DDI 2009
Politics generic
1
Politics – DDI
Politics – DDI.................................................................... 1
Health care 1NC ................................................................ 4
Health care 1NC ................................................................ 5
CTBT 1NC ........................................................................ 6
CTBT 1NC ........................................................................ 7
Cap and trade 1NC ............................................................ 8
Cap and trade 1NC ............................................................ 9
***GENERAL UNIQUENESS ...................................... 10
Yes capital ....................................................................... 11
Yes capital – A2: poll results .......................................... 12
Yes agenda – F-22 win .................................................... 13
Obama won on F-22 ........................................................ 14
No capital ........................................................................ 15
No capital ........................................................................ 16
No public popularity........................................................ 17
No bipart ......................................................................... 18
Obama won’t spend capital ............................................. 19
Lobbies support Obama now ........................................... 20
Econ recovery inevitable ................................................. 21
***LINKS ....................................................................... 22
Poverty programs unpopular ........................................... 23
Poverty programs unpopular ........................................... 24
A2: Conservatives support poverty programs ................. 25
Poverty programs popular ............................................... 26
GOP supports poverty reduction ..................................... 27
Social services unpopular ................................................ 28
Social services unpopular ................................................ 29
Social services unpopular ................................................ 30
Social services unpopular ................................................ 31
Social services popular .................................................... 32
Spending costs capital ..................................................... 33
Spending costs capital ..................................................... 34
Spending costs capital – Blue Dogs ................................ 35
Abortion funding unpopular ............................................ 36
Immigration policies unpopular ...................................... 37
Immigration policies unpopular ...................................... 38
Immigrant health care unpopular..................................... 39
Immigration policies popular .......................................... 40
Health care costs capital .................................................. 41
Welfare/food stamps unpopular ...................................... 42
Prison reform popular...................................................... 43
Post office unpopular ...................................................... 44
Post office reform popular ............................................... 45
Bankruptcy reform unpopular ......................................... 46
***AGENT LINKS......................................................... 47
Courts link ....................................................................... 48
Courts link ....................................................................... 49
Courts link ....................................................................... 50
Courts link – president gets the blame............................. 51
Courts don’t link ............................................................. 52
Courts don’t link ............................................................. 53
Agencies link – general ................................................... 54
Agencies link – president = lightning rod ....................... 55
Agencies link – Congress must approve budgets ............ 56
***INTERNAL LINKS .................................................. 57
Controversial policies drain capital ................................. 58
Legislation costs capital .................................................. 59
Capital finite .................................................................... 60
Capital finite .................................................................... 61
Capital determines agenda............................................... 62
Capital determines agenda............................................... 63
Focus key ........................................................................ 64
A2: Winners win ............................................................. 65
Popularity key to agenda ................................................. 66
Popularity key to agenda ................................................. 67
Popularity not key to capital ............................................ 68
Popularity not key to capital ............................................ 69
Public popularity not key ................................................ 70
Flips flops kill agenda ..................................................... 71
Flips flops kill agenda ..................................................... 72
Winners win – Obama ..................................................... 73
Winners win – Obama ..................................................... 74
Winners win – Obama ..................................................... 75
Winners win – general..................................................... 76
Teflon .............................................................................. 77
No spillover/vote switching............................................. 78
No spillover/vote switching............................................. 79
Yes spillover/vote switching ........................................... 80
***HEALTH CARE UNIQUENESS ............................. 81
Yes health care – general................................................. 82
Yes health care – general................................................. 83
Yes health care – lobbies ................................................. 84
Yes health care – lobbies ................................................. 85
Yes health care – lobbies ................................................. 86
Yes health care – momentum .......................................... 87
Yes health care – Obama ................................................. 88
Yes health care – Obama ................................................. 89
Yes health care – bipart ................................................... 90
Yes health care – predictive ............................................ 91
Yes health care – vote count............................................ 92
Yes health care – reconciliation ...................................... 93
Yes health care – Dems ................................................... 94
Yes health care – Medicare provisions ............................ 95
Yes health care – soon ..................................................... 96
Yes health care – win on F-22 ......................................... 97
Yes health care – finance committee ............................... 98
Obama pushing health care ............................................. 99
Obama pushing health care ........................................... 100
Obama pushing health care ........................................... 101
Now key ........................................................................ 102
Now key ........................................................................ 103
Now key ........................................................................ 104
August deadline not key ................................................ 105
***HEALTH CARE INTERNALS .............................. 106
Capital key to health care .............................................. 107
Capital key to health care .............................................. 108
Capital key to health care .............................................. 109
Capital key to health care .............................................. 110
Capital key to health care .............................................. 111
Capital key to health care – Dems ................................. 112
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Capital key to health care – public ................................ 113
Capital key to health care – momentum ........................ 114
Focus key to health care ................................................ 115
Focus key to health care ................................................ 116
Spending kills health care.............................................. 117
Hyde link – kills health care .......................................... 118
Popularity key to health care ......................................... 119
Bipart key to health care ................................................ 120
Bipart key to health care ................................................ 121
Bipart key to health care ................................................ 122
Moderates/Blue Dogs key to health care ....................... 123
Moderates/Blue Dogs key to health care ....................... 124
***IMPACTS ............................................................... 125
***ECONOMY............................................................. 125
Health care key to economy – debt spirals .................... 126
Debt spiral impact short-term – signal .......................... 127
Health care key to economy – laundry list .................... 128
Health care key to economy – bankruptcy .................... 129
Health care key to economy – general........................... 130
Health care key to economy – general........................... 131
Health care key to economy – general........................... 132
Health care key to economy – general........................... 133
Health care key to economy – most important factor .... 134
Health care key to economy – state budgets.................. 135
Health care key to economy – small businesses ............ 136
Health care key to economy – chronic illness ............... 137
Health care reform key to solve chronic illness............. 138
A2: Raises prices ........................................................... 139
A2: Raises taxes ............................................................ 140
Health care key to competitiveness ............................... 141
Health care key to competitiveness ............................... 142
***ENTITLEMENT SPENDING................................. 143
Health care solves entitlement spending ....................... 144
Health care solves entitlement spending ....................... 145
Health care solves entitlement spending ....................... 146
Health care reform saves money – prevention .............. 147
Health care reform saves money – generics .................. 148
Health care reform saves money – generics .................. 149
Health care reform saves money – A2: big upfront cost 150
Health care solves fiscal discipline................................ 151
Health care key to economy – entitlements ................... 152
Entitlement spending threatens economy ...................... 153
Entitlement spending threatens economy ...................... 154
***SPACE .................................................................... 155
Space 2NC..................................................................... 156
Space 2NC..................................................................... 157
Entitlement reform  NASA funding .......................... 158
NASA cuts kills space exploration ................................ 159
A2: VSE not key to exploration .................................... 160
VSE key to whole space program ................................. 161
Space key to human survival ......................................... 162
Space exploration key to heg......................................... 163
Got to Get off the Rock by 2050 ................................... 164
Space Colonization Solves War .................................... 165
***NMD ....................................................................... 166
NMD 2NC ..................................................................... 167
NMD good – prolif........................................................ 168
NMD good – terrorism .................................................. 169
Politics generic
2
NMD good – Iranian prolif ........................................... 170
NMD good – Iranian prolif ........................................... 171
NMD good – Russia ...................................................... 172
NMD good – A2: Russia backlash ................................ 173
NMD good – works ....................................................... 174
***DISEASE/HEALTH/POVERTY ............................ 175
Bioterror 2NC................................................................ 176
Bioterror 2NC................................................................ 177
Health care solves bioterror ........................................... 178
Health care key to biotech ............................................. 179
Health care key to pharma ............................................. 180
Health care key to pharma ............................................. 181
Pharma solves bioterror ................................................. 182
Pharma solves bioterror ................................................. 183
A2: Generics hurt innovation ........................................ 184
Biotech good – heg........................................................ 185
Biotech good – famine .................................................. 186
Pandemic 2NC .............................................................. 187
Health care solves pandemics........................................ 188
Swine flu 2NC ............................................................... 189
Swine flu 2NC ............................................................... 190
Poverty 2NC .................................................................. 191
Obesity module 2NC ..................................................... 192
Healthcare = Moral Imperative ..................................... 193
***AGENDA ................................................................ 194
Health care  permanent Democratic majority ............ 195
Health care  whole agenda ......................................... 196
Health care  whole agenda ......................................... 197
Health care  cap and trade ......................................... 198
***AFF ANSWERS ..................................................... 199
No health care – no capital ............................................ 200
No health care – cost ..................................................... 201
No health care – Blue Dogs ........................................... 202
No health care – Dems .................................................. 203
No health care – Dems .................................................. 204
No health care – Dems .................................................. 205
No health care – Bayh ................................................... 206
No health care – GOP.................................................... 207
No health care – partisanship ........................................ 208
No health care – public.................................................. 209
No health care – cap and trade ...................................... 210
No health care – A2: win on F-22 ................................. 211
No health care – before recess ....................................... 212
Obama won’t push health care ...................................... 213
Capital not key to health care ........................................ 214
Employment/econ key to health care ............................ 215
Winners win on healthcare ............................................ 216
Obama Pushing kills health care ................................... 217
Health care reform fails ................................................. 218
Health care kills economy – raises costs ....................... 219
Health care kills economy – taxes ................................. 220
Health care kills economy – jobs................................... 221
Health care kills competitiveness .................................. 222
Health care reform increases costs ................................ 223
Health care reform increases costs ................................ 224
Health care reform increases costs ................................ 225
Health care reform increases costs ................................ 226
Health care reform increases costs ................................ 227
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Health care kills biotech ................................................ 228
Health care kills biotech ................................................ 229
Health care kills pharma ................................................ 230
Biotech bad – famine..................................................... 231
Health care reform undermines health........................... 232
SQ health coverage is excellent ..................................... 233
Poverty turns health care ............................................... 234
***CTBT NEG ............................................................. 235
Yes CTBT ..................................................................... 236
Yes CTBT – Obama ...................................................... 237
Yes CTBT – North Korea test ....................................... 238
Capital key to CTBT ..................................................... 239
Capital key to CTBT ..................................................... 240
CTBT key to non-prolif................................................. 241
CTBT key to non-prolif................................................. 242
US ratification key ........................................................ 243
A2: CTBT not effective................................................. 244
CTBT key to heg ........................................................... 245
CTBT  intl cooperation.............................................. 246
CTBT  intl cooperation.............................................. 247
No need to test ............................................................... 248
No need to test ............................................................... 249
***CTBT AFF .............................................................. 250
No CTBT – general ....................................................... 251
No CTBT – GOP ........................................................... 252
No CTBT – verification ................................................ 253
No prolif ........................................................................ 254
Norms can’t solve prolif ................................................ 255
Norms can’t solve prolif ................................................ 256
NPT breakdown inevitable ............................................ 257
Sub-critical testing kills non-prolif ................................ 258
CTBT kills deterrence ................................................... 259
CTBT kills deterrence ................................................... 260
CTBT kills deterrence ................................................... 261
Right to test is key to deterrence ................................... 262
Deterrence solves nuclear war ....................................... 263
Deterrence solves nuclear war ....................................... 264
***CAP AND TRADE UNIQUENESS ....................... 265
No cap and trade – general ............................................ 266
No cap and trade – general ............................................ 267
No cap and trade – overstretch ...................................... 268
No cap and trade – Obama pushing ............................... 269
No cap and trade – Dems .............................................. 270
No cap and trade – Dems .............................................. 271
No cap and trade – GOP ................................................ 272
No cap and trade – North Dakota .................................. 273
No cap and trade – economic fears................................ 274
Obama pushing cap and trade ....................................... 275
***CAP AND TRADE INTERNALS .......................... 276
Capital key to cap and trade .......................................... 277
Capital key to cap and trade .......................................... 278
Capital key to cap and trade .......................................... 279
Moderates key to cap and trade ..................................... 280
GOP key to cap and trade .............................................. 281
***ECONOMY IMPACTS .......................................... 282
Cap and trade kills economy – general .......................... 283
Politics generic
3
Cap and trade kills economy – general .......................... 284
Cap and trade kills economy – derivatives bubble ........ 285
Cap and trade kills economy – derivatives bubble ........ 286
Cap and trade kills economy – energy prices ................ 287
Cap and trade kills economy – jobs ............................... 288
Cap and  trade war ..................................................... 289
Cap and  trade war ..................................................... 290
Cap and trade  trade war with China ......................... 291
Cap and trade will have tariffs ...................................... 292
Protectionism impact ..................................................... 293
Cap and trade kills chemical industry............................ 294
Chemical industry impact .............................................. 295
Cap and trade kills the steel industry ............................. 296
Steel industry impact ..................................................... 297
Cap and trade kills ag sector.......................................... 298
Cap and trade kills manufacturing ................................. 299
***A2: WARMING ...................................................... 300
Cap and trade doesn’t solve warming ........................... 301
Cap and trade doesn’t solve climate .............................. 302
No modeling .................................................................. 303
No warming ................................................................... 304
No warming ................................................................... 305
Warming good – CO2 fertilization ................................ 306
Warming good – CO2 sink feedbacks ........................... 307
***NUCLEAR POWER ............................................... 308
Cap and trades  nuclear power................................... 309
Nuclear power bad – warming ...................................... 310
Nuclear power bad – terrorism ...................................... 311
Nuclear power  prolif ................................................ 312
***AFF ANSWERS ..................................................... 313
Yes cap and trade .......................................................... 314
Yes cap and trade – compromise ................................... 315
Yes cap and trade – predictive ...................................... 316
Yes cap and trade – reconciliation................................. 317
Now isn’t key to cap and trade ...................................... 318
Cap and trade inevitable ................................................ 319
Obama won’t push cap and trade .................................. 320
Capital not key to cap and trade .................................... 321
Cap and trade doesn’t hurt economy ............................. 322
Cap and trade key to economy – investment/stimulus .. 323
Cap and trade key to economy – jobs ............................ 324
Cap and trade key to economy – prices ......................... 325
Cap and trade key to economy – general ....................... 326
A2: Derivatives market ................................................. 327
Cap and trade won’t have tariffs ................................... 328
Tariffs don’t cause trade conflict ................................... 329
Steel industry NU .......................................................... 330
No chemical industry impact ......................................... 331
Cap and trade solves warming ....................................... 332
Cap and trade solves warming ....................................... 333
Warming bad – species ................................................. 334
Warming bad – species ................................................. 335
Warming bad – general ................................................. 336
Warming bad – economy .............................................. 337
Nuclear power good – warming .................................... 338
Nuclear power key to non-prolif ................................... 339
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
4
Health care 1NC
Health care reform will pass – even the critics admit that Obama will be able to sell it
Bloomberg, 7-25-09, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIiiRyGaM.Os
The top Senate Republican drafting health-care legislation and a leader of House Democrats balking at the
plan said they don’t expect committee and floor-vote delays to keep a bill from passing this year. Charles
Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said “it’s going to be difficult” for his
panel to approve legislation in the next two weeks. Beyond that, the odds of Congress enacting an overhaul
later this year are “very, very good,” the Iowa senator said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s
“Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, chairman of
the health-care task force for the Blue Dog Coalition, about 50 self-described fiscally conservative House
Democrats, said it would be a mistake for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the measure to the chamber’s floor
before lawmakers take their August recess. “I don’t think they have the votes,” Ross said in a separate
“Political Capital” interview. By year’s end, “we will meet the president’s goal of passing meaningful and
substantive health-care reform,” he also said.
[insert link]
Pushing controversial legislation burns political capital
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 19 94
In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might
seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. n198 On any
proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose
ability to modify and kill legislation is well-documented. n199 This is not meant to deny that the President
has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's
ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of
Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the
likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. n200 Repeated use of such tactics, however, will
impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. n201 At some
point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from
doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his
policy vision.
Political capital key to healthcare reform
Chiropractic Economics 7-7-2009
http://www.chiroeco.com/chiropractic/news/7360/861/Prioritizing-healthcare-reform-components/
INDIANAPOLIS – Faced with a barrage of pressing issues, the Obama administration has placed health-care
reform high on its agenda. The timing bodes well for change, according to Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., director
of the Indiana University Center for Health Policy and Professionalism, associate professor of pediatrics at
the IU School of Medicine and a pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children. "If the new administration wants
to accomplish significant reform, they will need political capital, which they have now," says Dr. Carroll,
who is a health services researcher and a Regenstrief Institute affiliated scientist. "We have a government
elected with a mandate for change and health care is an area that requires reform. Moreover, with the
economy in its current state, with unemployment on the rise, and with health care costs on the ascent, more
and more people will not be able to afford insurance or health care. Therefore, more will be in need of
reform." According to Dr. Carroll there are now more than 45 million people in America who have not had
health insurance for the entire year; almost twice that number lack coverage for a portion of the year. Over
the last few years, most of the newly uninsured are from the middle class. As unemployment rises, along with
food, utilities and other prices, a growing number of people will be unable to afford health insurance,
especially as it gets increasingly expensive.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
5
Health care 1NC
The impact is a new Great Depression. Reform is key to signal long term fiscal solvency
and prevent spiraling sell-offs of US debt
Boston Globe, 2-23-09
Budget analysts are worried that a continuing economic crisis will make it impossible to raise sufficient funds from
foreign markets to finance the nation's debt. In the last four years, about three-quarters of US debt was purchased by
foreign interests, most prominently by China. If other nations lose confidence that the United States will pay its
debts, however, some economists fear an international financial crisis could escalate and turn into a worldwide
depression. In any case, it is widely expected that debt purchasers will soon demand higher interest rates, which
would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. Obama is being urged by some analysts to start moving toward a
balanced budget as soon as possible to send a signal to the world that deficit spending will abate. Yet some analysts
are offering Obama conflicting advice, warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President
Franklin Roosevelt, who launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending, only to see a
new recession batter his presidency. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire
Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the
stimulus bill. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face, the White House believes that he could be
one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg
is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching
recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the
measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take
effect until well after the recession is over. "We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably
bipartisan and fair," Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama's stimulus bill was too partisan. Asked about
his hopes for the summit, he said, "It can either be very nice public relations or move the ball down the road on what
is an impending fiscal tsunami." Some budget specialists are skeptical. Robert Reischauer, former head of the
Congressional Budget Office, said Obama should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the
overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. "When you are shoveling out the goodies, you have a
greater probability of getting people to sign on to some fiscal diet," said Reischauer, who has been invited to the
summit. He said he is worried that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun
at our heads. The system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis." Analysts across the political
spectrum agree that the current path is unsustainable. Unless there is a major budgetary change, federal spending
will go from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050, according to the Concord
Coalition. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds. Social
Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. Obama suggested during his campaign that he
might support changing the level of income at which Social Security taxes are calculated. Another frequently
mentioned option is raising the retirement age. But any measure will be even more controversial than usual because
so many Americans have seen their private retirement plans pummeled by the stock market collapse. Medicare, the
government-run healthcare program for older Americans, is already running a deficit, which is expected to increase
quickly as baby boomers retire. That is why many analysts are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an
overhaul of the health system.
