusive and obtrusive than ground forces both as it is employed, and in the countries from which it is employed. This is due, in large measure, to airpower’s ability to conduct strikes and other operations over great distances. From over-the-horizon bases, ships, and from space, airpower has the ability to find its targets and hit (or observe) them while leaving everything in between unscathed. There are many facets to this aspect of airpower employment that cause its use to be viewed with less trepidation than frequently is the use of ground forces. First, unlike a heavy army striking deep into an enemy country, airpower does not leave a swath of destruction in its wake. Perhaps this mental image regarding ground power is based on recollections of early times, wherein armies often sustained themselves by foraging and plundering the land they were passing through. Or, it may merely result from the mental image conjured up by an advancing army devastating everything that lies in front of it and claiming occupation of the territory it traverses. It may also result from, as Dunlap stated above, the experience of ground warfare and its more broad-brush approach to targeting. Regardless of the origin of this perception, land armies wreak a certain and undeniable level of havoc on the territory and peoples in between where they deploy from and their objective, and there is little in the way of a parallel statement that can be made about airpower. In fact, the presence of air assets need not even be felt between their launching point and their target; something all the more true for space-based operations. In that regard, the US use of airpower is certain to evoke less obtrusive images for the international community than would the employment of heavy ground forces. Second, by comparison, because ground forces generally cannot strike from great distances, this limits the potential number of areas from which they can deploy into enemy territory. The preponderance of history dictates, in fact, that when large-scale ground forces are employed from one country, they are going into war in a directly adjacent neighboring country. This is purely a physics problem, wherein sizeable ground forces must be employed from within reasonably close proximity to their target, something not true of the deployment of air forces. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Desert Storm before that, and Vietnam before that are relevant examples of this phenomenon, as in each case ground forces punched in from neighboring countries almost exclusively, while air forces conducted operations from far and wide. The need to deploy ground forces from typically adjacent countries carries with it a unique set of problems. Neighboring countries have gone to battle with each other since the dawn of time, and the ease with which this situation can be precipitated has been, at times, startling. Disputed borders (e.g., Ethiopia and Eritrea, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, India and China), subversive incursion forces (e.g., Iraq and Iran, Albania and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (specifically Serbia), India and Pakistan), and restive nations encamped in the hinterland of sovereign states without a state to call their own (e.g., the Kurds in Northern Iraq, Southern Turkey, Eastern Syria and Western Iran) have all caused bitter conflict and violent dissension over the years. Certainly, adding a third country’s ground forces to the shared-border equation only exacerbates a situation where all parties are likely already casting wary glances and questioning each other’s motives and postures; and the ability to clandestinely deploy forces to the border region of the country they are intending to advance into is virtually nonexistent. One example of this dynamic was the recent deployment of large numbers of ground forces into Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the apprehension and consternation this caused within Iran (who questioned US intentions vis-à-vis staying in Iraq indefinitely), and within Syria (who was concerned their country would be occupied next. Further, because ground forces must be close to the border they will eventually cross, this means retaliatory or preemptive cross-border attacks into the country hosting these forces are more readily provoked and easier to enact than would be the case against air forces that deploy to and strike from a much greater distance. Iraqi Freedom provides another recent example of this, wherein Iraq launched cruise missiles against coalition ground forces marshalling in Kuwait. While it is certainly true that US air forces deployed anywhere are never truly immune from reprisal attacks (especially terrorist-type attacks), the geographic separation between the air forces and their intended target means the impact on the regional situation is not as 27 inflammatory and the air forces are not as easily targeted by conventional means; both of these resulting in putting the host country at less risk of attack. A third beneficial ramification of airpower’s long reach is that its deployment bases can be located in remote areas of large countries, thus making their presence less visible and less obtrusive. Consider the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, a culturally sensitive country. The base’s location placed it far from urban areas at a location where there was little interaction with Saudi locals, something that has historically stirred up additional angst during US deployments to, in particular, Islamic countries. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 84 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Air Power Key to Heg (Relevant to the previous paragraph, a choice of base placement also allowed for maximizing force protection.) Additionally, embodied in the US Air Force’s Global Strike construct is the ability to strike territory anywhere on the globe directly from the continental US (CONUS), without requiring a forward deployment at all. This type of out-of-the-way deployment footprint is not as easy with a large ground force; first, ground force footprints tend to be larger, and second, as stated above, ground forces need to be closer to where they will be employed. This means ground forces are likely to be perched on or near the border they will cross in wartime (assuming other than a purely defensive force), and by proximity to the potential enemy country alone they stir up more anxiety than would remotely-located (or, especially, CONUS-based) air forces. Massive ground force deployments, then, cause more damage both diplomatically and, by extension, physically, to the country that hosts them. This phenomenon can be seen in open source documents and press statements that indicate the deployment of US ground forces to a foreign country tend to spark greater popular protests than do deployments of air forces. Consider the debate that raged in Turkey prior to Iraqi Freedom, and their ultimate refusal to allow the deployment of some 60,000 ground forces to their territory for the then imminent war against Iraq.56 This is in contrast to the fact that US air forces have been deployed to that country in significant number since 1990, largely without incident or major protest. Further, not only do the historically stronger protests against receiving ground forces place or increase diplomatic pressure on sitting host nation governments but, in fact, these protests often cause a form of civil damage of their own, quite apart from anything tied directly to the presence and sustenance of the ground forces themselves. Popular uprisings and subsequent concerns about regime survival in countries that attempted to host US air or ground forces were readily evident during both Allied Force and Enduring Freedom, and will be covered further in Chapters 5 and 6. Airpower sustains hegemony – key to hard and soft power Buono 03 (Major Suzanne C. Buono, Executive Officer to the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, JUNE 2003, MITIGATING THE BACKLASH: US AIRPOWER AS A MILITARY INSTRUMENT OF POLICY) In this paper I make the case for the United States’ increasing need to use primarily airpower to fight its battles. The primary reason is that airpower is the form of US military might that is least likely to antagonize others when employed, while still retaining robust combat capability. Given the post-Cold War ascendancy of the US to the position of world superpower, the potential for wielding this power in such a way that it provokes other states to balance against it, or further enflames radical Islamic terrorist hatreds, is high. US foreign and defense policymakers are in a precarious position; and the importance of striking the best possible balance between demonstrating willingness and ability to actively defend US interests, and not acting in such a fashion that ultimately endangers those interests, cannot be overstated. The key must be to maintain a full spectrum of worldwide military capability while gingerly navigating this new international setting and climate with a vigilant eye on how the US is commonly perceived. Thus, more than merely being concerned with winning or losing its battles, the US today must be concerned with the response it stirs up among allies and enemies alike regarding how it prosecutes those battles; in short, the means has taken on an importance almost on par with the ends. A secondary goal of this paper is to demonstrate that airpower has the capability to achieve a large measure of the policy objectives that are likely to be pursued through military means in the near term. It is not the position of this author that airpower can or should be used to achieve every policy goal the US develops. Nor, even, that when employed it should be employed alone, without also pursuing the parallel tracks of 1 diplomatic, economic, or information options. Further, determining when the tool of military force should be called upon is beyond the scope of this thesis. Instead, I demonstrate that airpower has become a powerful military instrument that, when called upon, can serve well in achieving the objectives set out for it. Without establishment of this latter supposition, showing that airpower is the least provocative form of military power is moot. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 85 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 MPF Key to Heg Prepositioning is the linchpin of US deterrence Hajjar 01 (Sami G. Hajjar, Dr. Hajjar joined the U.S. Army War College as Professor and Director of Middle East Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy. Summer 2001, U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE GULF: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub185.pdf) The presence of vast energy resources and location at the center of the Middle East account for the Gulfs geo-strategic importance and its attraction to major powers. U.S. involvement and military presence dates back to the early part of the last century, and includes a host of political, economic, and geo-strategic objectives. Prior to the Gulf War, U.S. military presence was largely over the horizon, accommodating the sensitivities of local culture. After 1991, it remained deliberately low profile, and yet U.S. presence was criticized due to local perceptions of misconstrued U.S. policies that are harmful to Arab and Muslim interests. The September 11 attack on the United States and subsequent events associated with the war on terrorism have exacerbated negative public attitudes about U.S. policies and engagement in the region. Simultaneously, however, the traditional regimes of the Gulf countries continue to welcome U.S. engagement, regarding it as the cornerstone for the region’s security. Access to oil, security of Israel, and stability and security of the region are identified as perennial U.S. interests. It is argued that U.S. policies for the Gulf are affected by developments elsewhere in the Middle East and often lead to the charge of double standards and bias. The U.S. handling of the peace process and its support for Israel are contrasted with how the United States implements the dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran. U.S. security vs tragedy for the gulf and the defense cooperative agreements it has with Gulf Cooperation Council members that authorize its military presence are detailed. Forward presence and the pre-positioning of equipment are the linchpins of U.S. deterrence strategy and U.S. ability to enforce the United Nations (U.N.) mandated sanctions against Iraq Prepositioning key to military success Snead 05 (Lieutenant Colonel Eugenia H. Snead United States Army, 18 March 2005, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil217.pdf) The only viable alternative to our current strategy of power projection is extensive forward deployment. We can never know with certainty where or when the next conflict will occur or who our next adversary will be. 6 The strategic environment makes it unclear where, or when, or for what strategic purposes U.S. ground forces will find themselves committed to battle in the coming decades. 7 Our current doctrine is based on the initial strategic mobility requirements specified in the 1995 Mobility Requirements Study Bottom-Up Review. It calls for placing the lead Brigade on the ground by C+4, the lead Division by C+12, two heavy Divisions by C+30, and the full Corps (five Divisions and a COSCOM) by C+75. The success of our power projection strategy depends on not just the speed with which combat power can be assembled, but also on how quickly it can be deployed on the battlefield. All large scale deployments consist of three distinct and interrelated segments: fort to port, port to port, and port to foxhole. 8 The Army has designated CONUS bases from which assigned forces deploy as “Power Projection Platforms.” These key bases are equipped with expanded and modernized loading and cargo handling facilities for rapid transport of military forces and equipment to designated ports of embarkation. These modern power projection platforms enable our strategic mobility triad of (strategic airlift, strategic sealift, and prepositioned equipment) to operate at peak efficiency. The strategic mobility triad provides the capability to meet force projection timelines. Historically, 10 percent of material sent to a theater arrives via airlift, while the remaining 90 percent arrives via sealift. 9 There are two types of prepositioning in the triad: prepositioning ashore (APS-1/2/4/5) and prepositioning afloat (APS-3). Prepositioning plays a critical role in rapidly equipping forces deploying to major theaters of war and to smaller scale contingencies. Prepositioning ashore allows heavy equipment to be kept in-theater, near the point at which it will be needed. 10 Prepositioning afloat allows for forward prepositioning of sustainment stocks, unit equipment, and port opening capabilities on Military Sealift Command (MSC) vessels based in Diego Garcia and Guam. These vessels can cruise worldwide in response to any contingency. Together, these assets enhance force projection by allowing CONUS-deployed personnel to be equipped with in-theater stockpiles, which reduce the need for heavy-lift assets during the critical “Early Entry” phase Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 86 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 MPF Key to Heg Maritime Prepositioning Force key to crisis response and readiness Dunford and Usher 09 (Joseph F. Dunford, Jr, U.S. Marine Corps ,Edward G. Usher, III , LtGen, MajGen, U.S. Marine Corps, JANUARY-2009, http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Prepositioning%20Programs%20Handbook%202d%20Edition.pdf) The Marine Corps’ Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) and Marine Corps Prepositioning Program – Norway (MCPP-N) have been operationally invaluable in supporting our Nation’s interests across the world. These two unique programs provide the essential elements needed to support and execute crisis response, global reach, and forward presence. The Marine Corps’ Prepositioning Programs enable the rapid deployment of Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) and/or augment individual Marine units forward deployed. These forces are uniquely capable of strengthening alliances, securing strategic access, and defeating hostile adversaries. MPF and MCPP-N are keystones in the Marine Corps’ capability for setting the conditions for national security. The prepositioning of equipment and supplies to support MAGTFs from Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), to Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) level employment, enables Marine forces to fulfill their role and responsibility as our Nation’s force in readiness. Our prepositioning programs will continue to enable operations across the Joint Operational continuum – including shaping, deterrence, seizing the initiative, domination, stabilization, and enabling of civilian authorities. When combined with the forces and their equipment arriving in the fly-in echelon (FIE), prepositioning programs provide forward deployed equipment and supplies needed to sustain a MEBsized MAGTF for 30 days of operations; thus reducing total strategic lift requirements. Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm (Southwest Asia), Restore Hope (Somalia), and Iraqi Freedom have proven the value of our prepositioning programs. By prepositioning key warfighting equipment and supplies in support of forward presence, global reach, and crisis response, we have significantly reduced the time and strategic lift required to complete force closure of powerful and integrated warfighting capabilities for employment by Combatant Commanders. In turn, the successes and lessons learned from our past operations ultimately drive improvements for the future. Information contained within this handbook provides an overview of our prepositioning programs. When equipment and supplies from the Marine Corps’ prepositioning programs are linked up with our Marines and Sailors it creates a powerful Navy-Marine Corps team with rapid response warfighting capability to protect our Nation’s interests. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 87 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 MPF Key to Heg Prepositioning Program key to readiness – empirics prove MSC, No Date (Military Sealift Command operates approximately 110 noncombatant, civilian-crewed ships that replenish U.S. Navy ships, conduct specialized missions, strategically preposition combat cargo at sea around the world and move military cargo and supplies used by deployed U.S. forces and coalition partners. http://www.msc.navy.mil/pm3/) Military Sealift Command's Prepositioning Program is an essential element in the U.S. military's readiness strategy. Afloat prepositioning strategically places military equipment and supplies aboard ships located in key ocean areas to ensure rapid availability during a major theater war, a humanitarian operation or other contingency. MSC's 31 prepositioning ships support the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Defense Logistics Agency. Prepositioning ships provide quick and efficient movement of military gear between operating areas without reliance on other nations' transportation networks. These ships give U.S. regional combatant commanders the assurance that they will have what they need to quickly respond in a crisis - anywhere, anytime. During a contingency, troops are flown into a theater of operations to rapidly employ the cargo from these ships. Many of MSC's prepositioning ships are able to discharge liquid, containerized or motorized cargo both pierside or while anchored offshore by using floating hoses and shallow-draft watercraft, called lighterage, that are carried aboard. This allows cargo to be ferried to shore in areas where ports are non-existent or in poor condition and gives the nation's military forces the ability to operate in both developed and undeveloped areas of the world. Prepositioning ships include a combination of U.S. government-owned ships, chartered U.S.- flagged ships and ships activated from the Maritime Administration's Ready Reserve Force. All prepositioning ships are crewed by U.S. civilian mariners who work for ship operating companies under contract to the federal government. While most active ships in MSC's Prepositioning Program strategically place combat gear at sea, there are other ships, including: Two high-speed vessels - one that transports Marines, their combat vehicles and their associated gear in and around the Far East; and a second that serves as a platform for a variety of missions worldwide. A chartered offshore petroleum distribution system ship that can deliver fuel from up to eight miles offshore; and Two aviation logistics support ships that are activated as needed from reduced operating status to provide at-sea maintenance for Marine Corps fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. MSC Maritime Prepositioning Ship USNS 1st Lt. Baldomero Lopez is part of Maritime Prepositioning Squadron Two, which operates out of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Prepositioning Ships For All U.S. Forces Sixteen Maritime Prepositioning Force ships support the U.S. Marine Corps; Six Army Prepositioned Stocks-3 ships support the U.S. Army; and Seven Navy, Defense Logistics Agency and Air Force ships support not only those three agencies contained in the name, but also the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army. Maritime Prepositioning Ships are crewed by U.S. merchant mariners who work for private ship operating companies under contract to MSC. Maritime Prepositioning Force Ships Sixteen prepositioning ships strategically position supplies for the U.S. Marine Corps at sea. The ships are laden with a variety of Marine Corps equipment and supplies, including tanks, ammunition, food, water, cargo, hospital equipment, petroleum products and spare parts - ready for rapid delivery ashore when needed. Eight of these ships - called Maritime Prepositioning Ships, or MPS were specially configured for the Marine Corps in the early 1980s. Three ship squadrons each contain four to six Maritime Prepositioning Force ships, as well as other prepositioning ships that are dedicated to other military services. Each MPS squadron carries sufficient equipment and supplies to sustain more than 16,000 Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Navy personnel for up to 30 days. Beginning in 2000, three Maritime Prepositioning Force (Enhanced) ships were added into the existing MPS squadrons, one ship per squadron, to provide critical new capabilities for the Marine Corps. MV Staff Sgt. Edward A. Carter Jr., is an MSC-chartered container ship dedicated to prepositioning Army supplies at sea. Army Prepositioned Stocks-3 Ships MSC's 6 Army Prepositioned Stocks-3 ships strategically place U.S. Army combat equipment at sea to supply and sustain deployed U.S. troops during national crises. Four of the APS-3 ships are mammoth, government-owned cargo ships, called large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships, or LMSRs. Each ship has a cargocarrying capacity of more than 300,000 square feet. MSC’s USNS Soderman, a large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ship used for prepositioning U.S. Army combat equipment at sea, has a slewing stern ramp for rapid loading and off-loading of wheeled and tracked vehicles. LMSRs are ideal for rapid loading and off-loading of Army wheeled and tracked vehicles, as well as other outsized Army equipment. A series of internal and external ramps makes this possible, and huge shipboard cranes allow cargo to be lifted without relying on local port infrastructure. In addition to LMSRs, APS-3 ships include two container ships that store ammunition at sea for the Army. Navy, Defense Logistics Agency And Air Force Ships The most diverse subset of MSC's prepositioning ships is called Navy, Defense Logistics Agency and Air Force ships, or NDAF. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 88 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 MPF Key to Heg These seven ships operate around the world in support of the Department of Defense services and agencies contained in the name, as well as the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army. MSC-chartered prepositioning ship MV Capt. Steven L. Bennett has climate-controlled cocoons on its deck to protect the U.S. Air Force munitions carried aboard. NDAF ships provide support for: The Navy; One high-speed vessel provides a platform for a variety of missions worldwide. The Air Force; Two long-term chartered container ships preposition munitions. The Defense Logistics Agency; A chartered offshore petroleum distribution system ship, capable of transferring fuel from ship to shore, keeps deployed U.S. warfighters supplied with fuel. The Marine Corps; Two aviation logistics support ships can be activated from the Ready Reserve Force to maintain and repair forward-deployed, rotary-wing aircraft at sea. One high-speed vessel supports the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force transporting cargo and military personnel between Okinawa, Japan, and other ports in the Far East. A chartered offshore petroleum distribution system ship delivers fuel from offshore to support Marines ashore. The Army; the same OPDS ship that supports Marines ashore also supports Army ground forces. Strategic Locations Most MSC prepositioning ships are strategically located in three geographic areas and assigned to one of three Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadrons: MPS Squadron One is located in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea; MPS Squadron Two is located at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean; and MPS Squadron Three is located in the Western Pacific Ocean. MSC's two aviation logistics support ships and some of the LMSRs are kept in reduced operating status and berthed in the U.S. A light amphibious recovery craft, or LARC, travels up the stern ramp of an underway MSC Maritime Prepositioning Ship. The LARC, working in conjunction with prepositioning ships, transported water from island to island in the Maldives following the devastation caused by a tsunami. Afloat Prepositioning: Rapid Response For U.S. War Fighters For nearly three decades, MSC's prepositioning ships have been key to the combat readiness of the nation's armed forces. The highvolume, cargo-carrying capacities of MSC's prepositioning ships have enabled rapid deliveries of combat-ready U.S. supplies and equipment, including out-sized vehicles, to overseas areas in crisis. These urgently needed deliveries could not have occurred as quickly, efficiently or cost effectively by any other means. Prepositioning ships have been powerful firstresponders, playing a series of decisive roles in support to the nation's combat forces. These ships delivered the first sizable amounts of armored equipment to deployed U.S. forces during both the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia from 1992 to 1993. Later, the ships demonstrated their value again as they provided extensive support for Operation Enduring Freedom beginning in 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom beginning in 2003. In 2010, MSC prepositioning ships were among the first vessels to arrive off the coast of Port-au-Prince, Haiti carrying humanitarian supplies for the international earthquake relief effort. Today, afloat prepositioning continues to give deployed U.S. war fighters an edge, ensuring fast delivery ashore of the earliest arriving equipment and supplies. As the global war on terrorism continues, MSC's prepositioning ships are an essential ingredient in the nation's defense. U.S. forces can remain confident that in times of national crisis, MSC prepositioning ships deliver. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 89 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SQ Prepositioning Solves Current Prepositioning programs are ineffective and outdated Nathanson 06 (MAJOR DAVID NATHANSON, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, PREPOSITIONING REALIGNMENT, ACADEMIC YEAR 2005-2006, http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada508426.pdf) The current Marine Corps Prepositioning Programs are not in line with the strategic, fiscal, and operational realities of the future. The enemies of the future, the type and focus of future operations, and the Navy-Marine Corps vision of the future have changed since the inception of the NALMEB and MPF Programs in the late 1970s early 1980s. The current prepositioning programs need to be adjusted to support how, where, and why the Marine Corps will conduct operations in the future. Small wars and MOOTW will dominate the operational landscape that the Corps will find itself operating. Seabases will enable the Corps to assemble at sea and move directly to an objective area without having to stop and build up forces in the area of operation. It is likely that the Marine Corps will find itself operating in the littorals in third world regions that are struggling to keep pace with the rest of the developed world. Traditional mechanized combined arms warfare will not be the norm for future Marine Corps operations. Humanitarian Operations (HA), Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO), Disaster Relief Operations (DA), Peacekeeping (PKO) and Peace Enforcement Operations (PEO) are exactly the types of operations the Corps can expect to conduct with increasing frequency in the future Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 90 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: MPF Too Costly FMPF would save the DOD 2.7 billion dollars Arkedis, 10 (Jim Arkedis, director of PPI's National Security Project, Deficit Commission and Defense Spending: A Scorecard, November 18th, 2010, http://progressivefix.com/tag/navy%E2%80%99s-future-maritime-prepositioning-force) The only illustrative cut in the Bowles-Simpson plan that I whole-heartedly disagree with is the notion of canceling the Navy’s Future Maritime Prepositioning Force. These plans are currently under study, and if executed correctly, could end up saving money while allowing the Navy to project force more efficiently in an era of restrained budgets. There’s still work to be done here, and at $2.7 billion in potential savings, isn’t exactly a budget buster. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 91 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***NASA Tradeoff DA*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 92 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 NASA Tradeoff 1NC A. The Space Launch System is being funded now—funds were redirected Vieru 7/14 (Tudor Vieru is a staff writer. July 14 2011 “House Committee Kills US Leadership in Space” http://news.softpedia.com/news/House-Committee-Kills-US-Leadership-in-Space-211400.shtml JT) Members of the US House Appropriations Committee have adopted the bill that cancels the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) NASA is developing, two satellite missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and severely hampers progress on many other missions. The vote on a 2012 spending bill took place yesterday, July 13, and saw the panel providing NASA with pre-2008 funding levels. The level of funds the agency will receive is nearly $2 billion below what US President Barack Obama proposed. This means that the agency will not have receive enough money to complete the JWST, which was billed as Hubble's successor. At the same time, the agency was awarded nearly $2 billion for completing the Space Launch System (SLS), America's next heavy-lift rocket. B. Space development is costly – launch costs are ten thousand dollars per pound Thomas Paul Gabriele Jr, Captain, USAF, 3/07, “ACTIVE CONTROL OF A THIN DEFORMABLE IN-PLANE ACTUATED MIRROR,” Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Graduate School of Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?moduleid=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe670c0822a153&mode=user&action=lresearch&objectid=3acbac26-86d8-4b4a-8765-b0fdc0fba152 Traditional large glass mirrors are not a viable option for space applications because their rigidity limits the mirror diameter which can be placed on orbit. Capabilities of current generation launch vehicles are limited to approximately four meters. Moreover, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, launch costs currently average around $10,000 per pound for a geostationary launch. These costs, coupled with the large areal density of glass, make traditional optics in space costly [38]. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 93 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 NASA Tradeoff 1NC C. Plan causes NASA to make massive cuts—SLS will be the first to go Krueger 7/19 (Curtis Krueger, Times Staff Writer July 19, 2011 “After the space shuttle, uncertainty on where NASA is going next” http://www.tampabay.com/news/science/space/article1181162.ece JT) After the space shuttle Atlantis lands on Thursday, NASA wants to blast ahead with ambitious new plans for space entrepreneurs, orbiting telescopes and a journey to Mars. But here's the problem: NASA is preparing to unveil its design for a big, new expensive rocket at the very time that the country's leaders are staring each other down over a national debt crisis. NASA also is pouring hundreds of millions into private companies that are creating their own amazing spaceships, but with uncertain congressional support. And the next big space telescope — the one that could make Hubble look like a 10-year-old car on the lot — has gotten so late and over-budget that a U.S. House committee recommended killing it. "(NASA Administrator) Charles Bolden and his colleagues are between an asteroid and an icy body," said Bill Nye, executive director of the Planetary Society, referring to the debate over designs of the big rocket. "They have this mandate to create this rocket with no place to go." It all adds up to great uncertainty about what NASA plans to do next. For 30 years, American astronauts flew on space shuttles. Shuttle crews helped build the International Space Station and deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. But the program also was criticized by those who said it used a huge share of NASA's budget without making equally large scientific accomplishments. Now NASA takes a new direction, laid out by the White House and financed by Congress. For human space flight (as opposed to unmanned scientific missions), the agency essentially has a two-part plan: • Spur development of the commercial space industry, including companies that are currently designing and building their own spacecraft. Some of these companies plan to take astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA. Some plan to take paying tourists into orbit. • Take astronauts farther into "deep space" than humans have ever gone — such as to an asteroid or Mars. NASA is designing a new rocket dubbed the "heavy lifter" for this job, and a space capsule that would ride on top. Along with these projects, NASA plans to continue staffing the International Space Station, using it for years to come for scientific research. Until NASA succeeds in fostering the next generation of spaceships, the United States will pay Russia about $63 million per flight to take American astronauts to the station. The transition is not going smoothly. Nye, who became famous as television's "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and who now heads the proexploration Planetary Society, hammers against the heavy lift rocket idea because, he says, it has no clear mission. He's not the only one calling it a rocket to nowhere. Suggesting this rocket is designed more by politicians than engineers, he calls it the "Senate Launch System" — a play on its official name, the "Space Launch System." The heavy lifter is designed to be able to go different places in the solar system, but this is too mushy for people like Nye, who says a rocket should be designed for a more specific and important scientific mission — such as sending astronauts to Mars to seek evidence of life. "Where did we come from and are we alone?" he said. NASA should focus on deep issues like this, which "can only be answered with space exploration." On the other hand, U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, a Republican who represents part of the Space Coast, strongly supports the heavy lift rocket as a way to restore U.S. leadership in space exploration. But even he says NASA's statements about the plan are too vague. "They've said they want to land on an asteroid sometime. Maybe do some Mars exploration sometime. I mean there's no clear mission," Posey said. Former astronaut Winston Scott, a dean at the Florida Institute of Technology, supports the heavy lifter and capsule, but says he would like to hear President Barack Obama make a stronger endorsement of the plan. "I would hope that he would be very, very definite: We will be on Mars by such and such a date," he said. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a key player on congressional space matters, said people who call the heavy lifter a rocket to nowhere "don't know what they're talking about." He said the rocket is designed to evolve, making use of technologies that haven't yet been devised but that will be needed before attempting a journey to Mars. He acknowledged the funding situation is challenging and said the House went about "whacking the budget" by voting to cut more than $1-billion from NASA, including a deep cut to the commercial space plans. But he also said NASA has enlisted outside financial experts who can give a clear view of the heavy lifter's future costs. He said some of the House's cuts would be restored. Now that Atlantis is about to make its last landing, former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman said he knows some people are saying "that the end of the space shuttle means the end of space flight. And I'm looking at it as exactly the opposite." Reisman works for SpaceX, the company that designed and built its own space capsule, launched it into orbit and retrieved it from the Pacific Ocean. That's just the beginning, he said. He likes to think about a time when "people will be able to take their vacations on Mars rather than on Hawaii. … The potential really exists for a really exciting golden age of space flight." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 94 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 NASA Tradeoff 1NC D. SLS is key to US space leadership Jackson 11 (Morris Jackson is a US representative for Alabama. He attended Duke University and studied law at the Universtiy of Alabama School of Law. 07/08/11 New launch systems hold potential for space explorationhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/technology/170465-new-launch-systems-hold-potential-for-space-exploration JT) We are now at a crossroads. Long pioneers in spaceflight, the United States faces the possibility of depending on foreign nations for the superior technologies that space access provides. Yet, the United States can and must remain the international leader in space exploration, particularly in the area of human spaceflight. NASA is a reflection of American exceptionalism, setting America apart technologically, scientifically and economically. It is crucial in the days ahead that NASA and White House leaders move forward with the heavy-lift space launch system. The United States Congress is disappointed with delays in this vital program. Now is the right time for NASA to follow the guidance provided in the FY 2010 NASA Authorization Act and the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution. The space launch system, built in conjunction with the core stage and the upper stage of a 130 metric ton rocket, is critical for NASA to maintain the heavy-lift capability required for these important missions. Atlantis’ final flight is an opportunity to look forward, not back. The next phase of our journey into space holds untold potential. From the Lewis and Clark expedition in the time of Thomas Jefferson, to the Moon landing of our own day, exploration has led to discovery, innovation and American exceptionalism. America must keep NASA and its central mission of human spaceflight strong. We must continue to expand the human horizon and, by doing so, we will ensure America’s continued leadership in space and in the world. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 95 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 NASA Tradeoff 1NC E. That’s key to overall US hegemony Stone 2011, Christopher, policy analyst and strategist, “American leadership in space: leadership through capability,” The Space Review, Mar. 15, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1 The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion’s share of the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner rather than later. Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world “hegemony” or “superiority” as dirty words. Some seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of access to space for the purpose of advancing their “security, prestige and wealth” through exploration like we do. However, to maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion, space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security, prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as “congested, contested, and competitive”; the quest for excellence is just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space. If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as the advancement of its national “security, prestige and wealth” by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that may desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives “worthy of a great nation.” F. Extinction Khalilzad 1995, Zalmay, Rand Analyst, Envoy to Afghanistan, “Losing the Moment,” Washington Quarterly, Spring Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and lowlevel conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 96 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Uniqueness*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 97 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No NASA Cuts Now Current NASA cuts will be restored John Timmer, 7/8/11, http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/hubbles-successor-may-be-casualty-of-governmentcutbacks.ars Instead of a budget increase, the House Appropriations Committee is now considering a 2012 budget that would see NASA's budget drop by $1.6 billion next year; the Obama administration had requested a slight increase. The proposed budget would explicitly kill the JWST, leaving NASA without a new, updated observatory for the indefinite future. This budget is still a long way from becoming law, so there's a chance that the funding will be restored during future negotiations. But given the large number of programs that appear to be on the chopping block, a billion dollar commitment to NASA seems like the JWST's most significant hurdle yet. U.S. government continues to be leader in space spending Reuters, 4/9/08 “Global space spending up 11 percent to $251 billion”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-spaceeconomy-idUSN0836688320080409 More than half of global space economic activity stemmed from purchases of commercial satellite-based products and services. Another 25 percent came from U.S. government spending, according to The Space Report 2008 released by the Space Foundation, a Colorado Springs, Colorado, nonprofit advocacy group. Activity in two commercial satellite services, television and the U.S.-funded Global Positioning System navigation tool, expanded the quickest, the 116-page report said. "All sectors of space continue to grow despite economic woes in many countries," said Marty Hauser, who heads research and analysis for the group. "The space economy appears to be poised for steady growth in coming years." The United States accounted for 81 percent of global government space spending, said the report, citing "available information." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 98 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No SLS Cuts Now SLS will be funded—stimulates jobs—that’s all that matters Simberg 6/23 (Rand Simberg is an aerospace engineer. June 23 2011“Questions About NASA's New Heavy-Lift Rocket Plan” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/3-questions-about-nasas-new-heavy-lift-rocket-plan3 JT) Ultimately, jobs—and not actual progress in space—seem to be the driving force of the program. Even if it never actually flies, SLS may still meet its primary mission requirement: delivering federal funding to the states and districts of those in Congress with a particular interest in NASA's budget. Whether that's the best thing for U.S. space policy is another story. Funding likely—industrial base Hall 11 (The Honorable Ralph M. Hall (R-TX), Chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. March 30, 2011 “A Review of NASA’s Exploration Program in Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry” http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/033011_hall.pdf JT) But as we have seen from the FY2012 budget request, the administration is trying to ignore the thrust of this act. We expect NASA to proceed with the uninterrupted development of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) that builds upon – and takes maximum advantage of – the significant work and capabilities that already exist. There is broad agreement on the importance of minimizing disruptions to an industrial base that is already reeling from the end of the space shuttle program. NASA should make the most expeditious choices possible to minimize the adverse impact on the aerospace workforce and industrial base. If further bidding is required – and I’m not suggesting that it is NASA should ensure it has truly qualified bidders that should be called upon to demonstrate their financial strength and technical capabilities to give some assurance that they can follow-through and finish what they begin. General consensus Johnson 7/12 (EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, REPRESENTATIVE, HOUSE. 