Global nuclear war
Mead, 2009 (Walter Russell, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger”, The New Republic, February 4, 2009)
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.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
6
CTBT 1NC
CTBT will pass, but action now is key to credibility.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
Not only do Democrats control both the presidency and the Senate today, but a number of influential
Republicans have expressed a willingness to take another look at the nuclear test ban treaty. GOP
presidential nominee McCain, who easily could have remained silent on the issue during the 2008
campaign, instead went out of his way to raise it in the context of a major speech on U.S. nonproliferation
strategy: As president, I will pledge to continue America’s current moratorium on testing, but also begin a
dialogue with our allies, and with the U.S. Senate, to identify ways we can move forward to limit testing in a
verifiable manner that does not undermine the security or viability of our nuclear deterrent. This would include
taking another look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to see what can be done to overcome the
shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force. 12 In response to a question following a speech at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in October 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also
expressed his support for CTBT ratification so long as adequate verification measures are in place. 13 The
political circumstances for CTBT ratification, therefore, are ripe: a Democrat, with the first clear majority
of the U.S. popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976, occupies the White House, while Senate Democrats
enjoy a 59-seat majority, the largest margin of power since 1980. Obama’s national security team should
keep in mind that the international community will not wait indefinitely for the United States to move on
CTBT ratification. Should another five years come and pass without any U.S. movement, a nation like
China may choose to end its nuclear testing moratorium. A test by any nation could trigger a domino
effect, leading to the quick collapse of the decade-old informal moratorium of the P-5 weapons states on
nuclear testing. The time to move is now.
[insert link]
Pushing controversial legislation burns political capital
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 19 94
In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might
seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. n198 On any
proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose
ability to modify and kill legislation is well-documented. n199 This is not meant to deny that the President
has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's
ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of
Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the
likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. n200 Repeated use of such tactics, however, will
impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. n201 At some
point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from
doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his
policy vision.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
7
CTBT 1NC
Political capital key to the CTBT
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
The Obama administration cannot take the decision to press the Senate for CTBT ratification before 2012
lightly. It will require a significant investment of political capital by the president and his senior national
security team during his first term in office to closely coordinate with the Senate leadership and chairmen
of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees. The risks of failure are
considerable: a second rejection by the Senate would likely doom the nuclear test ban treaty to oblivion
and risk encouraging other states to end their informal moratoria on nuclear testing. So why should
Obama forge ahead with a determined campaign for CTBT ratification?
US ratification is key to preventing proliferation
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
As Obama himself recognizes, the road to a world free of nuclear weapons must include the entry into
force of the nuclear test ban treaty. A global ban on nuclear weapons tests is an essential step to halting
the entry of new states into the nuclear club: without the ability to demonstrate its mastery of nuclear
weapons by detonating one, no proliferator can lay claim to a credible nuclear arsenal. Likewise, a test
ban promises to halt destabilizing nuclear arms races between existing weapons states by ceasing the
development and deployment of new types of nuclear weapons. Without the option of tests to verify their
effectiveness and reliability, a nuclear power will be hard pressed to introduce new advanced weapons
into their deterrent. Instead, an effective nuclear test ban will more or less freeze existing nuclear arsenals
at their current levels and prevent future improvements to their explosive power or miniaturization of
warheads for missile deployment. For that reason alone, the United States, which possesses the most
advanced nuclear arsenal in the world, should be a strong supporter of a treaty that promises to lock in the
nuclear weapons status quo. Furthermore, the CTBT entry into force would prevent China from further
advances in fielding multiple warhead ballistic missiles. It is no accident that the very first measure in the
thirteen-step action plan adopted by the 2000 NPT Review Conference referenced the need for early entry
into force of the CTBT. A nuclear free world cannot come into existence unless the international
community first agrees to end the nuclear arms race and prohibit any further advances to existing nuclear
arsenals. Obama, therefore, can best demonstrate the genuineness of his pledge to work toward a nuclearfree world by working toward CTBT ratification during his first term in office.
Proliferation leads to extinction.
Victor A Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis,
Summer 2002, Survival, p.87-90
In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that
such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the
weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed towards a world that will mirror the
American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear “six shooters” on their
hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather
together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
8
Cap and trade 1NC
Cap and trade will die in the Senate. Obama doesn’t have the capital to get it done
Welch and Gillespie, 7/26/09 (Matt and Nick, The Washington Post, “Obama’s ambitious domestic agenda is
at fork in the road,” http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705319026,00.html?pg=1)
Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed
trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets with not just
failure but scorn from political allies and foes alike. According to a July 13 CBS News poll, the onceunassailable president's approval rating now stands at 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of
Americans think the recession will last an additional two years or more, 52 percent think Obama is trying
to "accomplish too much," and 57 percent think the country is on the "wrong track." From a lousy capand-trade bill awaiting death in the Senate to a health-care reform agenda already weak in the knees to the
failure of the stimulus to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, what once looked like a juggernaut
is showing all the horsepower of a Chevy Cobalt. Obama must be reviewing the history of recent
Democratic administrations for some kind of road map out of his post-100-days ditch. So far, he seems to
be skipping the chapter on Bill Clinton and his generally free-market economic policies, flipping back
instead to Jimmy Carter. Like the 39th president, Obama has inherited an awful economy, dizzying
budget deficits and a geopolitical situation as promising as Kim Jong Il's health. Like Carter, Obama is
smart, moralistic and enamored of alternative energy schemes that were nonstarters back when Carter was
installing solar panels at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Like Carter, Obama faces as much effective opposition
from his own party's left wing as he does from an ardent but diminished GOP. And, as with Carter, his
specific policies are genuinely unpopular. The auto bailout has been reviled from the get-go, with
opposition consistently polling north of 60 percent. Majorities have said no to bank bailouts and to capand-trade if it would make electricity significantly more expensive.
Obama needs a win to revitalize his agenda and rebuild capital
Chris Stirewalt, Political Editor for the Washington Examiner, 7/2/2009
(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Morning-Must-Reads-49696192.html
Thus far in his presidency, Barack Obama has exert his political will in a dramatic fashion only once, and
that was in pushing a cap-and-trade bill that barely passed the House. The special interest hodgepodge of a
bill also infuriates the kinds of conscientious liberals who helped give Obama his victory over Hillary
Clinton last year. Writer Edward Luce takes a insightful look at the end of Obama’s long campaign, which
lasted five months into his presidency, and the beginning of the governing phase. Luce argues tat if Obama
accepts a similarly pale compromise on his healthcare plan as he did on global warming, the president’s base
will start to leave him. After running a campaign against cynicism and about changing Washington, Obama
is instead governing in the kind of pragmatic fashion that so pleases political journalists and Washington
tastemakers who sneer at idealists. Luce’s assumes Obama wasn’t always a cynical pragmatist who learned
in Chicago politics that what you say on the South Side and what you do in Springfield often bear little
relation to one another. Did Obama ever intend to honor his promises on transparency and ethics? Probably
only as far as they were convenient. Obama’s image as a reformer is at stake and to preserve it, Obama is
going to have to start spending some political capital with moderate middle voters. If he doesn’t, he may lose
his brand. “‘We are entering the post-declarative and post-positioning stage of the Obama presidency,’ says
David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official. ‘How he handles healthcare in practice will be a
defining moment.’ White House officials say they want to enact all of their priorities in 2009 – including capand-trade, financial sector reform and healthcare. From next January, electoral calculations in advance of the
mid-term congressional elections in November 2010 are likely to dictate caution.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
9
Cap and trade 1NC
Political capital key to cap and trade
Matt Dernoga, 6/30/2009 (Newstex. “It’s Getting Hot In Here: Navigating a Minefield Part 1.” Lexis //ZE)
The Obama Factor: Barack Obama didnt make his energy legislation a very public issue at all until the day before
the vote in the House. Although his administration did some furious work behind the scenes leading up to the vote,
there was no full court press in the media. No town hall events like there are with healthcare. The media was busy
covering healthcare while the climate bill snuck through like a trojan horse. Although this certainly frustrated
environmental groups, Obama has saved up political capital to use on the Senate side if he intends to use it(and if he
has any left after healthcare). There are some signs already that Obama is looking to take a much more aggressive
approach on the Senate. When the House bill passed Obama changed his Saturday radio address from the subject of
healthcare to the energy bill. This past Monday, he sought to keep the focus on energy by announcing new lightbulb
standards, while recounting what his administration has done so far on energy, and about how important it is the
Senate acts on the climate/energy bill. One big disadvantage we face with the public is theyve had to withstand 8
years worth of climate denial and delay by the Bush Administration. If Obama used his oratory skills and popularity
to highlight the issue of global warming, and more importantly the economic benefits of a strong energy/climate bill,
he could shift some public opinion. For the bill to have any chance of strengthening, Obama needs to go on the
offensive publicly, and trade political favors with swing vote Senators privately.
Cap and trade collapses the economy – rising energy prices and job losses
Investor's Business Daily, 6-26-09
Its centerpiece is a “cap and trade” provision that has been rightfully derided as “cap and tax.” It is in fact a tax on
energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide. It is the largest tax increase in
American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.
It’s a political bill that could come to a vote now that a deal was struck with farm-state legislators concerned about the taxation of
even bovine flatulence. As part of the agreement reached Tuesday night and announced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly
Hills, agricultural oversight for cap-and-trade was transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Farmers hope the USDA will be less intrusive. The EPA has been tasked by a Supreme Court ruling to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower. This even covers the emissions of barnyard animals, including
the methane from cows. The American Farm Bureau warns that cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy
cow and $80 for beef cattle. So farm-state politics trumped climate change. We all know about farmers paid not to grow food.
But now, American taxpayers apparently will be paying companies not to chop down trees. The Washington Times reports that
as part of the legislation, the House will also be voting Friday on a plan to pay domestic and international companies around the
world not to cut down trees. Such offsets “would be a transfer of wealth overseas,” said William Kovacs, vice president for
environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a
sound? As we’ve said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the
Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an
average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see
charts below). Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President
Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential
natural gas prices by 55% and the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500.
Global nuclear war
Mead, 2009 (Walter Russell, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on
Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger”, The New Republic, February 4, 2009)
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.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
10
***GENERAL UNIQUENESS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
11
Yes capital
Obama has political capital now – Sotomayor confirmation proves.
Dionne, Columnist, 7/20/09 (EJ Jr, The Washington Post, “Why Obama Likes his odds,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901758.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
The paradox is that Obama's limited experience under Republican sway makes him more comfortable than
many of his allies are with wielding the power that comes from large Democratic majorities. And it's real
power. Nothing made that clearer than the trajectory of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination
battle -- or non-battle. It has often been said that Republicans have not put up much of a fight against her, but
the reason for their pacifism is rarely mentioned: Republicans were severely constrained simply because they
lack numerical clout. Had the Senate been more closely divided, the GOP might have mounted a more
aggressive campaign that, if nothing else, could have raised the cost for moderate Democrats of supporting
Sotomayor. But knowing they'd never get the votes to stop her, Republicans decided to wait for a more
opportune moment to pick a real fight.
Political capital high for Obama now, must use before August recess
Riley, staff writer, 09
(Michael Riley, staff writer, 7/09,http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12873342)
Political strategists say there are tactical advantages to the pace on Capitol Hill so far this year — the
momentum of a historic election at their backs, congressional leaders and their administration allies realize
that the window of opportunity is small and chances of success highest now.
If a health care reform bill isn't passed before the Congress starts its August recess, some Democratic leaders
fear, the chance to do it at all may be gone, with the forces of opposition and nervousness of lawmakers
growing almost by the day.
"President (Barack) Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, is very aware that even after a big dramatic election like
we just had, your time is limited," said Julian Zelizer, a Congress expert at Princeton University. "The
perception is that presidents lose a significant amount of their capital quickly, within the year. As the midterms approach, you want to spend all the political capital you have."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
12
Yes capital – A2: poll results
Obama’s poor poll results aren’t important- he’s still in the honey moon stage of his
presidency
Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist, 7-21 (Barb Shelly, “Dip in Poll Numbers Not Disastrous for
Obama,” 7/21/09, http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5179)
But considering the number of polarizing issues Obama is embroiled in -- health care reform topping the
list -- he's not faring too badly in the polls.
From Gallup, which prepared the tracking poll:
Despite the ups and downs in Obama's second quarter, his overall average is little changed from the 63%
average for his first quarter in office. And even though he has had numerous sub-60% individual ratings
in June and July, all of these have still exceeded the historical average of 55% job approval for presidents
from Truman through George W. Bush. On this basis, it can be argued that he is still in the honeymoon
phase of his presidency.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
13
Yes agenda – F-22 win
Senate Vote on F-22 charged Obama’s agenda
Rogers and Dimascio, POLITICO staff writers, 09
(DAVID ROGERS & JEN DIMASCIO, POLITICO staff writers, 7/09,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25246.html)
Tuesday’s strong Senate vote to halt production of the F-22 fighter breathes new life into Pentagon
procurement reforms and provides a much needed boost for President Barack Obama’s larger change
agenda.
A late-breaking White House lobbying campaign averted what could have been an embarrassing political
setback, given Obama’s faltering support in recent polls and the uphill battle he now faces over health
care reform.
Instead what emerged was a new message of three R’s: reform, fiscal restraint — and something rare for
this White House: Republicans. Defense Secretary Robert Gates proved a major asset in drawing senators
from both parties; as many as 15 Republicans joined 42 Democrats and Vermont independent Bernie
Sanders in backing the president.
“The president really needed this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 itself but in terms of his
reform agenda,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. Blanche
Lincoln (D-Ark.) told POLITICO: “We have got to be a leaner, meaner government. We have to be more
efficient.”
The 58-40 margin marked a dramatic shift from only last week, when conventional wisdom held that the
$1.75 billion authorization would easily survive a challenge on the floor. Going forward, even small sums
for the plane are in doubt, and the F-22’s best hope may be foreign sales to Japan or some compromise to
fund purchases of spare parts and engines for planes already ordered from Lockheed Martin.
“I’ve already talked to the Defense Department. I said, ‘See if we can come up with some language,’”
said Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense panel. Just last week,
Murtha budgeted $369 million as an advanced procurement down payment toward F-22 purchases, but he
told POLITICO on Tuesday that is “obviously no longer in play ... They lost it by such a big margin.”
The full Appropriations Committee takes up the bill Wednesday, and House Majority Leader Steny
Hoyer (D-Md.) appears to be leaning toward backing Gates in any floor fight. Wasting no time, the grassroots organization TrueMajority.org has an ad in the works urging Florida Rep. Bill Young, Murtha’s
Republican counterpart, to vote against F-22 funding. “Be a lion, not a gopher for Lockheed Martin” is
one line in the script.
The fight brings back memories of 20 years ago, when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sought
unsuccessfully to kill the V-22 Osprey helicopter. Cheney lost after fights with the Marine Corps, which
was actively calling the program its No. 1 priority, as well as with Congress, which eventually restored
funding for the program.
That, perhaps, was an easier fight for Congress to win, suggested Loren Thompson, chief operating
officer for the Lexington Institute, who also does consulting for defense companies. The V-22 was a
research and development platform that required far less of an investment at the time — in the millions of
dollars as compared to the $1.75 billion pulled out to fund just seven F-22 Raptors.
But Gates may have learned from his predecessor’s experience. He laid enormous groundwork on the F22 within the Pentagon to head off in-house opposition from last summer, when he fired the Air Force’s
top leadership over a nuclear stewardship issue. Defense sources say the F-22 was a key underlying sore
point, and that firing sent a powerful message to the incoming leaders — Air Force Secretary Michael
Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz — who have gone on to support Gates’s position on the
fighter.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
14
Obama won on F-22
Obama wins with cut to F-22 fighters
Lubold, CS monitor staff writer, 09
(Gordon Lubold, CS monitor staff writer, 7/09, http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/21/senate-cuts-f-22funding-a-win-for-obama-and-gates/)
If Defense Secretary Robert Gates is an agent of change at the Pentagon, then Tuesday was a pretty good
day.
Senators voted Tuesday to strip $1.7 billion of funding from the defense budget that would have built
seven more F-22 Raptor stealth fighters. Secretary Gates favored removal of the funding, and the vote
could signal his ability to change the status quo on defense spending.
“Up until the last couple of hours, this vote was in doubt,” Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona said after the
vote. “This was one of the most significant votes in national security in the years I’ve been in the Senate.”
Senator McCain and Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan sponsored an amendment to remove the funding.
After much debate on the Senate floor, the amendment passed 58 to 40.
President Obama threatened to veto any bill that continued building the plane beyond the 187 the
administration supports.
The administration, with Gates as its front man on defense, is seeking to change the way defense dollars
are spent. It’s trying to curtail programs it sees as wasteful and divert those funds to more-relevant
programs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The controversy over the F-22 has become the effort’s
largest symbol.
“At a time when we’re fighting two wars, and facing a serious deficit, [approval of the F-22 money]
would have been an inexcusable waste of money,” Mr. Obama said at a Rose Garden event on healthcare
Tuesday.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
15
No capital
Obama’s approval rate is falling-economic anxiety and federal debt are destroying his base
Van Dyk, editor of Cross Cut Magazine, 9-(Ted Van Dyk, “Congress Is Looking Over
Obama’s Shoulder at the 2010 Elections,” 7/20/09,
http://crosscut.com/2009/07/20/congress/19119/)
Obama's approval rating has fallen below 60 percent for the first time since his inaugural. Depending on the poll you
trust, it is between 55-57 percent — neither high nor low for a first-term President at this stage. But in highunemployment states such as Ohio, it is below 50 percent. Moreover, independent voters who made the difference in
his 2008 election have been falling away rapidly. The reasons: anxiety about continuing recession as well as federal
debt being rapidly piled up by the financial and auto-industry bailouts and, prospectively, by the pending health-care
and cap-and-trade legislation in the Congress. Democratic congressional incumbents — especially in districts
carried in 2008 by Sen. John McCain or which are traditionally "marginal" — fear dissatisfaction about the
economy and mounting federal debt will cause them to lose their seats. The out party generally gains seats in offyear elections, and 2010 is not expected to be an exception.
Obama’s agenda is falling apart – he can’t get what he wants
Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, 09
(John Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress, 7/09,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/)
Probably the most intangible and most unpredictable part of the legislative process is the rather large egos of the
legislators. Despite having generally milquetoast reputations, each member of Congress has a variety of factors that
impact how and why they vote. Of course, their chief motivation is political survival. But each assesses their
political viability differently, and loyalty to the White House is not always top of the list. Some members of
Congress, who have been in the trenches for decades, have healthy egos that need love and affection from the
Obama administration. For example, when the White House concluded deals with health care providers, legislative
leaders like Charlie Rangel and Henry Waxman, who weren't party to the talks, threw a fit, said the deals didn't
apply to them, and sent a strong message that they weren't going to honor those commitments. That of course, threw
the larger health care negotiations into disarray. Egos matter on Capitol Hill, and stroking them is an essential part of
cracking the congressional code. In the movie "The Matrix," Keanu Reeves, playing Neo, ends the film with the
line, "Anything is possible." In a Hollywood movie, anything is possible. But in Congress, with limited money,
limited time and limited patience, the president can't get everything he wants. And after watching his cap and trade
proposal fall flat in the Senate, his health care bill lose support in both chambers, his tax proposals meet stiff
resistance from the business community and key centrist Democrats, and his financial service reform proposals go
nowhere, he risks getting nothing that he wants.
Obama’s capital is collapsing – new polls show he’s being dragged down
Weisenthal, clusterstock analyst, 09
(Joe Weisenthal, clusterstock analyst, 7/09, http://www.businessinsider.com/another-bad-poll-for-obama-2009-7)
The last 10 days have seen a spate of fresh polls all showing the same thing -- that the President's honeymoon period
is coming to an end, and that he doesn't have unlimited political capital. He is, after all, human, and despite the
mindblowing ineptitude of the Republican opposition, political warfare hurts. The bad polls are coming just as (or
maybe because) the President is really digging into the politically charged healthcare debate. Politico: Trust in
President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has
dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll. Just as Obama
intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the
number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time,
the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
16
No capital
Obama is burning his capital
S.A. Miller 7-25-2009 “Poll: President’s Popularity suffers in healthcare reform push”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/25/presidents-popularity-suffers-in-reform-push/
For the first time since President Obama entered the Oval Office, a majority of voters disapprove of the president's
job performance in a Rasmussen tracking poll - a downturn that has the potential to sap the White House's clout as it
begins the heavy lifting required for health care reform. Political strategists and pollsters said Mr. Obama is likely
sacrificing his popularity by pursuing an ambitious agenda that engenders opposition. "As the president attempts to
rebuild the economy and improve the health and welfare of an entire nation, he must use his political capital," said
Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile. "I don't believe the president can produce [that] kind of change
without it taking a toll on his personal popularity."
Political capital running empty – rising expectations are collapsing
Stop The ACLU, 09
(Stop The ACLU, 7/09,http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/19/running-low-on-political-capital-obama-in-a-rushto-pass-socialist-medicine/)
Here is the problem with hope and change. If you throw around empty phrases like this, and build people’s hopes up
with high expectations and utopian ideals - things can only go in one direction…anti-climax. This is especially true
if the utiopian ideals are built on a platform of flawed logic. Socialism sounds good to people’s hearts, but human
nature will never allow it to succeed. “It’s a great deal more than human nature that doesn’t allow socialism to
succeed, such as economics, geopolitics, ethnic factors, regional differences and demographics.” Every proposal of
“change” Obama is proposing has been built from a foundation of socialist ideas. Common sense tells us that you
can’t spend yourself out of debt, but that’s what Obama proposed and rushed through Congress to make happen. It’s
naturally failing. So will his other ideals. He built up hopes and people are finding the anti-climax deflating and
hopefully awakening. The poll numbers for Obama’s approval ratings are dropping like a rock, and his political
capital is running on empty. But hey, if you build everyone up on empty phrases, what can you expect but empty
results? Sadly, Obama still believes in his own illusions. Even his own party is losing hope.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
17
No public popularity
Obama’s popularity is declining
Barnes, executive editor of the weekly standard and staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 09
(Fred Barnes, executive editor of the weekly standard and staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 7/09,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804492049963557.html)
That makes them accountable for the hopes of a prompt economic recovery now being dashed. With the
economy still faltering and jobs still being lost, Mr. Obama's credibility is sinking and his job approval
rating is declining along with the popularity of his initiatives. Republicans, who had insisted the stimulus
was wasteful and wouldn't work, are being vindicated. The political fallout that mattered most, however,
has been among Democrats in the House who will face tough re-election fights next year. They're in a
state of near-panic over the lingering recession. Their confidence in Mr. Obama is fading, and they no
longer believe in quickly passing the president's agenda. Cap and trade has been put off until the fall and
health-care reform is starting to stall.
Obama’s popularity is falling because of healthcare
Keck, CNN International staff writer, 09
(Kristi Keck , CNN International staff writer, 7/23/09,
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/obama.health.care/)
(CNN) -- President Obama took his push to overhaul health care to a national audience Wednesday night,
but he gave little assurance that Congress would agree to a plan before its August recess.
With a voice of urgency, Obama said that if nothing is done, health care costs will double in the next
decade and more Americans will lose their coverage. He again tried to lay out how the overhaul of health
care fits into his broader economic strategy.
But what the president didn't do is convince the public that reform is on the way, analysts said.
Obama had given Congress a deadline of August for sending him a health care bill. He backed off such a
firm due date this week, saying, "We will do it this year."
Asked Wednesday if he's worried that the effort will collapse if there's a delay until the fall, Obama said,
"If you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen.”
"The default position is inertia, because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy.
There's always going to be some interest out there that decides, 'You know what? The status quo is
working for me a little bit better,' " he said.
David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, said there's a "real fear" in the White House that if
nothing is done before the August recess, "support will start to crumble."
"In some ways, I think tonight was a holding action to hold the public in place," he said.
"It is pivotal to his presidency. It's his single most important domestic initiative. He didn't run to fix the
economy -- he inherited that. But he ran to fix health care."
Republican critics such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed that health care reform is a
major priority, but he said it's not something that should be done in haste.
Giuliani said reform is "one of the most important things we can do, which is why we have to do it right
and why it shouldn't be rushed. If the plan is such a good plan ... it can stand the test of time. I don't
understand this big rush to try to get it done. This is a very complicated thing," he said.
As Obama pushes back against critics of his health care plan, a national poll out Tuesday indicates that
half the country disapproves of how he's handling the issue.
Forty-four percent of those questioned in the survey approve of how Obama's dealing with health care,
while 50 percent do not, according to the USA Today/Gallup Poll.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
18
No bipart
Bipartisan efforts are failing
Barnes, executive editor of the weekly standard and staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 09
(Fred Barnes, executive editor of the weekly standard and staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 7/09,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804492049963557.html)
During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama said he was committed to bipartisanship. But
congressional Democrats aren't, as he surely knew. They rejected input from House Republicans on the
stimulus -- without a peep of protest from the president. Minor concessions to three Republicans gave
them the 60 votes to pass the bill in the Senate.
The president's vow of bipartisanship wasn't the only promise to crumble. Democrats said they'd give
Republicans (and the public) 48 hours to read a bill before a vote. But the final version of the 1,071-page
stimulus package was unveiled in the House at 1 a.m. on Feb. 13 and passed later that day after one hour
of substantive debate. Every Republican voted no. The Senate vote came 16 hours after the three
renegade Republicans agreed to an amended version of the stimulus.
In urging fast action, Mr. Obama sounded apocalyptic: "If we do not move swiftly to sign the [stimulus]
into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. . . . Millions more Americans
will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care."
Once the stimulus passed, Democrats said the impact would be practically instant. House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) predicted "an immediate jolt." Economic adviser Larry Summers said, "You'll see
the effects almost immediately." White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said it would "take only
weeks or months" to be felt.
A similar sequence of appeals, claims, promises and a speedy vote was followed when the cap and trade
bill, which would put a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions, came before the House on June 28. The
bill's architect, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), presented a crucial 300-page amendment at 3 a.m. It
passed 16 hours later.
But even that was not fast enough. Mr. Waxman was irritated by House Republican leader John
Boehner's hour-long address in opposition. As Mr. Boehner spoke, Mr. Waxman demanded he be cut off.
He wasn't, but after Mr. Boehner finished, Mr. Waxman asked the presiding officer, who was then Rep.
Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.), how long the "two minute speech" had lasted. "The customary amount of
time" for the minority leader, she replied.
Mr. Waxman's testiness won't make final passage of cap and trade easier. Nor will the Obama
administration gain from its crude attempt last week to punish -- and silence -- Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.)
for saying the stimulus should be cancelled. Four cabinet members wrote to his governor, Republican Jan
Brewer, to ask if she wanted to forfeit stimulus money for her state.
Mr. Obama's health-care and energy initiatives, the core of his far-reaching agenda, were bound to face
serious opposition in Congress in any case. Hardball tactics and false promises have only made the hill he
has to climb steeper. Now he may lose on both. The president and his congressional allies should have
known better.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
19
Obama won’t spend capital
Obama has political capital but isn’t willing to spend it
Eleanor Clift, 7-10-2009, http://www.newsweek.com/id/206117/page/1
His poll numbers may be sinking, but six months into his presidency, Barack Obama retains the
admiration and the trust of voters. To be sure, they're not as admiring of his policies. The attacks from
critics about unsustainable debt and big government have taken their toll. Voters question whether his
policies will work, and the legions of progressives who backed him wonder whether he has what it takes
to work his will on Capitol Hill. White House officials say with some pride that Obama doesn't draw lines
in the sand. Maybe he should. If political capital is measured by popularity, Obama still has plenty. What
he doesn't seem to have is a willingness to spend it. With health-care reform working its way through
Congress and climate-change legislation within reach for the first time ever, it's time for Obama to get in
touch with his inner LBJ, but so far the signs don't look good. Obama's Zen-like avoidance of
confrontation gives way too much leeway to Democrats. A case in point is New Jersey Sen. Robert
Menendez's moves to block the nomination of Carlos Pascual to be ambassador to Mexico, first reported
in the Mexican press. Using his senatorial prerogative, Menendez can put what's called a "hold" on the
nomination. The Cuban-born Pascual helped write a report while at the Brookings Institution, a liberal
think tank, urging normalization of relations with Cuba at the conclusion of a three-stage process.
Menendez, the son of Cuban immigrants, is virulently antinormalization and takes it out on Obama
initiatives that touch on Cuba, however tangentially.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
20
Lobbies support Obama now
Lobbies already supporting Obama
DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and RON NIXON Published: 7-20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21lobby.html
WASHINGTON — Top lobbyists for the banking industry were gathered in a war council. The Obama
administration had proposed big changes in financial industry oversight, including a consumer protection
commission and regulation of some executives’ paychecks. The lobbyists listened to presentations from
big Washington public affairs firms ready to deploy arsenals including television commercials and directmail campaigns. But at the end of the meeting, the lobbyists publicly opted to emphasize, if with caveats,
their industry’s backing of President Obama’s broader call for reform. Steve Bartlett, president of the
Financial Services Roundtable and a participant in the discussion, said in an interview, “This
administration has reminded us of the lesson our mother taught us: If you can’t say anything nice, don’t
say anything at all.” And so it goes the length of K Street. Industry groups and lobbyists typically hostile
to intrusive government programs have been professing solidarity with Mr. Obama and his agenda on
matters like health care, energy and financial regulation. Industry has calculated that it stands a better
chance of achieving its ends by negotiating with the White House than by fighting it — at least publicly,
and at least until the various proposals get down to the final details. For partisans who are more
ideological, the parade of industry lobbyists trooping to the White House is unnerving. Conservatives fret
that to avoid a messy fight, their business allies are selling out too cheaply, while liberals voice the same
worry about the White House and its Congressional supporters. Some lobbyists argue that all the
“kumbaya,” as several called it, may be reaching its final chorus, for instance with banks’ efforts to
redirect the regulatory overhaul. “We have sort of a dual goal,” Mr. Bartlett said. “One is to support
comprehensive reform, and the other is to kill the consumer financial protection commission.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
21
Econ recovery inevitable
Econ recovery inevitable
Carlos Torres, Bloomberg News Staff Writer, 7-20-2009,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aMKZYfjyvGek
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Components of the index of leading economic indicators are signaling the worst
U.S. recession in five decades may be over now, not three to six months from now. Less-known elements
of the Conference Board’s report, including ratios and diffusion indexes, bolster the view the contraction
has ended. The leading index, a gauge of the economic outlook over the next two quarters, rose 0.7
percent in June, a third consecutive gain, the New York-based research group said today. “The process of
coming out of the recession, although still fragile, may be starting,” Ataman Ozyildirim, a Conference
Board economist that tracks the business cycle, said in an interview. “If it continues in this way, the
NBER committee will look back and tell us the recession ended.” A committee of the National Bureau of
Economic Research, a private group in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is the accepted arbiter of when
recessions begin and end. The group announced in July 2003 that the last recession had ended in
November 2001, indicating their deliberations take time. Several requirements within the Conference
Board’s report that economists say need to be fulfilled before a contraction is officially considered over
were checked off the list in June. Those were: three straight gains in the ratio of coincident-to-lagging
indicators, three months of 50-plus readings in the diffusion index, three consecutive gains in the leading
index and an annualized reading over that period in excess of 10 percent. Annual Rate The leading index
was up 12.8 percent at an annual rate over the last three months, today’s report showed. It was the best
performance since January 2002, two months after the last recession ended. “This is the third straight
month of a gain in leaders and suggests that, along with other economic evidence, the U.S. recession
might have ended” in the second quarter, Kenneth Kim, an economist at Stone & McCarthy Research
Associates in Princeton, New Jersey, wrote in a note to clients. The Conference Board’s index of
coincident indicators, a gauge of current economic activity, dropped 0.2 percent after decreasing 0.3
percent the prior month. The NBER cycle-dating committee follows measures in this index to help time
downturns. The index tracks payrolls, incomes, sales and production. The diffusion index shows the
breadth of gains in the leading index, with figures over 50 showing the majority of components rising.
The index registered a reading of 70 in June for a third consecutive month, today’s report showed.
Financial Gauges Earlier this year, only the financial components of the leading index -- including
money supply and the difference in interest rates between the benchmark 10-year Treasury note and the
overnight rate banks charge to borrow from each other --were rising. The increase in the diffusion index
shows other measures are also now increasing. “We now have positive moves in the indicators of the real
side of the economy,” such as decreasing jobless claims and increasing building permits, the Conference
Board’s Ozyildirim said. While the timeframe can vary between three and nine months, on average the
leading index reaches a bottom about five to seven months before the end of a recession, Ozyildirim said.
“The ‘all clear’ is not quite there, but you are beginning to see the kind of sequence unfolding that will
get us there,” he said, referring to the end of the recession.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
22
***LINKS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
23
Poverty programs unpopular
Poverty programs are extremely unpopular. It’s a wedge issue
Ezra Klein, staff reporter at The Washington Post, The American Prospect, January 16, 2006,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10833
But for conservatives, halting attempts to eradicate poverty slowly gave way to more successful efforts to
vilify it. Conservative leaders kept a dark (literally and figuratively) picture of the underclass visible to the
nation’s white middle class. The faces of poverty became more sinister: the Willie Hortons and the Linda
Taylors (Linda Taylor was Reagan’s ubiquitous welfare queen whose ill-gotten payouts totaled no more than
$8,000). These visages transformed a discussion over alleviating economic despair into a subtly racist wedge
issue that resonated with white males. And so it was easier, after that, to suggest that, irrespective of the
facts, the Great Society was a disaster, poverty the intractable affliction of an unsocialized underclass.
Egghead liberals with more good intentions than common sense had surrendered to instinct and offered cash
prizes to every unwed black mother able to bear a child, creating a culture of government dependency that
fostered criminality, broken families, and joblessness. Conservatives, deciding government involvement had
created the problem, concluded that government withdrawal would solve it. But Clinton’s ascension and
Democratic sympathy for the poor wrecked that plan, and the two sides eventually compromised on a sort of
political detente they termed welfare reform. Welfare reform, while about poor people, was never about
poverty, it was about politics. It made the impoverished a little less galling to the better off, ensuring that the
government’s incentive structure didn’t reward the out-of-work and thus offend the gainfully employed.
Meanwhile, crime was plummeting and the streets, thanks to Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill, were flooded
with new police officers. Come the late 1990s, the poor were neither dangerous nor ideologically maddening.
A handful of urban politicians continued pleading for inner-city aid, but with electoral power shifting away
from metropolitan centers, few listened. After 9-11, no one did. Poor blacks were no longer the threat; poor
browns had taken their place. And so America’s impoverished became something new: forgotten.
Zero political will for addressing poverty
Ezra Klein, staff reporter at The Washington Post, The American Prospect, January 16, 2006,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10833
It might have been a moment for progressives to step forth. After all, Katrina offered an instant of true moral
outrage at economic inequality, and no one thought Bush was serious about tackling racism or poverty
himself. The trouble was, progressives were not ready to respond. The important question is why. The
obvious, and easiest, answer is that they lacked the power. But while electoral defeats help explain why
Democrats couldn't implement a comprehensive antipoverty strategy, they don't account for why they
couldn't propose one. It's not just that Democrats couldn't bring policies onto the Senate floor. In this case,
the backstage was empty too. The Democratic National Committee's issues page never mentions the word
“poverty.” Nor does Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's, the House Democratic Caucus, nor the Senate Democratic
Caucus. Not a single one identifies poverty as an issue the Democratic Party cares to solve. That's largely
because, politically, poverty hasn't proven a winning issue for Democrats over the past couple of decades.
Reagan and Gingrich brandished it as a weapon and Clinton's welfare reform almost tore the Democratic
Party apart. So it's little wonder that when the moment came to address it, the party was caught unprepared.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
24
Poverty programs unpopular
Republicans show strong opposition to anti-poverty measures
Chattanooga Times Free Press 06
Chattanooga Times Free Press August 23 2006 “welfare reform: a work in progress,” august 23, 2006
Indeed, the GOP-controlled Congress continues to torpedo welfare reform. It has tightened eligibility
guidelines even as it has significantly reduced appropriations for education, child care, training programs
and other services that ease the transition from poverty and welfare to the world of work. It also refuses to
raise the minimum wage so crucial to workers at the lower end of the economic scale though it is happy
to provide the richest Americans with tax cuts and other benefits. Welfare reform is a social and an
economic issue. Adequate funding now for job training, continuing education, housing assistance,
language classes and other services that prepare an individual for the work force will save money and
improve lives in the long-run. Congress, though, prefers to play partisan politics rather than provide the
help that truly would advance reform.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
25
A2: Conservatives support poverty programs
Focusing on poverty fails to appeal to evangelicals
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 22, 2006
Tom Minnery, who is the vice president of the influential Focus on the Family, said he raised a red flag in
front of the National Association of Evangelicals last year when it appeared the group was putting too heavy
an emphasis on environmental protection, which he said "does not fairly reflect the concerns of most
evangelicals today." "Most evangelicals today are concerned with the much more basic issues of marriage
and family . . . and the right to life for unborn children," Minnery said. "It seems those are the issues we
should be addressing because they are under attack and the chief concern of most evangelicals." Some
evangelicals worry that broadening the agenda will dilute their influence on crucial core issues like abortion
and marriage, Green said. Others are suspicious that such activism would lead to a new welfare state that
will only perpetuate poverty. Still others view any political activism as a distraction from the primary
purpose of the church, he said.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
26
Poverty programs popular
*Strong support for social services and poverty policies
Robert Weissberg, Public Interest, June 22, 2002
While wording details and the menu of alternatives vary, the poll's paradigmatic question is generally "Do
you want the government (usually federal government or 'Washington') to spend more (or less or the same) to
solve the problem of X?" Decades of applying this polling formula have confirmed that Americans are
fervently attached to the social-welfare state. This is true both at the general level, for example, for spending
more for education and health care, as well as for narrower, more controversial issues such as increased
funding for AIDS research. Even Republican electoral victories cannot undermine this consensus regarding
the public's generosity, though, to be sure, numbers do fluctuate with events.
Strong support for anti-poverty programs
Jon Perr, 3-21-09, http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/red-state-socialism-and-politics-stimulus
None of which is to suggest that there is anything untoward or inappropriate in the underwriting of red states
by blue ones. On the contrary. After all, many of these Republican states are home both to key defense
contractors and military bases which help ensure U.S. national security. Just as important, Americans
nationwide want to provide the funding and resources for the education, health care and anti-poverty
programs their red state brethren badly need - and deserve.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
27
GOP supports poverty reduction
Republicans embrace poverty reduction policies
Lewis, visiting professor of political science, 08 (John Lewis, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Duke
University. He has been a Senior Research Scholar in History and Classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy
Center, and an Anthem Fellow. He is a contributing writer for Capitalism Magazine, and a Consulting Editor for The
Objective Standard, Capitalism Magazine, 12-08-08, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5375)
The reason for the Republicans' defeat is this simple fact: Over the past fifty years, they have ceased to be
Republican in anything other than name. For two generations, Republican leaders have abandoned
reason, individual rights, and freedom—the founding values of the American republic—in favor of
religion, tradition, and “family values.” The Republicans’ tendency to coin terms such as “compassionate
conservatism,” “neoconservatism,” and “big-government conservatism” is a consequence of their
adherence to the sacrificial morality of religion, which, logically, demands an ever-widening welfare
state. Millions of voters said good riddance to all that. Many of them are trying to tell the Republicans
something—namely, to drop their obsession with so-called “family values,” to stop their efforts to bring
religion into government, and to cease being RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). These conscientious
voters are looking for Republican politicians who are willing to stand against those who have led their
party astray, and to become the new intellectual defenders of the founding principle of the American
republic. Republicans who wish to assume such intellectual leadership must first understand why their
party has so energetically adopted the basic economic policies of the left. The answer begins with the
positions that Republicans have used to distinguish themselves morally from Democrats. Most
Republicans stand against abortion, for prayer in government schools, against embryonic stem-cell
research, for religious icons in courthouses, against gay marriage, and for censorship of the media. All of
these positions assume Christian doctrine as a moral base for political action. The same Christian
doctrine, far from differentiating Republicans from Democrats, is the basis for Republican agreement
with Democrats about the welfare state. Republicans have anchored their “compassionate” welfare state
in the ethics of Christianity. They have become fiscally indistinguishable from Democrats because
Christianity and Marxism share the same moral premise: “give unto the poor” or “to each according to his
need.” This premise, whether grounded in dialectical materialism or in biblical spiritualism, tells those
who embrace it that they can be moral only by caring for “the least among us” through the sacrifice of
others. The “compassionate conservatism” that has motivated Republicans to outspend Democrats in
social programs is a search for moral goodness by the standard of altruism: the morality of self-sacrifice.
Republicans want to be moral, which is a lofty goal, but under pressure of commandments to be selfless,
they cannot defend the heart of free enterprise: the selfish pursuit of profit. Many Republicans admire
successful businessmen for their productive success but grant them moral credit only when they give
away their fortunes. Because the Republicans’ embrace of altruism has rendered them unable to defend
the profit motive, they have abandoned capitalism and accepted the legitimacy of every government
program that redistributes money to those in need. The welfare state is the direct application of the
morality of self-sacrifice to the realm of politics.
Anti-poverty spending is popular with conservatives
Martin Edlund, Slate, June 26, 2006
Wallis, on the other hand, is more focused. He wants to influence two voting blocs that will be critical to the
2008 election, moderate evangelicals and Catholics. His plan is to focus on poverty, an issue he believes all
Christians can get behind, rather than ceding the floor to gay marriage and abortion, which the religious right
uses to estrange Christians from the Democratic Party. Wallis may be on to something. A 2004 Pew poll
found that most evangelicals support increased spending on anti-poverty programs, rigorous environmental
protection, and the fight abroad against HIV and AIDS. Groups like the National Association of Evangelicals
(which represents some 45,000 churches and 30 million members nationwide) and the Evangelical
Environmental Network have become increasingly vocal in their support of these Democrat-friendly faith
issues.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
28
Social services unpopular
Social service spending is controversial – it’s seen as creeping socialism
Washington Times, March 10, 2009
"What is this rubbish?" he asked, posing the question that some conservatives at the Heritage Foundation
were probably thinking Monday, as they listened to the former chairman of Britain's Conservative Party.
"Social justice is an abomination to most conservatives," said Mr. Duncan Smith, now chairman of an
independent think tank, the Center for Social Justice, in London. Conservatives consider social justice as leftwing buzzwords for more spending on poverty programs that fail, for redistributing wealth for socialist goals
or for excusing illegal conduct in pursuit of the "root causes" of crime.
Anti-poverty spending is extremely unpopular when budgets are tight
New York Times, January 2, 2000
It is true that discretionary domestic spending has been shrinking. In theory, there ought to be room for the
next president to advocate some increased spending for anti-poverty programs, schools, environmental
improvement, law enforcement and other areas, without provoking a political firestorm. But the costs of
federal retirement programs and health care are exploding. The Congressional Budget Office projects that
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, now 45 percent of the federal budget, will grow to 65 percent by
2030.
Public assistance has always been controversial.
Michael B. Katz, University of Pennsylvania, 2006, The American Welfare State
The welfare state is how a society insures against the risks inherent in human life - unemployment, poverty,
sickness, and old age - that in one way or another confront everyone. The term welfare state refers to a
collection of programmes designed to assure economic security to all citizens by guaranteeing the
fundamental necessities of life: food, shelter, medical care, protection in childhood and old age. In the United
States, the welfare state confronts universal problems with a distinctive architecture - much broader and more
complex than is usually realised. It is not usefully described as either public or private. Instead, its economy
is mixed, and its composition reflects American federalism - the division of powers between the federal
government and the states. The American welfare state consists of two main divisions, with subdivisions in
each. Each of the subdivisions is rooted in a different location in American history and, to some extent, has
followed its own trajectory over time. The first division is the public welfare state. Its subdivisions are public
assistance, social insurance and taxation. Public assistance, the oldest form of 'welfare', consists of meanstested programmes. Its origins lie in the Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists brought with them in the
17th century. Embodied in 'outdoor relief', aid given to people in their homes rather than in an institution,
public assistance has a long and controversial history. Although subject to state law, public assistance, with a
few exceptions, was administered locally, usually by counties. In the early 20th century, state governments
introduced a new form of public assistance, mothers' pensions, small amounts of money given to a limited
number of worthy widows. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the federal government for the first
time introduced two public assistance programmes paid for with matching state-federal funds. They were Old
Age Assistance, by far the largest until it was eliminated by the growth of Social Security (discussed below)
and Aid to Dependent Children, a federalisation of state mothers' pensions, which became Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC), or what most Americans referred to as 'welfare'. In 1974, Congress
bundled public assistance for the indigent elderly, blind, and disabled, into a new programme, Supplemental
Security Income. Then, in 1966, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) replaced AFDC. With TANF,
the federal government eliminated the partial entitlement to public assistance, added work requirements, and
time-limited benefits. As a result, the size of the welfare rolls - but not the prevalence of poverty - went
down.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
29
Social services unpopular
Social spending has always been a divisive issue in Congress- history proves
McClatchy, staff writer, 09 (Steven, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 3-21-09,
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/health_med_fit/article/I-SPEN0306_20090319-210442/236337/)
Strip away the political finger-pointing over President Barack Obama's proposed budget and the fight
boils down to a clash of values. Both major parties are really for big government -- just big in different
places. Republicans say they are outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new
behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the 1980s and the current decade.
And they love big government -- when it's at the Pentagon. Democrats from Obama on down insist that
they don't like big government, that they're just forced into a temporary spending spree by the recession.
But Democrats love big government as well, when it's for such social programs as universal health care.
"The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans in recent decades is which aspect of
government spending they prefer," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in
Northfield, Minn. "With the Republicans, it's defense. With the Democrats, it's education, environment,
health care, etc. That's been the major difference between the two parties going back to Reagan." The
numbers tell the tale. In his eight years, Republican Ronald Reagan increased government spending by
69 percent, led by a 92 percent increase in defense spending as he built up the military to confront the
Soviet Union. (These numbers aren't adjusted for inflation.) With the economy growing by the time he
left office in 1989, the size of the government as a share of total economic production had shrunk slightly,
from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Democrat Bill Clinton increased government spending by 32 percent
from 1993 to 2001, brought down largely by the rapid slowdown in defense spending after the Cold War
ended. Defense spending grew by just 4 percent during the Clinton years. The combination of restrained
growth in government and a booming economy meant that government's size as a percentage of the
economy dropped from 21.4 percent to 18.5 percent in the Clinton years.
Social welfare programs are historically partisan issues
American Chronicle, 05 (10-27-05, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/3275)
Today, Senate Democrats spoke out on the refusal of Senate Republicans to help the nation's neediest
during the harsh winter months. Kennedy, with his colleagues, have offered three amendments this month
alone in an attempt to bring much needed funding to low-income and elderly residents who cannot afford
skyrocketing energy costs to heat their homes this winter. LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, grants aid to low-income families who can't afford the steep cost of energy. The
number of households receiving this assistance has increased from 4 million in 2002 to 5 million this
year, the highest level in ten years. Providing energy assistance to the poorest citizens of this country
during the harsh winter months should be America's top priority, but sadly the Administration continues
to focus on misplaced priorities, Senator Kennedy said. In spite of Katrina, the Administration and the
House of Representatives continue to close their eyes to the long-term needs of the poor.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
30
Social services unpopular
Republicans oppose social welfare
The Washington Post, 09 (Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane, staff writers, 1-28-09,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012703129_pf.html)
The escalating cost of the [stimulus] legislation has resulted in the rapid shedding of GOP support for the
measure. Even after Obama's appearance, only about a dozen House Republicans said they remained
open-minded about backing the legislation. That group was invited to the White House last night for a
final lobbying session with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama officials said they were
realistic about their prospects. "We've all seen votes in this town where a few Republicans sometimes are
hard to come by or a few Democrats are hard to come by," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
told reporters. "We'll take what we can get tomorrow." In lengthy exchanges with Obama, Republicans
expressed concern that the legislation would add to an already soaring deficit, complained that they had
been left out of the drafting process, and vented that many provisions would not make an immediate
impact. Obama acknowledged during the House session that certain extraneous provisions had worked
their way into the bill's text. "It's not a perfect process," he told lawmakers, according to several
Republican participants. "That's reality." Republicans praised Obama's candor and willingness to reach
across the aisle, but said he conceded little ground and probably won few, if any, converts. He staunchly
defended one of their least favorite provisions, a $500-per-individual tax credit that can be claimed by
people who make too little to pay income taxes but currently pay payroll taxes. Republicans oppose the
so-called refundable credits, arguing that they are a form of welfare. "Feel free to whack me over the
head, because I probably will not compromise on that part," Obama said of the refundability portion,
according to a GOP participant who took notes during the House meeting. "I will watch you on Fox News
and feel bad about myself."
Republicans reject social service spending
News Leader 09
March 7 2009, http://www.newsleader.com/article/20090307/news06/9030.html
Republican House budget leaders are proposing to cut spending for public health and social services rather
than earmarking federal economic stimulus dollars to fill gaps in those programs. Budget details made public
Friday show Republicans are proposing cuts to county health clinics, substance abuse treatment, senior
meals programs and inspectors for hospitals, nursing homes and child care centers, among other things.The
plan, which the House Budget Committee will consider next week, ignores many of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's spending
proposals -- most notably, his proposed expansion of government health care for children and low-income adults. The budget
proposal sets the stage for a showdown on how to use Missouri's more than $4 billion in federal stimulus money.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
31
Social services unpopular
Congress is opposed to government entitlement programs and social services, on the
grounds of budget
Cheryl Wetzstein Aug 7 2007
(staff writer) Aug 7 2007, “Critical Hunger for Reform,” THE WASHINGTON TIMES,
Budget hawks are criticizing efforts to expand a welfare program that many people decline to use, even though the
government has spent millions of dollars to tout its benefits. The House voted last month to add $4 billion to the
granddaddy of America's domestic nutrition programs for the poor: the Food Stamp Program. The measure, part of
the farm bill that passed by a vote of 231-191 on July 27, also would ease the program's eligibility rules and increase
food stamp benefits. Anti-hunger advocates are pleased with many of the changes to the program, which provides
about $33 billion a year in assistance. "These investments represent real progress in addressing hunger in the U.S.,"
the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), an anti-hunger advocacy group, said after the bill passed. But Jeffrey
M. Jones, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative-leaning think tank, said now is not the time for
the government to cajole poor people into using a federal entitlement program. "The drive to reduce entitlement
spending while simultaneously expanding participation [in the Food Stamp Program] is tantamount to having two
trains racing toward each other on the same track - catastrophic," Mr. Jones wrote in December. "It's one thing to offer a
program to people in need," said Chris Edwards, a tax-policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. "But I don't think we should
be beating them over the head with a bat, saying you've got to take federal welfare. I mean, c'mon. My taxpayer money is being
used to encourage people to cost me even more tax money? I have a problem with that." High hassle, low value As of 2005, 35
percent of eligible low-income households did not use food stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
which administers the program. Stigma is often cited as a reason for not using food stamps, but several people at a faith-based
anti-poverty program in Maryland gave more pragmatic reasons for nonparticipation Mr. Besharov said. "In this day and age," he
said, food stamps serve as income support, and the major nutrition problem is "not that people don't have enough to eat, but that
they are eating too much and they are eating the wrong food." The Food Stamp Program is "designed to increase consumption,"
Mr. Besharov said. If it were converted to cash, "people could do a more responsible job in deciding what to eat." At a minimum,
it is time to allow states to run the Food Stamp Program, Cato's Mr. Edwards said. The federal government can't keep funding
everything it does now, he said. "It seems to me that's a very strong reason to send some of these programs that don't need to be at
the federal level back to the states," he said. Congress seems to have no appetite for these kinds of systemic reforms.
Moreover, the farm bill may end up being extended as is. It expires Sept. 30; it still has to go through the Senate, and
it faces the strong likelihood of a presidential veto because of its funding mechanisms. "I find it unacceptable to
raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no reform," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said July 25,
after House Democratic leaders revealed that they would pay for the $4 billion in new food stamp funds with a tax
increase on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies. As a result, some policy observers are already focusing on 2008.
"We're not going to get serious farm- or food-subsidy reforms this year," so "my goal is to get presidential
candidates thinking about this going ahead," Mr. Edwards said.
Empirically Social service issues have sparked political controversy
Wallsten 09
Peter Wallsten & Duke Helfand 6/6-09 “Bush religious policy upheld; To the dismay of civil libertarians, federal
funding can still go to faith groups that discriminate in hiring,” Los Angeles Times,
Thursday's announcement marked Obama 's first official step in redesigning the White House faith-based office, created by
Bush to help direct federal dollars to religious charities and social service organizations. Religious groups such as Catholic
Charities and Salvation Army have long received government money, but the faith-based office was intended to direct federal help to smaller
churches and organizations. Critics said the Bush initiative was used largely as a tool to court influential pastors and
award grants in politically important states. The hiring issue was a major point of controversy between Bush and
Democrats. The president signed an executive order in 2002 that paved the way for allowing federal grants to certain groups that hired only
people of like-minded religions. Supporters of the policy argued that a small Christian organization, for example, could not operate according to
its ideals if it were forced to hire non-Christians. Obama clearly singled out the policy during a campaign speech in July, declaring that "if you get
a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the
people you hire -- on the basis of their religion." But once he won the election, religious conservatives began lobbying Obama and
his transition team on the issue. It was the subject of intense internal debate, according to participants. That debate is now
expected to continue among the members of the new advisory council, which includes a broad range of political and
religious ideologies.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
32
Social services popular
Social services are bipartisan
Gerson, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 7-4 (Michael Gerson, op-ed columnist and senior
fellow at the Councin on Foreign Relations and senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006 for President
Bush, Washington Post, 7-4-09, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302449.html)
If I may be permitted a moment of nostalgia, I witnessed the beginnings of the faith-based initiative. It
was the height of the Gingrich revolution in 1994. A few perceptive (and lonely) Republicans, including
Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana, were convinced that an exclusively anti-government approach would be both
morally incomplete and politically self-destructive -- that a party with nothing hopeful to say about
addiction, disadvantaged youths or homelessness would not remain a governing party for long. As a
young staffer, I worked with Coats's legislative team on a package of legislation called the Project for
American Renewal, designed to promote the work of community and faith-based charities. The
Republican leadership listened to our ideas politely, as one listens to a slightly batty uncle -- then
proceeded to shut down the government in 1995. The Clinton administration did more than listen. By
1999, Vice President Al Gore was calling for a "new partnership" between government and "faith-based
organizations." But it was Texas Gov. George W. Bush who ran with the idea as a centerpiece of
compassionate conservatism. So Barack Obama's recent announcement of "a new project of American
renewal" that will "empower faith-based organizations" rang a peal of mental bells for me. The power of
a political idea is largely measured by its influence on the other party. By this measure, the faith-based
initiative is now a permanent feature of American life. Obama's proposal immediately won the right
supporters, including John DiIulio, one of the most principled compassionate conservatives of the early
Bush administration. It also earned the right critics. When Barry Lynn of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State says, "I am disappointed," Obama is on the right track. My own reaction:
Obama has done himself and his country a service and reminded many of us why we found him a
compelling political figure in the first place.
Social service programs are popular across the aisle
Lewis, visiting professor of political science, 06 (John Lewis, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Duke
University. He has been a Senior Research Scholar in History and Classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy
Center, and an Anthem Fellow. He is a contributing writer for Capitalism Magazine, and a Consulting Editor for The
Objective Standard, Capitalism Magazine, 10-26-06, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4816)
Consider fiscal policy. The conservatives have become outright supporters of the welfare state.
Compassionate conservatives have set out to surpass the leftists in spending. Bush has not vetoed a single
spending bill, and he ranks with FDR and LBJ as a great financier of the welfare state. To call this
triumvirate "free-market," or "pro-business," is an intellectual and political crime. Yet this is what the
Bush conservatives claim. Under Bush, the Department of Education has nearly doubled in size.
Attempts to eliminate Social Security have mutated into plans to save it. Private savings accounts will be
owned by individuals but controlled by the government. Private medicine will be by cartels, under
government controls and grants. Welfare will be distributed by private groups, including churches and
other religious organizations, who will seek the approval of government bureaucrats. All of this is in
fundamental agreement with the welfare state, even if the form differs from what a leftist might prefer—
and its claims to religious sanction give it a power that the left does not have. Bush, of course, did well to
lower the Capital Gains Tax—but does this temporary measure, easily repealed, offset the permanent
harm done by an institutionalized Sarbanes-Oxley? Must we save capitalism by jailing CEOs?
Conservative support for the welfare state was once a compromise with the left. This is no longer so.
Conservatives are energetically growing the welfare state, and will continue to do so even if the left
withers away. On one level, principles of altruism motivate them to demonstrate their goodness through
tax and spend. But there is another reason for this commitment: the very fact that the welfare state exists.
This, to a true conservative, is sufficient evidence for its legitimacy.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
33
Spending costs capital
Spending is unpopular with Republicans now
McKinnon, staff writer, 7-24 (John, Wall Street Journal, 7-24-09,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124839458922777659.html)
To emphasize Republicans' interest in an overhaul, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
has given 26 floor speeches since June, calling for health overhaul in each one. On Thursday, Mr.
McConnell said Republicans agree with Mr. Obama on the problems -- but not the solutions. "All of us
want health-care reform, but we want reform that brings down costs and long-term spending, not a socalled reform that makes things even worse," he said. According to a June 30 internal strategy memo
issued by the RNC, potential targets for criticism in the Democratic health plan include its price tag,
estimated at more than $1 trillion over 10 years; its perceived lack of checks on spending; and the
potential risks of greater government involvement in the market, such as deterioration of health-care
quality and patient choice. Republicans want to slow down what they view as Democrats' efforts to rush
passage of their plan before public concerns over its costs and potential impact on the federal deficit
mount. The RNC "will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush," said the memo from
party Chairman Michael Steele.
Spending is unpopular with Blue Dogs
Blue Dog Coalition, 09 (4-1-09, http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Budget%20Reform.html)
Today, leaders of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition pointed to the inclusion of
several long-standing Blue Dog priorities in announcing their support of the fiscal year 2010 House
Democratic budget resolution. While acknowledging the tough road that lies ahead, Blue Dog leaders
applauded both Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt and OMB Director Peter Orszag for their
efforts to restore fiscal discipline to the federal government and bring honesty and accountability to the
budget process. “The House Budget Resolution will put our country on a path to fiscal responsibility by
including key budget enforcement tools advocated by the Blue Dogs, most important of which is a clear
and definite pathway to statutory PAYGO in the House this year,” said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), Blue
Dog Budget Task Force Chairman. “For the first time in eight years we are working with an honest
document that takes the necessary steps to reverse the reckless fiscal policies that have led us into this
unprecedented financial crisis. We have much more work ahead of us, and the Blue Dogs are eager to
continue working with the President and our colleagues in Congress to put a framework in place that
includes statutory PAYGO and allows for long-term fiscal sustainability and economic growth.” In order
to address the issue of long-term fiscal sustainability, the Blue Dogs demanded that the FY ’10 House
budget resolution include an iron-clad commitment to statutory pay-as-you-go rules, a deficit neutral
reserve fund for health care reform, and funding for program integrity to identify waste and abuse in
government spending. Members of the Coalition also played a critical role in bringing down
discretionary spending levels and ensuring that cap and trade legislation is not subject to the budget
reconciliation process.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
34
Spending costs capital
Spending is a major drain to Obama political capital
Scott Wilson 6/14, 2009
Scott Wilson (Washington Post Staff Writer) 6/14, 2009: “Obama’s Spending Plans May Pose Political Risks”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061302035.html?hpid=topnews
After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy
initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans,
which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political
liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections. The concern was reflected in the aggressive response
from administration officials to criticism that money from Obama's stimulus plan is arriving too slowly to
help the languishing economy, as well as in the president's public endorsement of "pay as you go"
legislation, which would require Congress to make room for new non-discretionary spending with
equivalent cuts to other parts of the budget. Yesterday, Obama also outlined billions of dollars in savings
that would be used to pay for his health-care reform proposal. But there is evidence of growing public
concern over his fiscal policies. As he traveled Thursday in Green Bay, Wis., Obama was greeted by
demonstrators holding signs that said, "No socialism" and "Taxed Enough Yet?" Republican leaders, who
have been searching for a way to dent the president's popularity, are training their attacks on his economic
policies as they look ahead to the 2010 midterm congressional elections. Their argument that Obama is
spending recklessly, however, is complicated by the fact that the previous GOP administration's tax cuts,
borrowing to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expansion of entitlement benefits remain the
chief drivers behind the rising debt. "The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep
hole," Obama said last week. "And digging our way out of it will take time, patience and some tough
choices." But even some leaders in his own party are calling on the president to soon begin making those
difficult choices, despite a fragile economy that remains in recession. After inheriting a $1.3 trillion
annual budget deficit upon taking office, Obama pushed through $787 billion in short-term spending and
tax cuts designed to make up for retreating private-sector demand and to spark the economy. He also won
approval for a 10-year budget that aspires to sharply reduce the deficit in its first years and takes on the
rising cost of health care, which his advisers say is the single biggest cause of increasing public
expenditures. But Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, "The
second five years is where we're on a completely unsustainable course." "People know we have an overall
situation here that doesn't add up," he said. Results from a Gallup survey released last week show that
although more than six in 10 Americans approve of Obama's overall job performance, fewer than half say
they approve of how he is handling the deficit and controlling federal spending. The poll also shows a
decline from the previous month in the percentage of Americans who approve of Obama's handling of the
economy, although a majority still does.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
35
Spending costs capital – Blue Dogs
Blue dogs are key to Obama's agenda and they dislike spending
Kellman, staff writer, 7-23 (Laura, Associated Press, 7-23-09,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjUfxTBnNrhPSJrTHM1K3Qj4_PvgD99KD50O0)
Conservative-leaning Blue Dog Democrats are enjoying a power surge like no other in their 15 years,
forcing President Barack Obama and their own party leaders to deal with their demands for cost cuts and
tax restraints in overhauling health care. The evidence is everywhere these days: Polls show the public
shares their concerns about the cost of Obama's plan to insure all Americans who seek health coverage.
Obama himself has spent valuable presidential time in private talks with these Democrats and in neardaily appeals for the public to prod Congress into action. And the group's political fund raising is peaking.
All the while, Obama and Democratic leaders have issued shout-outs to the faction of 52 House members,
a sign of the clout Blue Dogs wield over some of the president's top priorities — none more than his plan
to provide health care to virtually all Americans. "I think, rightly, a number of these so-called Blue Dog
Democrats — more conservative Democrats — were concerned that not enough had been done on
reducing costs," Obama said Tuesday in an interview with CBS News. That's a measure of validation for
a group that spent its first decade being ignored by Republicans and tolerated by more left-leaning
Democrats. There was more. On Wednesday, the Blue Dogs saw their organizing principle, a pay-asyou-go fiscal spending policy, pass the House by a 99-vote margin. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a
news conference to praise the group. Her second-in-command, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, thanked
them from the well of the House chamber and called the group "real Democrats" at a time when they are
less popular with the party's liberal flank. "How sweet it is," said Budget Committee Chairman John
Spratt, D-S.C. The Blue Dogs' political action committee raised $1.1 million in the first six months of
this year, more than it raised for the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center
for Public Integrity.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
36
Abortion funding unpopular
Federal funded abortion is a unpopular issue even in the democratic party- health care
proves
Yoest, staff writer, 7-17 (Patrick, Wall Street Journal, 7-17-09, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090717713581.html)
-A group of anti-abortion Democrats opposed to U.S. House health-care legislation in its current form
have emerged as a major obstacle to Democratic leaders' goal of passing the measure by August. A group
of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they "cannot
support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any
government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan." The letter comes at a time when other blocs of
House Democrats, such as the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, have threatened to withhold their
support for the bill. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., warned that Democratic leaders should heed the group's
letter, saying the bill is endangered by the defection of anti-abortion Democrats. "I told leadership
repeatedly, but they just sort of ignored us," said Stupak, who signed the letter. "They ignore at their own
peril." President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have avoided painful debates on abortion
thus far. Obama has largely stayed above the fray on culture-war issues, and the Senate confirmation
hearings of Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor have done little to ignite passions on the
issue. But abortion debates have creeped up in recent days in Congress. The House voted Thursday on a
rule to limit amendments on a financial-services spending bill, with 39 anti-abortion Democrats voting
against the rule because it bars a
vote on an abortion-related amendment.
Abortion funding faces opposition from both democrats and republicans
CNN, 7-22 (7-22-09, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/health.care.abortion/)
The contentious health care reform debate intensified Wednesday as a bipartisan group of congressmen
opposed to abortion pledged to fight any bill that fails to exclude the procedure from the scope of
government-defined benefits. "This issue is not about party politics. It's not about obstructionism. It is
about saving lives and protecting pro-life Americans across the country," Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania,
said. "American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortion. Nor should they be forced to be
unwitting participants as the abortion industry uses [the health care debate] to mainstream the destruction
of human life into America's health care industry." The group argued that, under the current version of
the House Democratic leadership's bill, most Americans ultimately would be forced to participate in a
plan that covers abortion services. They complained that amendments specifying the exclusion of
abortion mandates and subsidies had already been rejected by two of the three House committees
handling health care legislation.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
37
Immigration policies unpopular
Immigration reform is unpopular issue in Congress
Daily News 6-25 (Albor Ruiz, staff writer, 6-25-2009, lexis, "Time for Immig Reform Now")
IS IMMIGRATION REFORM becoming a political game? Even if today's much-anticipated bipartisan
meeting between members of Congress and the President on immigration reform takes place, no one
should have great illusions about its outcome. The twice-postponed gathering follows Obama's Tuesday
press conference that made no mention of immigration reform. Also, though the President reiterated his
commitment to tackle comprehensive reform at the Esperanza National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast and
Conference last Friday, it came with a catch. Yes, the contentious immigration issue will be confronted,
Obama told the religious leaders, but he did not say necessarily in his first year in office. By now, it is
becoming clear that immigration reform is not at the top of the President's ambitious, almost heroic,
legislative agenda. Yet immigrant advocates are trying to remain optimistic. "We expect a real plan of
action to emerge" from today's meeting, said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice. Sharry
urged the President and congressional leaders of both parties to set a course to advance comprehensive
immigration reform this year. Let's hope so. But just in case, let's also hope that those who favor a
rational immigration policy have a plan B. The fact is that 12 million undocumented immigrants
"continue to suffer at the hands of immigration policies that separate them from family members and
drive them into remote parts of the American desert, sometimes to their deaths," the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops reminded Obama in a letter. "Our society," said conference President
Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, "should no longer tolerate a status quo that perpetuates a permanent
underclass of persons and benefits from their labor without offering them legal protections." The
conditions addressed by the bishops probably will continue until more people realize that despite the
President's good intentions, the time for waiting patiently for the White House to act has passed.
Hispanic voters, a decisive group in Obama's victory, must flex their electoral muscles to pressure the
White House to exercise effective leadership and move Congress to pass immigration reform this year. In
2010, midterm elections will make passage a much heavier lift. It is not good news, but all indications
are that the White House and some members of Congress up for reelection next year are playing the
political game of trying to please God and the Devil. Their dilemma is to keep the pro-Obama Latino
voters happy while not picking a fight with the anti-immigration crowd. It is not going to be easy - and
the administration may end up making everybody angry.
Republicans are strongly opposed to immigration
Ben Pershing, Washington Post 9-4-08
During the heat of the primary season late last year, Republican. Steve King
(R-Iowa) said it was imperative for his party to nominate a candidate who was tough on illegal
immigration and didn't parrot President Bush's centrist stance on the issue.
"If we don't," King said in December, "then we're in for another four to eight years of the squabbling
we've had."
Yet as Republicans prepared to ratify Sen. John McCain
(Ariz.) -- author, with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), of the comprehensive immigration measure
that died in the Senate last year -- as their presidential nominee this week, little of that squabbling has
been on display in the Twin Cities.
Immigration has received scant mention in speeches on the convention floor, and King conceded
Wednesday that "the number of people who have come up to me to complain about this, so far it's zero."
King and other critics of McCain's record on immigration attribute the relative silence on the issue to
two factors: The Arizonan has shifted to a more conservative stance since his reform measure died; and
the convention's attention has been diverted, by Hurricane Gustav and, subsequently, by the furor over the
selection of McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
38
Immigration policies unpopular
Social Services for immigration are politically divisive
Irish Times 06
(“Republicans split on immigration reform,” 8 April 2006, Lexis)
America Denis Staunton Yesterday's unravelling of a Senate deal to overhaul America's immigration system
highlights the political delicacy of an issue that has brought hundreds of thousands on to the streets in
recent weeks and seen schools ban national symbols in an attempt to defuse tensions. The Senate
compromise collapsed after conservative Republicans sought to introduce amendments that Democrats
feared would undermine an attempt to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become US
citizens. Republicans are deeply divided. Economic liberals view immigrant labour as essential to many
US businesses while cultural conservatives, who see America's porous borders as a security threat, want
to deport all illegal immigrants and build a security fence along the border with Mexico. President Bush has
sought to embrace both wings of the party, calling for stronger borders but backing a temporary worker programme that would
allow millions of immigrants in the US to legalise their status. Conservative Republicans facing elections in November are tempted
to take a tough line on immigration, not least because they would prefer to talk about immigration than about Iraq or the domestic
record of this unpopular administration. More than 90 per cent of Americans regard immigration as an important issue and many,
particularly in southern states, complain that illegal immigrants are clogging hospital emergency rooms and filling schools with
children who cannot speak English. However, Mr Bush and his political advisors fear that too harsh an approach to immigration
could alienate the Hispanic community, which accounted for nearly 14 per cent of the US population in 2004, a proportion that is
expected to double by 2050. Hispanics are already the largest minority in America, overtaking African-Americans in 2000 and in
California, they account for one in three of the population. Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist warned that if Republicans don't
back a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, the party could lose the Hispanic vote, just as it lost the Catholic vote for almost a
century. Last month's massive pro-immigrant demonstrations took Washington by surprise, alerting both parties to the political
potential of the protests. Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for the Human Rights of Immigrants, declared that the
marches marked the dawning of a new era of political influence. The demonstrators, students, religious leaders, and trade unions as
well as immigrants, were provoked into action by an immigration Bill approved by the House of Representatives earlier this year
that would make felons of illegal immigrants and those who offer them help, including shelter or advice. Some Democrats believe
their party could benefit in November if the Senate fails to introduce a Bill before then and the House Bill is perceived as the
Republican party's position on immigration. Many analysts draw parallels with California's Proposition 187 in
1994, which established new rules on the registration of illegal immigrants, and denied them public
education and other social services. The Republican-backed measure was approved in a popular ballot by
59 per cent to 41 per cent, but it has often been blamed for the subsequent decline in Republican fortunes
in California. In fact, first-generation immigrants supported the initiative by 54 per cent to 46 per cent and three out of five thirdgeneration immigrants supported it. However, Hispanic support for California Republicans fell sharply, and Mr Bush and his chief
political strategist Karl Rove believe the risk of losing such support on a national scale is enormous. A national day of action in
support of immigrants next Monday is expected to attract millions on to the streets of more than 60 American cities. But as
senators and congressmen return to their constituencies for a two-week Easter break, they will hear other
voices calling for a crackdown on illegal immigrants and on the businesses that employ them. The
president's role in brokering a deal between the two wings of the Republican party could be crucial, but
many fear that Mr Bush may have exhausted his political capital to the point where few legislators are
prepared to listen to him.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
39
Immigrant health care unpopular
Immigrant healthcare is unpopular with republicans
Volsky, staff writer, 09 (Igor Volsky, The Wonk Room, 1-13-09,
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/01/13/schip-immigrant/)
As Democrats prepare to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), House
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) are calling on Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and President-elect Barack Obama to continue denying health insurance to
immigrant children. In a letter to the Democratic leaders, Boehner and Cantor stipulate that “only U.S.
citizens and certain legal residents should be permitted to benefit from a program like SCHIP”: We
believe SCHIP legislation must include stronger protections to prevent fraud by including citizenship
verification standards to ensure that only eligible U.S. citizens and certain legal residents are controlled in
the program.
Illegal immigrant service policies are unpopular
Vennochi, columnist, 08 (Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe, 1-13-08,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/13/patricks_fine_line_on_immigration/
THERE'S a fine line between political courage and political vulnerability. When it comes to illegal
immigration, Deval Patrick is definitely walking it. The Massachusetts governor and Barack Obama
supporter picked a politically risky moment to stand up for an unpopular idea - letting the children of
illegal immigrants living in Massachusetts pay the same in-state college tuition rate as the children of
legal residents. Answering a question before a group of business and civic leaders last week, Patrick said
his legal team is pondering whether the state could grant the lower rate by passing a regulation which
would require approval by the state Board of Higher Education. That would bypass the state Legislature,
which rejected a bill in 2006 that would have extended the in-state tuition rate to such students. Perhaps
Patrick can get the 11-member Board of Higher Education to go along with such a proposal. But at what
expense? Taking that path would surely anger legislators, whose support he needs for other priorities that
affect far more constituents than the 400-to-500 students who supposedly qualify for the in-state tuition
rate. But, anyway, why raise the issue now? From a national perspective, it fires up strong antiimmigration forces in the middle of the presidential primary season, to the benefit of former
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney - and, perhaps, to the disadvantage of Obama, the Democrat
Patrick endorsed.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
40
Immigration policies popular
Immigration Reform is popular among the public
Daily News 6-25 (Albor Ruiz, staff writer, 6-25-2009, lexis, "Time for Immig Reform Now")
What makes the apparent White House timidity so ironic is that polls unequivocally show that the
American people favor a fair and compassionate immigration reform law with a path to citizenship. They
understand that it is critical for the nation's economic recovery - and for the healing of its soul. TODAY,
IF the much-anticipated meeting finally takes place, it is urgent to remember the unambiguous words of
candidate Obama to the National Council of La Raza on July 13, 2008. "I think it's time for a President
who won't walk away from something as important as comprehensive [immigration] reform just because
it becomes politically unpopular. I will make it a top priority in my first year as the President of the
United States of America." Otherwise, it is just one more game.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
41
Health care costs capital
Healthcare increases will cost political capital
Real Clear Politics 6-23-09,
Act Fast on Healthcare, Obama,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/23/act_fast_on_health_care_obama_97119.html
President Obama has a green light and open eight-lane highway for health-care reform. But somehow the
guy can't put his foot on the gas. He hedges in neutral while some fellow Democrats muck up policy and
Republicans demagogue them into mush. A commanding 85 percent of Americans want "fundamental
changes" in American health care, according to a recent New York Times-CBS News poll. On the
allegedly controversial "public option" -- a government-run plan that would compete with private insurers
-- 72 percent are in favor. And that includes half of self-identified Republicans. What is Obama afraid of?
He apparently dreads repeating the mistakes of the Clinton health proposal. One was letting wonks create
a mostly finished health-reform product. Neither lawmakers nor health-care interests liked being kept out
of the kitchen. Obama wanted to avoid, as he recently put it, "my way or the highway" on health care. But
that needn't mean sitting stalled on the interstate as friends and foes alike run a demolition derby over
coherent policy. Remember how the Clinton plan was ridiculed for being too complicated. Hillary's 1,400
pages became the big ha-ha. And so what are so-called moderate Democrats, fearful of supporting a
public plan, suggesting in its place? Fifty separate cooperatives, each run by a board of directors
managing its own risk pool, cutting its own deals with doctors and hospitals. Only 50?This proposal push
by Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, has the support of some Democrats from fairly
conservative states. Conrad says he wouldn't mind one national cooperative but is concerned it would run
into the same opposition as the public-plan idea. (Again, see the poll numbers above.) Does he worry that
a Republican will call him a "collectivist" on Fox? That's going to happen anyway. He can bank on it. By
the way, the Clinton plan also envisioned regional cooperatives. They were panned as "too much
government control."Some House Democrats have come up with a plan to pay for health care through a
tax on soda. The thinking goes that sugary sodas contribute to obesity, and the tax would make people
think twice before popping a can of Coke. Mamma mia -- and silence from Obama. The real worry about
Obama's steering ability will come when the discussions grow really hot over paying for the plan. The
Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the cost of a Senate health-care draft bill at $1 trillion
over 10 years. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham immediately pronounced the number "a death
blow to a government-run health plan."The problem isn't the $1 trillion. It's that the legislation would
leave too many Americans uninsured. Even the $1.6 trillion earlier estimate is not an outlandish amount
to spend on a decade's worth of high-quality health-care for all Americans. The Bush tax cuts will cost
$200 billion more than that. In 2007, the Medicare drug benefit weighed in at an estimated $964 billion
over 10 years. And it covers only one health benefit for one slice of the population. Nonetheless,
Republicans congratulated themselves that the number was down from an earlier projection of $1.08
trillion. The decline showed that "competition among private plans had effectively held down costs,"
Bush's secretary of health and human services, Michael Leavitt, announced. Yet Montana Democrat Max
Baucus, who heads the Senate Finance Committee, now insists on getting the 10-year cost of
comprehensive health-care under $1 trillion. Obama has to pick whom to disappoint and what to fight for.
Above all, he should drop the obsession with winning wide Republican support for health reform. Time
to stop idling and gun it out on the road.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
42
Welfare/food stamps unpopular
Food Stamp’s and Welfare are unpopular in congress.
Cheryl Wetzstein Aug 7 2007
(staff writer) Aug 7 2007, “Critical Hunger for Reform,” THE WASHINGTON TIMES,
Budget hawks are criticizing efforts to expand a welfare program that many people decline to use, even
though the government has spent millions of dollars to tout its benefits. The House voted last month to
add $4 billion to the granddaddy of America's domestic nutrition programs for the poor: the Food Stamp
Program. The measure, part of the farm bill that passed by a vote of 231-191 on July 27, also would ease
the program's eligibility rules and increase food stamp benefits. Anti-hunger advocates are pleased with
many of the changes to the program, which provides about $33 billion a year in assistance. "These
investments represent real progress in addressing hunger in the U.S.," the Food Research and Action
Center (FRAC), an anti-hunger advocacy group, said after the bill passed. But Jeffrey M. Jones, a
research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative-leaning think tank, said now is not the time for
the government to cajole poor people into using a federal entitlement program. "The drive to reduce
entitlement spending while simultaneously expanding participation [in the Food Stamp Program] is
tantamount to having two trains racing toward each other on the same track - catastrophic," Mr. Jones
wrote in December. "It's one thing to offer a program to people in need," said Chris Edwards, a tax-policy
analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. "But I don't think we should be beating them over the head with a
bat, saying you've got to take federal welfare. I mean, c'mon. My taxpayer money is being used to
encourage people to cost me even more tax money? I have a problem with that." High hassle, low value
As of 2005, 35 percent of eligible low-income households did not use food stamps, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the program. Stigma is often cited as a reason for
not using food stamps, but several people at a faith-based anti-poverty program in Maryland gave more
pragmatic reasons for nonparticipation Mr. Besharov said. If it were converted to cash, "people could do a
more responsible job in deciding what to eat." At a minimum, it is time to allow states to run the Food
Stamp Program, Cato's Mr. Edwards said. The federal government can't keep funding everything it does
now, he said. "It seems to me that's a very strong reason to send some of these programs that don't need to
be at the federal level back to the states," he said. Congress seems to have no appetite for these kinds of
systemic reforms. Moreover, the farm bill may end up being extended as is. It expires Sept. 30; it still
has to go through the Senate, and it faces the strong likelihood of a presidential veto because of its
funding mechanisms. "I find it unacceptable to raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no
reform," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said July 25, after House Democratic leaders revealed that
they would pay for the $4 billion in new food stamp funds with a tax increase on U.S. subsidiaries of
foreign companies. As a result, some policy observers are already focusing on 2008. "We're not going to
get serious farm- or food-subsidy reforms this year," so "my goal is to get presidential candidates thinking
about this going ahead," Mr. Edwards said.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
43
Prison reform popular
Prison reform policies are popular in Congress
Washington Post 7-6 (Manuel Roig-Franzia, staff writer, 7-6-2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502483.html)
Little public opposition has emerged, though that might have more to do with the bill's uncertain status
than anything else. In the meantime, Webb says he's been contacted about his proposal by the president
and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, both of whom gave encouraging signals. And he is quietly
amassing an eclectic band of supporters, ranging from the influential -- Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid of Nevada -- to the surprising -- conservative Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
On board, too, is Nolan, a former California state lawmaker who did time in the 1990s for racketeering.
Nolan sees Webb's commission as a way to steer drug offenders to treatment facilities, rather than
warehousing them in prisons. Senate insiders have been somewhat surprised about how seamlessly Webb
has managed the early stages of selling his bill to members of Congress ever wary of being labeled as soft
on crime. His substantive, non-emotional, almost academic approach to the discussion seems at odds with
the brusque Jim Webb some have come to expect, and even dread.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
44
Post office unpopular
Post office expansion and subsidies are unpopular in Congress
Carlstrom, staff writer, 08 (Gregg, Federal Times, http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3821780)
The Postal Service’s financial troubles will likely mean big changes in the next few years. One
possibility: the end of Saturday delivery. “I think ending Saturday delivery is something the 111th
Congress will consider,” said the CRS analyst, who asked to remain anonymous because the agency had
not authorized an interview. “It would be very beneficial, and their reasons for not ending it already seem
largely symbolic.” The Postal Service has studied ending Saturday delivery before; a 1980 report found it
would save about $1 billion annually. That’s about $2.5 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, and experts
say that figure might still be low, because of today’s higher fuel costs and the larger delivery network.
The 1980 study also surveyed public opinion, and found that 79 percent of Americans supported ending
Saturday delivery; only 17 percent opposed the idea. The Postal Service also discussed the idea in 2001,
when a similar combination of rising costs and falling volume put pressure on its finances. But the idea
was eventually dropped. Another option is closing facilities. The Postal Service, in a summer report,
called for dozens of facility closures across the country. But some industry experts say it doesn’t go far
enough. Gene Del Polito, president of the Association for Postal Commerce, said the report ignores many
underutilized facilities that aren’t closed because of congressional pressure. Two years ago, for example,
the Postal Service announced plans to close the processing and distribution facility in Sioux City, Iowa. A
report from the Postal Service’s inspector general found the closure could save $1 million annually and
improve service levels. But members of Congress — including Rep. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Sen.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa — vehemently opposed the plan. The plan was dropped, and last week, the
Postal Service announced that it would no longer try to close the facility. “I understand the importance of
employment within each congressional district,” Del Polito said, “but the ability to fund a universal
delivery system is in jeopardy.” Barring these kinds of big changes, experts say, the Postal Service has
few options. It could increase prices on its so-called “competitive” products, like package services,
because prices on those products are not capped. But higher prices would make the Postal Service less
competitive compared with private couriers like UPS and FedEx. The Postal Service could also ask
Congress to increase its statutory debt ceiling — currently $15 billion — or to subsidize its operations
with a loan. “I don’t think Congress would relish the idea of a subsidy,” Del Polito said. “But if you’re
Congress, the fate of the Postal Service is in your hands.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
45
Post office reform popular
Post office reform is a popular issue in Congress
Gattuso,
senior
fellow
Heritage
Foundation,
04
(James
Gattuso,
6-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm514.cfm)
Over the past few weeks, things have been moving quickly in the normally glacier-like world of the
Postal Service. On May 12, a House committee voted unanimously in favor of H.R. 4341, by Rep. John
McHugh (R-NY), the first broad postal reform legislation to be approved by a congressional committee in
30 years. The next week, very similar legislation, S. 2468, was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Susan
Collins (R-ME) and Tom Carper (D- DE). The good news is that these bills would implement some
welcome changes in the way the U.S. Postal Service operates. The bad news is that they fall short of the
kind of real transformation that is needed and would saddle taxpayers with billions in postal costs.
Congress can and should deliver more than this disappointing package.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
46
Bankruptcy reform unpopular
Bankruptcy reform is unpopular with Congress
Dugas, staff writer, 7-21 (Christine Dugas, USA Today, 7-21-09,
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20090323/bankruptcy23_cv.art.htm)
Cash-strapped families are seeking bankruptcy protection at nearly the same rate and in the same manner
as they did before the much-debated 2005 bankruptcy law reform, a trend critics say proves the reform
was a failure. Congress wrangled for eight years before passing a reform act aimed at curbing abuse and
ending an alarming rise in bankruptcy filings. With the economy in tatters and personal fortunes often in
even worse shape these days, the bankruptcy law is beginning to undergo scrutiny again. For now,
Congress is focused on efforts to stem home foreclosures by altering the law so that bankruptcy court
judges will be allowed to modify certain mortgages to help people keep their homes. But once that's
settled, attention will turn to the 2005 bankruptcy reform. "There is continuing concern about the
bankruptcy-reform bill and what its effects have been," says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who leads
the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that oversees bankruptcy law. "We are looking at a number of things
that we can do to address the problems." On Tuesday, Whitehouse will hold a hearing that will discuss
legislation he has introduced that would allow families burdened by exorbitant credit card rates and fees
to more simply discharge their debt under bankruptcy. He is considering several other proposals.
Bankruptcy reform is historically unpopular in Congress
Kittle, staff writer, 09 (David Kittle, AJC, 3-08-09,
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/opinion/stories/2009/03/08/bankruptcy_reform_editorial.html?cxntlid=inform_art
r)
In a democracy, laws are supposed to be created that benefit the majority of the public. Congress needs
to keep that in mind when considering legislation designed to address the increasing number of people
falling behind on their mortgage payments and putting themselves at risk of losing their homes to
foreclosure. David G. Kittle is chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. the national association
representing the real estate finance industry. However, the fact of the matter is that the Helping Families
Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act, which would allow bankruptcy judges to unilaterally change the
terms of a borrower’s mortgage contract, will benefit just a small minority of the country’s at-risk
homeowners. And it will surely have a negative impact on the vast majority of America’s future home
buyers and homeowners looking to refinance. The call for bankruptcy reform that has been debated for
more than a year and defeated in Congress on more than one occasion, continues to rear its ugly head. But
for those of you keeping score on the issue, here are the simple facts about bankruptcy and its effect on
families and the economy.
Bankruptcy reform is partisan issue
US News, 08 (9-23-08, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080923.htm)
ABC World News reported, "Two major sticking points remained as of Monday evening. One is
bankruptcy reform. Democrats in Congress want the bill to give judges the power to help homeowners
avoid foreclosure. The other issue, executive compensation. Some in Congress want the heads of firms
who receive this aid to have their compensation restricted, eliminating exorbitant severance packages, or
'golden parachutes,' and limiting the rewards for investors who take high risks." On ABC World News,
George Stephanopoulos said on Capitol Hill "there still is a core group that wants to get this done. ... I
think the Democrats know they're not going to get the bankruptcy reform, and the Republicans know
they're going to have to give something on the CEO pay."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
47
***AGENT LINKS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
48
Courts link
Court decisions are political and are perceived as such
Canon and Johnson, professor of polisci at UK and vice-presiding judge on the Oklahoma court of appeals,
99- (Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 1999, p. 1)
President Andrew Jackson, unhappy with a Supreme Court decision, is said to have retorted: “John Marshall
has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” His remark reminds us of a central fact of American
democracy: judicial policies do not implement themselves. In virtually all instances, courts that formulate
policies must rely on other courts or on nonjudicial actors to transform these policies into action. Inevitably,
just as making judicial policies is a political process, so too is the implementation of the policies- the issues
are essentially political, and the actors are subject to political pressures.
Courts are subject to political pressures- the public blames the original policymaker
Canon and Johnson, professor of polisci at UK and vice-presiding judge on the Oklahoma court of appeals,
99- (Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 1999, p. 21-23)
Members of the secondary population are not directly affected by a judicial policy; however, some
members may react to a policy or its implementation. This reaction usually takes the form of some type of
feedback directed toward the original policy maker, another policy maker, the implementing population,
or the consumer population. The secondary population may be divided into four subpopulations:
government officials, interest groups the media, and the public at large. First, there are government
officials. This subpopulation includes legislators and executive officers who are not immediately affected
by the decision. Though usually unaffected directly, these individuals are often in a position to support or
hinder the implementation of the original policy. This subpopulation is distinguished from other
secondary populations in that its members have direct, legitimate authority in the political system, and
they are often the recipients of political pressure from the public. Clearly, for example, Congress and state
legislatures substantially affected the implementation of Roe v. Wade with the passage of laws restricting
the funding abortions. The second subpopulation is interest groups, which are often activated by court
policies even when they are not directly affected by them. Subsequent pressures by these groups may help
facilitate or block effective implementation of the judicial policy. National, state, and local pro-life
organizations have worked diligently to discourage providers from offering abortion services and women
from obtaining abortions. These groups have also maintained considerable pressure on public officials
and the courts to limit the implementation of pro-life policies.
Congress gets the blame for unpopular judicial policies
Canon and Johnson, professor of polisci at UK and vice-presiding judge on the Oklahoma court of appeals,
99- (Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 1999, p. 116-117)
More than any other public agency, Congress tends to be the focal point for public reaction to judicial
policies. As a political body, Congress cannot ignore any sizable or prominent groups of constituents. Some
groups become especially agitated when they are unhappy with some judicial decision or doctrine, and they
make their dissatisfaction known to members of Congress. If the pressure is great enough and is not
counterbalanced by pressure from groups that support the judicial policy, Congress will, if feasible, take
action. At the very least, numerous members of Congress will score political points by showing righteous
indignation on behalf of the disaffected groups.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
49
Courts link
The Supreme Court influences the agenda-it’s perceived
Flemming. Professor of polisci at Texas A & M, 97-(Roy Flemming, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
41, Number 4, American Journal of Political Science)
In this study we focus on the United States Supreme Court as a bellwether of systemic attention to policy
issues. In Federalist 78, Hamilton offered his by now famous and often repeated opinion that the Court
would be "the least dangerous branch." Without the power of the sword or purse at its disposal, the
Court's authority in American politics would ultimately depend on its ability to persuade. The Supreme
Court, however, may be more effective in drawing attention to issues and identifying problems than in
changing preferences about them (cf. Franklin and Kosaki 1989; Hoekstra 1995). The judicial venue may
increase issue visibility and legitimacy for issue advocates. As with other United States political
institutions, Supreme Court decisions confer and remove benefits, both material and symbolic, and can
under some circumstances rearrange the distribution of political influence. When decisions rearrange
political benefits and influence, the response is predictably a continuation of conflict. Decisions that
rearrange political benefits or influence in the extreme, as for example in cases involving school
desegregation, flag-burning, or public school prayer, often expand the scope of conflict by activating new
groups and accentuating old rivalries. These processes may, in turn, draw other political institutions into
the fray, as well as amplify both public and media attention. Thus, under certain circumstances he
Supreme Court may profoundly affect the agenda setting process in the United States, and in doing so
constitute an institutional source of change in American public policy and politics.
Supreme court decisions influence the agenda-they create media attention
Flemming. Professor of polisci at Texas A & M, 97-(Roy Flemming, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
41, Number 4, American Journal of Political Science)
Bickel and Schmidt (1984, 85) suggested that decisions that touch "with particular immediacy the main
question of the day" are important. This means that the importance of decisions varies with the context of
the time when the Court issues them. To borrow Lippman's famous metaphor, such decisions focus more
intently the beacon of the press or the media's spotlight on current controversies and give them greater
visibility, thus altering the priorities of the systemic agenda. Court opinions also might draw attention to
issues on the fringes of the systemic agenda or perhaps occasionally bring new issues into the limelight.
In either case, one might argue these decisions at least establish a necessary precondition for change even
if the odds of change depend on many other factors and the actual impact occurs much later (Johnson and
Canon 1984). Hindsight, of course, easily reveals the latent importance of an opinion. The historical
importance of decisions, however, must not be confused with or allowed to overshadow contemporary
appraisals of which opinions were significant and which were not.8 The identification of
contemporaneous politically significant cases raises various difficulties, not all of which can be
satisfactorily resolved (Cook 1993)
Supreme Court decisions key to the agenda-uniquely perceived
Flemming. Professor of polisci at Texas A & M, 97-(Roy Flemming, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
41, Number 4, American Journal of Political Science)
Because the Court's history is marked by many cases like Brown, it is difficult to dismiss the prospect that
some Supreme Court decisions produce enduring impacts on the national agenda if they happen to rearrange
the ecology of public issues. Such decisions should produce a "step" effect in media attention through time.
That is, they should lead to abrupt and enduring shifts in media coverage of the issue area. Instead of quickly
fading away, coverage remains at a higher level because of the system-wide controversy that arises in the
wake of the decisions.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
50
Courts link
The courts are perceived- feedback proves
Canon and Johnson, professor of polisci at UK and vice-presiding judge on the Oklahoma court of appeals,
99- (Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 1999, p. 26)
Feedback is another behavioral response to judicial policies. It is directed toward the originator of the policy
or to some other policy-making agency. The purpose of feedback behavior is usually to provide support for
or make demands upon political actors (including judges) regarding the judicial policy. Feedback is often
communicated through interest groups or the media. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced
its abortion decision, feedback in the form of letters to the justices began. Also, some members of Congress
let the court know of their displeasure with the abortion decision by introducing statutory restrictions or
constitutional amendments to overturn Roe. Manifestations of displeasure or support by various groups have
been directed at the Court and other political institutions, such as Congress and state legislatures. In varying
degrees, these types of feedback have led to modification of the policy- as we can see in the Court’s Webster
and Casey decisions abandoning the trimester system and allowing the states greater leeway in regulating
abortion.
The courts influence policymakers
Neal Devins, Maryland Law Review, Summer 2006
In an effort to secure their base, Democrats and Republicans are increasingly concerned with A message
politics, that is, using the legislative process to make a symbolic statement to voters and other
constituents.14 Lawmakers, moreover, turn more and more to so-called position taking legislation. The
electoral requirement [of such measures] is not that [a lawmaker] make pleasing things happen but that he
make pleasing judgmental statements.@ Correspondingly, even if a judicial ruling barely registers with
voters and interest groups, lawmakers may nevertheless firm up their base by taking a position on supposed
judicial overreaching.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
51
Courts link – president gets the blame
The president is involved in judicial decisions- their implementation is necessarily
politicized
Canon and Johnson, professor of polisci at UK and vice-presiding judge on the Oklahoma court of appeals,
99- (Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 1999, p. 3)
As we will see in later chapters, many judicial decisions afford a great deal of latitude for interpretation and
implementation. Political actors and institutions who follow through on the decisions make the judicial
policy. Certainly, the judges who enforced civil rights decisions were subject to political pressures from a
variety of sources. Similar pressures affected public and private institutions after court decisions on
affirmative action. Even presidential politics may become intertwined with judicial policies, as did Richard
Nixon’s 1968 “law and order” campaign criticizing the Supreme Court’s criminal justice decisions or the
explosive issue of abortion in virtually every presidential election since 1980.
Like Congress and the president, the Supreme Court and other courts must rely on others to translate policy
into action. And like the processes of formulating legislative, executive, and judicial policies, the process of
translating those decisions into action is often a political one subject to a variety of pressures from a variety
of political actors in the system.
The president dwarfs other actors, and will get the credit or the blame
Bruce Miroff, professor and chair of political science at the State University of New York at Albany, 2000, The
Presidency and the Political System, Ed. Michael Nelson, p. 304.
Spectacle has also been fostered by the president’s rise to primacy in the American political system . A
political order originally centered on institutions has given way, especially in the public mind, to a
political order that centers on the person of the president. Theodore Lowi wrote, “Since the president
has become the embodiment of government, it seems perfectly normal for millions upon millions of
Americans to concentrate their hopes and fears directly and personally upon him.”6 The “personal
president” that Lowi described is the object of popular expectations; these expectations, Stephen
Wayne and Thomas Cronin have shown, are both excessive and contradictory.7
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
52
Courts don’t link
The Supreme Court isn’t perceived- the president and congress get credit for the agenda
Flemming. Professor of polisci at Texas A & M, 97-(Roy Flemming, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
41, Number 4, American Journal of Political Science)
Filtered by media coverage, there are reasons to expect that the Supreme Court has a weak hand in
moving issues onto the systemic agenda and holding them there. Media attention to Court decisions is
less intense and more irregular than attention to the presidency and Congress. This means that the Court's
concerns are unlikely to arouse the public to the same degree as presidential pronouncements or
congressional activities. It is also possible, as Rosenberg argues, that the Court's voice regarding major
controversies cannot be heard over the rush of history. These reservations are an advantage to this
research since the answer to the question about the Court's influence over the systemic agenda is not
preordained and the issue remains problematic. In effect they establish the grounds for an initial null
expectation that no relationship exists between the Supreme Court's decisions and changes in issue
attentiveness by the media and system.
The Court shields backlash.
D.F.B. Tucker, Political Science at University of Melbourne, The Rehnquist Court and Civil Rights,
1995, p. 35-36.
Rosenberg’s work is important because he does not stop at the point of decision — when he is satisfied
that the justices have declared a preference for a particular policy outcome. He goes on to ask whether the
decisions made are actually implemented and this is surely relevant when assessing the role of the
judiciary in policymaking. As Rosenberg points out, it is one thing for the Supreme Court to bring down a
ruling in a case that embodies a policy preference (for example, in Brown, that southern public schools
should be desegregated) and quite another for its will to be carried out. For this to happen, many different
agents may have to be persuaded to change their behaviour. Sometimes they will do this voluntarily if
they recognize that there is political and popular support for the policy in question. Indeed, there are
circumstances, as Rosenberg shows, where administrators may use a Supreme Court order to assist them
in persuading others to go along with changes they may otherwise have resisted, and they can use the
ruling as a shield by shifting blame for the unpopular policy onto the Court. But in these cases, agents
who are crucially placed to assert leadership must support the Court. Sometimes administrators will not
support the Court and may themselves need an incentive to change. For this to happen, however, the
Court will usually have to rely on one of the other branches of government for support. Thus, we find that
the Supreme Court in the United States can assert leadership when it correctly anticipates support from
one of the other branches of government. For example, Congress and the President can impose costs on
those who fail to comply (loss of federal funding is the usual penalty).25 Rosenberg’s careful
investigations, examining the consequences of landmark judicial rulings by the United States Supreme
Court in a variety of settings, shows that the Court is highly constrained by other political actors and by
the prevailing political culture; so much so, according to Rosenberg, that we can conclude that the
Supreme Court in the United States is unlikely to secure significant social changes in circumstances
where it is not supported by one of the other branches of government. As Rosenberg puts the point,
‘Courts can matter, but only sometimes, and only under limited conditions’.26 This is not to say that the
Supreme Court will not try to bring about desirable social changes; nor can we conclude that it will not
make a lot of bad policy judgments in trying to accomplish this. But we should be wary of concluding
that it can act effectively on its own.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
53
Courts don’t link
Courts aren’t linked to politicians
Lawrence Solum, June 19, 2005
http://legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.com/2005/06/legal-theory-lexicon-047-counter.html
There is another side to this story. There may be reasons why elected politicians prefer for the Supreme
Court to “take the heat” for some decisions that are controversial. When the Supreme Court acts,
politicians may be able to say, “It wasn’t me. It was that darn Supreme Court.” And in fact, the Supreme
Court’s involvement in some hot button issues may actually help political parties to mobilize their base:
“Give us money, so that we can [confirm/defeat] the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court, who may
cast the crucial vote on [abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, etc.].” In other words, what appears
to be counter-majoritarian may actually have been welcomed by the political branches that, on the
surface, appear to have been thwarted.
Court decisions aren’t perceived by the public
David O’Brien, Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Storm Center: The
Supreme Court in American Politics, 2000, p. 348.
Most of the Court’s decisions attract neither media nor widespread public attention. The public tends to
identify with the Court’s institutional symbol as a temple of law rather than of politics—impartial and
removed from the pressures of special partisan interests
Courts are perceived as independent
Neal Devins, Maryland Law Review, Summer 2006
That Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the Court as a rhetorical whipping boy is hardly
surprising. Voters typically see the judiciary as a low salience issue. Consequently, increasingly
ideological lawmakers can play to their increasingly partisan base by condemning activist judges (even
state judges!). It simply does not matter that lawmakers are not all that upset with the Court. What
matters is that lawmakers can speak to issues that resonate with their base and, in so doing, call attention
to differences between the two parties. Ironically, lawmakers might pay a price if they were truly upset
with the Court. Popular support for judicial independence may be sufficiently strong that the enactment
of court stripping proposals might prompt a political backlash. The true test of this proposition is yet to
come. As congressional districts become increasingly polarized and as presidential races turn more and
more on the ability of each side to bring out their base, it may be that the conventional wisdom about
judicial independence will give way to a new era of winner-takes-all politics.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
54
Agencies link – general
The President is held accountable for all agency decisions, even those they have no control
over.
Shane 95 (Peter M., Dean and prof. Law @ Univ. Pittsburgh, 1995 Political Accountability in a System of Checks
and Balances: The Case of Presidential Review of Rulemaking, Arkansas Law Review)
The reason for the insignificance of the transparency argument is that, even without plenary power to secondguess all bureaucratic policy makers, the President may well be held generally and properly accountable for
overall bureaucratic performance in any event. That is because voters know the President has appointed all
key policy makers and the most important managers of executive affairs. The President's value structure is
likely to dominate the bureaucracy even if he is not formally able to command all important policy decisions.
Professor Abner Greene has recently catalogued a series of reasons why this is so: OMB reviews virtually all
agency budgets; the Attorney General controls most agency litigation; the President's support may be critical
to an agency in its negotiations with Congress. For these reasons, Presidents do not inevitably have less
influence over "independent" agencies than they do over "purely executive" establishments
Executive agency decisions are always connected to the President.
Cohen and Collier 99 (Jeffrey E. and Ken, professors of political science at Fordham and Kansas, 1999
Presidential Policymaking: An End of Century Assessment, p. 42)
In his study of the agenda-setting process, Kingdon finds that respondents cite the president and his
administration as perhaps the most important actor with agenda influence. As Kingdon states, "there is little
doubt that the president remains a powerful force in agenda setting, particularly compared to other actors."
Moreover, the views of department heads and others associated with the administration are usually thought of
as the president's or as having the president's stamp of approval. When they speak, it is for the administration
and the president. Thus, the president has many "voices".
Agency decisions do not provide political cover for the President
Lewis 03(David E., prof. politics and public affairs @ Princeton, 2003 Presidents and the Politics of Agency
Design, p. 4)
Agency design determines bureaucratic responsiveness to democratic impulses and pressure, particularly
those channeled through elected officials like the president. It can determine the success or failure of modern
presidents in meeting constitutional and electoral mandates. One of the central concerns of presidency
scholars beginning with Richard Neustadt (1960) has been increasing public expectations of presidents (Lowi
1985; Skowronek 1993). The president is held accountable for the success or failure of the entire
government. When the economy is in recession, when an agency blunders, or when some social problem
goes unaddressed, it is the president whose reelection and historical legacy are on the line.
Empirically proven- agencies have caused political backlash
Kosar, government analyst, 05 (Kevin, CRS Congressional Report,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32750.pdf)
Controversies recently have arisen over certain executive branch agencies’ expenditures of appropriated
funds on public relations activities, some of which have been characterized as propagandistic. Generally
speaking, there are two legal restrictions on agency public relations activities and propaganda. 5 U.S.C. 3107
prohibits the use of appropriated funds to hire publicity experts. Appropriations law “publicity and
propaganda” clauses restrict the use of funds for puffery of an agency, purely partisan communications, and
covert propaganda. No federal agency monitors federal public relations activities, but a Member or
Committee of Congress may ask the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine an agency’s
expenditures on public relations activities with a view to their legality. Any effort to reform current statutory
restrictions on agency public relations activities will face three challenges: tracking public relations activities
by agencies, defining “propaganda,” and enforcing laws against agency use of funds for publicity experts and
propaganda.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
55
Agencies link – president = lightning rod
Political visibility virtually guarantees that the president will be associated with plan
Fitts, 96 (Michael, prof. of law UPenn, 19 Univ. Penn L. Rev, 1996, p.827)
To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened visibility about what he says and does and is
led to make increasingly specific statements about who should win and who should lose on an issue, his
ability to mediate conflict and control the agenda can be undermined. The modern president is supposed to
have a position on such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the baseball strike, and the newest
EPA regulations, the list is infinite. Perhaps in response to these pressures, each modern president has made
more speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton giving three times as many
speeches as Reagan during the same period. In such circumstances, the president is far less able to exercise
agenda control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent positions. The well-documented tendency
of the press to emphasize the strategic implications of politics exacerbates this process by turning issues into
zero-sum games.
Presidents are the focal point of governmental policies
CNN 02 (Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer transcripts, 4-28-02,
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/28/le.00.html)
Bruce Morton, Cnn Correspondent: Networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising
the Easter Bunny. Blitzer: Competing for face time on the cable news networks. Stay with us. Blitzer:
Welcome back. Time now for Bruce Morton's essay on the struggle for balanced coverage on the cable
networks. Morton: The Democrats have written the three cable news networks -- CNN, Fox and MSNBC -complaining that the Bush administration gets much more coverage than elected Democrats. They cite CNN,
which they say, from January 1 through March 21, aired 157 live events involving the Bush administration,
and 7 involving elected Democrats. Fox and MS, they say, did much the same thing. The coverage gap is
certainly real, for several reasons. First, since September 11, the U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan, so the
president has been an active commander in chief. And covering the war, networks will often air whatever the
president says, even if he's praising the Easter Bunny. Plus, the White House press secretary's briefing, the
Pentagon's, maybe the State Department's. Why not? It's easy, it's cheap, the cameras are pooled, and in war
time, the briefings may make major news. You never know. But there's a reason for the coverage gap that's
older than Mr. Bush's administration. In war or peace, the president is a commanding figure -- one man to
whose politics and character and, nowadays, sex life, endless attention is paid. Congress is 535 people. What
it does is complicated, compromises on budget items done in private, and lacks the drama of the White
House. There's a primetime TV show about a president. None about the Congress. If a small newspaper has
one reporter in Washington, he'll cover two things, the local congressional delegation and, on big occasions,
the White House. So the complaining Democrats have a point, but it's worth remembering that coverage of a
president, while always intense, isn't always positive. You could ask the Clintons. 9 Presidents will always
get more coverage than Congresses. They're sexier. But it won't always be coverage they like.
The president gets the public blame for legislative action
Calabresi and Lindgren, Yale Law Journal, 2006
What is driving the backlash we are documenting here? First, and most obviously, presidents become
lightning rods for everything that goes wrong.18 Most presidents leave office less popular than when they
entered, with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton being the only exceptions since at least Dwight Eisenhower.19
Even the exceptions (Reagan and Clinton) suffered major Congressional losses in their first midterm
elections, at times when their job approval ratings were down substantially.20 Thus, the response of voters is
to blame the president for whatever goes wrong, and probably as a result, to punish that president’s party in
midterm elections. Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
56
Agencies link – Congress must approve budgets
Budget approvals means plan is politically perceived
About.com, 07 (online encyclopedia, 2-14-07,
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/a/budget_process.htm)
The budget process begins the first month in February, when the President submits his proposal to Congress.
This step in the process is governed by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Act also established the
Bureau of the Budget which, since 1970 (Nixon Administration), is known as the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). OMB is the largest and arguably the most powerful group in the Executive Office of the
President. OMB is also responsible for overseeing management and budgets of executive branch agencies as
well as advising the President on a variety of issues. The President's proposed budget includes extensive
supporting documentation to make the case for White House spending - and saving - priorities.
Agencies link- budget approvals have to go through Congress
US Code, No Date (TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE III > CHAPTER 35 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3512,
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/3512.html)
(a) (1) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of the Congress a financial management status report and a governmentwide 5-year financial
management plan. (2) A financial management status report under this subsection shall include— (A) a
description and analysis of the status of financial management in the executive branch; (B) a summary of the
most recently completed financial statements— (i) of Federal agencies under section 3515 of this title; and
(ii) of Government corporations; (C) a summary of the most recently completed financial statement audits
and reports— (i) of Federal agencies under section 3521 (e) and (f) of this title; and (ii) of Government
corporations; (D) a summary of reports on internal accounting and administrative control systems submitted
to the President and the Congress under the amendments made by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity
Act of 1982 (Public Law 97–255); (E) a listing of agencies whose financial management systems do not
comply substantially with the requirements of Section [1] 3(a) [2] the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act of 1996, and a summary statement of the efforts underway to remedy the noncompliance;
and (F) any other information the Director considers appropriate to fully inform the Congress regarding the
financial management of the Federal Government.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
57
***INTERNAL LINKS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
58
Controversial policies drain capital
Pushing through controversial legislation burns political capital
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 19 94
In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might
seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. n198 On any
proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose
ability to modify and kill legislation is well-documented. n199 This is not meant to deny that the President
has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's
ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of
Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the
likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. n200 Repeated use of such tactics, however, will
impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. n201 At some
point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from
doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his
policy vision.
Pushing controversial issues kills Obama’s political capital
Joe Weisenthal, 7-21-2009 http://www.businessinsider.com/another-bad-poll-for-obama-2009-7
The last 10 days have seen a spate of fresh polls all showing the same thing -- that the President's honeymoon
period is coming to an end, and that he doesn't have unlimited political capital. He is, after all, human, and
despite the mindblowing ineptitude of the Republican opposition, political warfare hurts. The bad polls are
coming just as (or maybe because) the President is really digging into the politically charged healthcare
debate. Politico: Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to
problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies
Inc./POLITICO poll. Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an
agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president
has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust
the president has jumped from 31 to 42. But the news is also bad for the GOP. A series of high-profile
affairs, the political suicide of Sarah Palin, and a broad display of sheer buffoonery at the Sotomayor
hearings ("Wait, just to clarify, have you now or have you ever used the term 'wise Latina'?") hasn't helped
their brand. So the President takes a hit, but they gain nothing.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
59
Legislation costs capital
Any and all legislation costs political capital
Ryan 09
January 18 2009 "Obama and political capital," Trinidad Express,
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968
One of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all system. It is
pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically, even when the President and
the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups to negotiate, bargain and engage in serious
horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral or political suasion and promises of
future support for policies or projects. The system was in fact deliberately engineered to prevent overbearing
majorities from conspiring to tyrannise minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse and
plural, but socially and geographically so. As James Madison put it in Federalist No 10, one of the foundation documents
of republicanism in America, basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests,
and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions
change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party discipline which translated, means you do
what I the leader say you do.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
60
Capital finite
Political capital is finite
LIGHT 99 Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service [Paul C., the President’s Agenda:
Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to
Clinton, 3rd Edition p. 157]//ZE
Resources and the Need for Priorities. Priorities are central to the conservation of both internal and external resources. For the
liaison staffs, the critical resource was presidential capital. “The President cannot expect Congress to act on every
proposal,” one Nixon assistant argued. “He must give them a lead on the top items. Otherwise, he will spread his momentum over too many
issues.” A second Nixon assistant agreed: “When you look at the situation we faced, the need for priority-setting was even
more important. We had a very slim electoral margin; we faced a hostile Democratic Congress; the executive branch was not particularly
interested in our ideas. Without a firm statement of priorities, we could not focus our energy. That was the primary reason for the repeated
reference to the Six Great Goals in 1971. It was an attempt to concentrate our political strength.” It is to the President’s advantage to provide
some statement of priorities. With increased competition for agenda space, the President must focus his scarce political
support on the most valuable proposals – at least that is what the liaison staffs believe. As on Carter assistant apologized, “I don’t mean
to simplify a very complex process, but Congress no longer offers that many opportunities for the President to set the
agenda. Unless the President gives Congress a firm list of priorities, the Congress will drift to other business. That was
a lesson we learned quite early.”
Political capital is finite
LIGHT 99 Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service
[Paul C., the President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to
Clinton, 3rd Edition p. 36-37]
The impact of resources on opportunities can be best described as a problem of policy cycles. Certain resources
decline over the term, while others grow. “The more we seemed to learn about the domestic system,” one Nixon
aide complained, “the less we could do. We had out best shot at the start oaf the term but didn’t have the
organization to cash in. By the time we had the organization, the opportunity was closed.” This ebb and flow of
presidential resources creates two basic cycles within the domestic policy process.
The first pattern might be called the cycle of decreasing influence. It is based on declines in presidential capital
time, and energy. Presidents can usually anticipate a midterm loss of party seats in Congress and a streaky erosion
of public approval. At least for the past fifty years, all Presidents, whether Democratic or Republican, have faced a
drop in House party seats at the midterm election. Johnson lost forty-seven Democrats in the House in 1966; Nizon
lost twelve Republicans in 1970. And at least since George Gallup first began measuring public approval, all
President have experienced some decline in their public support over the term. In the last twenty years, however the
declines have been more severe. Today the President can expect a near-linear drop in his approval rating in the first
three years of office, with a slight rebound at the end of the term As one Ford aide remarked, “Each decision is
bound to hurt somebody; each appointment is going to cut into support. There’s really now way that the President
can win. If he doesn’t make choices, he will be attacked for being indecisive. If he does, he will satisfy one group
but anger three others. Declines in capital eventually bring the domestic process to a halt. Toward the end of each
term, the President must spend increasing capital just trying to unclog the legislative calendar. Unless the President
is highly successful with early requests, the agenda becomes dominated by the “old” business. Of the five most
recent Presidents, excluding Reagan, only Lyndon Johnson was able to sustain a consistently high level of agenda
activity into the second an third year’s. The other four President were force to begin repeating their domestic
requests by the end of the first year in office. Even Johnson recognized the problem. As one aide remarked, “You
have to start backtracking almost from the first day. Unless the programs move off the agenda, you have to start
investing your time trying to bump them off. You have to devote your energies to the old items before replacing
them with your new ideas.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
61
Capital finite
Must use political capital before it dissipates
Wall Street Journal, 7/6/2009 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124682940240297211.html#printMode //ZE)
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers return to the Capitol on Monday for a five-week blitz that will help determine the
fate of President Barack Obama's agenda. The Senate will be occupied for much of the summer with confirmation
hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, beginning July 13, followed by a floor debate on her
nomination. Democratic leaders also hope to push health plans through the House and Senate before their summer
break begins Aug. 8. It is a daunting schedule, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) are keeping lawmakers in Washington for five-day workweeks in July,
rather than their usual Tuesday-through-Thursday routine. This will be one of the most challenging periods in the
legislative session," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "But with a little bit of cooperation from the Republicans -cooperation that has been mostly absent -- we can get all of our work done." Republicans say they have objected to
the Democrats' initiatives because they involve massive spending with little benefit. Several factors put pressure on
Democrats to accomplish their major goals this year. Mr. Obama outlined an ambitious agenda upon taking office,
in addition to programs to tackle the financial crisis and the ailing economy. A president's political capital often
dissipates over his tenure, and legislative compromise is harder in election years. In addition, the Democrats may
lose seats in Congress in 2010, as a president's party often does in midterm elections. That means Democrats need
to make big progress this month. Congress is pressing forward on the dozen must-pass spending bills for the fiscal
year beginning Oct. 1, and Senate committees will tackle the climate-change bill recently passed by the House.
Winners lose
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 19 94
The cumbersome process of enacting legislation interferes with the President's ability to get his legislative
agenda through Congress much as it hinders direct congressional control of agency policy-setting. A
President has a limited amount of political capital he can use to press for a legislative agenda, and precious
little time to get his agenda enacted. These constraints prevent the President from marshalling through
Congress all but a handful of statutory provisions reflecting his policy vision. Although such provisions, if
carefully crafted, can significantly alter the perspectives with which agencies and courts view regulation,
such judicial and administrative reaction is not likely to occur quickly. Even after such reaction occurs, a
substantial legacy of existing regulatory policy will still be intact.
Political capital is finite- Obama will run out
Fortier, principal contributor to the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and executive director of the
Continuity of Government Commission, 9 (John Fortier, “Spend Your Political Capital Before Its Gone,” Politico,
1/14/09, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17395_Page2.html)
President-elect Barack Obama won election more convincingly than Bush, and he will have larger
congressional majorities than Republicans had. No doubt he will begin with some political capital of his
own. But as the Bush presidency has taught us, that capital will run out someday, and a real test of
leadership will be how Obama adjusts. Obama’s political capital is finite- he’s running out
Weisenthal, Editor of Clusterstock, a politics magazine 7-21 (Joe Weisenthal, “Another Bad Poll For Obama,”
Clusterstock, 7/21/09, http://www.businessinsider.com/another-bad-poll-for-obama-2009-7)
The last 10 days have seen a spate of fresh polls all showing the same thing -- that the President's
honeymoon period is coming to an end, and that he doesn't have unlimited political capital.
He is, after all, human, and despite the mindblowing ineptitude of the Republican opposition, political
warfare hurts.
The bad polls are coming just as (or maybe because) the President is really digging into the politically
charged healthcare debate.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
62
Capital determines agenda
Political Capital determines the agenda – above anything else
LIGHT, Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service, 99
[Paul C., the President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, 3 rd Edition] p. 34
In chapter 2, I will consider just how capital affects the basic parameters of the domestic agenda. Though the
internal resources are important contributors to timing and size, capital remains the cirtical factor. That
conclusion will become essential in understanding the domestic agenda. Whatever the President’s personal
expertise, character, or skills, capital is the most important resource. In the past, presidential scholars have
focused on individual factors in discussing White House decisions, personality being the dominant factor.
Yet, given low levels in presidential capital, even the most positive and most active executive could make
little impact. A president can be skilled, charming, charismatic, a veritable legislative wizard, but if he does
not have the basic congressional strength, his domestic agenda will be severely restricted – capital affects
both the number and the content of the President’s priorities. Thus, it is capital that determines whether the
President will have the opportunity to offer a detailed domestic program, whether he will be restricted to a
series of limited initiatives and vetoes. Capital sets the basic parameters of the agenda, determining the size
of the agenda and guiding the criteria for choice. Regardless of the President’s personality, capital is the
central force behind the domestic agenda.
Capital is key – it outweigh ideology, party support, or concessions
LIGHT, Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service, 99
[Paul C., the President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, 3 rd Edition] p. 24-25)
Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout – they all mean the same thing. The most basic and most
important of all presidential resources is capital. Though the internal resources time, information, expertise,
and energy all have an impact on the domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital. And
capital is directly linked to the congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can
affect both the composition and the success of the domestic agenda, without the necessary party support, no
amount of expertise or charm can make a difference. Though bargaining is an important tool of presidential
power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and
disadvantages to the table.
Political Capital trumps everything else – concessions, wins, and bipart are useless if a
president has no skill
Bond& Fleisher, Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham 1996
(Jon R. and Richard The President in Legislation)
Finally, the president's professional reputation affects the leeway he has to pursue his policy goals. Presidents
who are viewed as unskilled as continually on the defensive. Their explanations of the problems tend to
become excuses: compromises become “waffling.” Skilled presidents have more room to maneuver. When
they suffer loss, as every president does, they still have leeway to pursue other items on their agenda or to try
again to turn the defeat into a victory. Reagan’s efforts to secure aid for the Contras in Nicaragua during the
9th congress -6) illustrate the point. After losing several important votes by close margins n the House flood.,
the president eventually got a bill through the House giving him most of what he wanted, again by a thin
margin.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
63
Capital determines agenda
Presidential Strength is key to agenda success in congress
FITTS, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1996
[Michael A