7-12-11 “SCIENCE DEMOCRATS URGE ADMINISTRATION TO LET NASA GET ON WITH DEVELOPING THE NATION'S FUTURE HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION VEHICLES” l/n JT) In his statement for the record, Acting Ranking Member of the Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Jerry Costello (D- IL) echoed Congresswoman Johnson's concern about the need to come to grips with a final SLS decision. He stated: "It is very clear that this Committee strongly supports NASA moving forward as quickly and efficiently as possible to develop our next generation human spaceflight transportation systems, SLS and MPCV. It is critical that we solidify and focus these programs in the near term so we do not lose the talented aerospace workforce that is facing an uncertain future with the end of the Shuttle Program. While we have a vision for what the future of NASA's mission is, we need to move confidently to get there. The Administration and NASA must lead the way." Critical to US leadership Jagirdar 2010 (Sarabjit, “Obama Sets Eyes on Mars,” Indiana Pioneer, 17 Apr 2010, L/N) "By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said and went on to outline the Mars plan. Development of breakthrough propulsion systems and other advanced technologies will be critical to deep space exploration, he said and challenged NASA to break through these barriers. After Obama's address, Republicans stepped up their attack over scrapping the Constellation programme and termination of the space shuttles. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said that without a shuttle, US space flight options would continue to depend on countries like Russia and China. "The President's plan fails to guarantee American leadership in space and the American people and Congress will not settle for it," said the other Texas Senator John Cornyn. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 99 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No SLS Cuts Now US leadership, jobs, and STEM base Ken Kramer (reporter for Universe Today) 3/20/10 “Obama made mistake cancelling NASA’s Constellation; Sen. Bill Nelson” http://www.universetoday.com/60294/obama-made-mistake-cancelling-nasas-constellation-sen-bill-nelson/ JT) “The President made a mistake,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D) of Florida in referring to President Barack Obama’s recent decision to completely terminate Project Constellation from the 2011 NASA Budget. “Because that is the perception. That he killed the space program.” “I know him [Obama] to be a vigorous supporter of the manned space program”, Nelson added. “But he certainly has not given that impression. The President is going to have to prove that when he comes here on April 15,” said Nelson. He was referring to the upcoming “Space Summit” scheduled to take place at or near the Kennedy Space Center on April 15 Constellation was the designated human spaceflight successor program to the Space Shuttle program which is currently planned to shut down by the end of 2010. Comprised of the Ares 1 and Ares 5 booster rockets and Orion manned capsules, Constellation would have sent humans flying to exciting destinations of exploration beyond low earth orbit for the first time since the Apollo lunar landings ended in 1972. The ambitious targets included the Moon, Mars, Asteroids and Beyond. Sen. Nelson made his remarks on March 19 at a public space forum co-hosted by Brevard Community College in Cocoa, Florida ,which is the local college located only a few miles distant from KSC and also by the local newspaper Florida Today. Nelson was joined by KSC Director Bob Cabana, a former astronaut who flew 4 space shuttle missions. Over 100 residents attended the space forum. Up to 9000 workers at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) are fearful of swiftly losing their jobs and livelihoods in the aftermath of the imminent dual cancellation of the Shuttle and Constellation programs. Tens of thousands more jobs will be extinguished as well in other states across the US. “By saying they were cancelling the Constellation program, the perception is that the President is killing the manned space program”. “The President made a mistake. He made a mistake because he did not stand up and lay out his budget for the space program and outline what his goal is, which is Mars, and how we should go about getting there for the space program. The President should have used the word restructure not cancel with regard to Constellation”. President Obama’s cancellation of Project Constellation has been vigorously criticized by key members of both houses of the US Congress, including Democrats and Republicans, since the moment that word first leaked of the Presidents decision to kill the moon program announced by President George Bush in 2004. Many political and industry leaders have harshly labeled this decision as an “Abdication of US Leadership in Space”, which amounts to nothing less than a “US Space Surrender” that will begin the “Death March of US Human Spaceflight”. They also fear that the massive job cuts will result in catastrophic devastation to the local effected economies as well as a swift erosion of the science and technology base across America. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 100 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: No SLS—Obama Obama will effectively institute SLS—failure to would destroy his presidency Whittington 7/17 (Mark Whittington is a writer and space policy analyst residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of "Children of Apollo," an alternate history novel set during the early space program and "The Last Moonwalker." Mr. Whittington also writes numerous articles about space topics in USA Today, the LA Times, the Houston Chronicle, the online magazine Washington Dispatch, and internet content sites Finetuning.com and AssociatedContent.com. Jul 17, 2011“Is NASA Diverting Funding from the Space Launch System?” http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-diverting-funding-space-launch-system-192800353.html JT) The Obama administration is playing a very dangerous game. United States senators and congressmen are not accustomed to seeing their desires flouted or laws they pass violated. The next step will likely be an official investigation, with subpoenas and people sweating before the klieg lights while being asked questions by unsympathetic politicians. If there is even a hint of law breaking, look for a request for a special prosecutor. Then "launchergate" will get very ugly very quickly, since Democrats as well as Republicans will want both answers and revenge. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 101 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Earth Sciences Cuts Now NASA’s Earth Science missions has funding, but fragile Brinton 11, Turner, Space News Staff, 3/7/11, http://www.space.com/11050-white-house-nasa-earth-science-cuts.html While NASA’s Earth Science Division fared better in the president’s 2012 budget proposal than other parts of the agency, the division stands to receive some $1.7 billion less between 2010 and 2015 than forecast just last year. That spending plan, which called for giving Earth science a growing share of a NASA budget expected to surpass $20 billion within four years, included enough funding to build and launch all four top-tier decadal survey missions by the end of 2017. The NASA budget plan unveiled Feb. 14 puts last year’s growth plans on hold. The agency’s overall spending would be frozen at $18.7 billion, and Earth science, after receiving a $400 million boost for 2012, would remain flat at $1.8 billion through at least 2016. Adding to NASA’s budget woes, the president’s 2011 budget was never enacted, leaving the agency and the rest of the federal government funded at typically lower 2010 levels under stopgap spending measures, the latest of which expires March 4. Richard Anthes, president of the Boulder, Colo.-based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and a co-chairman of the committee that produced the Earth science decadal survey, said he was disappointed to learn CLARREO and DESDynI have been indefinitely deferred. But he said tabling the two missions is preferable to requiring every Earth science mission to make due with less. “They’ve decided to basically reduce the funding greatly to these two missions and put them on the side of the road,” Anthes said in a Feb. 25 interview. “I think that strategy at least makes sense. If you don’t have enough money to do everything, cancel some of them or put some of them on indefinite hold and continue making good progress on the others.”. NASA’s Earth Science missions gaining funding now Piltz 10, senior associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2/2/10, http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/02/president-obama%E2%80%99s-fy2011-budget-has-21-funding-increase-for-usgcrpclimate-science-research/ The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) budget includes a bold new investment in climate science. NASA’s Earth science program conducts first-of-a-kind demonstration flights of sensors in air and space in an effort to foster scientific understanding of the Earth system and to improve the ability to forecast climate change and natural disasters. The President has directed NASA to accelerate the development of new satellites that the National Research Council recommended as Earth science priorities, in addition to flying several research satellites currently in development, conducting a campaign to monitor changes in polar ice sheets, and pursuing enhancements to climate models. NASA will also develop and fly a replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), a mission designed to identify global carbon sources and sinks that was lost when its launch vehicle failed in 2009. NASA’s Earth science program conducts first-of-a-kind demonstration flights of sensors in air and space in an effort to foster scientific understanding of the Earth system and to improve the ability to forecast climate change and natural disasters. The Budget accelerates the development of new satellites the National Research Council recommended as Earth Science priorities. The Budget also supports several research satellites currently in development, a campaign to monitor changes in polar ice sheets, and enhancements to climate models. In addition, the Budget provides funds for NASA to develop and fly a replacement for the Orbiting Climate Observatory, a mission designed to identify global carbon sources and sinks that was lost when its launch vehicle failed in 2009. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 102 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Earth Sciences Cuts Now Earth Science missions gaining funding now Piltz 10, senior associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2/2/10, http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/02/president-obama%E2%80%99s-fy2011-budget-has-21-funding-increase-for-usgcrpclimate-science-research/ Alongside major new investments in clean energy development, President Obama’s FY2011 Budget proposes $2.56 billion in funding for climate and global change research conducted under the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) umbrella. This $439 increase over the FY2010 level brings climate research funding to a level higher than under any previous administration dating back to 1989. Climate Change Research and Development is described in the Analytical Perspectives volume of the President’s Budget, on page 342 of the Research and Development section: “The Budget proposes $2.6 billion for the USGCRP, which integrates Federal research and solutions for climate and global change. The 2011 Budget supports scientific research and applications to support the goals set forth in the program’s strategic plan. These activities can be grouped under the following areas: improve our knowledge of Earth’s past and present climate variability and change; improve our understanding of natural and human forces of climate change; improve our capability to model and predict future conditions and impacts; assess the Nation’s vulnerability to current and anticipated impacts of climate change; and improve the Nation’s ability to respond to climate change by providing climate information and decision support tools that are useful to policy makers and the general public.” NASA’s Earth Science missions slowly gaining funding from new budget cuts. Geospatial World 11, world’s largest geospatial technical resource, 6/8/11, http://www.geospatialworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22378%3Anasa-increasing-earth-science-researchbudget&catid=72%3Abusiness-market-survey-research&Itemid=1 Washington DC, US: Euroconsult along with the consulting firm Omnis announced the findings of a study foreseeing a significant shift in NASA spending toward Earth science and R and D programmes and away from legacy spaceflight activities. According to the report "NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016," NASA's budget, which will remain flat at around USD 18.7 billion for the next five years, will also be characterised by significant shifts from space operations to technology development and science. With the shift in budget authority, NASA Centres focused on Earth observation, space technology, and aeronautics will see increases in funding, while those involved in human spaceflight will see major funding reductions. Indeed, the termination of the space shuttle programme will lead to a budget cut over USD 1 billion for space operations, resulting in a 21 percent budget cut for the Johnson Space Center. Overall, the agency's budget for R and D will account for about 50 percent of all NASA spending. "Budget allocation across Centres will vary greatly," said Steve Bochinger, President of Euroconsult North America. "As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from Shuttle operations to Human Exploration Capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the budget will be redirected to a range of technology development programs. Likewise, as NASA shifts its science mission focus away from space science to Earth science, the science budget will be redistributed among centres." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 103 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Earth Sciences Cuts Now NASA’s Earth Science has plenty of money now Courtland 9, associate editor at IEEE Spectrum, 5/8/09, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17097-earth-science-gets-boost-innasa-budget.html The White House would like to boost NASA's Earth science activities by $1.2 billion over five years, according to a 2010 budget request announced on Thursday. According to the request, the agency's earth observation programme would outstrip that of its planetary science division by late 2013. Under the president's budget, NASA would receive $4.5 billion in 2010 for science, a $26 million decline from 2009 funding levels passed by Congress. But the agency's science directorate also received a $400 million boost in an economic stimulus package passed earlier this year. The longer-term projections in the science budget also include an increase. "We're very pleased with this budget," Ed Weiler, the associate administrator for the agency's science mission directorate, told reporters on Thursday. Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, the agency would get some $1.2 billion more for science, including stimulus money. "Over those five years, we're seeing an extra $1.2 billion over the budget we had last year. This increase is entirely in the earth science arena," Weiler told reporters. According to the request, funding for NASA's earth science programme would increase to $1.65 billion beginning in late 2013. At that point the programme would outstrip NASA's planetary science programme in funding, receiving an extra $17 million in fiscal year 2014. The boost will help accelerate the schedules of two Earth-observing satellite missions by one year, Weiler said. The Soil Moisture Active and Passive mission, which measures soil moisture levels globally, would launch as early as 2013. ICESat-II, which will track changes in ice cover at the poles, could launch as early as 2014. Both missions were identified as priorities in an independent 2007 report. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 104 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Telescope Cuts Now Empirics prove talks of slashing are just posturing and rhetoric—the telescope is almost finished and enriches human spirit Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT) It's not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. But that just makes the cancellation of the Webb seem worse. "It's a double whammy," says Natalie Batalha, a high-ranking member of the science team for the Kepler probe, the spectacularly successful planet-hunting mission that's been delivering discovery after discovery since its 2009 launch. "The whole community has sacrificed to fund [the James Webb Space Telescope]. Everyone was unhappy, but we all knew how valuable it would be. And now you have Congress talking about canceling it." (See "Kepler Telescope Finds Swarm of New Worlds.") What makes the Webb so valuable is, first of all, its huge light-gathering mirror — more than 21 ft. (6.4 m) across, compared with Hubble's 7.8 ft. (2.4 m). It's so big that the mirror can't go up as a single piece of glass. Instead, it's made of 18 smaller mirrors that will unfold in space to form a mosaic. Since fainter objects are also generally older and more distant, the Webb will be able to study galaxies, dust clouds, and cosmic processes at the earliest stages of the history of the universe. Better yet, unlike the Hubble telescope, the Webb is designed to see mostly in infrared light — the kind emitted not only by distant galaxies but also by planets. The telescope won't be able to take pictures of earthlike planets at distant stars — they're too faint and too close to their stars, even for the Webb — but it can pick out bigger planets and give astronomers a sense of what they're made of and how they formed. (See "Deep Space Photos: Hubble's Greatest Hits.") Beyond that, scientists have already made enormous progress on the project, not only on manufacturing the mirrors for the Webb but also in developing electronic cameras to take maximum advantage of those mirrors — the same sort of technology that lets the Hubble take such fantastic images and do such extraordinary science. After so much money has been sunk into the work, it would be insane, say scientists, to throw it all away. Certainly, Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is now a vast, $2 billion doughnut-shaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. (Watch TIME's video "Herschel: The Telescope for Invisible Stars.") Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes; so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to. On the other hand, even the budget cutters in Congress would probably agree that it's a good thing for America to be the world's leader in science and technology. And they might even agree, if pressed, that plenty of things are worth doing simply because they enrich the human spirit. Back in 1969, the Cornell particle physicist Robert Wilson went before Congress to testify in favor of building an earlier generation of accelerator. How, a Senator asked him, would this project help improve the security of the country? "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country," answered Wilson, "except to make it worth defending." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 105 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Telescope Cuts Now Uniqueness goes neg—Hubble was 3 times over budget and still got done—Webb is too important Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy” http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT) TURNER: Well, I think the Webb is the successor, as you said, to the Hubble Space Telescope. And in every dimension, it's a quantum leap: seven times the collecting area. It will be a million miles from Earth at L2, which is a much better observing site. It will go in the infrared. And the importance of the infrared is the most interesting things in the universe have their light in the infrared, so distant objects where it's red-shifted, cool things that are forming like planetary systems, and also things that are shrouded by dust, you can see through the dust in the infrared. And so the science goals of the James Webb Space Telescope are to look at the first stars and galaxies, to watch galaxies being assembled from their individual parts, stars and dark matter and so on and so forth, image planets and perhaps find evidence for water on the planets and watch the birth of stars and planetary systems. I think in one short statement, you know, Hubble revolutionized astronomy, and I think the Webb telescope has just as much or even more potential. FLATOW: Ron, wasn't the Hubble over budget, too? COWEN: Yes, it was, by - it was I think maybe triple what its original budget was, something like that. And, I mean, you know, it just seems to me this is what - actually, I was speaking to Alan Boss this morning, who is the he's chair of a subcommittee that advises NASA. And what he's saying is that, you know, okay, if you want to punish NASA, well, this is not like a trip to the woodshed, this is like a trip to the guillotine and that, you know to kill the whole mission doesn't, I think, make sense. There have been a lot of cost overruns, and, you see there's a lot of pressures. In the article I wrote in April for Science News, even when this mission was first proposed something like 15 years ago, people were afraid to say how much it would really cost. And Mike Griffin, who is a former administrator of NASA, said, you know, it's a game of you lie, and I'll swear to it. But Congress is, in a way, part of this game because if the mission perhaps - if the actual budget was stated in the first place for how much it would really cost, they may - people fear at least that they would say no, forget about it, we'll never do something for $5 billion or $6.5 billion. TURNER: Maybe I could put that in perspective a little. So this is a very, very ambitious project. And about a year ago, Senator Mikulski was worried about how the project was proceeding. And I think what started the sequence of events that led to what the House did last week was this report that came out, led by Casani, the Casani reporter, the independent cost review panel. And basically what they said was this project is going to cost at least $1.5 billion more than one thought. So that would put it closer to $7 billion. That it has been mismanaged, but money has not been wasted. So the real issue is what Ron was saying, is that the mismanagement was headquarters and Goddard kind of playing footsy and not being honest with the real cost or the schedule. And, you know, to again put it in perspective, right now it's about 75 percent done. An analogy I heard the other day, it's as if you're putting together an airplane or a car, and you've ordered parts from around the world, and you get a report that all the parts are made, and all that we have left to do is to assemble it. So we've got most of the pieces together, and now is the time to assemble it. More than half of the money has been spent. There are no technical hurdles. I should have said that. The Casani panel said there are no technical hurdles. This is very, very ambitious, but they have surmounted the technical hurdles. They just need more money to get this done. Now, given the current situation with our budget - and this is something I'm not qualified to comment on because I'm a scientist and very excited about this, this country has real budgetary problems. And the question is: Who are we really punishing if we cancel this project, where we spent close to $4 billion, and there's only, you know, $3 billion left to spend? Who are we punishing? Is that teaching NASA a lesson, or are we being pennywise and pound foolish? COWEN: I think the problem also is that each year that this mission is delayed and this is also what the Casani report said - it's going to cost more money and more money and more money. And the fear is that it will cost so much if you don't give it the funding it needs now that if it didn't - if it wouldn't get launched in 2022 or something, it wouldn't get launched at all because it would be that much more costly. And that was the problem all along because it was originally set for launch in 2010 or 2011, and each year that it didn't get the money it needed, it cost more and more money. You have to keep personnel together and everything, and it just cost more. FLATOW: But is there not something to the point that if there were - if everybody was playing this game of what it really cost, and there was, I'll use the word deception early on because we were winking and nodding to each other about what the real cost of it should be, isn't there some justification in saying, you know, you guys should have been up front with us, and we could have made a decision then on this? TURNER: Well, let me comment on that. I think most - what NASA really does is rocket science, and it's not building widgets. It's really pushing the edge of what is possible. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 106 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 No Telescope Cuts Now And for the most part, NASA projects are on schedule and on budget. And every once in a while - and we're talking about two of the examples today, the Hubble and the James Webb - NASA does a project where you're really literally reaching for the stars, and you are taking a giant leap forward. And, you know, again, Hubble I think was over by more than what Ron said, and it just changed, fundamentally changed astronomy, added to American pride, and it convulsed NASA. And so I think the big dilemma is, how do you deal with these big projects that are going to produce game-changers, where you really reach maybe a little beyond your grasp to try to do something really, really big? And how do you wall that off and prevent it from causing larger problems? And I think the number one lesson from this report from a year ago is at the very least, you always have to be up front, that if you're hiding the true schedule and cost, that's not going to serve anyone well. And I think that's a very important lesson to learn. I think people were shocked a year ago that the number, the additional amount of money was so large. And so I think that's a very, very important lesson. But I would not want NASA not to try to reach for the stars because NASA is us. And when we do things like the Hubble, and when we do things like the James Webb, no other nation can do that, and great nations like ours do great things, and the Hubble and the Webb I think are examples of that. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 107 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Internal Links*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 108 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off within NASA Funding would trade off within NASA’s budget Dan Leone, 7/11/11, “House Budget Bill Would Leave it to NASA To Apportion Bulks of Cuts” WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers who voted last week to kill NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope as part of a broader effort to roll back federal spending to pre-2008 levels would leave it to the space agency to decide how to apportion the bulk of a deep top-line budget cut, according to a congressional report obtained by Space News. The House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee approved a 2012 spending bill July 7 that would give NASA $16.8 billion, or $1.6 billion less than it received for 2011 and nearly $2 billion less than the White House requested for the agency for next year. The legislation, which is scheduled to be taken up July 13 by the full House Appropriations Committee, spelled out specific spending levels for NASA’s nine major budget accounts and a handful of programs, including the Webb telescope. While appropriators traditionally detail the numerous additions and subtractions they make to an agency’s budget in lenghty reports accompanying the spending bills, this year the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science committee opted to leave it to NASA to make many of the line-item cuts. “Rather than including a detailed table showing the recommended levels for each individual project and activity proposed in the budget request, the Committee has chosen to provide a table that focuses more generally at the theme and program level with a limited amount of additional detail,” the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee wrote in the report accompanying its 2012 appropriations bill. “This will permit NASA some discretion to allocate available funds according to the most urgent priorities and needs.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 109 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with SLS *The SLS (Space Launch System) will be funded now but is a target for future cuts—transparency of design and delay concerns Foust 7/18 (Jeff Foust is the editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and NewSpace Journal weblogs. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and do not represent the official positions of any organization or company, including the Futron Corporation, the author’s employer. July 18, 2011 “Heavy-lift limbo” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1886/1 JT) The situation involving the Space Launch System (SLS)—the heavy-lift launch vehicle Congress directed NASA to develop in last year’s NASA authorization act—is curious, to say the least. In the eyes of supporters of the SLS, particularly on Capitol Hill, NASA has been dragging its heels on making a formal decision for months, raising the ire of some members, who have even threatened subpoenas and investigations for the delay. And yet, there’s little doubt about exactly what that design, a not-so-distant relative of the now-cancelled Ares 5, will be—the only question is when exactly that design will become official. Meanwhile, funding for the SLS is one issue that has been subject to little debate. While House appropriators recently made major cuts in the administration’s budget proposal for NASA, including a controversial decision to provide no money for the James Webb Space Telescope, an appropriations bill would give NASA all that it asked for, and even a little more, for SLS. But as the debate swirls about the utility of the SLS in an ever more conservative fiscal environment, some wonder if that’s money well spent. How soon is “soon”? For the last several weeks, NASA had indicated that an announcement about the SLS design would come “soon”, without being more specific. For example, at a speech at the National Press Club on July 1, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said that “we’re nearing a decision” on the SLS and “we’ll announce that soon.” In an online chat four days later, Bolden reiterated that “we’ll be making an announcement soon”, adding that since “this is one of the most important and most expensive decisions we will make for the next decade… I want to make sure we get it right.” “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,” Garver said of the SLS. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer.” During those previous several weeks, the educated guesses of those in the space community following the SLS saga was that NASA would announce a decision around the time of the final shuttle launch, scheduled for July 8. That timing made some sense from a public relations standpoint: it would be an opportunity to grab the public’s attention, which had been focused on the end of the Space Shuttle program, and inform them about the agency’s future plans for exploration. But as the days counted down to the final shuttle launch, it looked increasingly unlikely that NASA would time such an announcement to the shuttle launch. In a couple of press briefings at the Kennedy Space Center on July 7, the day before the launch, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver offered a revised timeline. “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,” she said at one briefing about NASA’s work on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), the crewed spacecraft that will be launched by the SLS. However, she said that the decision was pending some final cost evaluations, including an independent cost review. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer,” she said. That timeline did not sit well with members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Last month they had scheduled a hearing on the SLS for July 12, with Bolden as the sole witness, on the assumption that NASA would have made their decision public by then. Instead, the hearing went forward without a formal decision—and no shortage of disappointment and frustration from committee members. “Indications that we had received from NASA throughout the spring clearly suggested that a decision would have been rendered prior to today. Sadly, such is not the case,” Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the committee chairman, said in his opening statement. “General Bolden, the fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS, and the supporting documents that the invitation letter requests, represents almost an insult to this committee and the Congress.” Hall made it clear he assumed the problem was not with Bolden himself but officials at the White House, in particular the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but Bolden would bear the brunt of the criticism. “We’ve run out of patience,” Hall said. Bolden, in his testimony, did provide some new details about the decision-making process for the SLS. He said on June 20th he signed off on a specific design “that our experts believe is the best technical path forward for SLS.” That decision, though, is not the final step. “That was an important step but not a final decision,” he said. That design is now undergoing both an internal cost review and an independent one, the latter being performed by Booz Allen Hamilton, to determine if that design is cost effective. “It would be irresponsible to proceed further until at least we have good estimates,” he said. “This will likely be the most important decision I make as NASA administrator, and I want to get it right.” While hoping to make that decision by the end of the summer, “the absolute need to make sure our SLS program fits within our overall budget constraints suggests it may take longer.” “General Bolden, the fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS, and the supporting documents that the invitation letter requests, represents almost an insult to this committee and the Congress,” said Rep. Hall. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 110 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with SLS While Bolden declined to describe the elements of that design, various reports, such as by Aviation Week last month, have indicated that it will be largely a shuttle-derived design, using solid rocket motors attached to a core stage derived from the shuttle’s external tank and fitted with as many as five Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs); the upper stage would use the J-2X engine that had been under development for Constellation. That would be similar to the baseline concept NASA submitted to Congress in a preliminary report in January. Bolden, in his testimony, also confirmed earlier reports that some elements of the SLS will eventually be open to competition. The solid rocket motors will be used for SLS initially, he said, “until we can hold a competition, which I’ve directed we try to do as soon as possible, where all comers can compete,” including, specifically, liquid oxygen (LOX)/RP-1 systems. “It’s going to be full and open competition, if I can do what I would like to do.” After the hearing, some members of Congress continued to press NASA for more details about the SLS design even as the cost studies are ongoing. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), one of the key authors of last year’s authorization bill, asked the White House a press conference Thursday to allow NASA to release those technical details. “Senator [Bill] Nelson and I are urging that the OMB let the decision be made public so the contractors at NASA will stay in place—that will be the most efficient way for the taxpayers of our country,” she said in a prepared statement. Hutchison added that she and Nelson had apparently already seen the SLS design Bolden had approved, and liked it. “They have done a very good job,” she said. “Senator Nelson and I have seen the design and we know that it is a great design. It is exactly what we asked for last year in Congress and we now have the capsule that is going to take the astronauts and the launch vehicle we have to get going.” Schedule and cost While one House committee was debating the status of the SLS in one hearing Tuesday, House appropriators Wednesday had little difficulty funding the program when they took up a spending bill that includes NASA. That bill would provide NASA with $16.8 billion in fiscal year 2012, down from the nearly $18.5 billion it received this fiscal year and the more than $18.7 billion in the agency’s 2012 budget request. Despite the cuts, though, SLS came though unscathed: appropriators gave the program $1.985 billion for 2012, slightly more than the administration’s request of $1.8 billion. (Both, though, were below the authorized level of $2.65 billion from last year’s authorization act.) “We are providing NASA funding above the request for America’s next generation exploration system,” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement at a markup of the spending bill by the full committee July 13, in about the only discussion in the several-hour-long session about SLS funding. “Senator Nelson and I have seen the design and we know that it is a great design,” said Sen. Hutchison of the SLS. “It is exactly what we asked for last year in Congress and we now have the capsule that is going to take the astronauts and the launch vehicle we have to get going.” Other NASA programs did not fare as well, with most of the attention going to the committee’s decision to defund JWST. The report accompanying the appropriations bill explained that the JWST’s growing cost—Wolf said at Wednesday’s markup that the GAO has now estimated the cost of the telescope to be as high as $7.8 to $8 billion—and schedule delays led appropriators to use it to send a message to NASA. “The Committee believes that this step will ultimately benefit NASA by setting a cost discipline example for other projects and by relieving the enormous pressure that JWST was placing on NASA’s ability to pursue other science missions.” An effort to restore at least partial funding for the telescope by transferring $200 million from NASA’s Cross Agency Support account was quickly defeated by the committee Wednesday, which rejected it on a voice vote. It’s unlikely, though, that supporters of JWST will give up, with indications that they will seek to restore funding on the House floor as well as in the Senate. In either case, the SLS’s relatively healthy budget could make it a tempting target. The SLS’s sluggish schedule could also open the program up to future cuts. While the 2010 authorization act mandates that the vehicle be ready to fly by the end 2016 (at least in an interim version that can place 70–100 tons into orbit, rather than the final version that can loft at least 130 tons) Bolden said at Tuesday’s hearing NASA was planning an initial 2017 test flight of SLS, which would launch an uncrewed Orion MPCV beyond Earth orbit—perhaps out to the Moon—and back to test the capsule’s reentry systems. “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program,” Bolden said. “No, you don’t have a human exploration program,” countered Rohrabacher. It would be several years after this test, though, before the SLS could launch a crewed Orion, though. “We’re still talking late this decade, early ’20s before we have a human-rated vehicle,” Bolden said. That, as one committee member noted, puts into jeopardy one proposed mission of the SLS and MPCV: to serve as a backup for commercial crew providers for accessing the International Space Station, as ISS operations could end as soon as 2020 (but could be extended well into the decade depending on interest and the technical condition of the station.) One member of the House Science Committee went so far as to question whether money intended for SLS might be better spent on other, more pressing issues. “If we spend all of our money on a huge vehicle that may or may not be absolutely necessary, the money won’t be there for what is the modern version of the Hubble telescope,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). This led to a back and forth with Bolden. “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program,” the NASA administrator said. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 111 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with SLS “No, you don’t have a human exploration program,” countered Rohrabacher. “I’m a big fan of human exploration,” Bolden replied. Rohrabacher was unswayed by Bolden’s argument about the critical nature of the SLS. He argued that he would rather see money spent on space telescopes or even cleanup of space debris in Earth orbit. By instead funding long-term exploration programs like SLS, he said, “we are then chasing after goals that are so far in the distance that we are cutting out the things that we can do today.” Rohrabacher, at least publically, appeared to be in the minority about the focus on SLS over alternative missions. The SLS may yet end up with most or all of the proposed funding when the 2012 budget cycle is wrapped up (which may be many months from now, if 2011 is any guide), and later this summer, or shortly thereafter, we may know what exactly the SLS will look like. However, the future of a heavy-lift rocket proposed by Congress and accepted by NASA last year is still far from certain. Congressmen are uneasy about delays in the SLS—that makes it the candidate for cuts Mohney 7/18 (Doug Mohney is a contributing editor for TMCnet and a 20-year veteran of the ICT space July 18, 2011 “Satellite Technology Feature Article” http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/198087-post-shuttle-congress-turns-up-heatnasa-new.htm JT) Last week, NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. was grilled on Capitol Hill on the status of the Space Launch System (SLS), the new two-stage heavy-lift rocket and deemed one of two key hardware pieces to explore beyond low Earth orbit. Bolden attributed delays in finalizing plans to cost reviews by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Booz Allen Hamilton (News - Alert), but at least one congressman has threatened to hold an investigation on delays. Senators from several states have since joined in to call for faster movement on the rocket program. Testifying before the House Science and Technology Committee on July 12, Bolden said NASA is exploring "strategic approaches" for building SLS that would be adaptable to "modifications in annual funding" while still making significant progress towards a final design. An independent "Sanity check" on cost assessment and schedule from Booze Allen Hamilton is expected to be delivered in late July to early August. The first SLS mission flight could take place in late 2017, according to Bolden's testimony, but this date doesn't match with the NASA Authorization Act. Signed in the fall of 2010 by President Obama, the Act put in a goal of reaching operational capability no later than December 31, 2016. Representative Ralph Hall (RTX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, noted that NASA has already slipped behind on delivering the program according to the Act. NASA was supposed to provide Congress with decisions on crew vehicle selection and launch system design by January 9, 2011. Instead, Congress got a preliminary report from NASA on January 15 and "hopes" by NASA to finalize acquisition decisions as early as the Spring of 2011 along with an IOU for a follow-on report. Hall called the lack of a final decision and documents "an insult to Congress" and a failure that "reflects poorly on the Administration and its space program." The House Committee "reserves the right” to start an investigation of the delays. A day after the House hearings, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Bill Nelson (D-FL) held a news conference to toss in their two cents on the SLS delays. "We are trying to get NASA to tell everyone exactly what the design is because the design does meet the standards of the law that was passed last year and signed into law by the president," said Hutchinson in a statement released by her office. "But the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is holding up that announcement. Senator Nelson and I are urging that the OMB let the decision be made public so the contractors at NASA will stay in place - that will be the most efficient way for the taxpayers of our country. We also want to know why they are delaying so much when they've already massaged the numbers once in NASA, actually two or three times." Stay tuned -- if NASA misses another self-imposed deadline, there will be a lot of unhappy Congressmen asking more pointed questions. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 112 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with SLS SLS is on the chopping blocks—key to US space exploration and would lead to colonization (solves colonization affs) Florida Today 11 (6-28-11 “NASA gives Senate panel documents on heavy-lift rocket” http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201106280108/NEWS02/106280312 JT) WASHINGTON — The deadline Monday passed without a threatened Senate subpoena being issued for NASA documents about development of its next heavy-lift rocket. "The agency is working to respond to the Senate commerce committee request and compiling the records requested," NASA spokesman J.D. Harrington said Monday. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate science committee, and the committee's top Republican, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, threatened on Wednesday to subpoena documents they want about the rocket if NASA didn't provide them by 6 p.m. Monday. Development of a heavy-lift rocket was key to a congressional compromise in October supporting both that program and development of commercial rockets to ferry people to the International Space Station in place of the canceled return-to-the-moon Constellation program. But lawmakers have been disappointed in the amount of documents that NASA has provided about how it will pursue the heavy-lift rocket, which is competing for budget dollars with commercial rockets. And there have been concerns that NASA isn't adequately pursuing this policy goal. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden wrote lawmakers Thursday that the agency had provided hundreds of pages of contract documents and that agency staffers are in regular contact with committee staffers. Senators and their staffers are reviewing the documents NASA has provided and no subpoena was issued Monday. Lawmakers agreed to a blueprint for $10.8 billion over three years to build a heavy-lift vehicle by 2016. But in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, President Barack Obama proposed spending only $2.8 billion on heavy lift, rather than the $4 billion envisioned by Congress. Obama has proposed spending $850 million developing commercial rockets, rather than the $500 million envisioned in the congressional compromise. Harrington said NASA is working aggressively to implement the congressional policy for a heavy-lift rocket, aimed at furthering the agency's deep-space exploration goals. He cited the selection of the crew capsule and the announcement of a precursor mission to an asteroid, which could eventually lead to a human visit, as examples Space Launch System development already stressed by budget- further NASA spending destroys SLS Govbudgets 11, project of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) fiscal year budget, 4/13/2011, http://www.govbudgets.com/pdfs/2012/Exploration/Human_Exploration_Capabilities/Space_Launch_System.pdf NASA is developing a full acquisition strategy for the SLS. Given that the current RVD would utilize heritage systems from the Shuttle and Ares, NASA is evaluating existing Ares and Shuttle contracts and potential money saving improvements and modifications to them. This process will determine whether those contracts could be used for development work on the SLS and whether doing so would be the most affordable and efficient option for developing the SLS. As NASA seeks to maintain existing capabilities during this planning effort, HEC continues work on the elements of the Ares I project that are most likely to feed forward into the SLS. Reducing recurring costs and the cost of operations will be one of the greatest challenges for the SLS team. For all SLS acquisitions and development activities, NASA will employ improved acquisition approaches such as design-to-cost and lifecycle cost analyses that use industry best practices, consider incentives for contractor reductions in fixed costs, and address cultural changes within the Agency to focus more on affordability rather than just performance factors. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 113 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy [NOTE: To prove uniqueness for this, read the “telescope cuts now” evidence in the aff section] NASA spending trades off with dark energy research Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy” http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT) FLATOW: There are people who say that this telescope was taking up too much of NASA's budget, other science suffering because this is so expensive. How do you answer that, Michael or Ron? COWEN: I mean, I think that's - I mean, it is taken off - has taken off 40 percent of NASA's astrophysics budget, and there are other missions that seem to be in jeopardy like one that is proposed to look for dark energy, this mysterious stuff that is making the universe expand faster and faster and has been called the biggest puzzle in physics in the - over the past century. But I mean, it is also true if you kill this mission now, the James Webb, there won't be a future flagship mission that NASA will have. I think there is so much potential, personally, to make new discoveries, the fact that 75 percent of it has been completed. What I think has to be done is to make sure that the next game-changing telescope after this, that there are things in place that this mistake won't happen a third time. And it's not clear, to me, with all the pressures from Congress. I don't know if they're making it any easier. They're - punishing is not actually going to solve the overarching problem here, in my opinion. Punishing... TURNER: Yeah. I think you raised an important point, Ira, which is that when the Webb bleeds, the rest of the astrophysics program hemorrhages. And that is a serious problem because if this is completed it will put great stress on the rest of the budget. And just to illustrate this, I probably will never use the James Webb Space Telescope, but I'm Mr. Dark Energy and the project that Ron was talking about, I think, could very well get postponed or squeezed out by the James Webb Space Telescope, and so that is a problem. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 114 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with Earth Sciences Additional Spending on NASA space programs trades off with Earth Science development Berger 5, Deputy Editor at Space News and Associate Editor at Inside Washington Publishers, 5/2/05,http://www.space.com/1028nasa-exploration-focus-blamed-earth-science-cuts.html House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) expressed alarm over recent budget cuts and delays in NASA's Earth science program that a recent National Research Council report attributed to the U.S. space agency's shift in focus toward lunar and Mars exploration. "This report has to be a red flag for all of us," Boehlert said during an April 26 hearing examining how Earth science programs fare in NASA's 2006 budget request. "We need to stop, examine what's happening, and make sure that the fiscal 2006 budget for NASA - whatever its top-level number - includes adequate funding to keep Earth science moving forward for the foreseeable future." NASA merged its Earth science and space science programs into a single organization, the Science Mission Directorate, in 2004 and no longer maintains separate budgets for the two activities. But according to a House Science Committee analysis of NASA's budget request, of the $5.47 billion included for the Science Mission Directorate, only $1.36 billion would be spent on Earth science activities, a drop of 8 percent below the 2005 level and 12 percent less than the 2004 level. Earth science spending would continue to decline in 2007, NASA projections show, even as overall science funding would grow by $500 million. "At NASA, the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget that no longer supports already-approved missions and programs of high scientific and societal relevance," the report states. "Opportunities to discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished as mission after mission is canceled, descoped, or delayed because of budget cutbacks, which appear to be largely the result of new obligations to support flight programs that are part of the Administration's vision for space exploration." Spending on Space exploration cuts into climate and earth science studies Foust 11, aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. He is the editor and publisher of The Space Review and has written for Astronomy Now, 2/9/11, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/09/human-spaceflight-versus-earth-sciences/ There are a number of issues with the letter. They claim that NASA spent “over a billion dollars” on “studying global warming/climate change” in FY2010. The agency got about $1.4 billion for all Earth sciences research in FY10, according to agency budget documents. There’s no breakout for how much of that went specifically to climate change research, though. The letter also claims that the “lion share” of NASA’s share of stimulus funding went to climate change studies. In fact, only about a third of the agency’s stimulus funding, $325 million, went to Earth sciences programs, to accelerate development of Earth science spacecraft. Human spaceflight got even more: $400 million, including $50 million for the CCDev program. And their claim that NASA’s core mission is human spaceflight is not supported by other documents, ranging from the National Aeronautics and Space Act from 1958 to the latest NASA authorization act, which declared that NASA “is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration” and that “NASA plays a critical role through its ability to provide data on solar output, sea level rise, atmospheric and ocean temperature, ozone depletion, air pollution, and observation of human and environment relationships”. A bigger issue, though, is that this letter may be indicative of a bigger battle some in Congress want to wage between human spaceflight and Earth science. Some members have openly expressed their skepticism about the validity of climate change research, questioning either the existence of global warming or the role of human activities in causing climate change. The letter to appropriators makes no judgment on the quality of validity of such research, only NASA’s role in supporting it, but some might see that unspoken argument there. For example, one of the letter’s signers, Rep. Brooks, said last week in regards to NASA funding that there would be “hearings soon on global warming” by the House science committee without going into more details. An attack on Earth sciences funding to support human spaceflight could create or reinvigorate opponents of human spaceflight programs, reminiscent of previous debates between human spaceflight and robotic space exploration advocates—a battle that the agency presumably would want to avoid. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 115 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with Telescope The James Webb Telescope is on the chopping block Chamberlain 7/13 (Kenneth Chamberlain is a staff writer. July 13, 2011 “House Panel Slates Hubble Successor for Elimination in NASA Budget” http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/house-panel-slates-hubble-successor-for-elimination-in-nasa-budget-20110713 JT) NASA's James Webb Space Telescope may be on the budget chopping block this week, and astronomers are more than a little unhappy. Designed to be the successor to the enormously successful but aging Hubble Space Telescope, the Webb telescope was tentatively scheduled to launch in 2018. Work on it so far has cost $3 billion, but it's eventually expected to cost $6.8 billion, making it an attractive target for budget trimmers. The planned appropriation for NASA by the House Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee eliminates funding for the Webb telescope. The full committee on Wednesday approved the subcommittee's recommendation. The telescope "is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management," the subcommittee wrote in its overview of the legislation for funding NASA and a host of other agencies. Astronomers disagree. Such a cut "would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves while simultaneously undercutting the critical effort to utilize American engineering and ingenuity to expand human knowledge," the American Astronomical Society complained. "The United States's position as the leader in astronomy, space science, and spaceflight is directly threatened by this proposal." The Webb telescope sees in the infrared spectrum, and it is expected to be able to image objects that were created just after the Big Bang gave birth to the universe. Hubble has been able to see back in time to just 200 million years after the Big Bang. Webb is designed to see even farther back in space and time than that. The telescope isn't the only pawn in play as the Obama administration proposals get hacked by the Republican-led committee (PDF). Webb Space Telescope is targeted for cuts Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT) It was fun while it lasted. Last week, a House subcommittee proposed to kill off funding for the James Webb Space Telescope. The new instrument — which would orbit the sun just a little farther out than the Earth — is the heir apparent to the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's flagship space-science project. Some kind of second act was always seen as a good idea, but the folks on the Hill have a right to be exasperated with the way this one is turning out: the Webb, originally proposed in the mid-1990s under the name the Next Generation Space Telescope, was supposed to launch by 2007 and cost about $500 million. But it's gotten progressively more expensive, less powerful and further behind schedule. An independent review board reported last November that the poorly managed Webb (uninspiringly renamed after a former NASA administrator) could end up costing up to $6.8 billion and wouldn't launch until 2015 at the earliest. With the Republican-dominated House determined to slash spending everywhere it can, the Webb is a nice, juicy target. It's not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 116 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Impacts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 117 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Heg Space Launch Systems are key to maintaining U.S. space dominance French 11, intern for The Houston Chronicle in D.C, 7/11/11, http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/texas-legislators-call-endof-shuttle-program-bittersweet/ The launch of space shuttle Atlantis on Friday was the end of an era for America’s space program. Members of the Texas delegation honored the moment by eagerly praising both NASA and the astronauts abroad Atlantis, and calling on the federal government to continue American’s space dominance. “It should also be a proud moment for the hardworking men and women of NASA who have done so much over the past 30 years to inspire and provide the ultimate example of what America is capable of accomplishing,” she said. “But at the same time, it begins a period when this nation will no longer be able to launch humans to space-or to the International Space Station-on U.S. launch vehicles. I am hopeful that NASA will do everything it can to speed up the delivery of Orion Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle, announce plans for the development of heavy lift rockets and work together with Congress so we can embark on a new era of American dominance in manned spaceflight.” Republican Sen. John Cornyn said: “While [Friday] marks the end of the shuttle’s chapter, we know this is not the end of human space exploration. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Texas congressional delegation to ensure our state remains at the helm of a robust human space program, which will help the U.S. maintain its competitive edge and stand as a source of pride for all Americans.”. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, said: “As the final shuttle flight concludes, our nation is again challenged to support a new mission. This is a historic opportunity to support the next generation of American exceptionalism that will ensure our global competitiveness and give science and exploration the opportunity to drive our economy. I am committed to meet that challenge and ensure that Congress steps up to this challenge as well. In NASA, we have the best and brightest in the world on our side and I know together we can achieve even bigger and better things that will maintain our position as global leader.”Rep.Michael McCaul, R-Houston said: “NASA is building the new Space Launch System and Multipurpose Crew Vehicle to return us to space. This should be a priority for Congress to fund in order to minimize our dependency on Russia and avoid losing our leadership in space exploration. The greatest challenge is a lack of a plan and destination for future manned missions. Without this focus, we risk losing the vision that inspires our next generation of scientists and engineers, and the innovations that come along with them. NASA needs to decide on, and the administration should fully support, a goal for human space exploration. Only then can we secure America’s dominance in space and inspire future generations.” Space Launch Systems development is key to future space hegemony and exploration French 11, intern for The Houston Chronicle in D.C, 7/11/11, http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/texas-legislators-call-endof-shuttle-program-bittersweet/ Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas said, “In addition to being an engineering marvel, the Space Shuttle has played a unique role in sparking interest in the fields of science, technology, and engineering. We must continue to provide our children and grandchildren with that kind of inspiration in the future. As the Space Shuttle era comes to a close, we can best honor its legacy by maintaining our commitment to a strong and vibrant human space flight program through productive utilization of the International Space Station and expeditious development of the crewed spacecraft and launch vehicles NASA will need to once again travel beyond low-Earth orbit.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, who was at the launch, said: “This launch was a tremendous celebration and culmination of the hard work, intensity, and dedication of the people of NASA, and it is my hope that this inspirational opportunity will provide the momentum that our country needs to continue our space leadership and preeminence in the 21st century. While I am extremely disappointed in NASA’s decision to retire the space shuttle program, it is my hope that this final launch will inspire a redefinition of NASA’s mission to reach the moon again in the 21st century because a focused long term mission will create more scientists, new sophisticated technology, and more jobs.” President Barack Obama released his statement thanking the shuttle team and NASA for its work. He said, “Americans across the country watched with pride as four of our fello citizens blasted off from the Kennedy Space Center in the Space Shuttle Atlantis, and America reached for the heavens once more. [The] launch may mark the final flight of the Space Shuttle, but it propels us into the next era of our neverending adventure to push the very frontiers of exploration and discovery in space. We’ll drive new advances in science and technology. We’ll enhance knowledge, education, innovation, and economic growth. And I have tasked the men and women of NASA with an ambitious new mission: to break new boundaries in space exploration, ultimately sending Americans to Mars. I know they are up to the challenge – and I plan to be around to see it.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 118 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Heg Impact Dependence on Russia kills our leadership Space Travel 2/10/11 (Space News Website reporting on discussions of the Competitive Space Task Force, a space think tank group, http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Renewed_Call_For_Competitive_US_Spaceflight_Marketplace_999.html) Retired Congressman and former Chairman of the House Science Committee Robert S. Walker remarked, "The Space Economy is emerging as the next great frontier for economic expansion and U.S. leadership. If we really want to 'win the future,' we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through the American entrepreneur." In recent years, between the long-planned retirement of the Space Shuttle and the cancellation of Constellation and NASA's troubled Ares rocket program, the U.S. has grown increasingly reliant on the Russian Soyuz for transportation to and from the International Space Station costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over just the next few years. Rather than funding the Russian space program, the U.S. could be creating jobs at home by relying instead on America's private space industry. America's dependence on the Russian program is complicated by our foreign policy as we seek to discourage the Russians from aiding U.S. adversaries in the development of nuclear weaponry and missile technology. Said Rand Simberg, Chairman of the Competitive Space Task Force, "America cannot simply sit in the passenger seat and expect to lead. We need to pilot the ship. We need to lead the way." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 119 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Space Exploration Space Launch System is key to all future space exploration Bergin 10, NASASpaceFlight Managing Editor, 12/10/10, http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/heft-sls-hlv-designdecision-april-2011/ The HEFT – tasked with providing decision support to NASA senior leadership for planning how the Human Space Flight (HSF) program will explore beyond LEO – are evaluating a set of options and forward paths via wide-ranging architecture options, including one of the focal points of NASA’s space flight future, the HLV – otherwise known as the Space Launch System (SLS). The HEFT are tasked with evaluating a viable path which reaches out as far as 2028 and potentially beyond, working with NASA’s administration and steering councils, whilst providing a number of key recommendations to the NASA leadership. One of their opening findings earlier this year dismissed large parts of the now defunct FY2011 proposal from President Obama, such as the recommendation to remove the initial requirement of a five year study of evaluating the design of the HLV. This finding continues to be a key recommendation several months later. “Launch Vehicle Findings: An HLV is central to any robust human exploration program. Delaying a decision on HLV configuration and requirements to 2015 limits NASA’s options and hampers planning. There is no benefit to delaying work on the HLV, no technology needed for capability development,” noted one of the opening HEFT overview presentations (L2). Support was also noted for a SD (Shuttle Derived) HLV, with the opening presentations (L2) showing preference for an inline Shuttle ET Diameter (27.5′) core, driven by Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) – utilizing existing RS-25D stock, prior to evolving to the less expensive (non-reusable) RS-25Es. This vehicle’s Upper Stage would be driven by RL10A4-3 engines. “NASA will lose an opportunity to build from the existing flight-proven systems. Losing the capability to build an SSP (Space Shuttle Program)-derived HLV will require the development of new manufacturing, processing, and launch infrastructure at additional cost and schedule risk,” the HEFT presentation added in its opening recommendations. “Recommendation: Accelerate the HLV decision – moderate HLV. Initiate a Shuttle-derived inline HLV Program beginning in FY2011. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 120 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Leadership Impact—Leadership Jackson 11 (Morris Jackson is a US representative for Alabama. He attended Duke University and studied law at the Universtiy of Alabama School of Law. 07/08/11 New launch systems hold potential for space explorationhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/technology/170465-new-launch-systems-hold-potential-for-space-exploration JT) We are now at a crossroads. Long pioneers in spaceflight, the United States faces the possibility of depending on foreign nations for the superior technologies that space access provides. Yet, the United States can and must remain the international leader in space exploration, particularly in the area of human spaceflight. NASA is a reflection of American exceptionalism, setting America apart technologically, scientifically and economically. It is crucial in the days ahead that NASA and White House leaders move forward with the heavy-lift space launch system. The United States Congress is disappointed with delays in this vital program. Now is the right time for NASA to follow the guidance provided in the FY 2010 NASA Authorization Act and the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution. The space launch system, built in conjunction with the core stage and the upper stage of a 130 metric ton rocket, is critical for NASA to maintain the heavy-lift capability required for these important missions. Atlantis’ final flight is an opportunity to look forward, not back. The next phase of our journey into space holds untold potential. From the Lewis and Clark expedition in the time of Thomas Jefferson, to the Moon landing of our own day, exploration has led to discovery, innovation and American exceptionalism. America must keep NASA and its central mission of human spaceflight strong. We must continue to expand the human horizon and, by doing so, we will ensure America’s continued leadership in space and in the world. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 121 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Econ/Innovation Impact—economy/innovation Bolden 11 (NASA Administrator Charles Bolden" July 1, 2011“NASA Administrator Discusses Agency's Future Endeavors” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-administrator-discusses-agencys-future-endeavors-124870599.html JT) "President Obama has given us a Mission with a capital 'M' -- to focus again on the big picture of exploration and the crucial research and development that will be required for us to move beyond low Earth orbit. He's charged us with carrying out the inspiring missions only NASA can do that will take us farther than we've ever been. To orbit Mars and eventually land on it. He's asked us to start planning a mission to an asteroid." "The President is asking us to harness that American spirit of innovation, the drive to solve problems and create capabilities that is so embedded in our story and has led us to the moon, to great observatories, and to humans living and working in space, possibly indefinitely. That American ingenuity is alive and well, and it will fire up our economy and help us create and win the future now." "So when I hear people say – or listen to media reports – that the final Shuttle flight marks the end of U.S. human spaceflight, I have to say ... these folks must be living on another planet." "We are not ending human space flight, we are recommitting ourselves to it and taking the necessary – and difficult – steps today to ensure America's pre-eminence in human spaceflight for years to come." "We have to get out of the business of owning and operating low-Earth orbit transportation systems and hand that off to the private sector, with sufficient oversight to ensure the safety of our astronauts. American companies and their spacecraft should send our astronauts to the ISS, rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments." "Our destinations for humans beyond Earth remain ambitious. They include: the moon, asteroids, and Mars. The debate is not if we will explore, but how we'll do it." "The International Space Station is the centerpiece of our human space flight for the coming decade. Every research investigation and all of the systems that keep the ISS operational help us figure out how to explore farther from our planet and improve life here." "I made a decision to base the new multi-purpose crew vehicle, or MPCV – our deep space crew module -- on the original work we've done on the Orion capsule." "We're nearing a decision on the heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System, or SLS, and will announce that soon." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 122 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Econ/Innovation Impact—SLS key to leadership/competitiveness/STEM jobs McCaul et al 11 (Prior to coming to Congress, Michael McCaul served as Chief of Counter Terrorism and National Security in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Texas, and led the Joint Terrorism Task Force charged with detecting, deterring and preventing terrorist activity. Congressman McCaul also served as Texas Deputy Attorney General under current U.S. Senator John Cornyn, and served as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C. A fourth generation Texan, Congressman McCaul earned a B.A. in Business and History from Trinity University and holds a J.D. from St. Mary's University School of Law. In 2009 Congressman McCaul was honored with St. Mary's Distinguished Graduate award. He is also a graduate of the Senior Executive Fellows Program of the School of Government, Harvard University. Pete Olson attended Aviation Officer Canddiate School, is a Naval Aviator and served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has been Naval Liaison Officer to the US Senate, has served on multiple committees: House Transportation & Infrastructure, Science & Technology (Ranking Member, Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee) and Homeland Security. July 11 2011“Texas lawmakers call end of space shuttle program ‘bittersweet’” http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/texas-legislators-call-end-of-shuttle-program-bittersweet/ JT) Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, said: “As the final shuttle flight concludes, our nation is again challenged to support a new mission. This is a historic opportunity to support the next generation of American exceptionalism that will ensure our global competitiveness and give science and exploration the opportunity to drive our economy. I am committed to meet that challenge and ensure that Congress steps up to this challenge as well. In NASA, we have the best and brightest in the world on our side and I know together we can achieve even bigger and better things that will maintain our position as global leader.” Rep.Michael McCaul, R-Houston said: “NASA is building the new Space Launch System and Multipurpose Crew Vehicle to return us to space. This should be a priority for Congress to fund in order to minimize our dependency on Russia and avoid losing our leadership in space exploration. The greatest challenge is a lack of a plan and destination for future manned missions. Without this focus, we risk losing the vision that inspires our next generation of scientists and engineers, and the innovations that come along with them. NASA needs to decide on, and the administration should fully support, a goal for human space exploration. Only then can we secure America’s dominance in space and inspire future generations.” Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands said: “For three decades, NASA’s space shuttles, astronauts, scientists and ground crews have made what was once seen as impossible, look effortless. Like all Americans, I grieved with the NASA family over the losses of Challenger and Columbia, and then watched with pride as our workhorse shuttles returned to flight. To generations of Americans, space exploration is synonymous with hope, because NASA appeals to the explorer in us all.” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas said, “In addition to being an engineering marvel, the Space Shuttle has played a unique role in sparking interest in the fields of science, technology, and engineering. We must continue to provide our children and grandchildren with that kind of inspiration in the future. As the Space Shuttle era comes to a close, we can best honor its legacy by maintaining our commitment to a strong and vibrant human space flight program through productive utilization of the International Space Station and expeditious development of the crewed spacecraft and launch vehicles NASA will need to once again travel beyond low-Earth orbit.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 123 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Competitiveness/Tech Impact—Econ Increase in STEM and competitiveness is key to the economy Schiavelli 7-28-2009. Dr. Mel, professor of chemistry and president of the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Pennsylvania. “STEM Education Benefits All.” http://www.harrisburgu.net/about/president/Mel-op-ed-NASA.pdf NASA’s successes and failures, as well as its bureaucracy, are well documented. Its accomplishments during the past 50 years, however, are a testament to technology, innovation, and the value science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education brings to the nation. NASA was able to rely on a STEM-educated workforce capable of by generating the new knowledge necessary for manned space flight. Fifty years later new knowledge is still the engine that drives innovation. Innovation is the coin of the realm in a 21st century global economy, creating new technological concepts that drive economic growth and job creation and allowing us to prosper in the competition of the global economy. Innovation today still requires a scientifically literate population and a robust supply of qualified graduates. Unfortunately a recent report from Tapping America’s Potential (TAP), a coalition of 16 of the nation’s leading business organizations, shows that the U.S. is losing its ability to innovate and, in effect, its ability to compete. The report, Gaining Momentum, Losing Ground, indicates that little real progress has been made toward the goal of doubling the number of students earning bachelor’s degrees in STEM subjects. Since 2005, the number of STEM degrees awarded to undergraduate students has only increased by 24,000, to 225,000--a number that is not on track to meet the TAP goal of reaching 400,000 by 2015. Innovation begins with the talent, knowledge and creative thinking of a workforce. High- quality STEM education and learning environments that prize innovation and imagination produce graduates who will germinate new inventions, develop new products, and create new solutions to many of our world's most pressing problems. In the highly competitive global economy, the United States faces the daunting task of supplying our own nation with capable science and technology workers. Collectively, India, China, South Korea, and Japan have more than doubled the number of students receiving bachelor’s degrees in the natural sciences since 1975, and quadrupled the number earning engineering degrees. Since the late 1980s, the European Union has produced more science and engineering Ph.D.s than the United States. These countries are hungry to succeed and increasingly capable of doing so. STEM is now, and will increasingly be, the universal languages of the global marketplace. The nations that invest heavily in STEM education, research, and the development of a skilled STEM workforce will enjoy leadership positions. American students, however, are falling behind in the essential subjects of math and science, putting our position in the global economy at risk. Economic collapse causes nuclear war. Mead 2009. Walter Russell Mead, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2-4, 2009, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-28874d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2 If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their wellbeing or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq-however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 124 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Competitiveness/Tech Impact – Econ All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only halfheartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 125 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Competitiveness/Tech Impact—Terror A strong aerospace industry is key to power projection and US counter-terror intelligence and response capabilities. Walker et al – 2002 Chair of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, 11/2002, http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf The Contribution of Aerospace to National Security Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal govern-ment.2 This translates into two broad missions: Defend America and Project Power when and where needed. In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security strategy. The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on aerospace capabilities and related military contribu-tions to homeland security. Combat air patrols swept the skies; satellites supported real-time communications for emergency responders, imagery for recovery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and the security and protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport. As recent events in Afghanistan and Kosovo show, the power generated by our nation’s aerospace capabilities is perhaps the essential ingredient in force projection and expeditionary operations. In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne intelligence, com-mand, control and communications assets permitted the rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facil-ities. Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to critical locations. And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played key roles in both conflicts. Today’s military aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms and an industrial base measured in both human capital and physical facilities that are aging and increasingly inadequate. Consider just a few of the issues: Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites. Assured reli-able access to space is a critical enabler of this capa-bility. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle development and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment. Today, however, worldwide demand for commer-cial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing and is not expected to rise for a decade or more while the number of available launch platforms worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the economics of a com-mercially-driven market is unsustainable. A new strategy for assured access to space must be found. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 126 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Competitiveness/Tech Impact – Terror Extinction Morgan, 9 - Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea (Dennis, Futures, November, “World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Science Direct) In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In other words, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 127 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Mars SLS key to mars missions Bergin 11 (Chris Bergin is the owner and managing editor of NASASpaceFlight.com. June 5th, 2011 “SLS configuration nears decision point – Two-phase approach rejected” http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/06/sls-decision-nasa-two-phase-approach/ The process to finalize the new path for NASA – following the cancellation of the Constellation Program (CxP) – remains under evaluation. The lack of a clear direction continues to burden the Agency, something which will continue to be the case even after the centerpiece rocket is revealed. Although the ultimate goal for the Agency’s exploration plan is manned missions to Mars, no definitive roadmap has risen from the ashes of the Ares-based architecture, resulting in a path where a Heavy Lift vehicle is being designed before the missions it is set to cater for have been set in stone – something which often is pointed out as the wrong way around. However, with the knowledge that very large payloads will need to be lofted uphill for the future goals, NASA teams are steadfast in their opinion that an HLV is required, a sentiment SpaceX – often championed as the exciting alternative and cheaper path for the United States to once again carry out manned BEO missions – agree with, as much as they embedded the caveat their agreement is specific to trips to Mars. “Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress,” SpaceX officially cited when revealing their Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. “That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 128 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Mars SLS is the technology to go to Mars Krueger 7/19 (Curtis Krueger is a Times Staff Writer 7-19-11 “Next for Nasa” lexis nexis JT) After the space shuttle Atlantis lands on Thursday, NASA wants to blast ahead with ambitious new plans for space entrepreneurs, orbiting telescopes and a journey to Mars. But here's the problem: NASA is preparing to unveil its design for a big, new expensive rocket at the very time that the country's leaders are staring each other down over a national debt crisis. NASA also is pouring hundreds of millions into private companies that are creating their own amazing spaceships, but with uncertain congressional support. And the next big space telescope - the one that could make Hubble look like a 10year-old car on the lot - has gotten so late and over-budget that a U.S. House committee recommended killing it. "(NASA Administrator) Charles Bolden and his colleagues are between an asteroid and an icy body," said Bill Nye, executive director of the Planetary Society, referring to the debate over designs of the big rocket. "They have this mandate to create this rocket with no place to go." It all adds up to great uncertainty about what NASA plans to do next. For 30 years, American astronauts flew on space shuttles. Shuttle crews helped build the International Space Station and deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. But the program also was criticized by those who said it used a huge share of NASA's budget without making equally large scientific accomplishments. Now NASA takes a new direction, laid out by the White House and financed by Congress. For human space flight (as opposed to unmanned scientific missions), the agency essentially has a two-part plan: -Spur development of the commercial space industry, including companies that are currently designing and building their own spacecraft. Some of these companies plan to take astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA. Some plan to take paying tourists into orbit. -Take astronauts farther into "deep space" than humans have ever gone - such as to an asteroid or Mars. NASA is designing a new rocket dubbed the "heavy lifter" for this job, and a space capsule that would ride on top. Along with these projects, NASA plans to continue staffing the International Space Station, using it for years to come for scientific research. Until NASA succeeds in fostering the next generation of spaceships, the United States will pay Russia about $63 million per flight to take American astronauts to the station. The transition is not going smoothly. Nye, who became famous as television's "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and who now heads the pro-exploration Planetary Society, hammers against the heavy lift rocket idea because, he says, it has no clear mission. He's not the only one calling it a rocket to nowhere. Suggesting this rocket is designed more by politicians than engineers, he calls it the "Senate Launch System" - a play on its official name, the "Space Launch System." The heavy lifter is designed to be able to go different places in the solar system, but this is too mushy for people like Nye, who says a rocket should be designed for a more specific and important scientific mission - such as sending astronauts to Mars to seek evidence of life. "Where did we come from and are we alone?" he said. NASA should focus on deep issues like this, which "can only be answered with space exploration." On the other hand, U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, a Republican who represents part of the Space Coast, strongly supports the heavy lift rocket as a way to restore U.S. leadership in space exploration. But even he says NASA's statements about the plan are too vague. "They've said they want to land on an asteroid sometime. Maybe do some Mars exploration sometime. I mean there's no clear mission," Posey said. Former astronaut Winston Scott, a dean at the Florida Institute of Technology, supports the heavy lifter and capsule, but says he would like to hear President Barack Obama make a stronger endorsement of the plan. "I would hope that he would be very, very definite:We will be on Mars by such and such a date," he said. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a key player on congressional space matters, said people who call the heavy lifter a rocket to nowhere "don't know what they're talking about." He said the rocket is designed to evolve, making use of technologies that haven't yet been devised but that will be needed before attempting a journey to Mars. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 129 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Mars Colonization Impact Extinction is inevitable without colonization Nicholas K. Geranios – staff writer at the associated press (MSNBC, November 15, 2010, “Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194872/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/scientists-propose-one-way-trips-mars/) For anyone who’s ever felt the urge to get away from it all, Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies have a proposal: a oneway ticket to Mars with no possibility of return. You and a stranger would board a spacecraft and travel for six months — absorbing levels of radiation so high that your reproductive organs would be destroyed — before arriving at your new planet. There you would live in an ice cave, or perhaps inside a biosphere adjoining a cave, for the rest of your life (which, incidentally, would be 20 years or less). Two other Earth ex-pats would arrive in their own craft, and together the four of you would prepare a home for 150 more people, most of whom would arrive decades after your death. Sound enticing? It does to many people, say Mr. Davies, of Arizona State University, and Mr. Schulze-Makuch, of Washington State University. The two scientists lay out their plan in a paper titled “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars,” in the October-November issue of the Journal of Cosmology. “A human mission to Mars is technologically feasible,” the men write, “but hugely expensive.” They say that the price tag of such an undertaking could be slashed by as much as 80 percent by doing away with the hassle of worrying about getting the astronauts back to Earth. Drastically reducing the cost could make the colonization of Mars a near-term possibility. “We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life,” the scientists write. ”Global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes” threaten the existence of humankind. “Colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the long term,” they write. Settlements on Earth’s moon or on asteroids could also be feasible, the scientists say, but the Red Planet is the best candidate for colonization. It is relatively close to Earth and it may have ice caves, which could supply the colonists with water and oxygen. After pitching their proposal in lectures and at conferences, Mr. Davies and Mr. Schulze-Makuc say they have found no shortage of people who say they would volunteer for a one-way mission, “both for reasons of scientific curiosity and in a spirit of adventure and human destiny.” The Martian colonists “would remain in constant contact with Earth via normal channels such as email, radio and video links,” the scientists say, so you could stay in touch with the relatives, check Facebook, and yes, read Tweed. So what about it? Would you volunteer? Why or why not? If not, is there someone else you’d like to send to Mars? Let us know in the comments below. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 130 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to Moon The SLS replaces Ares—it can go to the moon Achenbach 11 (Joel Achenbach is a staff writer for The Washington Post. July 3, 2011 The Washington Post l/n JT) Constellation envisioned a heavy-lift vehicle known as Ares V, capable of taking astronauts to the moon. NASA is replacing that with the "Space Launch System," a heavy-lift rocket that is supposed to be ready to fly in an initial configuration by 2016 and evolve into something larger. The agency has pondered myriad designs and is seeking final approval for its preferred architecture from the frowning officials of the Office of Management and Budget. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 131 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Key to ISS SLS is key to access the ISS Foust 11 (Jeff Foust is the editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and NewSpace Journal weblogs. Can NASA develop a heavy-lift rocket? January 17, 2011 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1760/1 JT) Why heavy-lift? The debate about how to build an HLV will likely raise another question: why build one now? The main reasons for building one as specified in the act are to “access cislunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit” as well as provide a government backup to commercial and international systems to transport cargo and crews to and from the ISS. In the case of the latter the SLS is considerably oversized—the Ares 1 that had been under development for Orion was designed to place about 25 tons into LEO—while in the former case the specific transportation needs aren’t clear since NASA hasn’t settled on a specific exploration architecture. SLS can access the ISS Branch 7/22 (Andrew Branch, Staff Writer 7-22-2011 “A new era for the Last Frontier” http://www.technicianonline.com/mobile/features/a-new-era-for-the-last-frontier-1.2606735 JT) According to Humphries, President Barack Obama's efforts are focused on sending humans to a near earth asteroid and eventually Mars in the next 30 years. NASA and its partners are hard at work building the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System (SLS), a vehicle and rocket system that can be used not only with the ISS, but for taking humans to deep space. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 132 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership Loss of the dark energy program collapses US science leadership—cedes itself to the EU* Overbye 11 (Dennis Overbye is a science correspondent for The New York Times. He joined The Times in 1998, and was the deputy science editor until 2001. He was a writer and editor on the staffs of Discover (1980-1985) and Sky and Telescope (19761980). His articles have appeared in wide variety of magazines, including Wired, Time and the New York Times Magazine. Mr. Overbye was born in Seattle and studied physics at M.I.T. and astronomy at U.C.L.A. January 4, 2011“Quest for Dark Energy May Fade to Black” lexis nexis JT) What happens to a dark energy dream deferred? An ambitious $1.6 billion spacecraft that would investigate the mysterious force that is apparently accelerating the expansion of the universe -- and search out planets around other stars, to boot -- might have to be postponed for a decade, NASA says, because of cost overruns and mismanagement on a separate project, the James Webb Space Telescope. The news has dismayed many American astronomers, who worry they will wind up playing second fiddle to their European counterparts in what they say is the deepest mystery in the universe. ''How many things can we do in our lifetime that will excite a generation of scientists?'' asked Saul Perlmutter, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley, who is one of dark energy's discoverers. There is a sense, he said, ''that we're starting to give up leadership in these important areas in fundamental physics.'' Last summer, after 10 years of debate and interagency wrangling, a prestigious committee from the National Academy of Sciences gave highest priority among big space projects in the coming decade to a satellite telescope that would take precise measure of dark energy, as it is known, and also look for planets beyond our solar system. The proposed project goes by the slightly unwieldy acronym Wfirst, for Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope. The Academy's report was ambushed by NASA's announcement in November that the successor to the Hubble, the James Webb Space Telescope, which had been scheduled for a 2014 launching, would require at least another $1.6 billion and several more years to finish, pushing the next big mission to 2022 at the very earliest. The Webb will search out the first stars and galaxies to have formed in the universe, but is not designed for dark energy. To take up the slack until 2025 -- or whenever the American mission can finally fly -- the space agency has proposed buying a 20 percent share in a European dark-energy mission known as Euclid that could fly as soon as 2018. In return, NASA would ask for a similar investment by Europe in Wfirst. But, said Dr. Perlmutter, ''most of us think it is hard to imagine if we do Euclid now that we will do a dark-energy mission then.'' Alan P. Boss of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who heads a committee that advises NASA on astrophysics, said: ''If Euclid goes ahead, they're going to own the field. There's no way the U.S. can stop them.'' Last month, the American astronomers' worries about falling behind seemed to be validated by a second Academy panel convened to consider the Euclid option. The panelists pointed out that part of the reason that Wfirst had been given such high priority was that it could be launched sooner rather than later. The panel urged NASA to stay the course or to explore merging Wfirst and Euclid in a joint operation. Everybody agrees that nothing is cast in stone yet. Euclid must survive a bake-off with two other projects before it is approved by the European Space Agency, or E.S.A. Not until then, European astronomers say, will they be able to talk about changes to the project. NASA has not said how it plans to get the $1.6 billion it needs to finish the Webb telescope, and thus how much will be left for other projects this decade. Some of the answers will be in the 2012 NASA budget due next month. ''Fitting the E.S.A. and NASA processes together at this stage would be a challenge, but the scientific benefits are clear,'' according to the new report by the Academy, which was delivered in December. Jon Morse, director of astrophysics at NASA headquarters, said in an interview that NASA was committed to carrying out the recommendations of the original Academy survey that endorsed Wfirst. It is the ''sense of Congress,'' he said, that the Academy ''should guide NASA science programs.'' Asked about worries that Euclid could give the Europeans a big leg up in dark-energy work, Dr. Morse said, ''The Europeans have developed a significant capability for doing their own missions.'' ''The scientific return for their investment has been outstanding,'' Dr. Morse said, adding that European astronomers are looking for ''frontier scientific discoveries'' to make. Dark energy certainly counts as frontier science. The discovery a decade ago that the universe is speeding up, in defiance of common sense or cosmic gravity, has thrown into doubt notions about the fate of the universe and of life within it, not to mention gravity and even the nature of the laws of physics. It is as if, when you dropped your car keys, they shot up to the ceiling. Physicists have one ready-made explanation for this behavior, but it is a cure that many of them think is worse than the disease: a fudge factor invented by Einstein in 1917 called the cosmological constant. He suggested, and quantum theory has subsequently confirmed, that empty space could exert a repulsive force, blowing things apart. But the best calculations predict an effect 10 to the exponent of 120 times greater than what astronomers have measured, causing physicists to metaphorically tear their hair out and mutter about multiple universes. The astronomers who made this discovery were using the exploding stars known as Type 1a supernovae as cosmic distance markers to track the expansion rate of the universe. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 133 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership Since then, other tools have emerged by which astronomers can also gauge dark energy by how it retards the growth of galaxies and other structures in the universe. So far the observations are consistent with it being Einstein's constant, but not definitive; more precise measurements, many of which can only be done from space, are needed. Dr. Perlmutter, who works in the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, proposed a dark energy mission known as SNAP (Supernova Acceleration Probe) in 1999. In 2003, the White House asked the Energy Department to partner with NASA on the project, which became known as JDEM, for Joint Dark Energy Mission, and a call went out for competing proposals. But NASA and the Energy Department found it hard to collaborate, and several rounds of meetings and committees went nowhere. ''Maybe we shouldn't have tried to ride two horses,'' Dr. Perlmutter said. In 2008, NASA and the Energy Department budgeted $600 million, not including launching costs, for a mission, but a working group of dark-energy scientists could not come up with a design that would fit in the budget. Feeling that the blessing of the National Academy of Sciences was needed to proceed with a more expensive project, Dr. Morse submitted a couple of versions of the dark energy mission to the Academy panel -- also known as Astro2010 -- that was charged with setting priorities for the astronomical community for the next decade. Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories, who led one of the panel's subcommittees, noticed that three of the submitted projects -- including dark energy, a search for planets around other stars, dubbed exoplanets, and a survey of infrared radiation from the heavens -- all required the same hardware. He proposed combining them into a larger mission (''putting more eggs into the basket,'' in Dr. Perlmutter's words), in a project that could launch around 2020. That larger mission they dubbed Wfirst. ''It looked then and it still looks to me like a good deal,'' said Roger Blandford of Stanford, an astrophysicist and the chairman of the Astro2010 panel. Meanwhile, the European Space Agency had also made dark energy a priority. Last February, the Europeans sent NASA a letter offering the Americans a 20 percent piece of Euclid and two slots on the mission's science team. American astronomers were ambivalent. Joining Euclid would divert resources from their own mission, thus delaying it. In September NASA's advisory committee on astrophysics, which is led by Dr. Boss of the Carnegie Institution, concluded that Euclid could spend three or four years ''skimming the cream off the dark energy pail'' before Wfirst got into the sky. Both Dr. Boss's council and yet another committee, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, which counsels the National Science Foundation and Energy Department as well as NASA, concluded that joining Euclid was not in keeping with the original Academy recommendations. By the time the second Academy panel reported in December, the news about the Webb telescope's problems had made everything worse. The Webb, which was the highest Academy priority 10 years ago and has already cost $5 billion, could not be launched any earlier than 2015 and would probably be even later, because of NASA's inability to correctly estimate how long it would take to do things like test the telescope. How much of the $2.2 billion that NASA was to have available for new astrophysics missions this decade will be left once Webb is taken care of is anybody's guess. On top of that, NASA faces what Dr. Morse calls ''an evolved difficult fiscal environment,'' with Republicans bent on reducing the federal budget taking over the House of Representatives. Some astronomers said they felt ambushed by NASA and Dr. Morse, who briefed the Astro2010 panel during its two years of deliberations. ''He didn't know? He should be fired,'' said Dr. Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories. Dr. Morse said he understood and shared his colleagues' frustration. But said he had warned the panel all along that its plans could be upset by the Webb, which has always been known to have problems. ''The community,'' he said, referring to the Astro2010 panel, ''did the best job they could with what they were given. The fiscal constraints are far worse now than we could imagine a year ago.'' Or, as Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago and a member of Astro2010, put it, ''We're in a terrible mess.'' In December, NASA solicited proposals from astronomers who want to join Euclid and named a team that will begin meeting in February to begin planning Wfirst. One problem with Euclid from the Academy point of view is that it does not include observations of supernovae, the technique by which dark energy was discovered. Nor does the United States play a leadership role. Dr. Boss, however, speaking personally, said he worried that those recommendations were out of date with new realities -budget and otherwise -- and that following them could keep the United States out of what might be the only dark-energy mission for some time. ''It's time for some creative thought,'' he said. ''The European Union is producing more papers per year than the U.S.,'' Dr. Boss went on. ''They passed us a year ago and are doing quite well.'' Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 134 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership Dark energy research increase US tech NASA 11 (NASA HQ July 15, 2011 “NASA Solicitation: Research Opportunities in Fundamental Physics” http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37721 JT) Fundamental physics is standing at the precipice of dramatic discoveries. Last century's major scientific insights represented by the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics are known to be mutually incompatible. The lack of a theory to unify all natural forces including gravity indicates the incompleteness of the Standard Model and General Relativity. In addition, there is clear evidence for dark energy and dark matter from astrophysical observations. While NASA's Science Mission Directorate plans to study dark matter and dark energy through observational means, and to seek clues to when General Relativity might fail through studies of physics in the strong gravity environment near black holes, the establishment of new physical understanding beyond current known theories remains elusive. Nonetheless, the new physics is expected to lead to breakdowns of the well-established theories with verifiable experimental consequences. Recent technology advancement in optical clocks, atom interferometers and Bose Einstein Condensates has demonstrated a radical improvement in measurement precision, putting experimentalists within striking range of reaching the experimental sensitivity where breakdown of these theories may occur and important new discoveries made. It is clear that laboratory physics can contribute greatly to this quest for new physics in the 21st century by utilizing carefully conceived experiments with unprecedented resolution on the ISS, such as the planned ESA SOC, QWEP and ACES projects. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 135 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Earth Sciences Key to Solve Warming NASA’s Earth Science missions key to solve global warming Mandia 11, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences Department at Suffolk County Community College, 3/7/11, http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/loss-of-glory-what-it-means-for-climate-and-future-ofnasa/ What is NASA’s role in climate science? NASA Earth Science missions are a critical part of climate science. Space is the only way to get truly global observations of the Earth and its climate system: from equator to pole, from the U.S. to China. Those observations include everything from the atmosphere to the oceans to the ice sheets to polar sea ice to land cover including vegetation and snow. They include the energy we receive from the sun as well as the solar energy we reflect back to space and the thermal energy we emit to space to shed the solar heat that we absorb. Climate is an interlinked global system including all of these key parts. Looking at just one or even a few of them typically leads to large uncertainties and low scientific confidence. NASA has led the world in global climate science since the advent of the Earth Observing System that started in 1990: the first attempt at a global Earth observing system. Ironically it was the deficit federal budgets of the mid 1990s that reduced the effort to about 1/3 of its original plan. What we have now are pieces of that system that have lived well beyond their design life. For example, the Aqua spacecraft was launched in 2002, designed for a 5yr mission life, and was originally supposed to have 3 copies launched on 5 year intervals to achieve a continuous climate record over at least 15 years. Only 1 spacecraft was ever built and launched, and has now been operating successfully for about 9 years on orbit. A follow on mission called NPP is finally planned for launch the end of this year. But there is no climate observing system in the same sense that there is a weather observing system. NASA is doing the best it can with the limited resources it has. There are no backups. Should NASA be doing climate science? The National Aeronautics and Space Act established the agency in 1958. In the Space Act, the first objective of the agency was listed as “the expansion of human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.” Earth science has been a key part of NASA’s mission throughout its history. The need for that mission today is more critical than it was in 1958. When the Space Act was written, we had little idea of potential climate change issues. The Keeling record of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was just starting in Hawaii. The Keeling record was not the first carbon dioxide observation: but it was the first with the high accuracy over a long time period needed for climate change research. Many people confuse weather with climate. Why can’t weather satellites be used for climate data? In general they lack the high accuracy needed for climate change. Weather accuracy is 1 or 2 degrees in temperature, while climate accuracy is a tenth of a degree: a factor of ten more difficult. In the end, climate observations have requirements that are typically ten times more accurate than weather, and require 10 times as many variables to be observed. In the U.S. we have a dozen agencies that contribute to climate science and are coordinated using the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). NASA resources are the largest contributor to the USGCRP of all the agencies, but none of the agencies has climate as its highest priority. This results in a “curse of the commons” situation where none of the agencies can really lead the development of a climate observing system. Each does the best it can within its limited scope and resources. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 136 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Earth Sciences Key to Innovation Earth sciences are key to jobs/innovation Hutchison 7/19 (Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior U.S. Senator from Texas July 19, 2011 Next chapter of space exploration must carry on NASA’s proud legacy http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/atascocita/opinion/article_71df9802-059e-5ef8-8745d02d7938cfa6.html JT) During the past 40 years, NASA scientists and engineers have pioneered more than 6,300 technologies that are now commonly used in our day-to-day lives. These technological breakthroughs have led to long-distance telecommunications, as well as satellites that aid in national security efforts, GPS systems, and television programming. Other scientific advances have not only improved our quality of life but have also resulted in medical breakthroughs that save lives every day, such as the technology used in CAT scanners, MRIs, and pacemakers, just to name a few. The contributions our space program has made to science, our national security, and our economy illustrate why we can't abdicate our leadership role in the world. Ultimately, Space program-stimulated scientific advances create innovations and breakthroughs that create jobs, improve competitiveness, and boost quality of life. One way to advance those objectives is to extend and expand our commitment to fully utilize the US National Laboratory aboard the International Space Station, and ensure it is effectively maintained and used for broad scientific and engineering research. We also must continue to encourage important NASA programs in Space Science, Earth Science, fundamental aeronautics research, and education if we want to see job and industry growth. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 137 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Telescope Key to Competitiveness The telescope is key to US science competitiveness Martins 7/18 (Robyn Martins, Times-Reporter contributor 7-18-2011 “Don't cut telescope funding” http://www.timesreporter.com/opinion/columnists/x1797069354/Dont-cut-telescope-funding JT) Save the telescope! Save the telescope! If I had the wherewithal and could march around the Capitol, I’d be shouting these very words while stomping around in my noisiest shoes and waving a big sign in support of what we are about to lose. A House subcommittee recently has voted to discontinue funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and I believe that’s a shortsighted decision that will cost us dearly in something more significant than upfront dollars. The telescope in question is the successor to the Hubble telescope, and it will employ new technology to reveal to us parts of the universe that have been previously invisible. Once launched, it will orbit one million miles from Earth; and its main mirror, which has just been polished, will collect seven times the amount of light collected by the Hubble. The largest telescope ever to be launched into space, the JWST will detect infrared radiation, which is essential for capturing images of distant objects we have yet to see — supernovae, black holes, evolving galaxies, the birth of distant stars and new solar systems. Michael Collins, member of the Gemini 10 and Apollo 11 teams, said, “It’s human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. Exploration is not a choice, really; it’s an imperative.” This telescope has the potential to enrich mankind with new insight and to help us satisfy our very nature. To date, the United States has taken the lead on the project, but beginning with the first planning sessions in 1996, more than 15 countries have signed on, enlisting scientists and engineers around the globe to develop technologies, manufacture highly refined parts and assemble and test the finish product. High-tech jobs have been created for this project, and the scientific benefits from it will be immeasurable for generations to come. Hands-on work began on the telescope in 2004, and now 75 percent of the project has been completed, and the majority of the cost has been paid, which was no small bill. The project was first judged to cost $3.5 billion but has come in at closer to $5 billion, and estimates suggest as much as $1.5 billion may still be needed to bring us to launch date scheduled later this decade. And there lies the issue at hand. In the interest of frugality, we are now declaring this technological marvel an extravagance and scrapping it to save $1.5 billion. For what we spend waging war in Afghanistan in a matter of days, we’re willing to relinquish our role as a global leader in science and technology; and we’re set to forgo discoveries beyond our wildest dreams — to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. If we were having this conversation before work on the project had begun, I could accept deciding to hold off until we bring down the deficit and begin generating greater revenue. But we aren’t. We’re having it when we’re in the homestretch, and what we’re saying now is “let’s just throw it all away.” In a statement defending the JWST, the American Astronomical Society said, “The whole Nation can rightly take pride in the engineering and scientific accomplishment that the completion and launch of such instruments represents. We are the only nation that could lead such an effort; we should not shirk from completing the project when the most difficult engineering challenges have already been overcome.” In short, we talk up our role as global leaders in science and technology, yet we cut ourselves off at the knees just when we have the opportunity to put monumental deeds behind our words. Our leaders tell us it’s time to make difficult choices in setting our national priorities. They’re right, but I’m envisioning a nation in which we look only downward, putting our noses to the grindstone without inspiration, without hope for greater things, without the triumphant achievements we know can be ours. Now, more than ever, we need to keep our eyes up and our arms stretched toward the stars, instead of dragging our knuckles on the ground as we scrap everything but the bare essentials. The curiosity of our children, the future of our scientific development and our very nature depends on it. It’s an imperative. Impact—JWST is key to American tech dominance, jobs, and jump starting public interest Pachal 7/14 (Peter Pachal is PCMag's News Director and has been covering consumer technology in print and online for more than a decade. He holds degrees in journalism and engineering. July 14, 2011“Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb Telescope” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp JT) "The proposal... to terminate the James Webb Space Telescope would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves," said the American Astronomical Society in a statement. "Such a proposal threatens American leadership in the fields of astrophysics and advanced space technology while likely eliminating hundreds, if not thousands, of high-tech jobs." One of the engineers who worked on components for the Webb, Sarah Kendrew, wrote in a blog post for the Guardian, "For scientists, its loss will slow progress in understanding the physics that governs the universe at a time when huge advances are within our reach. Engineers, who have successfully completed many aspects of the observatory, will see more than a decade of work go to waste. The public will lose the opportunity to marvel once again at the amazing place that is our universe: the thousands of planets that populate our own galaxy, the places where new suns are born, the first galaxies at the dawn of time." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 138 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Fiscal Discipline Aff*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 139 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Non-Uniques*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 140 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Default Inevitable Debt default inevitable – Investment Banker Shai Ahmed, Associate Producer at CNBC and graduate of the London School of Economics in Political Science, 7/15/11, “US Default Inevitable: Fund Manager” http://www.cnbc.com/id/43721270/US_Default_Inevitable_Fund_Manager A U.S. default isn't a matter of "if" but "when," David Murrin, chief investment officer at Emergent Asset Management, told CNBC. "It's inevitable that the U.S. will default—it's essentially an empire which is overextended and in decline—and that its financial system will go with it," he said. The question is: Does the U.S. default when it is forced to by the outside world, probably the Chinese, or does it take the option to default on its own terms in such a way that it may have a strategic advantage, Murrin said. Republicans and Democrats are currently locked in a debate on how to cut the U.S. budget deficit, and on whether the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling should be raised. Both parties need to come to a consensus by Aug. 2, otherwise the country will be in a state of technical default. In his book "Breaking the Code of History," Murrin argues that the balance of power has shifted away from the West, with America as the superpower, towards the East, led by China. He believes the U.S. cannot afford to compete with the rise of Eastern powers. "It's very simple, its (America's) empire system, its financial system is in decline, we've seen very little growth for over a decade apart from financial engineering and leveraging, which ultimately caused the debt crisis of 2008," Murrin said. He argues that emerging markets have a distinct advantage over more mature economies through demographics, working dynamics, and the ability to create fundamental economic growth. This imbalance inevitably pushes developed markets towards default. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 141 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Gang of Six Plan Solves Fiscal Discipline The plan won’t make it through before the deadline CNN 7/20/11, Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen, http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/20/debt.talks/ Top administration and congressional officials are expected Wednesday to focus on a new bipartisan $3.7 trillion debt reduction plan -- the latest effort to avoid a potentially catastrophic default next month on the federal government's financial obligations. President Barack Obama offered strong praise for the initiative Tuesday, calling it "broadly consistent" with his approach to the debt ceiling crisis because it mixes tax changes, entitlement reforms and spending reductions. Senate Democratic leaders, however, expressed skepticism they will be able to increase the debt limit and pass the plan -- drafted by the chamber's "Gang of Six" -- by the August 2 deadline. The “Gang of Six” plan will fail, House GOP won’t support it Jay Bookman 7/20/11, Atlanta Journal Constitution, “’Gang of Six’ Plan Meaningless without GOP House” http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/07/20/gang-of-six-plan-meaningless-without-gophouse/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog A sense of relief washed over Washington Tuesday after the bipartisan Gang of Six — a group that includes Saxby Chambliss of Georgia — announced it had come to agreement on a major deficit-reduction package. Their announcement was greeted by many as if a path out of the wilderness had been found. President Obama spoke favorably of the plan, calling it “broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on here in the White House.” Senators of both parties expressed support for the plan, at least in broad terms. “One of the 25 Republicans who heard the Gang of Six’s proposal for a grand bargain on debt reduction was Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who ranks third in the GOP leadership. He said he was impressed both with the plan and with the three Republican gang members who helped draft it. “Senators [Mike] Crapo, [Tom] Coburn and Chambliss are three of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus, and if they study something for six months, tell me it’s good for the country, that means a lot to me.” Many other conservative Republicans senators showered similar praise on the Gang of Six proposal. They did so despite the fact that most Republicans for months have opposed using any increased tax revenues to bring down deficits. Coburn said this plan puts tax revenues back on the table. “There’s no question, revenues — enhanced revenues — are part of this plan, and we think it’ll be about $1 trillion,” he said.” But that’s the problem, isn’t it. Sensible, responsible people understand that the deficit has to be addressed by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. Politically, that’s how a deal can be cut. And mathematically, it simply isn’t possible to achieve deficit cuts of the size required without approaching the problem from both ends, by raising revenue and cutting spending. However, sensible, responsible people are not running the show in the U.S. House of Representatives. While Crapo, Coburn and Chambliss may be three of the more conservative Republicans in the Senate, in the eyes of their colleagues in the House they are mere RINOs. As a sign of their continued fidelity to foolishness, House Republicans spent yesterday passing their extreme “Cut, Cap and Balance Plan.” The good news is that nine GOP congressmen voted against the bill. The bad news is that most if not all of those nine — including GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Georgia’s Paul Broun — voted against it because in the end, it would raise the debt ceiling. In other words, it wasn’t extreme enough. “The president has said now for once he wants a balanced approach,” Speaker John Boehner said after the vote. “Well, guess what. In ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ he does get a balanced approach. He gets his increase in the debt limit of $2.4 trillion. What we get are real cuts in spending and real reforms in place that’ll make sure that this problem never, ever happens again.” Note that Boehner continues to frame the debt limit increase as a goal that Obama wants and that Boehner is willing to grant him under the right conditions, rather than an absolute necessity for the country as a whole. It’s crazy talk. Meanwhile, out there in BaseLand, the drumbeat for Armageddon grows louder. For example, at redstate.com, the Gang of Six plan is derided as “the Gangrene Plan” because “it will slowly, but surely, rot away the nation.” “What’s going to happen now is the Senate will tell the House that its plan cannot pass. House Republicans must now continue to hold the freaking line. They must not waiver. They must understand that now that their plan is passed and that it allows the debt ceiling to be raised, the House GOP’s hand strengthens every day closer to August 2nd. And if this debacle goes past August 2nd, the House GOP is in charge as long as it holds the freaking line.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 142 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Gang of Six Plan Solves Fiscal Discipline Even if the ‘gang of six’ plan does pass, it won’t fix our spending woes David S. Addington, 7/19/11 VP of Domestic Economic Polity at the Heritage Foundation, former Chief Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, “Gang of Six: Promises, Promises” http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/19/gang-of-six-promises-promises/ A group of U.S. Senators called the Gang of Six has cobbled together the third Senate-originated half-baked idea this week that would lead to hiking the debt limit. All three Senate approaches — the McConnell Plan, the McConnell-Reid “Just Borrow More” Plan, and now the Gang of Six “Maybe Later in the Year” Plan — have one thing in common: procedural gimmicks that promise Congress will do in the future what it won’t do now to control spending. The time has passed for procedural gimmickry — Congress should cut spending and cut it now. The Gang of Six circulated a plan that has Congress enact a law now whose principal elements (1) make unspecified spending cuts and unspecified tax increases to yield a $500 billion reduction in the federal deficit, and (2) impose spending caps on discretionary spending, but not on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that are the main cause of out-of-control spending. Then the Gang of Six promises — an unenforceable promise — that some time in the next six months Congress will enact a second law with all kinds of Christmas presents for everybody. As an imaginary present for Republicans, for example, the Gang of Six promises to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, drop the top individual tax rate to 29 percent, and drop the corporate tax rate to 29 percent. And, as an imaginary present for the Democrats, the second law would have what appears to be a $3.4 trillion tax hike over the next 10 years, so the size of government can just keep on growing. Of course, enactment of the second law is just a promise, or, in the case of the huge tax hike, a threat. The new bill won’t pass – balanced budget amendment too unpopular Voice of America 7/19/11 “Vote nears as Possible US Default Creeds Closer” http://blogs.voanews.com/breakingnews/2011/07/19/vote-nears-as-possible-us-default-creeps-closer/ U.S. lawmakers are preparing to vote on a bill to slash the country's spending and raise the debt limit, although this version of the legislation has little chance of resolving a high-stakes political standoff. Tuesday's vote in the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives would cut more than $100 billion from the federal budget next year in exchange for raising the country's borrowing limit. The so-called Cut, Cap and Balance Act would also impose strict limits on future spending, and calls for amending the U.S. Constitution to ban the government from spending more money than it takes in. Lawmakers and the president have until August 2 – two weeks – to resolve their differences. If they fail, the U.S. may start defaulting on some of its financial obligations. Top U.S. officials and some economists have warned a default would have catastrophic consequences, possibly throwing the United States back into recession. But despite backing from the Republican Party's Tea Party faction and other fiscally conservative groups, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is likely to meet with stiff resistance in the Democrat-controlled Senate. And the White House has said President Barack Obama would veto the bill if it got through. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 143 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Gang of Six Plan Solves Fiscal Discipline Both the “Gang of Six” plan and the “cut, cap, and balance” plan will fail Corbett B. Daly, 7/20/11, “Gang of Six plan gets boost in House” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080991503544.html A bipartisan plan to cut the deficit over the long-term got a boost in the House of Representatives within hours after a more conservative plan with no chance of becoming law was approved by the chamber. The so-called "Gang of Six" proposal, which could reduce the deficit by about $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, emerged in the Senate as a possible alternative way to raise the amount of money the U.S. can legally borrow by August 2. Most economists, including Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the Obama administration have warned of economic calamity if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling is not raised in less than two weeks. Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to come to a larger agreement that would reduce the deficit going forward. But that deal has been elusive as the two sides dug in their heels. Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee urged House Speaker John Boehner to schedule a vote on the Senate plan, details of which are still to be determined. "We applaud this effort and ask that you provide the opportunity to vote on this proposal as part of any request for an increase in the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline," Wolf and Cooper wrote in the letter dated Tuesday. "The Gang of Six plan is bitter medicine and, while not perfect, could restore our fiscal health," Wolf and Cooper wrote, "there is never a convenient time to make tough decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be." President Obama on Tuesday offered praise for the Senate proposal, telling reporters that he thinks "we're now seeing a potential for a bipartisan consensus." The proposal, backed by seven senators (one joined the original half dozen), still faces an uphill climb in the House, where conservative Tea Party members who want to shrink the size of government are opposed to anything that would bring more money into government coffers to balance the budget. Roughly $1 trillion of the savings in the Gang of Six plan would come from new tax revenue. The House on Tuesday approved their "cut, cap and balance" plan by a vote of 234 to 190. That vote, however, was mostly symbolic: because any spending cuts would be contingent on the passage of a constitutional amendment, the bill would require approval from two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Democrat-dominated Senate, achieving that support is likely impossible. Obstinate Repubicans will only vote for the “cut, cap, and balance” proposal The State Column 7/19/11 “Gang of Six debt plan receives criticism from Sen. Jim DeMint” http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/gang-of-six-debt-plan-receives-criticism-from-sen-jim-demint/ South Carolina U.S. Senator Jim DeMint slammed a proposed debt plan put forth by the bipartisan group of U.S. senators Tuesday, saying President Obama is supporting the plan because Republicans have put forth an alternative plan. “I don’t know enough about the Gang of Six proposal, but I do know the only reason the president is stepping up and saying he might support this is that Republicans are now on the offense with a plan that would increase the debt limit in a way that Moody’s and S&P would recognize as credible long-term deficit reduction,” Mr. DeMint said Tuesday on Fox Business Network. The South Carolina Republican made the comment just hours before the Republican-controlled House voted in favor of passing the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ bill. The bill would cut total spending by $111 billion in the upcoming year, capping total federal spending and limiting spending at 22.5 percent of GDP over the next decade until locking in at 19.9 percent of GDP in 2021. The Senate has said it will not vote on the measure and President Obama vowed Tuesday to veto the proposal. Mr. DeMint said the proposal represented a major step in the right direction and said Republicans should continue to remain steadfast in their opposition of revenue increases put forth by President Obama. “There is only one proposal that actually is written that will be voted on, and that is the ‘cut, cap and balance’ proposal,” Mr. DeMint said. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 144 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Economy Low Now Inflation and low consumer confidence will push the economy into a recession Financial Post, 7/22/11, " Opening Bell: Earnings, debt talks cloud US markets ", http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/22/opening-bell-earnings-debt-talks-cloud-u-s-markets/ Core consumer prices in the US rose at an annual rate of 1.6 per cent in June, a pick-up in inflation that gives the Federal Reserve little scope to stimulate the economy. The Fed looks at the core consumer price index, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, as the best guide to underlying inflationary pressures. It rose by 0.3 per cent from May to June – or an annualised rate over the last three months of 2.9 per cent – which is well ahead of the Fed’s goal of 2 per cent or a bit below. Even though the Fed expects the rise in the CPI to fade away, it is highly unlikely to launch another round of quantitative easing, or QE3, while inflation is heading upwards. Core inflation continued to climb faster than expected as Americans paid more for cars, clothing and rent. Some of the rise may be due to the Japanese tsunami, which led to some supply shortages for cars. “Core inflation . . . is moving higher at both the retail and wholesale level and the back-to-back readings of 0.3 per cent on the monthly change in core CPI should be particularly troubling for the Fed,” said Conrad DeQuadros and John Ryding of RDQ Economics. “The only thing that looks transitory in this inflation report is the drop in energy prices with July’s gasoline prices on track to add 0.2 percentage points to inflation in the month.” The headline CPI from the labour department fell 0.2 per cent in June as the price of oil moderated from this year’s spikes. That was more than the 0.1 per cent forecast. While June’s drop in fuel prices was the steepest since 2008, retailers raised the cost of other key items as they face higher costs from wholesalers. Prices of used cars and trucks rose 1.6 per cent, new car prices gained 0.6 per cent, clothing was up 1.4 per cent and rents rose 0.1 per cent. A separate report on Friday showed US consumer sentiment fell to the lowest level since March 2009, fuelled by worries about the struggling labour market and falling incomes. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index fell from 71.5 in June to a preliminary reading of 63.8 in July. Economists had predicted the index would rise to 72.5. “This has got to be a real concern for those looking for the US consumer to start spending again in the second quarter. An unhappy consumer simply doesn’t spend at the same pace as one that feels good about the future,” said David Semmens, US economist at Standard Chartered. Consumers’ assessment of current conditions hit the lowest level since November 2009, falling to 76.3 from 82 in June, while expectations dropped to 55.8 from 64.8. “Whenever the expectations index has been this low in the past, the economy has been in recession,’’ said Richard Curtin, the survey’s director. But he warned that a single month of poor data “is insufficient to signal a renewed downturn”. Consumers pared back their expectations for inflation, with the outlook for one-year inflation down to 3.4 per cent from 3.8 per cent and the five-year outlook slipping to 2.8 per cent from 3 per cent. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 145 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Economy Low Now A Double-dip recession is becoming inevitable Michael Pento, 5/5/11, senior economist for Euro Pacific Capital, “Double-dip recession is now undeniable”, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/double-dip-recession-is-now-undeniable-2011-05-05 NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. (MarketWatch) — The evidence of a double-dipping housing market and economy are becoming undeniable, even to those who cling perilously to the notion that government intervention has been a salve instead of a poison. The main evidence presented on the part of the “permabulls” of a healing economy is that corporate earnings have been good. However, S&P 500 earnings from multinational corporations have been significantly boosted by a U.S. dollar DXY +0.46% that has lost nearly 15% of its value in the past 12 months. So earnings look great, but they don’t buy you very much, while small-cap domestic businesses suffer under the scourges of inflation and slow growth. TODAY'S TOP INVESTING IDEAS | Research tools World's smallest stock exchanges can only go up Tiny bourses don’t have many stocks to trade, but it’s safe to say they can only go up, writes Thomas Kostigen. • Fiat got a sweet deal for Chrysler (24/7 Wall St.) • Five investments to gird against a weak market • Power stocks for making portfolios sizzle • Lynn: Printing money is Europe’s way out • Hulbert says Cisco is tastier than Apple But markets have the final say as to where the economy is headed, and investors would do well to listen. The 10-year note’s yield 10_YEAR -1.39% has moved down to 3.19% from 3.72% three months ago, and the 1-year T-bill is now just yielding just 0.17%. In confirmation of the slowing economy, oil prices have dropped $8 a barrel in a week, while copper prices have plummeted from $4.47 to $4.01 a pound in a month. Recent economic data confirm the move lower in industrial commodities. Wednesday, we saw the ISM’s service-sector index drop to 52.8 from 57.3 in March. New orders plunged to 52.7, the lowest reading since December 2009, from 64.1 in the prior month. And the employment index dropped to 51.9 from 53.7 a month earlier. First-time jobless claims surged by 43,000 to 474,000 in the week ending April 30th, which was the highest reading since August. And the four-week moving average rose to 431,250 from 409,000. Read MarketWatch’s stories on the ISM index and on jobless claims. Euro Pacific Capital Michael Pento: “Earnings look great, but they don’t buy you very much.” But perhaps most importantly, more evidence of an official double dip in home prices was found in a report from Clear Capital. The report stated that its monthly index is now below the prior all-time low set in March 2009. Two highlights (or lowlights) from the report: ¦ Year-over-year national home prices are down 5%. ¦ Home prices have dropped 11.5% in the last nine months, a rate of decline not seen since 2008. The saddest news of all is the fact that over 25% of all homes with a mortgage are underwater on that loan. Home prices that continue to fall will bring that number higher and create the vicious cycle of a greater percentage of mortgage holders with negative equity, which causes more inventories, which leads to falling prices. What’s a Fed head to do? The truth is that a double-dip recession was temporarily held in abeyance through a massive government effort to boost consumption. But that intervention in free markets was destined to fail from the beginning. Quantitative counterfeiting Part 2 hasn’t even ended yet, and this ersatz economy that is based on borrowing and printing is already starting to falter. What does all this mean for the Fed? A slowing economy with rising unemployment and falling home prices will, unfortunately, keep the Fed in the shipbuilding business — as in “QEIII” — for quite some time. That means when the Fed, Treasury and administration finally acquiesce to allowing market forces to reconcile the imbalances, i.e., allow the deleveraging process and asset-price declines to consummate, the pain will be much worse. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 146 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Economy Low Now The U.S. has already entered a second recession Douglas A. McIntyre, 6/6/11, former Editor-in-Chief of Financial World Magazine, “Ten Signs The Double-Dip Recession Has Begun”, http://247wallst.com/2011/06/06/ten-signs-the-double-dip-recession-has-begun/ 1. Inflation There is almost nothing that damages consumer confidence as badly as a rapid rise in prices. Starbucks recently increased the price of a bag of coffee by 17% because wholesale prices have risen by almost twice that rate in the last year. Cotton prices nearly doubled in 2010 but has fallen this year. But, apparel is made months in advance of when they reach store shelves. Summer clothing prices are up as much as 20%. That may change in the fall, but for the time being, the consumer’s ability to buy even the most basic clothing has been undermined. Consumers today pay more for sugar, meat, and corn-based products as well. 2. Investments have begun to yield less Part of the recovery was driven by the stock market surge which began when the DJIA bottomed below 7,000 in March 2009. The index has risen above 12,000 and the prices of many stocks have doubled from their lows. As result, American household nest eggs that were decimated by the collapse of the market have rebounded and enabled people to splurge on themselves. However, the market has stumbled in the last quarter. The DJIA is up only 1% during the last three months and the S&P 500 is down slightly. Americans, though, have have few other places to put their money.. Ten-year Treasuries yield about 3%. Gold was a good investment over the last year, but it has begun to falter as well. The market may not be a friend to investors for quite some time. 3. The auto industry The auto industry has staged an impressive comeback, although its profitability is based as much on the layoffs it has made over the last five years as generating new sales. GM and Chrysler have emerged from bankruptcy. Year-over-year monthly sales improved late last year and through April. May sales stalled. GM’s revenue dropped by 1% compared to May of 2010. Ford’s sales were down about as much. There are many reasons for this trend including high gas prices and the constrained manufacturing capacity of the Japanese automakers because of the earthquake. Consumers also may be deferring big purchases because they are worried about their economic prospects. Slow car sales are not just a sign of lagging consumer confidence. They also may be a harbinger of tougher times ahead. These companies shed several hundreds thousand jobs before and during the last recession. Car firms have only just begun to hire again, but that trend will die with a plateau in sales. 4. Oil prices Oil prices are supposed to drop as the economy slows as they did in 2008 and early 2009 when crude fell from over $140 to under $50. That drop at least allowed consumers and businesses like airlines to more easily afford fuel. Recently, crude has moved back above $100 and appears to be stuck there regardless of the economic situation. American budgets have been hurt by the rising cost of gas. Americans of more modest means have been particularly affected. A slowdown in driving usually also leads to a decline in the retail sector as consumers reduce unnecessary travel to stores. The impact on other businesses is just as great. Airlines suffer and so do firms which rely on petrochemicals. OPEC, for now, has signaled it will not increase production. 5. The federal budget The federal budget deficit has decimated any chance for another economic stimulus package which many prominent economists like Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman say is essential to create a full recovery. His theory has become more of an issue as GDP growth slows to a rate of 2%. The first $787 billion Obama stimulus package may have saved some American jobs, but it is long over and did not work if a drop in unemployment and a sharp improvement in GDP were its primary goals. The deficit has caused a call for severe austerity measures which have already become part of the economics policies of countries from Greece to the UK to Japan. Job cuts in the U.S. will not be restricted to the federal level. A recent UBS Investment Research analysis predicted that state and local governments will cut 450,000 jobs this year and next. That process is already well underway. States like California and New York currently run massive deficits and the rates they must pay on bonds has risen accordingly. Newspaper headlines almost daily report on battles between state unions and governors over employment and benefits. 6. China Economy Slows A slowdown in the Chinese economy is usually seen as a cause of global commodity price inflation, but the effects cut two ways. China’s appetite for energy and raw materials may fall. But, the demand for goods and services by its very large and growing middle class drops as well. Chinese purchaser manufacturing and export numbers have fallen as the central government has tightened the ability to borrow money. US exports to China are key to the health of many American businesses. John Frisbie, the president of The US-China Business Council, recently said, “Over the last decade we have seen exports to China rise from $16.2 billion to $91.9 billion – a 468 percent increase.” As that rate slows, it has a profound effect on tens of thousands of American companies and their employees. US firms with large operations in China are also effected. GM is one of the two largest car firms in China along with VW. Large US corporations like Wal-mart and Yum! Brands rely significantly on China to boost global sales. Without vibrant consumer spending in China, American companies will suffer. 7. Unemployment Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 147 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Economy Low Now Unemployment creates two immediate problems. People without jobs drastically curtail their spending, which will ultimately affect GDP growth. The second is the need for tens of billions of dollars every year in government aid to keep the unemployed from becoming destitute. That support has increased deficits and the domino effect is that cash-strapped governments need to make more spending cuts. It may be the biggest challenge the economy faces. Unemployment has worsened because people over 65 to continue to work because the values of their homes–which they once counted on as the financial basis of their retirements–have dropped so sharply. Older Americans also fear that cuts in Medicare and perhaps Social Security are inevitable which increases the cost of their golden years. The jobs that older Americans have taken are often ones that younger Americans might have. People in their 20s must accept low wages to enter the workforce. This has delayed their prime consuming years well into their 30s which will damage GDP recovery now and for another decade. The worst of the unemployment problem is the roughly 5 million Americans who have been unemployed for over a year. Their unemployment benefits have run out in many cases. The burden of their care falls to their families, friends, community organizations, and non-profits. A family which has to support an unemployed person may be a family which cannot spend beyond its basic needs. To the extent that the federal or state governments can support the unemployed, the cost to run support programs increases. Also Read: EU and IMF Need Assurances From Greek Unions 8. Debt Ceiling The United States debt ceiling, currently at $14.294 trillion, will probably be raised before the government has to cut back essential services on August 2. It might seem that the economic and employment effects of the debt cap are the same as the deficit, but they are actually more insidious and longer term. The first by-product of debt reduction, or at least a slowdown in its growth, is a combination of higher taxes and a lower level of government services. Higher taxes usually slow economic improvements, particularly when they are not couple with stimulus measures. A number of economists have pointed out the expense reduction alone will not sharply improve the United States balance sheet. The increase in Medicare and Social Securities costs, brought on by an aging population, are also likely to trigger a need for higher taxes. Tax increases could keep the economic growth of the US on hold for years. The taxation of companies decreases and often eliminates profits, particularly during an already troubled economic period. Profits which disappear usually cause cuts in purchasing and jobs. Taxes on wages and inheritance undermines consumer spending. And, a growth in national debt from already all-time highs will increase the borrowing costs of the US. That, in turn, drives up interest rates for everything from mortgages to credit cards. 9. Access To Credit The lack of access to credit has hurt the economic activity or both individuals and small businesses. Many very large companies can borrow money at rates as low as 2% because of their strong cash flows and balance sheets. Banks have been much less willing to loan money to companies with under 100 workers because these firms often rely on a few customers for revenue and usually have very little money on hand. Early in June, the House Small Business Committee held hearings and among its findings were that concerns about risk and a slow economy has made financial institutions reluctant to lend to small businesses, the main driver of economic growth. Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) said Congress will need to “bridge the gap” between the two sides. There is no plan to accomplish that. Individual borrowers find themselves in a similar position. The cost of credit cards debt is still above 20% in many cases although the Federal Reserve loans money to large financial firms for interest rates close to zero. Potential home buyers, who might help break the gridlock of slow house sales, often find that banks want down payments as high as 20%. The median down payment in nine major U.S. cities rose to 22% last year on properties purchased through conventional mortgages, according to an analysis done for The Wall Street Journal by real-estate portal Zillow.com. That percentage doubled in three years and represents the highest median down payment since the data were first tracked in 1997. Home which are not sold often put such great burdens on owners that they are barely consumers of the goods and services that drive GDP. Home builders have continued to struggle. Construction jobs, which were a huge amount of the employment base in states like Florida, have not returned. 10. Housing Housing is considered by many economists to be the single largest drag on the American economy, and the housing market has gotten much worse in the last two months. A report from The New York Federal Reserve published early this year said that “When home prices began to fall in 2007, owners’ equity in household real estate began to fall rapidly from almost $13.5 trillion in 1Q 2006 to a little under $5.3 trillion in 1Q 2009, a decline in total home equity of over 60%.” Real estate research firm Zillow reported on more recent developments. “Negative equity in the first quarter reached new highs with 28.4 percent of all single-family homes with mortgages underwater, from 27 percent in Q4.” Many homeowners who want to sell their homes cannot do so because they cannot afford to pay their banks at closing. Whether for good or ill, the American home was the primary source for money used for retirements, college educations, and the purchases of many expensive items such as cars. Economists point out the this leverage helped contribute to the credit crisis as people could not cover the costs of home equity loans as real estate values collapsed. This may be true, but the drop in value happened so quickly that the balance sheets of millions of Americans were destroyed. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 148 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Economy Low Now Their ability to consume was severely damaged, further harming GDP. High mortgage payments bankrupted or nearly bankrupted people who have lost jobs or have found that their incomes had stagnated. The building industry became a shambles overnight. And, whatever the effects have been over the last three years, they are getting progressively worse as home values drop to decade lows. There is no relief in sight because potential buyers worry that price erosion has not ended. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 149 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Dollar Dumping Now Foreign countries losing interest in T-bonds Mark Trumbull, Christian Science Monitor Reporter, 06/15/09, “Are foreign investors losing interest in US Treasury bonds?”, http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0615/are-foreign-investors-losing-interest-in-us-treasury-bonds Just as the US government has decided it wants to borrow more than ever, foreign investors have decided they’re not so eager to lend. Skip to next paragraph Brace yourself: Interest rates likely to climb higher US Treasury yields rise. Will economy follow? Bond fund (and many others) bearish on US debt Government Bonds Bond Markets Economies U.S. Economy Central Banking Public Finance Government and Politics In April, foreign investors pumped only $41.9 billion into US Treasury bonds, down from about $55 billion in March. This doesn't necessarily portend a run on the dollar or a new crisis for the US economy. But it may help explain why the cost of borrowing money has been going up for the US Treasury – costs that will be shouldered by taxpayers for years to come. Some of the most prominent nations reduced their Treasury holdings in April, although the total of all foreign holdings of US debt dipped only slightly. China pared its stake by $4.4 billion, to $763.5 billion total. Japan, which ranks second to China in Treasury holdings, also posted a small decrease. So did Russia, Brazil, and oil exporting nations. Weak foreign demand comes as the Treasury would like foreign investors to buy more of its bonds, not less. The government is issuing debt at a prodigious pace, and counting on foreign investors to buy much of it. Economists at Goldman Sachs project that new borrowing by the government will total $1.7 trillion in the final half of the 2009 fiscal year, followed by $1.4 trillion in 2010 and $1 trillion in 2011. Is this the beginning of fiscal Armageddon for the world’s largest debtor nation? Most investment analysts say no. Foreign central banks, for instance, aren’t trying to unload their US debt holdings. The shift away from Treasury bonds by investors is driven partly by growing confidence in an economic recovery, which has prompted more money to flow into stock markets worldwide. But the US still faces a fiscal challenge. “The shift in global preferences back to equities, which seems rational, comes at an inconvenient time when there are heavy auctions of US Treasury securities,” Brian Bethune, an economist at IHS Global Insight, writes. This partly explains “the sharp decline in US bond prices that we have seen in the past couple of months.” He says the Federal Reserve now has difficult choices to make. The Fed has pledged to be a buyer of both US Treasury bonds and government-backed mortgage agency bonds, in an effort to keep interest rates low and boost the economy. Weakening demand for Treasuries could test just how far the Fed is willing and able to go by intervening in bond markets. So far, the Fed has said it may buy about $300 billion in Treasury bonds this year. If investors at home and abroad continue to shift money gradually away toward stocks, and away from government bonds, the effect will be to put upward pressure on interest rates. Already, that trend has been evident in recent weeks, with US mortgage rates jumping and the 10-year Treasury bond yielding as high as 4 percent last week. The challenge goes beyond the US. Governments around the world have been spending extra to stimulate recession-bound economies. The result is that the supply of government bonds may be growing much faster than demand. So far, what’s happened in recent weeks looks more like a stabilization of the bond market – after a period of crisis when market panic pushed Treasury interest rates to unusual lows – than a spread of worries about whether America can pay its debts. In Treasury debt auctions last week, 10-year bond yields reached 4 percent, a big jump upward but still historically low. And in trading Monday, the pressure on Treasury yields eased a bit, with rates falling back below 3.8 percent. The question is what comes next. Many nations, including Russia and China, are saying they want to diversify their investments to be less tethered to the dollar. But holders of dollar assets would only hurt themselves by rushing to sell them (since the selling would push down the prices of their investments). And China, for one, still has an export-oriented economy with interests in helping America finance its purchases of imported goods. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 150 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Dollar Dumping Now Investors leaving T bonds to invest in stocks Mark Trumbull, Reporter for Christian Science Monitor, 06/2/09, “Brace Yourself: Interest Rates Likely to Climb Higher”, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0602/brace-yourself-interest-rates-likely-to-climb-higher What's happening is a full-fledged bear market in Treasury bonds, as investors become more optimistic about the economy. They're buying more stocks and less government debt, a trend that pushes up government borrowing rates. The interest rate on a 10-year Treasury note has gone from 2.93 percent in April to 3.68 percent Monday. That's an extraordinary surge in just a few weeks. Mortgage rates, which are often tied directly to the direction of US Treasury bonds, are also heading upward, at a time when many households would like to refinance their loans to save money. "I would suspect that the move up in bond yields will continue into next year," says Michael Cosgrove, a Dallas economist who publishes the EconoClast, a market newsletter. "In particular, the home mortgage market is the one that will be impacted." New mortgages and refinancing activity won't dry up, but they would be constrained by the rising costs. This could be a challenge for a housing market that's trying to find its feet. The government, meanwhile, will still borrow a lot but faces a rising tab. Mr. Cosgrove forecasts that the Treasury's borrowing cost on 10-year notes will rise over the next 12 months to 4.5 percent. At a time when the government is running record budget deficits – borrowing perhaps $2 trillion in each of the next two years – that would add big extra costs on taxpayers. As a rough guide to the impact, consider this: If the current $7 trillion in federal debt held by the public were refinanced by issuing new 10-year notes, the jump in interest rates that has occurred since April would add about $50 billion in annual costs to taxpayers. Of course, not all the government debt needs to be refinanced at a single time, and forecasters have differing views on how high interest rates will go. But few see rates staying at the historic lows they reached in recent months. Increased optimism a factor Cosgrove points to two main reasons for the recent jump in interest rates. "One is that the fear factor is starting to fade from the global economy," he says. The other "is simply the huge supply of Treasury debt coming on the market." The first factor is good news. As fears of a financialindustry meltdown have receded, investors have become more willing to hold risky assets. They are pulling money out of safe Treasury bonds and putting them back into stocks. US stock prices are up more than 30 percent, on average, in the past three months. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 151 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Inflation High Now Inflation high and getting worse – energy prices EC Pulse ’11 (4/15/11, “Consumer Prices Probably Increased, while Manufacturing Activities are Expected to Ease,” pg online @ lexisnexis) The PPI report suggested yesterday that rising energy prices continued to push prices higher, although the rise in PPI was weighed down by falling gas and food prices, however, rising oil and gasoline prices continued to push prices higher. The Fed signaled recently that they expect inflation rates to rise temporarily, although the Fed also warned that a persistent rise in energy prices would eventually increase upside risks to inflation, and that would put the Fed in a tough position, where the Fed has been highlighting the need to support the economy in order to make sure that the economy doesn't suffer any setbacks. Nevertheless rising energy prices will also damage economic activities, where it will lead to higher inflation rates and given the current weak conditions, the economy will surely slowdown, and the Fed might find themselves forced to tighten their monetary policy in order to battle inflation, which would emulate other central banks around the world such as the ECB, which raised rates to counter rising inflation risks. Inflation rising – consumer price index Financial Times ’11 (6/15/11, “US core inflation rise limits Fed’s options,” pg online @ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4b6a5cf0-aee9-11e0-9310-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1SkmKqYAY) Core consumer prices in the US rose at an annual rate of 1.6 per cent in June, a pick-up in inflation that gives the Federal Reserve little scope to stimulate the economy. The Fed looks at the core consumer price index, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, as the best guide to underlying inflationary pressures. It rose by 0.3 per cent from May to June – or an annualised rate over the last three months of 2.9 per cent – which is well ahead of the Fed’s goal of 2 per cent or a bit below. Even though the Fed expects the rise in the CPI to fade away, it is highly unlikely to launch another round of quantitative easing, or QE3, while inflation is heading upwards. Core inflation continued to climb faster than expected as Americans paid more for cars, clothing and rent. Some of the rise may be due to the Japanese tsunami, which led to some supply shortages for cars. “Core inflation . . . is moving higher at both the retail and wholesale level and the back-to-back readings of 0.3 per cent on the monthly change in core CPI should be particularly troubling for the Fed,” said Conrad DeQuadros and John Ryding of RDQ Economics. “The only thing that looks transitory in this inflation report is the drop in energy prices with July’s gasoline prices on track to add 0.2 percentage points to inflation in the month.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 152 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Inflation High Now U.S. Inflation continues to rise U.S. Inflation Calculator, 3/17/11, “U.S. Inflation Surges, Consumer Prices up 0.5% in February 2011”, http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/us-inflation-surges-consumer-prices-up-0-5-in-february-2011/1000863/print/ Americans paid more for goods and services in February as surging energy and food prices continued to lift US inflation, the US Labor Department said in a report published Thursday. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), the government’s main barometer for tracking US inflation, rose higher than expected and continued a streak of sharp increases which began in December. Consumer prices climbed 0.5 percent in February 2011, the most since June 2009 when the monthly price index reached 0.9 percent. Many economists were forecasting an increase of 0.4 percent, matching January’s level. While most of the items tracked by the Labor Department showed gains, soaring food and energy costs easily led consumer prices. "Though the seasonally adjusted increase in the all items index was broad-based, the energy index was once again the largest contributor. The gasoline index continued to rise, and the index for household energy turned up in February with all of its components posting increases," the department said. "Food indexes also continued to rise in February, with sharp increases in the indexes for fresh vegetables and meats contributing to a 0.8 percent increase in the food at home index, the largest since July 2008." Last month food and energy prices were up 0.6 and 3.4 percent, respectively, as compared to 0.5 and 2.1 percent in the previous month [1]. Over the past year, food costs have advanced 2.3 percent while energy prices have surged 11 percent, with gasoline prices soaring 19.2 percent. Prices at the pump were up 4.7 percent in February, capping a string of eight consecutive monthly increases. Other price increases in February included shelter, medical care, airline fares, transportation, recreation and new and used vehicles. Clothing was one of the few areas to drop. Prices fell 0.9 percent during the month, their biggest decline since July 2006. Stripping out the more volatile food and energy items, the so-called core US inflation rate rose 0.2 percent in February 2011, the same rate of increase as in January. US inflation surged 2.1 percent over the past 12 months, up from 1.6% in the year to January. The core US inflation rate rose 1.1 percent from February 2010 against the prior 12-month pick-up of 1.0 percent. The core reading still remains below the Federal Reserves preferred range between 1.6 and 2.0 percent, although by a lesser degree according to some analysts. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 153 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Inflation High Now U.S. Inflation rises faster U.S. Inflation Calculator, 5/13/11, “US Inflation Spikes 3.2%, Consumer Prices Up 0.4% in April 2011”, http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/us-inflation-surges-consumer-prices-up-0-5-in-february-2011/1000863/print/ US inflation raced at its fastest annual pace in two and a half years as the cost of energy and food drove consumer prices higher, according to the latest Consumer Prices Index (CPI) report published by the government on Friday, May 13. Americans are paying more for goods and services for a tenth straight month as consumer prices increased 3.2 percent in the 12 months ending April 2011, the highest figure since October 2008. The annual rate was 1.1 percent as recently as November. The gain was greatly attributed to rising gasoline prices. "The energy index posted another increase in April as the gasoline index continued to rise, the latter accounting for almost half of the seasonally adjusted all items increase," the US Labor Department said Friday [1] in its monthly CPI report. "The energy index has now risen 19.0 percent over the last 12 months, with the gasoline index up 33.1 percent. The food index has risen 3.2 percent while the index for all items less food and energy has increased 1.3 percent; both figures represent increases over recent months." When pulling out the more volatile food and energy prices, the so-called core inflation rate rose 1.3 percent over the past year, which was the biggest gain since February 2010. The previous 12-month reading ending in March 2011 registered an increase of 1.2 percent. Still, the core inflation rate remains below the Federal Reserves preferred range of between 1.6 and 2.0 percent. On a monthly basis, the CPI, the government’s main gauge for tracking US inflation, rose in line with most economists’ expectations. Consumer prices climbed 0.4 percent in April 2011 as compared to the 0.5 percent increase in March [2]. Energy was again the main stimulate, advancing 2.2 percent with prices at the pump up 3.3 percent. Food costs rose 0.4 percent. Other consumer price increases in April 2011 included new and used vehicles (up 0.7 and 1.2 percent), transportation (up 0.2 percent), medical care (up 0.3 percent), and airline fares. The cost to fly jumped 12.1 percent over the last 12 months. Excluding the more volatile food and energy prices, the so-called core US inflation rate advanced 0.2 percent in April 2011. That was also inline with most economists’ forecasts. The core inflation rate rose 0.1 percent in March. Inflation is high now Daniel Pereira, Article Writer, 7/21/11, “Inflation starting to pinch U.S. consumers”, http://community.nasdaq.com/News/201107/inflation-starting-to-pinch-us-consumers.aspx?storyid=86678 The latest "SpendTrend" analysis of U.S. consumer habits from FirstData shows a disturbing trend towards higher inflation and a more pronounced usage pattern of credit cards for basic consumer staples. Silvio Tavares, a senior vice president and division manager of First Data Information and Analytics Solutions, stated in the firm's press release that "consumers are increasingly turning to credit cards to fund non-discretionary purchases." With initial jobless claims rising by 10,000 to 418,000 in the week ending July 16, and the debt limit crisis looming over the U.S. economy, it's looking like a rough summer for the country. The inflation issue is heavily driven by the rising cost of fuel over the first half of 2011, though repeated shocks to the global food system have driven the FAO Food Price Index steadily higher. Overall, the macroeconomic picture is looking more and more serious - especially since the general consensus is that any progress on the debt issue will mean some level of cuts to government spending and social services. That hasn't gone over well in Greece, where austerity measures have turned Athens into a kind of warzone and a partial default still appears to be on the books. It's a scary market, with various risk factors menacing equities, bonds and commodities alike. Even the gold standard of haven assets, the U.S. Treasury bond, is being looked at with skeptical eeyes. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 154 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Consumer Spending Low Now Consumer spending lowest in 2 years NPR, 6/27/11, “Consumer Spending Pace Slowest Since 2009” Americans spent at the weakest pace in 20 months in May, a sign that gas prices are taking a toll on the economy. Consumer spending was unchanged last month, the Commerce Department said Monday. That was the worst result since September 2009. And when adjusted for inflation, spending actually dropped 0.1 percent. April's consumer spending figures were revised to show a similar decline when adjusting for inflation. That marked the first declines in inflation-adjusted spending since January 2010. Incomes rose 0.3 percent for the second straight month. But adjusted for inflation, after-tax incomes increased only 0.1 percent in May, after falling by the same amount in the previous month. By that measure, incomes have been essentially flat since the beginning of the year. Hiring slowed considerably this spring after a strong start at the beginning of the year. The economy created only 54,000 jobs in May, the lowest amount in eight months. That followed three months in which employers hired an average of 220,000 net new workers each month. The unemployment rate rose to 9.1 percent last month. Fewer jobs and high unemployment leave workers with little leverage to ask for raises. Slow Wage Growth, Gas Prices Take Toll Slow wage growth hurts the broader economy because consumers have less money to spend. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. The spike in gas prices has forced many consumers to cut back on discretionary purchases, such as furniture and vacations, which help boost growth. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 155 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Link Takeouts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 156 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Space Militarization Links The costs of space weaponization are often overstated Brian C. Ruhm, April 2003, researcher for the U.S. Air Force, “Finding the Middle Ground: The U.S. Air Force, Space Weaponization, and Arms Control”, pg. 29 Additional considerations also suggest that concerns regarding the net cost of space weapons could be overstated. Space weapons such as CAVs or orbital bombardment systems employing precision conventional or kinetic strike weapons might render unnecessary whole classes of strategic nuclear systems.4 Replacing US strategic nuclear forces with conventional space surrogates would have two beneficial effects in terms of costs. First, it would help to dissuade other countries from pursing a nuclear capability and thus reduce the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat against which the US needs to defend.5 Second, the promise of conventional space weapons as a more effective and useful deterrent force may substantially reduce the likelihood of even smaller, regional wars. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 157 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Space Debris Links The costs of cleaning up space debris are likely to be under $10 million; New technology will also be very effective, reducing costs even more Dr. Craig Smith and Dr. Ben Greene, 7/19/10, PhD’s and Co-Chief Executive Officers at Creative Technology Solutions, “EOS to Build World’s First Automated Space Debris Tracker”, http://www.eostech.com/documents/announcements/ASX_announcement_ASRP_Grant_19072010.pdf Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited (ASX “EOS”) has been awarded a $4.04 million grant from the Australian Space Research Program (“ASRP”) to develop the world’s first automated, high-precision, laser-based, space debris tracking system. Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr announced the award on 14 July 2010. “Australia has a proud history in space science and research. The ASRP helps us expand our already important role in international partnerships,” Senator Carr said. “Modern space science and exploration is all about countries working together, and Australia has a great reputation in collaborating and leading new space research.” The grant was awarded to a consortium led by EOS subsidiary, EOS Space Systems Pty Limited, and which includes the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australian National University, and Global Near Space Services Inc [USA]. The consortium will apply the grant towards the estimated $9 million cost of enhancing EOS’ current space debris tracking capabilities at Mount Stromlo to meet current and future space debris tracking requirements. The project will be led by EOS Space Systems, whose Chief Executive Craig Smith said: “Current space surveillance and tracking systems cannot determine orbits in space with sufficient accuracy to costeffectively mitigate collisions between satellites and space debris. This project will demonstrate responsive, high precision laser and optical tracking of space debris, improved space situational awareness for key space assets, and fully remote and automated operation of a high performance laser tracking system.” “These new features, to be demonstrated from 2012, can significantly reduce the cost of providing debris protection to satellites, and will ease the integration of the capability into the operational processes of key users.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 158 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SPS/SBSP Links The costs of alternative energy sources are skyrocketing; Solar powered satellites are becoming the most cost-efficient energy source Alex Canizares, 9/8/2000 (2k), staff writer for cyberdelix.net, “Solar Satellites Will Power Earth, Scientists Say”, http://www.cyberdelix.net/adminz/41eedc7b_9792_225285.html WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (States News Service) – Solar-powered satellites will become a major energy source by 2030, scientists testified at a congressional hearing Thursday, helping to reduce reliance on dwindling fuel supplies. With fuel supplies projected to fall and energy costs reaching historic highs, using satellites to transmit energy to provide electricity used to heat homes and run appliances is becoming technologically viable, scientists told the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics. Electric energy use is projected to grow 75 percent worldwide by 2020, and oil production will slow due to depleting reserves after 2015, said Ralph H. Nansen, president of Solar Space Industries. "Space solar power can solve these problems," Nansen said. "The time is now right for their development to begin." A roadmap John C. Mankins, manager of Advanced Concepts Studies at NASA, said the space agency is laying out a "roadmap" to develop satellite- powered energy using several technologies in the works. High-voltage solar panels that could handle sunlight during 99 percent of a 24-hour day, wireless transmitters that can beam large amounts of microwave energy, and an "inflatable radiator" to absorb heat in space, are all under development, Mankins said. Relaying power from ground stations to satellites and back to ground stations at another location is another, perhaps more readily available, application, Mankins said. A complete solar power satellite system to produce enough energy to be economically viable may not emerge until 2025 to 2035, he said. The idea of transmitting solar energy from space to earth first emerged in the 1960s, but research efforts failed to gain ground until 1995, when NASA and other scientists began studying the idea more carefully using better technology. NASA spends $22 million annually on the research. The next step, Nansen said, is building a ground test program to integrate various technologies, including 20 to 50 kilowatt solar arrays, antennas to transmit energy, and distribution grids, that would essentially transmit energy across a 1 to 5 kilometer range on the ground. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 159 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SPS/SBSP Links SBSP will inevitably be the primary energy source; currently, the demand for energy will give it a fair price Nancy Atkinson, 2/18/09, science journalist who focuses mainly on space, “New Company Looks to Produce Space Based Solar Power Within a Decade”, http://www.universetoday.com/25754/new-company-looks-to-produce-space-based-solar-power-within-adecade/ Is space-based solar power (SBSP) a technology whose time has come? The concept and even some of the hardware for harnessing energy from the sun with orbiting solar arrays has been around for some time. But the biggest challenge for making the concept a reality, says entrepreneur Peter Sage of Space Energy, Inc., is that SBSP has never been commercially viable. But that could be changing. Space Energy, Inc. has assembled an impressive team of scientists, engineers and business people, putting together what Sage calls “a rock-solid commercial platform” for their company. And given the current looming issues of growing energy needs and climate change, Space Energy, Inc. could be in the right place at the right time. “Although it’s a very grandiose vision, it makes total sense,” Sage told Universe Today. “This is an inevitable technology; it’s going to happen. If we can put solar panels in space where the sun shines 24 hours a day, if we have a safe way of transmitting the energy to Earth and broadcasting it anywhere, that is a serious game changer.” If everything falls into place for this company, they could be producing commercially available SBSP within a decade. The basic concept of SBSP is having solar cells in space collecting energy from sun, then converting the energy into a low intensity microwave beam, sending it down to Earth where it is collected on a rectenna, and then fed into the power grid to provide electricity. Almost 200 million gigawatts of solar energy is beamed towards the Earth every second, which is more energy than our civilization has used since the dawn of the electrical age. We only need a way to harness that energy and make it usable. Space Energy, Inc.’s vision is to help create an energy-independent world, and improve the lives of millions of people by bringing a source of safe, clean energy to the planet from space. They are looking to become the world’s leading, and perhaps the first, SBSP enterprise. Solar collector beaming energy to Earth. Image courtesy Mafic Studios. “The biggest challenge for SBSP is making it work on a commercial level in terms of bottom line,” said Sage, “i.e., putting together a business case that would allow the enormous infrastructure costs to be raised, the plan implemented, and then electricity sold at a price that is reasonable. I say ‘reasonable’ and not just ‘competitive’ because we’re getting into a time where selling energy only on a price basis isn’t going to be the criteria for purchase.” Currently, there are times in the US when electricity is sold wholesale for close to a dollar a kilowatt during peak usage or times of emergency when power needs to be shipped around the national grid. Sage said SBSP will never be cost comparable with the current going rate of 6 or 7 cents a kilowatt due to the enormous set-up costs. “We believe we can get it to a reasonable price, a fair market price as the demand for energy increases,” Sage said. A huge energy gap is looming for our world, and that too, will change the energy game. According to a white paper written by aerospace engineer James Michael Snead, “The End of Easy Energy and What Are We Going To Do About It,” in order to meet the world’s projected increase in energy needs by 2100 which likely will be at least three times what is being produced today, today’s sustainable energy production must expand by a factor of over 25. Under that scenario, even if the US were to build 70 new nuclear plants, add the equivalent of 15 more Hoover Dams, expand the geothermal capacity by 50 times what it is today, install over a million large land or sea wind turbines covering 150,000 square miles, build 60,000 square miles of commercial solar voltaic farms, and on top of that convert 1.3 billion dry tons of food mass to bio fuels, still only 30% of the power needs would be filled by 2100, or perhaps even earlier. “Looking at every single technology we can as a civilization to try and fill the energy gap in a clean and resourceful, sustainable way, technologies like SBSP have to be made to work,” said Sage. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 160 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Space Colonization Links The evolution of our market makes space colonization affordable; And, space colonization will create jobs, stimulate economy W.H. Siegfried, 2003, respected author in support of space colonization, “Space Colonization-Benefits for the World”, http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf A complete list of potential world benefits from Space Colonization is lengthy, even when confined to technological items. Included are access to space resources that include quantities of almost every resource we have on Earth except fossil fuels; an improved understanding of the complex systems that comprise our climate; conducting experiments in chemistry, biology, physiology, and even sociology that cannot be conducted here on Earth; and developing new technologies for use on Earth. All are the bounty of Space Colonization. There are also many sociological benefits of Space Colonization. We must remember that such an endeavor cannot be implemented by one any agency or single government. A world policy would be needed. In the United States, the combined efforts of NASA, DOE, DOI, DOT, DOC, and others would be focused in addition to our broad industrial base and the commercial world. It should be noted that the eventual space tourism market (tapping in to the world annual $3,400 billion market or the United States $120 billion per year “adventure travel” market) (Reichert, 1999) will not be based on the work of isolated government agencies but, rather, evolve from a synergistic combination of government, travel industry, hotel chains, civil engineering, and, yes, a modified version of industry as we know it today. The change in emphasis from our present single-objective missions to a broadband Space Colonization infrastructure will create employment here on Earth and in space for millions of people and will profoundly change our daily life on Earth. This venue, initiated by short suborbital followed by short orbital and then orbital hotel stays (Collins, 2000) has already begun with brief visits to the ISS. Once systems evolve that can reduce the cost of a “space ticket” to some $10,000 to $50,000 US, the market will grow. Fig 2 is typical of studies on space tourism passengers that could be expected vs. costs of the trip. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 161 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Mining Links Space mining essential: The price is low enough now that the benefits outweigh Leslie Gertsch, 2/9/11, University of Missouri S&T associate professor of geological engineering, “Mining on the moon?”, http://discover.mst.edu/2011/02/mining-on-the-moon.html While lunar mining might some day be economically feasible for countries and companies, a Missouri University of Science and Technology researcher believes strongly that mining in space is essential to the very survival of our species. "Humanity eventually needs to live in more than just one place, other than the Earth," says Dr. Leslie Gertsch, an associate professor of geological engineering at Missouri S&T. According to Gertsch, moon dirt contains a surprising amount of vital compounds, including water and maybe even "rare-earth elements" like lithium (think lithium-ion batteries). Gertsch became fascinated with the moon while watching Apollo astronauts collecting lunar rocks on a black and white television in her family's Ohio farm house. Last year, she was paying close attention when NASA blasted a hole in the moon's surface, where more water than expected was discovered. In addition to water, the moon has hydrogen, aluminum and iron. Gertsch says the leading theory these days is that the moon was actually part of the Earth at one time — that it formed in the aftermath of a collision between the Earth and a massive foreign object. So it stands to reason that the moon has some natural resources in common with the Earth. Best practices for mining on the moon and beyond are still being developed, of course, and that's a big part of Gertsch's research. She knows space mining would be essential to colonizing the solar system. Explorers would need to create fuel and breathing gasses as they traveled, instead of hauling heavy supplies with them from Earth. "We could launch from the moon to go to Mars, for instance, at a lower cost," says Gertsch, who notes that asteroids and comets are also good candidates for space mining activities. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 162 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: International Space Station Links ISS Experiments have fairly low costs: will be profitable in the long run as well Linda A. Johnson, 4/16/04, business writer for the Associated Press, “Johnson senses ISS experiments will aid research, company”, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-16-iss-tourist-plans_x.htm Sensors Unlimited's high-resolution cameras detect various segments of the infrared lightband through complex sensors inside. The sensors, a sandwich of integrated circuits with hundreds of thousands of microscopic wires made from alloys of the metals indium, gallium and arsenic, take about a month to make, all inside dust-free "clean rooms." Each is tailored to the customer's needs. "There's only a few companies in the world that can do it, but we do it exceptionally well," said company president and co-founder Marshall J. Cohen. The cameras generally cost about $20,000. They have more than 100 applications in industry and the military, from surveillance and medical imaging to food processing, spectroscopy and quality control in manufacturing, according to Cohen. Many Sensors Unlimited customers call its infrared cameras topnotch. "We see them as one of the leaders, if not the leader, in a very important technology to our defense programs," said Jeffrey Paul, manager of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency effort to develop a next-generation night vision system for the helmets of U.S. military personnel. It would allow them to see more clearly in pitch black and instantly transmit via special radios what they see to others nearby and to headquarters. That would give U.S. troops a huge advantage over enemies using commercial night vision goggles, which require some visible light. Paul said Sensors Unlimited is building high-performance infrared sensors, to be delivered next month, that likely will be part of the system. Monsanto has been using Sensors' cameras for five years in its high-tech system to measure concentrations of protein, oil and starch inside seeds — information needed to screen thousands of seed samples per day to find the ideal ones for crossbreeding plants to produce better crops. "We couldn't do it without their camera," said Monsanto research specialist Steven Modiano. "It's indispensable." Dr. Gary Tearney, a researcher at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Harvard Medical School, recently began using Sensors' infrared detectors as part of a system being developed to help predict whether plaques inside heart arteries are likely to trigger a heart attack. The system includes a catheter threaded into the heart with a tiny camera on the tip that transmits images back to a computer console that includes an infrared detector. "It allows us to do much higher-sensitivity imaging at higher speeds," Tearney said. Sensors Unlimited's infrared detectors, thermal imaging systems and equipment to amplify the tiniest bid of visible light appear to be top-quality, and the company is unusual in manufacturing everything it develops, said Stephanie Henkel, executive editor of Sensors magazine. She said competitors include Raytek of Santa Cruz, Calif., and Redlake of San Diego. Olsen and Cohen founded Sensors Unlimited in 1992, then sold it for $700 million in 2000 just before the telecommunications industry tanked. The new owners slashed jobs and were about to shut the facility when Olsen, Cohen and other remaining managers bought it back for $6 million in 2002. After struggling for the next several months, they turned things around. "We've been profitable ever since," and had revenues of about $15 million last year, said Cohen. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 163 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Internal Link Takeouts/Turns*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 164 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General Deficit spending doesn’t kill the economy Alton Drew, Public Policy at the Examiner, ‘9 (The Examiner, August 29th 2009, “Is Paul Krugman right about deficit spending policy?” http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-national/is-paul-krugman-right-about-deficit-spending-policy) Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate in economics, yesterday argued that deficit spending as policy is nothing to be afraid of. In a New York Times piece, "Till Debt Does Its Part", Professor Krugman takes the position that deficits are actually helping the economy. The decrease in tax receipts combined with increases in unemployment benefits and stimulus outlays are also a part of the deficit, Professor Krugman reminds us. We also should not forget that we are offsetting outlays with the assets that we have purchased. Doing the opposite --balancing our budget-- particularly during a slump may have resulted in, "a full replay of the Great Depression". Deficits, according to Professor Krugman, saved the world. Professor Krugman also points out that more stimulus may be needed to address the projected level of high unemployment that may be occurring for the next few years. Also, while Professor Krugman admits that while a high level of debt is a bad thing, the level of debt is manageable especially when we compare our debt to gross domestic product ratio to the 118% debt to GDP ratio of Belgium in the early 1990s. Yes. Belgium. Not exactly the economic powerhouse that we should choose to emulate, but it is the issue of incurring bad debt that I have problems with. Deficit spending, at least in the short term, need not be a bad thing. If the primary goal is stabilizing the economy, funding income transfers such as unemployment benefits work to automatically stabilize a downturn in demand for goods and services. In a downturn where tax receipts have decreased and demand for commodities remains virtually the same, we should expect deficits. We may have to borrow in order to fund these transfers. What Professor Krugman does not properly explain is the proper role of borrowing. Professor Krugman appears to endorse borrowing if and only if debt will plug up a few wholes in the dyke. There is no mention of the returns we should be getting from excessive borrowing. Yes, there is the soft return of government ensuring that Americans are able to receive food stamps, get medical insurance for their children, and pay their rent. What Professor Krugman fails to address are the hard returns. For all the money we borrow, how does this borrowing impact our output? Are we increasing our GDP as a result of the borrowing? What are the monetary returns? Deficits aren’t a problem but fear-mongering fiscal scare tactics are Paul Krugman, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Nobel Prize in economics, ’10 (The New York Times, Feburary 4th 2010, “Fiscal Scare Tactics,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311262548-O4SgRiKArH9Yhj755e//1Q) These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple. Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe. So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder. To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized. And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 165 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General Fiscal Austerity is meaningless – Greece proves Joe Weisenhal, writes for Business Insider, ’11 (April 26th 2011, “What's The Point Of Austerity Again?,” http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-point-of-austerity-again-20114?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+clusterstock+%28ClusterStock%29&utm_content=Googl e+Feedfetcher) So now we know: Not only does austerity not help the economy, it doesn't even help governments get out of debt, as Greece's and Spain's latest horrific numbers confirm. The governments have been cutting spending, and deficits have gotten worse. So, what's the point of austerity again? If the point is to improve a country's fiscal situation it's an obvious failure. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 166 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence Cutting spending will not boost investor confidence or lower interest rates Paul Krugman, 3/25/11, columnist for the New York Times, “Confidence fairy won’t save us from the deficit hawks”, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7491862.html Portugal's government has just fallen in a dispute over austerity proposals. Irish bond yields have topped 10 percent for the first time. And the British government has just marked its economic forecast down and its deficit forecast up. What do these events have in common? They're all evidence that slashing spending in the face of high unemployment is a mistake. Austerity advocates predicted that spending cuts would bring quick dividends in the form of rising confidence, and that there would be few, if any, adverse effects on growth and jobs; but they were wrong. It's too bad, then, that these days you're not considered serious in Washington unless you profess allegiance to the same doctrine that's failing so dismally in Europe. It was not always thus. Two years ago, faced with soaring unemployment and large budget deficits — both the consequences of a severe financial crisis - most advanced-country leaders seemingly understood that the problems had to be tackled in sequence, with an immediate focus on creating jobs combined with a long-run strategy of deficit reduction. Why not slash deficits immediately? Because tax increases and cuts in government spending would depress economies further, worsening unemployment. And cutting spending in a deeply depressed economy is largely self-defeating even in purely fiscal terms: Any savings achieved at the front end are partly offset by lower revenue, as the economy shrinks. So jobs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy. Unfortunately, it's a strategy that has been abandoned in the face of phantom risks and delusional hopes. On one side, we're constantly told that if we don't slash spending immediately we'll end up just like Greece, unable to borrow except at exorbitant interest rates. On the other, we're told not to worry about the impact of spending cuts on jobs because fiscal austerity will actually create jobs by raising confidence. How's that story working out so far? Self-styled deficit hawks have been crying wolf over U.S. interest rates more or less continuously since the financial crisis began to ease, taking every uptick in rates as a sign that markets were turning on America. But the truth is that rates have fluctuated, not with debt fears, but with rising and falling hope for economic recovery. And with full recovery still seeming very distant, rates are lower now than they were two years ago. But couldn't America still end up like Greece? Yes, of course. If investors decide that we're a banana republic whose politicians can't or won't come to grips with long-term problems, they will indeed stop buying our debt. But that's not a prospect that hinges, one way or another, on whether we punish ourselves with short-run spending cuts. Just ask the Irish, whose government - having taken on an unsustainable debt burden by trying to bail out runaway banks - tried to reassure markets by imposing savage austerity measures on ordinary citizens. The same people urging spending cuts on America cheered. "Ireland offers an admirable lesson in fiscal responsibility," declared Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, who said the spending cuts had removed fears over Irish solvency and predicted rapid economic recovery. That was in June 2009. Since then, the interest rate on Irish debt has doubled; Ireland's unemployment rate now stands at 13.5 percent. And then there's the British experience. Like America, Britain is still perceived as solvent by financial markets, giving it room to pursue a strategy of jobs first, deficits later. But the government of Prime Minister David Cameron chose instead to move to immediate, unforced austerity, in the belief that private spending would more than make up for the government's pullback. As I like to put it, the Cameron plan was based on belief that the confidence fairy would make everything all right. But she hasn't: British growth has stalled, and the government has marked up its deficit projections as a result. Which brings me back to what passes for budget debate in Washington these days. A serious fiscal plan for America would address the long-run drivers of spending, above all health care costs, and it would almost certainly include some kind of tax increase. But we're not serious: Any talk of using Medicare funds effectively is met with shrieks of "death panels," and the official GOP position - barely challenged by Democrats - appears to be that nobody should ever pay higher taxes. Instead, all the talk is about short-run spending cuts. In short, we have a political climate in which self-styled deficit hawks want to punish the unemployed even as they oppose any action that would address our long-run budget problems. And here's what we know from experience abroad: The confidence fairy won't save us from the consequences of our folly. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 167 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence Short term spending cuts threaten the economy and can’t fix crowd out or confidence Zarroli ’11 (Jim Zarroli, a reporter who has covered business and the economy from NPR's New York bureau since 1996, 7/18/11, “Does Government Debt Really Weaken the Economy?” NPR, pg online @ http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138474504/doesgovernment-debt-really-weaken-the-economy) Then there is the confidence issue. Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute says when long-term deficits are growing, businesses start to worry that their taxes will eventually go up. "The best explanation is that when times are very uncertain and deficits are large, then people and firms tend to get very cautious about their plans for the future and their purchases," he says. Some members of Congress have used these concerns to press for big and immediate cuts in government spending. In fact, the emphasis on the deficit often seems to have eclipsed concern about unemployment in a way that drives liberal economists crazy. Jared Bernstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says it's true that over time government borrowing can crowd out private sector capital. "But interest rates are bumping along the bottom now so crowding out can't possibly be a problem," he says. Bernstein, who served as economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, says it's also true that many businesses lack confidence in the economy and that's a problem. But they're not worried about levels of government debt years down the road. They're worried about weak demand right now. Bernstein says cutting spending right now could be a disaster for the economy. "This is an economy that cannot sustain spending cuts or tighter monetary policy or any of that sort of thing right now," he says. "If anything, that would raise the probability of moving us backwards." Bernstein says cutting the deficit is important long term, but not right now. And that view seems to be shared by a fair number of economists. Hassett, of the American Enterprise Institute, says there's a delicate balance to cutting government spending and it may be risky to do it too soon. "If you reduce government spending right now, then output is going to go down, almost surely, and so that's a negative," he says. "And given where the economy is, a big reduction in current spending by the government would be a somewhat treacherous strategy." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 168 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Causes Dollar Dumping No alternative to the dollar William Kazer, The Wall Street Journal, 7/15 (July 15th 2011, “Asia Quietly Frets Over U.S. Debt,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304223804576445601619550390.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories) Officials and analysts in some of the nations with huge holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds voiced concern about Washington's handling of its debt but said they have few alternatives for parking their cash. The announcement by Moody's Investors Service that it is considering an unprecedented downgrade of the U.S. government's top Aaa bond rating highlighted a big potential problem for China, Japan and other countries that have turned their trade surpluses into trillions of dollars in American debt instruments. U.S. debt looks less safe than it has long been considered, but there's a lack of alternatives that are both more attractive and liquid enough to absorb such sums. Asian government officials were largely circumspect on Thursday, reflecting in part concerns that being too critical risks further hurting the value of their holdings. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 169 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Causes Crowd Out Spending causes crowd in, not crowd out Paul Krugman, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Nobel Prize in economics, ‘9 (New York Times, September 28th 2009, “Crowding In,” http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/crowding-in/) But the really dramatic difference is for argument (2). Under the kind of conditions we’re now facing, the main determinant of business investment is the state of the economy, as evidenced by the plunge in investment shown in the figure. This, in turn, means that anything that improves the state of the economy, including fiscal stimulus, leads to more investment, and hence raises the economy’s future potential. That is, under current conditions deficit spending doesn’t lead to crowding out — it leads to crowding in. In fact, you could argue that the worst thing we can do for future generations is NOT to run sufficiently large deficits right now. Things won’t always work this way. Eventually we’ll emerge from the liquidity trap, and the normal rules of economic prudence will reassert themselves. But we are not there, or anywhere close to there, right now. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 170 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Raises Taxes Regulating spending increases taxes James L. Gattuso et al, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, Diane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, and Stephen A. Keen is a Research Assistant, in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, ’10 (The Heritage Foundation, “Red Tape Rising: Obama’s Torrent of New Regulation,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/Red-Tape-Rising-Obamas-Torrent-of-New-Regulation) The cost of regulation has often been called a hidden tax. Although the total does not appear anywhere in the federal budget, the multitude of rules, restrictions, and mandates imposes a heavy burden on Americans and the U.S. economy. According to a report recently released by the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to about $1.75 trillion annually, [1] nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected last year.[2] Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course. Most Americans would agree on the need for protections against terrorism, although the extent of such rules is certainly subject to debate. Moreover, regulations are not necessarily inconsistent with free-market principles. Some, such as anti-fraud measures, protect the rights of consumers. But there is always a cost. And, for the same reasons that federal spending is reported, so, too, should regulatory costs. Tax increases don’t resolve spending issues Curtis Dubay, Senior Tax Policy Analyst at the Heritage foundation, 7/6 (The Heritage Foundation, July 6th 2011, " Tax Hikes Not Needed to Balance Budget,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2011/07/Tax-hikes-not-needed-to-balance-budget) To get federal finances in order, conventional wisdom says we must both cut spending and “enhance revenues” (i.e., increase taxes). But conventional wisdom is dead wrong. The Congressional Budget Office says so. Last week, the CBO reported that if Congress simply left taxes as they are today, tax revenues would return to normal levels -18 percent of the gross domestic product - in just six years … and keep growing after that. Eventually we would need to cut taxes to keep them from reaching an all-time high. [Note: In this scenario, tax rates stay the same for all taxpayers, middle-income families continue to escape the clutches of the alternative minimum tax, and other tax-reducing provisions now set to expire remain in effect.] How is this possible? Through renewed economic growth. Once it takes hold, taxpayers earn more and move into higher tax brackets. At the same time, job creation rebounds, creating more taxpayers than before. And that combines to pour more and more money into the federal coffers. President Obama remains adamant that any deal to raise the debt limit include tax increases. But the CBO report clearly shows that this is not necessary. Indeed, it indicates that this is exactly the wrong prescription, because the CBO data illustrate that Washington has a spending problem, not a tax problem. The best way to raise tax revenue and lower the deficit is to spark rapid economic growth. As the president’s failed stimulus program has so painfully demonstrated, you can’t do that with a binge of public borrowing and spending. And you certainly can’t spark economic growth by raising taxes, especially in an already fragile recovery. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 171 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Raises Taxes Tax increases inevitable – it’s simple arithmetic David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, 7/12/11 NYT, “Why Taxes Will Rise in the End” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/business/economy/why-taxes-will-rise-in-the-end-david-leonhardt.html Polls show that most Americans are opposed to raising the federal debt ceiling. Even when the Pew Research Center included the consequences in its question — a national default that would damage the economy — slightly more people were against raising the ceiling than were for it. How could this be? Above all, I think it reflects a desire to return to the good old days. Not so long ago, nobody was talking about tax increases or Medicare cuts, and the federal budget seemed to be in fine shape. If only we could get back to the past — get spending under control, as the cliché goes — we’d be O.K. The debt ceiling, with its harsh finality, offers the chance. Unfortunately, this nostalgic view depends on a misunderstanding of the budget. It imagines a budget in which the United States indefinitely has the world’s highest medical costs, its largest military, an aging population and, nonetheless, taxes that are among the world’s lowest. Economists have a name for that combination: a free lunch. Free lunchism is ultimately the problem with the no-new-taxes pledge that so many politicians have adopted. A refusal to raise taxes, no matter how principled, cannot take us back to the good old days. It would instead lead to a very different American society. For taxes to remain where they are, Washington would need to end Medicare as we know it, end Social Security as we know it, severely shrink the military — or do some combination of the above. “We cannot repeat the past when it comes to the federal budget,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, recently wrote. “The aging of our population and the rising cost of health care have changed the backdrop for federal budget policy in a fundamental way.” The most important part of the recent Republican budget plan, written by Representative Paul Ryan, was that it acknowledged this reality (in its details, if not its packaging). It called for no tax increases. To make the numbers come close to adding up, the plan also called for eliminating the current Medicare and replacing it with a system in which the elderly would buy less generous private insurance plans. Such is the price of no new taxes. Early indications are that Americans don’t like Mr. Ryan’s plan all that much. In upstate New York this spring, a Democrat won a typically Republican House district by campaigning relentlessly against the plan. National polls show huge majorities favor keeping Medicare and Social Security in som7ething approaching their current form — much larger majorities, tellingly, than oppose an increase in the debt ceiling. In the near term, Congressional Republicans have decided to play down the Ryan plan. Most continue to oppose new taxes, without going so far as to explain the consequences. They will have little trouble sticking to that position through the current debt ceiling fight, because the deficit does not need to be solved immediately. Eventually, though, drawing up a credible deficit plan with neither Ryan-like cuts nor higher taxes will be impossible. And you can already see the start of a potential Republican compromise. It revolves around raising taxes, on net, by shrinking corporate or individual loopholes. The country’s highest-ranking Republican, John Boehner, the speaker of the House, signaled his openness to such a deal last week. (Mr. Boehner abandoned the deal under pressure from Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican and a Tea Party ally.) Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 172 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Spending Raises Taxes Taxes will inevitably have to rise Ezra Klein, 7/13/11 Washington Post, “Why Taxes will rise” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-taxes-willrise/2011/07/11/gIQARWffCI_blog.html In Tuesday’s column on taxes and subsequent posts, I’ve focused mainly on historical tax rates. Revenues right now are less than 15 percent of GDP — a 50-year low, and well below the 19+% that historically accompanies balanced budgets. But more important than where the budget has been is where it’s going. And the answer, due to the baby boomers, is up. Right now, about 13 percent of the country is 65 or older. By 2030, when the last of the baby boomers retire, that’ll be up to 18 percent. That means fewer workers and more retirees. And that means federal spending will go up as a percent of GDP, at least unless you have some way to keep all those retirees in the workforce or decide they don’t get Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office runs a calculation in which they split the rise in health-care costs into two parts: “excess cost growth,” which is basically how much faster health-care spending grows than everything else, and “aging,” which is the growth in federal spending on health care because more old people means more people depending on federal benefits. In the long-run, excess cost growth is the real problem. But over the next 25 years, aging is a much bigger deal. In 2035, it’ll mean federal spending has to rise by 3.5 percentage points — and that’s just for health care, and it’s assuming we manage to get cost growth completely under control this year. So this is a very optimistic, very incomplete calculation, but let’s run it anyway. Between 1980 and 2007, federal spending averaged about 21 percent of GDP. Add 3.5 percentage points and you get 24.5 percent of GDP. So in a world where we slap a tight lid over the growth in health-care costs, where our efforts to control costs work beyond our wildest dreams, taxes are going to have to equal something near to 24.5 percent of GDP. Perhaps we’ll go through a period of real austerity and we’ll make very tough choices and we’ll cut an impressive four percentage points of GDP from federal spending. Fine. Now we’re at 20.5 percent of GDP. Taxes are still going up. The reality is that we’re going to have higher taxes in the coming years, and beyond that, we’re going to have higher taxes than we’ve traditionally had during periods in which taxes were relatively high. That’s not because Democrats want higher taxes, nor because Republicans are poor negotiators. It’s because the country’s demographics will change. If you want to draw some further policy conclusions out of this, I’d say it underscores the reasons liberals should worry about debt, as it shows how easy it would be for spending on the old to squeeze out all sorts of investments in the young and supports for the poor, and why conservatives should get serious about what sort of tax increases they would find most acceptable, as taxes are going to go up one way or the other. But you could also stop short of all that. The real point here is we’re moving to an age mix that’s going to require higher spending and that’s going to mean higher taxes. There’s really no way around it. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 173 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Greece Analogy No debt crisis escalation – dollar is the world’s reserve currency Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 3/25 (Seeking Alpha, “Paul Krugman Is Wrong: The United States Could Not End Up Like Greece,” 3/25/2011, http://seekingalpha.com/article/260141-paul-krugman-is-wrong-theunited-states-could-not-end-up-like-greece) Actually this is not right for the simple reason that the United States has its own currency. This is important because even in the worst case scenario, where the deficit in United States spirals out of control, the crisis would not take the form of the crisis in Greece. Greece is like the state of Ohio. If Ohio has to borrow, it has no choice but to persuade investors to buy its debt. Unless Greece leaves the euro (an option that it probably should be considering, at least to improve its bargaining position), it must pay the rate of interest demanded by private investors or meet the conditions imposed by the European Union/IMF as part of a bailout. However, because the United States has its own currency it would always have the option to buy its own debt. The Federal Reserve Board could in principle buy an unlimited amount of debt simply by printing more money. This could lead to a serious problem with inflation, but it would not put us in the Greek situation of having to go hat in hand before the bond vigilantes. This distinction is important for two reasons. First, the public should be aware that the Fed makes many of the most important political decisions affecting the economy. For example, if the Fed refused to buy the government's debt even though interest rates had soared, this would be a very important political decision on the Fed's part to deliberately leave the country at the mercy of the bond market vigilantes. This could be argued as good economic policy, but it is important that the public realize that such a decision would be deliberate policy, not an unalterable economic fact. The other reason why the specifics are important is because it provides a clearer framing of the nature of the potential problem created by the debt. The deficit hawks want us to believe that we could lose the confidence of private investors at any moment, therefore we cannot delay making the big cuts to Social Security and Medicare they are demanding. However if we have a clear view of the mechanisms involved, it is easy to see that there is zero truth to the deficit hawks' story. Suppose that the bond market vigilantes went wild tomorrow and demanded a 10 percent interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds, even as there was no change in the fundamentals of the U.S. economy. In this situation, the Fed could simply step in and buy whatever bonds were needed to finance the budget deficit. Does anyone believe that this would lead to inflation in the current economic situation? If so, then we should probably have the Fed step in and buy huge amounts of debt even if the bond market vigilantes don't go on the warpath because the economy would benefit enormously from a somewhat higher rate of inflation. This would reduce the real interest rate that firms and individuals pay to borrow and also alleviate the debt burden faced by tens of millions of homeowners following the collapse of the housing bubble. The other part of the story is that the dollar would likely fall in this scenario. The deficit hawks warn us of a plunging dollar as part of their nightmare scenario. In fact, if we ever want to get more balanced trade and stop the borrowing from China that the deficit hawks complain about, then we need the dollar to fall. This is the mechanism for adjusting trade imbalances in a system of floating exchange rates. The United States borrows from China because of our trade deficit, not our budget deficit. This also puts the deficit hawks' nightmere story in a clearer perspective. Ostensibly, the Obama administration has been pleading with China's government to raise the value of its currency by 15 to 20 percent against the dollar. Can anyone believe that China would suddenly let the yuan rise by 40 percent, 50 percent, or even 60 percent against the dollar? Will the euro rise to be equal to 2 or even 3 dollars per euro? This story is absurd on its face. The U.S. market for imports from these countries would vanish and our exports would suddenly be hyper-competitive in their home markets. As long as we maintain a reasonably healthy industrial base (yes, we still have one), our trading partners have more to fear from a free fall of the dollar than we do. In short, this another case of an empty water pistol pointed at our head. The deficit hawks want to scare us with Greece in order to push their agenda of cutting Social Security, Medicare and other programs that benefit the poor and middle class. This is part of their larger agenda for upward redistribution of income. We should be careful to not give their story one iota of credibility more than it deserves. By implying that the United States could ever be Greece, Krugman commits this sin. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 174 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Key to Stimulus U.S. economy needs more spending to create jobs. 2008 stimulus simply cut taxes and more recent stimulus packages have not actually spent money. Spending money creates jobs and saves the economy, not cutting govt. programs and losing more jobs Paul Krugman, NYT OP-ED Columnist, 7/10/11, “No We Can’t? Or Won’t?”, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss This gets things exactly wrong. The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party that benefits from the economy’s weakness. But political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality. Our failure to create jobs is a choice, not a necessity — a choice rationalized by an ever-shifting set of excuses. Excuse No. 1: Just around the corner, there’s a rainbow in the sky. Remember “green shoots”? Remember the “summer of recovery”? Policy makers keep declaring that the economy is on the mend — and Lucy keeps snatching the football away. Yet these delusions of recovery have been an excuse for doing nothing as the jobs crisis festers. Excuse No. 2: Fear the bond market. Two years ago The Wall Street Journal declared that interest rates on United States debt would soon soar unless Washington stopped trying to fight the economic slump. Ever since, warnings about the imminent attack of the “bond vigilantes” have been used to attack any spending on job creation. But basic economics said that rates would stay low as long as the economy was depressed — and basic economics was right. The interest rate on 10-year bonds was 3.7 percent when The Wall Street Journal issued that warning; at the end of last week it was 3.03 percent. How have the usual suspects responded? By inventing their own reality. Last week, Representative Paul Ryan, the man behind the G.O.P. plan to dismantle Medicare, declared that we must slash government spending to “take pressure off the interest rates” — the same pressure, I suppose, that has pushed those rates to near-record lows. Excuse No. 3: It’s the workers’ fault. Unemployment soared during the financial crisis and its aftermath. So it seems bizarre to argue that the real problem lies with the workers — that the millions of Americans who were working four years ago but aren’t working now somehow lack the skills the economy needs. Yet that’s what you hear from many pundits these days: high unemployment is “structural,” they say, and requires long-term solutions (which means, in practice, doing nothing). Well, if there really was a mismatch between the workers we have and the workers we need, workers who do have the right skills, and are therefore able to find jobs, should be getting big wage increases. They aren’t. In fact, average wages actually fell last month. Excuse No. 4: We tried to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work. Everybody knows that President Obama tried to stimulate the economy with a huge increase in government spending, and that it didn’t work. But what everyone knows is wrong. Think about it: Where are the big public works projects? Where are the armies of government workers? There are actually half a million fewer government employees now than there were when Mr. Obama took office. So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: some of us warned from the beginning that tax cuts would be ineffective and that the proposed spending was woefully inadequate. And so it proved. It’s also worth noting that in another area where government could make a big difference — help for troubled homeowners — almost nothing has been done. The Obama administration’s program of mortgage relief has gone nowhere: of $46 billion allotted to help families stay in their homes, less than $2 billion has actually been spent. So let’s summarize: The economy isn’t fixing itself. Nor are there real obstacles to government action: both the bond vigilantes and structural unemployment exist only in the imaginations of pundits. And if stimulus seems to have failed, it’s because it was never actually tried. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 175 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Key to Stimulus Deficit spending is key to stimulate the economy – great depression proves Paul Krugman, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Nobel Prize in economics, ’10 (The New York Times, Feburary 4th 2010, “Fiscal Scare Tactics,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311262548-O4SgRiKArH9Yhj755e//1Q) Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment. The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs. True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there’s no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs. But there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they’ll have risen to 3.5 percent of G.D.P. How scary is that? It’s about the same as interest costs under the first President Bush. Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics. The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new? The trouble, however, is that it’s apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences. For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 176 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Military Tradeoff DA Aff*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 177 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Non-Uniques*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 178 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Cuts Now Defense cuts inevitable FRANCIS '10 (Professional Writer for the CSMONITOR June 28 2010) <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.Francis/2010/0628/Cuts-to-US-defense-budget-look-inevitable > It's bigger than Wal-Mart, employs more people than the United States Post Office, and far outspends all its competitors. It's the US Department of Defense. Next year, though, budget cutters in Congress and the White House will probably begin cutting it down to size in order to slash America's outsize budget deficit. There are related reasons: The US war effort in Iraq is winding down; President Obama may start pulling out of Afghanistan; NATO allies are moving to slash their military outlays. Most of all, budget cutters can't afford to ignore an area as vast as defense. The need for serious deficit reduction and a loss of political support for high defense spending make cuts inevitable, says Gordon Adams, a defense expert at American University. If budget deficits aren't seriously tackled, US spending on interest on the national debt will exceed its defense budget by fiscal 2018, says Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He predicts large defense cuts within three years. It won't be easy. With 2.25 million full-time civilian and military personnel (not including part-time Guard and Reserve members) and thousands of contracts with firms, the Defense Department is a major economic engine for hundreds of communities and enjoys huge political clout. Nonetheless, major defense cuts have happened before. Between 1989 and 1993, the active defense force shrank from 2.2 million to 1.5 million and civilian personnel slimmed down from 1.04 million to 700,000, Mr. Adams notes. With the end of the cold war, and by congressional budget cuts, defense spending fell 26 percent in constant dollars between 1985 and 1993 – presided over by none other than Dick Cheney, then Defense secretary, who prided himself on having ended more than 100 military acquisition programs. Today, defense expenditures amount to about 4.9 percent of US gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services. That's well above the less than 2 percent of GDP spent by such allies as Canada, Germany, Britain, and France. The latest news suggests more cuts by allies are ahead. Add in what Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and the Energy departments spend on defense and total US military spending will reach $861 billion in fiscal 2011, Mr. Harrison calculates, exceeding that of all other nations combined. Already, defense outlays in Iraq are falling. The number of American military personnel in Iraq has fallen from a peak of 170,000 a couple of years ago to 86,000 now and perhaps 50,000 by Sept. 1. The number of bases and facilities there has been cut by nearly half since peaking at 370 in 2008. Military spending in Iraq has dropped by half – from $90.6 billion in 2009 to an expected $43.4 billion in fiscal 2011. By the end of next year, the US hopes to have only a training-size force there. By contrast, operations in Afghanistan are still growing, with some 94,000 US troops expected on the ground by late August or September. Costs are climbing rapidly – from $51 billion in 2009 to $110 billion projected for fiscal 2011.But Adams suspects that before Mr. Obama faces reelection in 2012 he will move toward ending the Afghanistan mission. "The politics are devastating," Adams says. Employment at the Defense Department probably won't shrink to the levels at Wal-Mart (1.4 million) or the post office (599,000). But a difficult switch from guns to butter – or guns to deficit reduction – is about to get under way. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 179 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Military Cuts Now HEG DECLINE MAKES CUTS IN THE DOD INEVITABLE DREYFUSS '11 (Investigative Journalist for the Nation “Reality Check: Budget Cuts Inevitable at the Department of Defense” Jun 27th 2011) <http://www.thenation.com/blog/161662/reality-check-budget-cuts-inevitable-department-defense > There’s an inevitability to the coming decline of US power and influence worldwide, as the American economy shrinks relative to the economic power of other countries, as America’s allies in places like Egypt strike out on their own, and as the size of the US military declines because the United States can no longer afford to spend upwards of $700 billion on defense. Still, there are those who believe that the United States must maintain, and even increase its spending at the Pentagon, even as more and more Republicans are prepared to throw the military under the bus to save money. Take, for instance, Fred Hiatt of theWashington Post, who pens an op-ed in today’s paper titled: “What’s happened to America’s leadership role?” Hiatt, a reliable hawk who’s helped steer the Post into indefensibly pro-defense positions, including support for the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, accuses President Obama of surrendering the US leadership role by refusing to take the lead in battling Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and by backing a modest drawdown in Afghanistan:“Obama has said it is a strategic imperative to fight the Taliban to a standstill and train an Afghan army that can keep the nation at peace. But then how can it make sense to set a withdrawal schedule irrespective of whether those goals are achieved? The message, again, is that domestic considerations take precedence over global responsibilities.”More worryingly, Hiatt attacks Obama for his semi-isolationist comment, during his Afghan policy address last week, in which Obama declared: “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.” If only that were true: if only the president was really committed to an industrial policy at home, enhancing America’s competitiveness by investing massively in education, job training, R&D, infrastructure and so on. But to my mind, getting our troops out of Afghanistan, albeit at a turtle’s pace, is better than nothing. But it’s too much for Hiatt. The Post editor goes on to berate the Republicans for being willing, too, like Obama, to cut military spending. And Hiatt criticizes Obama on the same score:“At home [Obama] pocketed $400 billion in budget cuts offered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and then demanded $400 billion more over 10 years. Those cuts may be achievable without harming U.S. leadership, but Obama doesn’t know that to be true. By setting the fiscal target, and having the Pentagon adjust strategy accordingly, he sends a message that deficit reduction matters most.”On page 1, interestingly enough, the Post reports that in the current (now stalled) budget talks, the GOP is ready to slash spending at the DOD, though by how much isn’t clear. But the article’s lede reads:“As President Obama prepares to meet Monday with Senate leaders to try to restart talks about the swollen national debt, some Republicans see a potential path to compromise: significant cuts in military spending.”Hiatt claims that the rest of the world is eternally grateful to the United States for making the world safe, including its ability to use its military power to maintain “open and safe sea lanes,” although China and other countries dependent on the Middle East for energy might not agree. Indeed, in an accompanying unsigned editorial that sounds very much like it, too, was written by Hiatt, the Post urges Obama to get tough with China over Beijing’s claim to sovereignty in the South China Sea—the very same “sea lanes” that Hiatt says the world is so happy about having the United States exercise its military dominance! Says the imperial-sounding editorial:“[China’s] menacing language makes clear why the United States needs to exert its influence. Up to one-third of global trade passes through the South China Sea, so preserving freedom of navigation is a ‘national interest,’ as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it last year. As important is checking China’s impulse to bully its neighbors, including not only friendly but weak democracies such as the Philippines but also Japan, which has its own maritime disputes with Beijing.“The Obama administration has made gestures in this direction. In addition to Ms. Clinton’s statement—which she repeated last week— Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pledged recently that ‘five years from now the United States’ influence’ in Asia will be ‘as strong if not stronger than it is today.’ After meeting with Mr. del Rosario, Ms. Clinton said the United States was committed to the defense of the Philippines and to providing it with weapons, though she would not comment on the U.S. response to a potential attack by China in the South China Sea.”I have news for the Post, and for ex–Secretary of Defense Gates. Five years from now, US influence in Asia will far less than it is today. Not only that, but China and Vietnam are quietly negotiating a deal over who owns what in the South China Sea, without needing to call in the United States. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 180 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 MPF Cuts Now THE MARINE PREPOSITIONING FORCE HAS ALREADY BEEN CANCELLED IN THE SQUO, THEY’RE NEVER COMING BACK EAGLEN ’11 (Research Fellow for National Security Studies, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies July 21st 2011) <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/Slashing-Defense-Makes-America-Less-Safe> In April, President Obama denounced his own 2012 budget request sitting on Capitol Hill and called for $400 billion in security cuts over the next decade. One of the first consequences of $400–$500 billion in military cuts would be to slice soldiers and Marines from the force and return the Army and Marine Corps to their 1990s levels. These personnel levels would allow the nation to sustain only one protracted operation overseas, but they would be insufficient to conduct two simultaneous ground efforts. This would eliminate the Pentagon’s longstanding two-war force planning construct through the back door. Most worrisome, this size force would immediately reduce options available to the commander in chief if a crisis arises while American forces are already committed elsewhere.This level of cuts would also see the elimination of many overseas bases that serve as stops on a global highway the U.S. military needs to access forward assets and evacuate and treat the wounded from the Central Command region. This would increase the cost and length of time to surge forces from the continental United States. These cuts would also see the cancellation of what is left of the Pentagon’s meager modernization plans for future military equipment. Some of the many pending long-term projects crucial to winning future conflicts—as well as deterrence, which saves money—such as a new bomber, next-generation stealthy helicopter, new nuclear submarine, and various space, satellite, and missile defense capabilities could become victims of this plan. Not only would this effectively turn the nuclear triad into a diad or worse, but it could essentially leave submarines as the only realistic long-range strike platform to confront the growing threat of anti-access and area-denial capabilities. Since submarines face long trips back to port after firing their missiles, the sortie generation rate of a long-range strike force consisting almost exclusively of submarines would be extremely low. In this kind of scenario, the United States could easily be “locked out” of the vital Asian littorals. As in the $400 billion scenario, Army and Marine Corps end strength return to 1990s levels, reducing capabilities to conduct any operations, including humanitarian aid and allied partner capacity building. Many other vital elements of force structure would also disappear, such as one or two Navy carrier strike groups. A large part of America’s missile defense program would be scaled back as well. This means not only cuts to missile sites on U.S. soil but also to sea-based missile defense platforms, such as Aegis cruisers and destroyers needed to maintain America’s nuclear umbrella. Nuclear forces would be a major casualty under these reductions. Not only would the nation see drastic reductions in stockpiles of ground-based nuclear weapons, but nuclear modernization programs—like those promised as part of a deal to pass the New START treaty—would be left behind. It would become ever more likely that the Air Force’s next generation bomber would be eliminated entirely, along with the Navy’s Ohio-class replacement submarine.The so-called Bowles–Simpson plan implicitly assumes that the U.S. will be engaged in one medium-sized conflict in 2015 and does not achieve savings by end strength reductions. Instead, most of the cuts come from modernization accounts or procurement and research and development. This plan, along with several others like it, reduces procurement spending by 15 percent through 2015. Much of this is achieved through the cancellation of the Marine Corps’s Maritime Prepositioning Force, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the V-22 Osprey. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 181 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Internal Link Takeouts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 182 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Spending Trades Off with Other Stuff Military pay will be cut, not weapons systems GI KOREA ’11 (KOREAN NEWS POST ON FOREIGN POLITICS AND U.S MILITARY July 1st 2011) < http://rokdrop.com/2011/07/01/congress-looks-to-cut-change-us-military-retirement/> Here is something that ROK Head, JoeC pointed out in an earlier comment that should have its own posting to discuss: Congress and the White House are discussing two proposed cuts in military retired pay as part of negotiations over the U.S. national debt limit, but finding an agreement is proving difficult, according to an article by Army Times.One cut would annually lower the calculated cost-of-living adjustment by an average of one-quarter of a percentage point, which could apply to military and federal civilian retirees, disabled veterans and survivors.The change would save $24 billion over 10 years, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the release said.The second option involves replacing the current system in which a servicemember is eligible for benefits after 20 years of service with a new plan that could provide some retirement benefits for as few as five years of service — with payments not starting until at least age 60 for any servicemembers who do not retire on a full military disability, the article said. [Stars & Stripes]As far as the COLA adjustment for military retirees I really wouldn’t have a problem with it if the reduction in benefits was something that all government employees were facing. Maybe other government employees are facing retirement benefit cuts, but I sure haven’t seen anything in the media about it. It just seems that a large portion of the budget crisis in Washington, DC is trying to be rectified on the back of the military without touching anyone else. There should be shared sacrifice across the entire spectrum of government. Anyone else feeling the same way? As far as the military retirement change if you read the rest of the article this is something that is not going to save the government hardly any money until well into the future. I have said this before but the way I look at it is if Congress and the White House thinks the military benefits are too high and a drain on the federal budget, than why don’t they advocate for cuts in benefits for the entire government civilian workforce who nearly every single one I work with makes more money than I do? By the way remember that while the government in Washington is busy trying to take retirement benefits from US servicemembers these same people are busy buying military equipment that the Pentagon has repeatedly says it does not want Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 183 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Impact Turns and Takeouts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 184 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: Military Spending Key to Heg CUTS IN MILITARY BUDGET WON'T THREATEN NATIONAL SECURITY BRANNEN '11 (Federal Times writer “Budget cuts won't harm national security, Panetta says” June 9th 2011) <http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110609/DEPARTMENTS01/106090301/ > Leon Panetta, nominated to become the next defense secretary, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the government does not need to choose between fiscal discipline and a strong national defense. The $400 billion cut to the security budget over 10 years called for by President Obama will not pose a risk to national security, he said during his confirmation hearing. He acknowledged that some tough choices would have to be made, but Panetta said the country could maintain the strongest military in the world while also reining in defense spending. Panetta said he did not know how much of the $400 billion would come from the Pentagon. The security budget includes funding for the State Department, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Panetta to find out and report to Congress. "We need to know that," he said.In considering Panetta's suitability as the next defense secretary, several senators highlighted his experience managing budgets as a skill that the Pentagon needs today.Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California, was director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the Clinton administration. He is now director of the CIA.Panetta's service at OMB is "invaluable" because he "understands the inner workings of the budget process and because he shaped the decisions that helped achieve the budget surpluses of the late 1990s," Levin said.The hope is that Panetta's budget background will help the Pentagon make responsible budget cuts that contribute to the president's debt reduction efforts, as well as get soaring weapon costs under control.Panetta told the Senate panel that he intends to accelerate the Pentagon's efforts to achieve a full financial audit."We should be able to audit that department," he said. The Pentagon has never completed a full audit and does not plan on being able to do so before 2017."One of the first things I'm going to do is see if we can improve on that timetable," Panetta said.The Pentagon is currently conducting a "Comprehensive Review," called for by the president to help determine what should be cut to meet the $400 billion target. In Panetta's written responses submitted to the Senate panel before the hearing, he noted that the review would be completed by the fall."If we are going to manage costs, I believe everything must be on the table," Panetta said in response to the advance policy questions. "It may be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive review of the military pay and benefits structure to determine where costs can be contained."Military health care and other entitlement programs included in the Pentagon's budget are currently growing faster than inflation. In a few years, military health care is expected to exceed 10 percent of the overall defense budget.As for other entitlement programs, it may "also be appropriate to review the military retirement system for needed changes and efficiencies," Panetta said.As for weapon programs, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., asked Panetta specifically about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive program.Variants of the F-35 fighter jet are scheduled to replace aircraft in the Air Force, Navy and the Marine Corps. Recently, the F-35 was estimated to cost $380 billion over its lifetime, but the Pentagon has said it is working to re-baseline the program.The country cannot afford an aircraft that doubles or triples from its original cost, McCain said."I support DoD's current effort to focus on and reduce F-35 sustainment costs," Panetta said. "If confirmed, I will review the overall program's status and health." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 185 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: F-35 Key to Heg The F-35 sucks – multiple warrants Majumdar 08 (Dave Majumdar, Staff Writer at Defense News, 07 November 2008, New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet, http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html, TA) In recent weeks a number of highly critical reports and editorials have surfaced from both defense think tanks and the media. Critics such as Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey of the Center for Defense Information malign the aircraft as an underpowered, overweight monstrosity that will be easy prey for the latest generation of threat aircraft such as the Russian built Su-35BM that are being proliferated around the world. Sprey and Wheeler argued in a editorial published on Sept. 10, that the F-35 which weighs in "at 49,500 lb air-to-air take-off weight, with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter." Additionally, the two analysts suggest that the F-35 "with just 460 sq ft (43 m2) of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps variants, will have a wing-loading of 108 lbs per square foot." Sprey and Wheeler argue that the F-35 is "actually less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F105 ‘Lead Sled' that got wiped out over North Vietnam" during the Vietnam conflict. The two critics dismiss the aircrafts' advanced stealth and avionics almost in their entirety, pointing to the downing of an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter during the 1999 Kosovo air campaign as evidence to support their views. Wheeler and Sprey also assert that the aircraft will be unable to perform the vital role of close air support (CAS) — striking the enemy on the ground in direct support of ground troops. They argue that the aircraft "is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire" and lacks the endurance to meet the requirements of the close air support mission. Further the two academics assert that the aircraft is under armed with only two 2000 lbs Joint Direct Attack Munitions(JDAM) and two medium range air to air radar guided AIM-120 missiles in a full air to ground stealth configuration. While both Wheeler and Sprey are respected academics, other attacks on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program have come from less reputable sources. In the Australian media, the JSF was assailed by allegations that the fighters were "clubbed like baby seals" during a table top war-game held in Hawaii by the U.S. Pacific Command. Later, when the source of the report was revealed to be an erroneous backup slide for a RAND Corporation presentation, RAND not only disavowed the slide in question, but also issued a strong denial that the report was ever designed to be a detailed simulation of the capabilities of any warplanemuch less the F-35. However, the damage to the public perception remains Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 186 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Defense Cuts Good Military cuts benefits US leadership Athey 11 (Jean Athey is the coordinator of Peace Action Montgomery County, Maryland, and the secretary of the Peace Action National Board of Directors, June 2nd, 2011, http://masspeaceaction.org/1261, TA) Defense Secretary Robert Gates is barnstorming the country to make the case for high defense spending. He recently said, “As we make the tough choices needed to put this country’s finances in order . . . there will undoubtedly be calls . . . for us to sharply reduce our international commitments and the size and capabilities of our military,” which Gates thinks would be a very bad idea. He suggests that any cuts to the military budget should be based on a strategic review, in which we decide what it is we want to do and thus how large and how expensive a military we need. Yes—let’s have a strategic review, an honest one, conducted in public and not given to obfuscation, a public debate in which we as a nation decide, clearly and unambiguously, what we want our international role to be and the trade-offs we are willing to accept for that role. In his May 23 speech, Gates said that the goals of the U.S. military are “to sustain alliances, to protect trade routes and energy supplies, and to deter would-be adversaries”—in other words, to police the world. This is a different mission from defense or national security. U.S. citizens have never explicitly endorsed the role of global hegemon, and as part of a strategic review, they might like to reflect on how much it costs. Every U.S. citizen pays about $3,000 per year for military spending, approximately four and a half times more than the citizens of any other country in the world. Other NATO countries spend an average of just over $500 per capita, with Russia slightly over $500 and China around $50. The amount of our taxes that goes to military spending has almost doubled in constant dollars over the last decade. In total spending, although the U.S. FY2012 U.S. military budget is now being debated in Congress, it is expected to rise over one percent to some $820 billion (now to include the two current wars previously funded by supplementals). China ranks second, with an estimated total of $120 billion. Actually, the figure above underestimates U.S. military spending, since so much of that is spread throughout the government and is not found in the Pentagon budget. Many analysts believe that the true amount of U.S. military spending even now exceeds $1 trillion annually. To what extent can our economy sustain this unprecedented level of military spending, and do Americans really want to assume the expense of policing the world? Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower, a military man himself, clearly understood the trade-offs. In his first State of the Union Address, Eisenhower said, “Our problem is to achieve adequate military strength within the limits of endurable strain upon our economy. To amass military power without regard to our economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind of disaster by inviting another.” Eisenhower knew that national strength and military power are not the same things at all, and that in fact, excessive military spending can quickly destroy a nation. “There is no way in which a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security,” Eisenhower said, “but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone.” On May 25, Gates warned that with a smaller budget, the military “will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things.” Yes, and that is just the point. If the military had had less money at its disposal, perhaps we could have avoided the disastrous war in Iraq, the decade-long war in Afghanistan, and now, a new and undeclared war in Libya. And if we had back the money already spent on those wars plus the out-year costs, estimated at $4 to $6 trillion by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz, we would not today be worrying about the national debt. Rather than trying to police the world in a time of great economic insecurity, if given a choice, Americans might well opt for a policy of military restraint as our international role, in which we substitute extensive economic and cultural engagement for force as the default mode. Many people believe that such a policy would make us safer, not more vulnerable. Military analyst Benjamin H. Friedman, for example, writes that, “A force reduction strategy . . . would reduce the possibility of fighting unnecessary wars, limit the number of countries that build up their military to balance U.S. forces, remove an impetus for nuclear weapons proliferation and prevent foreign peoples from resenting us for occupying their countries.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 187 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Defense Cuts Good Defense cuts will benefit defense Gurney 10 (Matt Gurney is assistant editor, comment and a member of the National Post editorial board. Matt Gurney: America's military goes on the chopping block, May 10, 2010, http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/10/mattgurney-america-s-military-goes-on-the-chopping-block.aspx, TA) Republicans and defence hawks will have a field day with this. They've been warning for years that the Democrats want to gut America's defences, and now can claim to have proof. Will the cuts proposed by Gates amount to "gutting"? It's impossible to say, but it's unlikely — Congressmen need to get re-elected and will zealously defend any defence contractors in their districts whilst simultaneously boosting their own national security credentials. But certainly, some big-ticket expenditures will join further production of F-22 stealth fighters on the chopping block. (Indeed, Gates is already in the midst of a very public spat with the Navy over the future size of the American carrier fleet — Gates thinks 10 ought to be enough, but the Navy is adamant that only 11 will do.) Such cuts have been coming for a while. NASA has already been virtually shut down so it was only a matter of time until the military came under the axe. The cuts, if done properly, might not be harmful — military history has shown again and again that top-of-the-line weapons get more and more expensive and less effective. Primitive firearms easily overwhelmed the expensive, cumbersome armour worn by medieval knights. Machine guns could wipe out whole battalions of infantry. In modern times, enormous battle tanks can be knocked out by RPGs wielded by an insurgent, high-tech choppers fall victim to shoulder-fired missiles and multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers fear a swarm of cruise missiles worth a measly few million. And South Korea recently lost an advanced warship, almost certainly to a torpedo fired by the far less advanced North Korean fleet. If Gates' reforms create a more agile, flexible military, America might benefit. If the axe is wielded indiscriminately and with an eye only towards reining in America's chronic deficits, that would be very bad news for the Free World. National Post Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/10/matt-gurney-america-s-military-goes-on-thechopping-block.aspx#ixzz1SZ07RG45 Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 188 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 MPF Cuts Good MPF DEPLOYMENT KILLS PERCEPTION AND SOFT POWER Darling ’89 ( USMC globalsecurity.org ) <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/DDA.htm> Are MPF's what they seem? No, they are not. Although never intended to replace amphibious shipping, MPF's have gained instant credibility within our own organization simply because the forces, once assembled, have overwhelming combat power; however, current MPF doctrine does not address the most likely employment. To see how this perception (immediate, upon demand combat power) can flourish, one needs only to look at a Table of Organization (T/O) for a MPF MEB. It includes a Regimental Landing Team, Direct Support Artillery Battalion, Tank Battalion(-), Assault Amphibian Battalion(-), two Light Assault Vehicle Companies, Combat Engineer Battalion(-), Recon Company and when teamed with the TAVB, the MEB has the capability to perform all six functions of Marine aviation. Add to this Combat Service Support for the 16,000 Marines and the ability to sustain itself for thirty days and you have a force to be reckoned with. It's easy to compare, side-by-side, MPF and amphibious operations because the names and sizes of the units are the same. Here are some excerpts from congressional testimony by senior Marine Corps leaders regarding MPF's: "This contingency response program is one of the most significant developments in recent Marine Corps history"(10:7); "Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) has added a truly new dimension to our projection forces"(10:8); "It [Maritime Prepositioning Ships] substantially increases mobility, sustainability and flexibility in the projection of naval power. "(10:7) Even our current doctrine leads one to believe MPS and amphibious operations are synonymous; "Maritime prepositioning can be used for introducing forces to But what signals are we sending? Our National Maritime Strategy, forward naval presence, bust be credible to our enemies in order for deterrence to work. How can MPF's be considered power projection when friendly ports and permissive airfields will, in all likelihood, not be in a crisis area? Some experts list approximately one hundred-fifty ports/beaches that meet the requirements stated in current doctrine for a MPF operation. Of these one hundred-fifty, only about one percent are considered in friendly countries. With budget problems at home and foreign aid dwindling, the probability that access once "friendly" nations provided is now in jeopardy Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 189 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***NASA Tradeoff DA Aff*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 190 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Non-Uniques*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 191 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 NASA Cuts Now Massive cuts in NASA’s budget across the board Zach Rosenberg, 6/7/11, “US House Appropriations cuts NASA Budget, http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/06/359215/us-house-appropriations-cuts-nasa-budget.html The House Appropriations Committee, which dictates how the government spends money, has released a draft of the commerce, justice and science appropriations bill cutting NASA's FY 2012 budget by $1.6 billion. The proposed budget includes overall cuts from FY 2011 in NASA science ($431m cut), exploration ($152m cut) and operations ($1.4b cut). House Appropriations makes cuts from NASA and NOAA PR Newswire, (press release), 7/12 (7/12/11, " AIA Concerned by NASA, NOAA Cuts ", http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/aia-concerned-by-nasa-noaa-cuts-125446723.html The Aerospace Industries Association is concerned about the substantial cuts being made to the budgets of NASA and NOAA in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science markup of the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill. "We recognize that tough economic times call for tough choices," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey. "However, cutting NASA and NOAA this deeply threatens American leadership in space and impairs our ability to make life-saving weather predictions." The subcommittee's markup cuts NASA's space programs by 10 percent from the President's request and nearly 13 percent from the NASA authorization passed last October. AIA acknowledges that many NASA mission areas were adequately supported—but some suffered draconian cuts. Given the current fiscal environment, AIA believes the $18.7 billion in funding proposed by the President provides the minimum required for these important programs. AIA supports appropriations reflecting the policy priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 as closely as possible and opposes the termination of programs contrary to the priorities of the Authorization Act. With the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA must be adequately funded to continue our visible national commitment to space exploration, science, aeronautics and technology leadership—something that 58 percent of Americans recently polled by the Pew Research Center supported. "Each ride to the space station that NASA buys from Russia is the annual equivalent of 1000 American aerospace jobs," Blakey said. "We should be paying Americans instead of Russians." In addition, NOAA would get $1 billion less than the President's request—an 18 percent cut in a year when storms have already taken hundreds of lives and shown the need for accurate forecasts. Our public safety, national security and economic recovery argues for fully funding NOAA to get observing programs back on track and mitigate any loss in coverage due to aging systems. Appropriations committee agrees to cut NASA budget by 2 billion Florida Today 7/11 (7/11/11, " Our views: Reject NASA cuts (July 12) ", http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110712/OPINION/110711014/Our-views-Reject-NASA-cuts-July-12-) The committee voted to cut its budget to $16.8 billion, a 9 percent reduction that would badly hurt efforts to get private rockets flying around 2015 from Cape Canaveral, a program that holds the most promise to return Americans into orbit on U.S. launchers soon. The funding level is $1.6 billion below last year and $1.9 billion below the president’s request. The cuts would also kill the troubled James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A recent FLORIDA TODAY investigation showed the project was $5.2 billion over budget and years behind schedule. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 192 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Earth Sciences Cuts Now No Earth Science Kintisch 7/15 (Eli Kintisch 15 July 2011House Appropriators Propose Big Cuts to Earth Sciences http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/07/house-appropriators-propose-big-.html?ref=hp JT) Deep cuts in earth science budgets for several U.S. agencies are in store next year under a proposed budget that awaits a vote by the House of Representatives. Under the plan drafted by the commerce, justice, and science subcommittee and approved Wednesday by the full appropriations committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would receive a $100 million cut below its current $4.5 billion budget. The plan also includes a $100 million less for NASA’s $1.7 billion earth science budget than the agency has proposed. Climate programs at the U.S. Geological Survey, meanwhile, are also under the knife under a different proposed spending bill. “There are a number of areas in this bill that, under different circumstances, I would have preferred to fund at different levels,” subcommittee chair Frank Wolf (R-VA) said at a hearing last week when his panel marked up the $50.2 billion spending bill. “However, the House-passed budget resolution established our allocation and, accordingly, this subcommittee produced a strong bill with strategic investments in national security, job creation, and science.” For NOAA, “it’s the same problem they’ve had for the last 5 years—how do they ramp up the satellite programs without affecting the rest of their operations,” said lobbyist Kevin Wheeler of Ocean Leadership in Washington, D.C. The proposed $100 million cut comes at the same time the committee endorsed a big increase for satellite systems that provide remote sensing for the planet. The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), which received $472 million this fiscal year, would get an increase of $429 million, for a total of $901 million. But that increase would be taken from other NOAA programs. The Obama Administration had asked for $1.06 billion for NOAA’s share of the JPSS program in 2012. NOAA has not released details on how its $4.5 billion budget for 2011 has been allocated. So the proposed House cuts to specific programs can only be compared with 2010 levels. According to an analysis by Ocean Conservancy, a D.C. nonprofit organization, the bill would cut ocean research by 44% compared with 2010 and nonresearch ocean and fisheries programs by roughly 30%. “It doesn’t help that the ocean doesn’t have a congressman,” says spokesperson Timothy McHugh of Ocean Conservancy. Despite the large increase for JPSS, considered a crucial tool for maintaining long-lasting climate and environmental research records, oceanographer Antonio Busalacchi says not funding JPSS for the full 2011 “only serves to drag out the funding profile for JPSS, which will cost the country more in total program costs while seriously jeopardizing the nation's operational capability for continuous weather monitoring and prediction.” Busalacchi, director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, run jointly by the University of Maryland, College Park, and NASA, was co-author on an influential 2007 report by the National Academies on earth remote sensing. The cut to the earth science program at NASA is part of a proposed $16.8 billion budget for NASA as a whole, $1.6 billion below the current year budget. The bill protects funding for human space flight, including a crew vehicle and launch system. "While the Committee supports Earth Science functions, this area has rapidly grown over the past few fiscal years, and the current constrained fiscal environment simply cannot sustain the spending patterns envisioned by NASA in this field," said committee members in a report. That statement “ is very misleading, as it does not take into account the years of neglect and declining budgets for NASA Earth Science during the previous Administration,” says Busalacchi. “Coupled with considerably increased costs for access to space,” he adds, “this cut, plus the wording to protect specific missions, leaves NASA with very little flexibility to maintain a balanced approach to earth system science.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 193 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Telescope Cuts Now House makes major cuts in NASA and stops funding for James Webb Telescope Space Review 7/18 (Jeff Foust, 7/18/11, " Heavy-lift limbo ", http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1886/1) Meanwhile, funding for the SLS is one issue that has been subject to little debate. While House appropriators recently made major cuts in the administration’s budget proposal for NASA, including a controversial decision to provide no money for the James Webb Space Telescope, an appropriations bill would give NASA all that it asked for, and even a little more, for SLS. But as the debate swirls about the utility of the SLS in an ever more conservative fiscal environment, some wonder if that’s money well spent. How soon is “soon”? Cuts will kill James Webb Telescope Florida Today 7/11 (7/11/11, " Our views: Reject NASA cuts (July 12) ", http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110712/OPINION/110711014/Our-views-Reject-NASA-cuts-July-12-) The funding level is $1.6 billion below last year and $1.9 billion below the president’s request. The cuts would also kill the troubled James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A recent FLORIDA TODAY investigation showed the project was $5.2 billion over budget and years behind schedule. Deep cuts in earth science budgets for several U.S. agencies are in store next year under a proposed budget that awaits a vote by the House of Representatives. Under the plan drafted by the commerce, justice, and science subcommittee and approved Wednesday by the full appropriations committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would receive a $100 million cut below its current $4.5 billion budget. The plan also includes a $100 million less for NASA’s $1.7 billion earth science budget than the agency has proposed. Climate programs at the U.S. Geological Survey, meanwhile, are also under the knife under a different proposed spending bill. James Webb Telescope will inevitably be cut Ganssle 11, member of NASA's Super Problem Resolution Team, 7/11/11http://www.eetimes.com/discussion/other/4217731/Thedeath-of-the-JWST According to a press release from the U.S. House Committee on Approriations and the online Space Daily, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science has voted to kill the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Apparently the JWST, like so many other government programs, is far over budget and schedule. Unlike so many other government programs, a year ago the program passed the technical part of a huge design review, signaling that the design is sound. The Subcommittee’s recommendations are just that, but they carry significant weight, and the thinking is that the JWST will likely be scrubbed. James Webb Telescope will be canceled anyway Atkinson 11, senior analyst at Aite Group, 7/6/11 http://www.universetoday.com/87265/proposed-nasa-budget-bill-would-canceljames-webb-space-telescope/ The US House Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee has proposed a NASA spending bill that would put NASA’s budget at pre-2008 levels and cancel the $6.5 billion James Webb Space Telescope. Space News reports that the proposal would cut $1.6 billion from NASA’s current budget, which is nearly $2 billion less than President Obama’s 2012 budget request for NASA, giving the space agency just $16.8 billion to work with. This news is not sitting well with scientists and researchers, with one astrophysicist saying this move could “kill US space science for decades.” Dr. C. Megan Urry, Director of the Yale Center for Astronomy & Astrophysics and the Chair of the Yale Physics Department said she has already written her congressmen and representatives to stand against this bill, “for the good of science, STEM education, and the nation.” “I think this is an extremely serious situation,” Urry told Universe Today, “and I think the James Webb Telescope is an extraordinarily important mission. It was recommended in the 2000 Decadal Survey and was strongly endorsed in the 2010 Decadal Survey, so the science community has supported this mission for a long time.” The Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) quickly responded with a statement objecting to the axing of JWST, saying “Over the past year, NASA managers and the science community have undertaken a concerted effort to establish a budget and technology plan that allows the launch of JWST by 2018. The proposal by the Congress to terminate the program comes at a time when these efforts are coming to fruition.” The press release that came out along with the draft states that that the bill terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope because it is “billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management.” Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 194 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Telescope Cuts Now The telescope is gone—voted out and efforts to save it fail Pachal 7/14 (Peter Pachal is PCMag's News Director and has been covering consumer technology in print and online for more than a decade. He holds degrees in journalism and engineering. July 14, 2011“Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb Telescope” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp JT) The James Webb space telescope, the successor to Hubble, just came one step closer to being thrown in the trash bin over budget cuts. Yesterday the House Committee on Appropriations approved a plan to slash NASA's budget for next year and explicitly kill the project. The House and Senate still need to vote on the measure before it becomes law, but it's not looking good for expensive Webb. The cost of developing the telescope has ballooned over the years as NASA has had to invent whole new technologies in order to make it work properly. Unlike the Hubble, the Webb will be much further from Earth in order to shield itself from infrared radiation, and its systems will need to function at extremely cold temperatures. Adapting to those conditions has proved pricey for NASA. It's already spent $3 billion on the Webb, and the total cost is projected to be about $6.8 billion (it was initially budgeted at $1.6 billion total). However, once launched and put into place, the Webb will be so far from Earth that it will be impossible to service, so subsequent costs would involve only operating the telescope and analyzing its data (estimated at $1 billion over 10 years). On Tuesday, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made an appeal to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee to save the Webb. "I have tried to explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far greater than we got from Hubble," Discovery News reported Bolden as saying. "I would only say that for about the same cost as Hubble in real-year dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." His words apparently had little effect. Neither did an attempt to restore partial funding of the Webb with a eleventh-hour amendment from Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. The Republican-dominated committee shot down the measure with a voice vote, Nature reported. As the Webb edges closer to oblivion, scientists have voiced concern over the termination of the project, saying that the discoveries it could reveal will be well worth the cost. Transparency is the problem—the telescope is too uncertain Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy” http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT) And I think somehow - I think Ron put his finger on it, fencing it off, more transparency and honesty upfront, I think that probably was the biggest problem, not knowing how big a problem this was going to be because NASA is us and we want we are a great nation, and we want to do these game changers. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 195 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Telescope Cuts Now No hope for the telescope—republican dominated house will slash Webb Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT) It was fun while it lasted. Last week, a House subcommittee proposed to kill off funding for the James Webb Space Telescope. The new instrument — which would orbit the sun just a little farther out than the Earth — is the heir apparent to the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's flagship space-science project. Some kind of second act was always seen as a good idea, but the folks on the Hill have a right to be exasperated with the way this one is turning out: the Webb, originally proposed in the mid-1990s under the name the Next Generation Space Telescope, was supposed to launch by 2007 and cost about $500 million. But it's gotten progressively more expensive, less powerful and further behind schedule. An independent review board reported last November that the poorly managed Webb (uninspiringly renamed after a former NASA administrator) could end up costing up to $6.8 billion and wouldn't launch until 2015 at the earliest. With the Republican-dominated House determined to slash spending everywhere it can, the Webb is a nice, juicy target. It's not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. But that just makes the cancellation of the Webb seem worse. "It's a double whammy," says Natalie Batalha, a high-ranking member of the science team for the Kepler probe, the spectacularly successful planet-hunting mission that's been delivering discovery after discovery since its 2009 launch. "The whole community has sacrificed to fund [the James Webb Space Telescope]. Everyone was unhappy, but we all knew how valuable it would be. And now you have Congress talking about canceling it." (See "Kepler Telescope Finds Swarm of New Worlds.") What makes the Webb so valuable is, first of all, its huge light-gathering mirror — more than 21 ft. (6.4 m) across, compared with Hubble's 7.8 ft. (2.4 m). It's so big that the mirror can't go up as a single piece of glass. Instead, it's made of 18 smaller mirrors that will unfold in space to form a mosaic. Since fainter objects are also generally older and more distant, the Webb will be able to study galaxies, dust clouds, and cosmic processes at the earliest stages of the history of the universe. Better yet, unlike the Hubble telescope, the Webb is designed to see mostly in infrared light — the kind emitted not only by distant galaxies but also by planets. The telescope won't be able to take pictures of earthlike planets at distant stars — they're too faint and too close to their stars, even for the Webb — but it can pick out bigger planets and give astronomers a sense of what they're made of and how they formed. (See "Deep Space Photos: Hubble's Greatest Hits.") Beyond that, scientists have already made enormous progress on the project, not only on manufacturing the mirrors for the Webb but also in developing electronic cameras to take maximum advantage of those mirrors — the same sort of technology that lets the Hubble take such fantastic images and do such extraordinary science. After so much money has been sunk into the work, it would be insane, say scientists, to throw it all away. Certainly, Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is now a vast, $2 billion doughnutshaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. (Watch TIME's video "Herschel: The Telescope for Invisible Stars.") Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes; so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 196 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 Telescope Cuts Now All attempts have failed to restore the telescope O'Neill 7/13 (Ian O’Neill is Space Producer for Discovery Channel’s Discovery News Website. He’s also a trained astrophysicist. Jul 13, 2011 “James Webb Space Telescope Closer to the Axe” http://news.discovery.com/space/james-webb-space-telescope-closer-to-the-axe110714.html JT) This could be considered "strike two" for the deeply troubled James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Last week, the House Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee made the recommendation that the advanced infrared space telescope -- and Hubble's replacement -- be cancelled. On Wednesday, the full House Science, Space and Technology Committee has approved the subcommittee's plan. Hubble WATCH VIDEOS: Hubble is always seeing the cosmos in a new light. Browse the next big Hubble scoop in the Discovery News Hubble video playlist. ANALYSIS: Eroding NASA Science: Space Telescope Scrapped? Although the project isn't dead yet, the 2012 budget still needs to be voted on by the House an the Senate, but things are looking grim. Despite a last minute appeal to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Tuesday, the Republican-dominated committee were unmoved. "I have tried to explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far greater than we got from Hubble," Bolden told the committee members. "I would only say that for about the same cost as Hubble in realyear dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." Also, in a last-ditch attempt on Wednesday to breathe life into the project, Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California whose district covers NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. in Pasadena, Calif., tried to insert an amendment that would have partially restored funding, redirecting $200 million from NASA's account for Cross Agency Support. The amendment was shot down by a voice vote. $3 billion has already been sunk into the project and components for the space telescope are undergoing space-readiness tests. Unfortunately, the projected 6.8 billion final price tag -- plus mismanagement troubles -- has attracted budget-cutting lawmakers. Should JWST be cancelled, the $3 billion already invested will be lost. Seems like quite a big waste for NASA's already grossly underfunded budget, doesn't it? The scientific returns on the JWST would be incalculable; but to politicians, science takes a distant second to budget cutting and political points scoring. So what can we do apart from keep our fingers crossed that funding will magically appear? Contact your Representative to keep the pressure applied to keep JWST alive, lawmakers have yet to nail the project's coffin shut with a final vote. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 197 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Cuts Now No SLS—the White House doesn’t want it Roop 7/20 (Lee Roop, The Huntsville Times The Huntsville Times July 20, 2011 Obama administration defends delay approving new heavy-lift rocket plan http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/07/obama_administration_defends_d.html JT) Former NASA administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, a persistent critic of the Obama administration, said in Sunday's story, "In my opinion, NASA's SLS program is stalled because the White House doesn't really want to do it." Griffin, who led NASA during the administration of former President George W. Bush, is now an eminent scholar at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "You will recall that SLS is derogatorily referenced by some as the 'Senate Launch System,'" Griffin said. "That is because the Congress forced it upon the executive branch. The fact that it is the right thing for NASA to do is irrelevant; the White House doesn't want to do it, and they will do everything possible to prevent it from occurring." Proposed Space Launch system won’t fit into NASA’s budget Foust 11, (Jeff, editor and publisher of The Space Review), The Space Review, 1/17/11, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1760/1 Does Congress have more confidence in NASA’s abilities than the space agency itself? That may seem like an odd question, but it was one undertone of a renewed debate last week about the development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLV). One of the key provisions of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was a mandate for NASA to develop what the legislation called, rather unimaginatively, the Space Launch System (SLS): an HLV that could initially launch 70–100 tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), with the ability to be upgraded to launch 130 tons. The legislation authorized $6.9 billion from 2011 through 2013 to work on the SLS, and also required that the vehicle enter service by the end of 2016. “While the Authorization Act sets a goal of 2016, a first flight this early does not realistically appear to be possible” for NASA’s proposed HLV design, according to its report to Congress. Last week, NASA concluded that, given the language in the report, developing such a rocket wasn’t possible: it would cost more and take longer. That’s an answer some members of Congress seem unwilling to accept, pushing back on the agency go back and try again. The real questions may not be about the agency’s capabilities but instead whether there are too many constraints—capabilities, budget, schedule, and design— for NASA to develop an HLV, as well as the mission for such a rocket. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 198 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Cuts Now NASA’s limited budget prevents development of SLS Harwood 11, (William, CBS News space consultant), CBS News, 1/13/11, http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/hospme/spacenews/files/2fa16ace478e623fcb3b362981f40b0f-143.html Even using shuttle-derived hardware, established contractors and long-standing engineering expertise, NASA's projected budget will not cover the costs of developing a congressionally mandated heavy-lift booster and a manned capsule for deep space exploration by 2016 as ordered, agency officials informed lawmakers this week. NASA managers promised to continue studying alternative approaches and designs for a new Space Launch System heavy-lift booster and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, but insisted any such program must be "affordable, sustainable and realistic." An early concept for a shuttle-derived heavy-lift rocket in comparison to the space shuttle. (Photo: NASA) "To date, trade studies performed by the Agency have yet to identify heavy-lift and capsule architectures that would both meet all SLS requirements and these goals," NASA said in its report to Congress. "For example, a 2016 first flight of the SLS does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out-year funding levels." As directed in its 2011 appropriations language, NASA focused on a rocket that would utilize extended shuttle boosters, main engines and an advanced Saturn 5 upper stage engine. The Orion capsule initially designed for the Bush administration's now-cancelled Constellation moon program, was selected as the basis for a new Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. "However, to be clear, neither reference vehicle design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor the schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act," NASA's report concluded. "Additionally, it remains to be determined what level of appropriations NASA will receive in FY 2011 or beyond -- a factor that will impact schedule as well." Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who flew aboard the shuttle in 1986 and who played a major role in adding the near-term requirement to build the new launch systems, said in a statement late Wednesday that NASA's answer was not good enough. "I talked to (NASA Administrator) Charlie Bolden yesterday and told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016," Nelson said late Wednesday. "And, NASA has to do it within the budget the law requires." In a letter to Bolden that was released late Thursday, Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, said "the report contains no specific justification or analysis to validate the claim that 'none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions.' We expect NASA to work with Congress to identify the basis for the claims made in the report, how existing contracts and technologies will be utilized, and where any additional congressional action may be needed to ensure successful implementation of the law." Nelson also plans to introduce legislation eliminating a requirement for NASA to continue spending money on Constellation. Due to a provision in the continuing resolution currently funding the space agency, NASA must follow a House directive in its 2010 budget that blocks the program's termination. The continuing resolution expires March 4. But NASA's inspector general said Thursday that unless Congress acts, NASA could end up spending $215 million on the program by the end of February. "Without congressional intervention, by the end of February 2011 NASA anticipates spending up to $215 million on Constellation projects that, absent the restrictive appropriations language, it would have considered canceling or significantly scaling back," the inspector general's report said. "Moreover, by the end of FY 2011 that figure could grow to more than $575 million if NASA is required to continue operating under the current constraints and is unable to move beyond the planning stages for its new Space Exploration program." John Logsdon, a space policy analyst who serves on the NASA's Advisory Council, said the near-term issue facing the agency's plans for deep space exploration is more a matter of schedule than budget and that NASA already had indicated its belief that a new heavy lifter could not be deployed by 2016. "This should not come as a surprise to Mr. Nelson and his compatriots," he told CBS News Thursday. "Charlie Bolden told him the same thing last year when they first passed the authorization bill. So there is a small, or maybe not so small, element of posturing here. It seems to me that more than the budget ... NASA is saying that there's no way they can do a development this large and have the thing flying by the end of 2016. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 199 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 SLS Cuts Now SLS development will not occur- Bolden will continuously delay Leone 11, (Daniel, Staff Writer and Space News), 7/13/11, Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110713-bolden-says-slsdecision-might-slip-beyond-summer.html NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told U.S. lawmakers July 12 that the agency might not unveil the technical and budgetary details of the next U.S.-owned heavy lifter, the Space Launch System (SLS), until the summer is out. “While I would hope to have a final decision to announce this summer, the absolute need to make sure our SLS program fits within our overall budget constraints suggests that it may take longer,” Bolden told the House Science and Technology Committee during a hearing members scheduled last month with the expectation that NASA would have announced its SLS decision by now. Bolden also said that the rocket may not be able to fly its first unmanned test flight until 2017. Congress, in legislation signed last October, said that the rocket must launch no later than Dec. 31, 2016. Moreover, it would not be until “late this decade or the early [20]20s before we had a human-rated vehicle,” Bolden said. Bolden was the sole witness at the hearing, which was chartered by the committee with the expectation that the NASA chief would be ready to discuss the agency’s design and acquisition strategy for the SLS. SLS and its companion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) are to be the next U.S. government-owned spacecraft. NASA announced in May that Lockheed Martin Space Systems of Denver would develop the MPCV under the Orion crew capsule contract the company was awarded under the nowcanceled Constellation program. While there was some expectation that NASA would make an SLS announcement July 8 following the launch of Atlantis on the final mission of the U.S. space shuttle program, that did not happen. NASA has instead kept SLS details close to the vest, which turned the House Science Committee’s July 12 hearing into a grilling, with the committee taking Bolden to task for his agency’s long delay in producing an SLS design and acquisition strategy. “The fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS ... is almost an insult to this committee,” said Rep. Ralph Hall (RTexas), the committee’s chairman. No SLS—it’s a guise to fund other projects—laundry list Whittington 7/17 (Mark Whittington is a writer and space policy analyst residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of "Children of Apollo," an alternate history novel set during the early space program and "The Last Moonwalker." Mr. Whittington also writes numerous articles about space topics in USA Today, the LA Times, the Houston Chronicle, the online magazine Washington Dispatch, and internet content sites Finetuning.com and AssociatedContent.com. Jul 17, 2011“Is NASA Diverting Funding from the Space Launch System?” http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-diverting-funding-space-launch-system-192800353.html JT) AL.Com is reporting that NASA may have found another way besides delaying the rollout of the final design of the Space Launch System to slow walk its development. The Space Agency may be clandestinely shifting SLS funds to other accounts. Charles Bolden, NASA's administrator, has already claimed that the final rollout of the SLS is awaiting a couple of outside audits of its cost. That is the given reasons why the announcement, first scheduled for January, will not take place until late summer or even early fall. Senators and other space observers suspect that this is nothing more than a delaying tactic to sabotage that SLS that the Obama administration does not want. However, now there seems to be another strategy at work. "As SLS sits on the drawing pad, rumors are also swirling in Huntsville and Washington that NASA headquarters is planning to shift millions of dollars appropriated for SLS to projects only marginally related to its startup." This strategy would have two beneficial effects, from the point of view of the Obama administration. First, the SLS account would be used as a piggy bank to fund other projects, so long as it can be claimed that they have some tangential relation to the heavy lift rocket project. Second, the SLS would be starved of funding, its development delayed, its overall cost increased. Critics of the project would feel vindicated in supposes that the SLS is "unsustainable", even though it was made to be that way by deliberate design. The best outcome, from the perspective of the Obama administration, would be that the project be cancelled down the road. It is a plan worthy of the fictional master bureaucrat from the "Yes, Minister" series, Humphrey Appleby. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden can claim that he is following the letter of the bi-partisan 2010 NASA Authorization Bill that mandates the development of the Space Launch System while he violates the spirit by diverting funding and delaying the development of the rocket. Why is this being done? It seems that the Obama administration and thus NASA has no intention of obeying Congressional dictates, even if they have the force of law. They do not want the heavy lift rocket because, rhetoric about visiting an asteroid or going to Mars aside, they are not at all interested in space exploration. Doing that sort of thing encourages American pride too much. If there is one attitude that the Obama administration has toward American pride is that it is a thing that needs breaking, like the spirit of a thoroughbred horse. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 200 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 ________________________ ***Impact Takeouts*** Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 201 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SLS Key (General) Private companies can do rockets better than SLS and SLS trades off with better items Boyle interviewing Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX 7/14 (2011 “SpaceX chief sets his sights on Mars” http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/14/7078446-spacex-chief-sets-his-sights-on-mars JT) Q: Do you think NASA has the right vision for spaceflight? The idea is that space station resupply in low Earth orbit would be left to commercial ventures, freeing NASA up to develop the heavy-lift Space Launch System for exploration beyond Earth orbit. Some people have wondered whether the Space Launch System is really going to be necessary. A: Personally, my view is that space transport overall should be much more of a private-public partnership, and that applies to heavy lift as well. The best use of NASA's resources is to focus on the unique scientific instruments and payloads that are truly one-off items. That's actually how it works right now for Earth-observing and space science missions. They launch the spacecraft primarily on United Launch Alliance rockets, a Delta or an Atlas. If it's a probe to Mars, or to the asteroid belt, or it's a weather satellite, it'll go up on a United Launch Alliance rocket. Obviously, in the future, they'll go up on our vehicles as well. I think that works pretty well, and I think it makes sense to extend that model to all sizes of rockets. SLS development prevents any further launches Planetary Society 11, (largest and most influential public space organization on Earth, 7/12/11), http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.rss.html?pid=37689 To preserve parochial interests and jobs in local districts is not an engineering principle that can be allowed to guide the design of new rockets for a bold and inventive spacefaring nation like the United States. But this is precisely what has been done. Congress used its legislative authority to dictate the design of a giant rocket to curry favor from special interests--to the tune of $1.8 billion just in FY11, and Congress is now proposing to increase that level by $185 million above what even NASA requested! In addition to being a rocket in search of a mission, the SLS is an inhibitor to the development of the U.S. commercial launch industry. We have at least three industry developed rockets that might take humans into low Earth orbit for the next decade. Instead of starting up a government program to build an unnecessary fourth one, NASA should use its limited resources wisely to both encourage competition among the other three and to prepare advanced technology for a step into deep-space in the 2020s. We don't need a government-built heavy-lift rocket in this decade, but we can prepare for a strong future with a technology program that will save money and better direct resources. The Planetary Society advocates liberating NASA from the technical design constraints imposed by Congress and encouraging the commercial rocket industry with incentives and missions. The commercial industry and advanced technology may lead to the long-sought affordable lower cost access to space. Space Launch System will inevitably fail- lack of mission goals prove Planetary Society 11, (largest and most influential public space organization on Earth, 7/12/11), http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.rss.html?pid=37689 While we all recognize the fiscal and economic challenges the nation faces, we believe the proposed cuts reflect perverse priorities and too far reaching, in particular the proposed termination of the James Webb Space Telescope and cuts to Earth Science. Most disturbing is that cuts to world-class science are being used to pay for increases to develop a new rocket--the Space Launch System (SLS)-- that has no mission goals, that NASA cannot afford to build, cannot sustain, and will not advance exploration. With the intense fiscal pressure facing all agencies, NASA should focus on making the most efficient use of the money allocated to it. This means setting priorities and making decisions based on merit and readiness. It will be painful, but it is necessary. Most importantly, it is time to put wasteful programs aside, such as the SLS. We can no longer afford it, and it's an abuse of the agency's mission. The Space Launch System will fail without clear mission goals wasting Billions Clear and achievable mission goals are absolutely essential for any program to succeed, especially a longterm program such as human space exploration. Without goals, adequate funding, and a sound technical plan, failure is inevitable, as has been demonstrated on numerous space programs in the past. Right now we have no such goals - the previous goal to return to the Moon failed to inspire the nation, and last year the Congress rejected the President's flexible path into the solar system with missions to near-Earth asteroids and then to Mars. In its place, the Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 which failed to provide the most important thing such a bill is supposed to do: provide clear goals and policies. Instead it had only muted references to long-term goals, and focused on technical details for the design for the Space Launch System, a rocket that may not be necessary, suitable or affordable for the nation. Repeated national commissions, reviews and studies over the past twenty years have led to the same conclusion - exploration is NASA's prime mission. As we noted, the human space program is without goals and adrift, and now that robotic exploration goals are being cut back as well, this is a travesty. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 202 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SLS Key (General) SLS development absorbs resources from future space missions- will fail and prevent future exploration Spudis et al 10, (Paul D., planetary scientist, principal investigator of the Mini-SAR imaging radar on the Chandrayaan-1 mission and author of “The Once and Future Moon”, Robert Zubrin, astronautical engineer, president of the Mars Society and author of “The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must”) 5/31/10, The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/nasas-mission-to-nowhere/ Although we are known for holding different opinions on the order and importance of specific objectives in space, we are united in our concern over this move to turn away from the Vision for Space Exploration (hereafter referred to as Vision). Vision gave NASA’s human spaceflight program a clear direction: to reach the moon and Mars. Congressional authorization bills in 2005 (under Republican leadership) and 2008 (under Democratic leadership) endorsed this goal. The new plan proposes to contract with private companies to design and develop vehicles for human flights to low Earth orbit (LEO) and the International Space Station. The agency will research advanced technologies in the coming five years before picking a heavy-lift rocket design. Human missions are next - to an asteroid in 15 years and to orbit Mars in 25 years. A human Mars landing supposedly will occur afterward - sometime. The idea of contracting with the private sector for launch and transport to LEO is not new. This capability was encouraged and started under Vision. The difference under the new direction is the termination of any capability by the federal government of the United States to send people into space. For 50 years, America has maintained this ability through an infrastructure of cutting-edge industrial hardware, specialized facilities and a skilled work force. By adopting the new program, we will lose - probably irretrievably - this space-faring infrastructure and, most certainly, our highly trained, motivated and experienced work force. It will be prohibitively expensive and difficult to restart our manned program after five to 10 years of agency navel-gazing, effectively signaling the end of America’s manned space program and our leadership in space. NASA falters without specific direction or a stated destination. The history of the agency is replete with research projects disconnected from flight missions that produced no real hardware or technology. Taking five years (or even one year) to “study” the technologies of a heavy-lift rocket is not only pointless - it is destructive. We currently possess all the knowledge, technology and infrastructure necessary to build a heavy-lift launch vehicle. In a logical and effective space program, a mission is chosen, a plan for accomplishing the mission is developed, the flight hardware needed to accomplish the plan is identified, and technology is developed as needed to enable the flight hardware. The administration claims it is setting daring goals - the asteroids and Mars - but has posited them so far in the future that no real, focused work needs to be done toward their achievement during this or the next presidential term. Under Vision, we were working on the development of real capabilities, including launch systems, spacecraft and destinations with specific activities and capabilities at these places. If the new path is adopted, we will have exchanged a mission-driven program for a costly stagnation that will take us nowhere. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 203 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SLS Key (General) SLS takes a long time, crowds out private investment, and has no clear goals—that kills solvency The Planetary Society 7/12 (The Planetary Society, founded by Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis Friedman, inspires and involves the world's public in space exploration through advocacy, projects, and education. Today, the Planetary Society is headed by science educator Bill Nye and is the largest and most influential public space organization on Earth with 40,000 current members and a worldwide community of over 100,000. July 12, 2011 Statement by The Planetary Society before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Hearing: A Review of the NASA's Space Launch System http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.rss.spacewire.html?pid=37689 JT) Most disturbing is that cuts to world-class science are being used to pay for increases to develop a new rocket--the Space Launch System (SLS)-- that has no mission goals, that NASA cannot afford to build, cannot sustain, and will not advance exploration. With the intense fiscal pressure facing all agencies, NASA should focus on making the most efficient use of the money allocated to it. This means setting priorities and making decisions based on merit and readiness. It will be painful, but it is necessary. Most importantly, it is time to put wasteful programs aside, such as the SLS. We can no longer afford it, and it's an abuse of the agency's mission. The Space Launch System will fail without clear mission goals wasting Billions Clear and achievable mission goals are absolutely essential for any program to succeed, especially a longterm program such as human space exploration. Without goals, adequate funding, and a sound technical plan, failure is inevitable, as has been demonstrated on numerous space programs in the past. Right now we have no such goals - the previous goal to return to the Moon failed to inspire the nation, and last year the Congress rejected the President's flexible path into the solar system with missions to near-Earth asteroids and then to Mars. In its place, the Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 which failed to provide the most important thing such a bill is supposed to do: provide clear goals and policies. Instead it had only muted references to long-term goals, and focused on technical details for the design for the Space Launch System, a rocket that may not be necessary, suitable or affordable for the nation. Repeated national commissions, reviews and studies over the past twenty years have led to the same conclusion - exploration is NASA's prime mission. As we noted, the human space program is without goals and adrift, and now that robotic exploration goals are being cut back as well, this is a travesty. The Space Launch System is a rocket to nowhere To preserve parochial interests and jobs in local districts is not an engineering principle that can be allowed to guide the design of new rockets for a bold and inventive spacefaring nation like the United States. But this is precisely what has been done. Congress used its legislative authority to dictate the design of a giant rocket to curry favor from special interests--to the tune of $1.8 billion just in FY11, and Congress is now proposing to increase that level by $185 million above what even NASA requested! In addition to being a rocket in search of a mission, the SLS is an inhibitor to the development of the U.S. commercial launch industry. We have at least three industry developed rockets that might take humans into low Earth orbit for the next decade. Instead of starting up a government program to build an unnecessary fourth one, NASA should use its limited resources wisely to both encourage competition among the other three and to prepare advanced technology for a step into deep-space in the 2020s. We don't need a government-built heavy-lift rocket in this decade, but we can prepare for a strong future with a technology program that will save money and better direct resources. The Planetary Society advocates liberating NASA from the technical design constraints imposed by Congress and encouraging the commercial rocket industry with incentives and missions. The commercial industry and advanced technology may lead to the long-sought affordable lower cost access to space. Halt the Space Launch System until there is a plan. SLS doesn’t solve—no one has any idea what it does Krueger 7/19 (Curtis Krueger, Times Staff Writer July 19, 2011 “After the space shuttle, uncertainty on where NASA is going next” http://www.tampabay.com/news/science/space/article1181162.ece JT) The transition is not going smoothly. Nye, who became famous as television's "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and who now heads the pro-exploration Planetary Society, hammers against the heavy lift rocket idea because, he says, it has no clear mission. He's not the only one calling it a rocket to nowhere. Suggesting this rocket is designed more by politicians than engineers, he calls it the "Senate Launch System" — a play on its official name, the "Space Launch System." The heavy lifter is designed to be able to go different places in the solar system, but this is too mushy for people like Nye, who says a rocket should be designed for a more specific and important scientific mission — such as sending astronauts to Mars to seek evidence of life. "Where did we come from and are we alone?" he said. NASA should focus on deep issues like this, which "can only be answered with space exploration." Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 204 Document1 DDI 2011-2 1 AT: SLS Key to ISS SLS is too big to go the ISS and would not be cost effective—Russia and private companies solve better CS Task Force 11 (Competitive Space Task Force 3-22-11 http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-system/ JT) (D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles. In other words, they want to use a heavy-lift (minimum 70-ton) vehicle to service the ISS. For an ISS mission, the MPCV would be unlikely to weigh more than thirty tons, even with its launch escape system, so the vehicle will be vastly oversized for this mission. Note that every credible cost analysis indicates that this vehicle will cost over a billion dollars per flight, when taking into account amortization of development and fixed costs. If the MPCV can carry six persons per mission, that comes out to a cost of almost two-hundred million per person, and that doesn’t even count the cost of the MPCV (which is still unknown, and will depend a lot on whether or not it is reusable). But even ignoring this cost, which will surely be hundreds of millions (again, factoring in amortization), that is a ticket price three times that being charged by the Russians in their latest contract. And it’s ten times what Space Exploration Technologies has quoted for a Falcon/Dragon flight (twenty-million per ticket). Now, they may argue that they can reduce the crew costs by booking some of the flight cost to cargo with the additional capacity, but this goes against the recommendation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board that NASA never again mix crew and cargo on a flight. Last printed 2/9/2016 3:27:00 AM 205

ddi11SpendingGeneric

Related documents

Products

Support

ddi11SpendingGeneric

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib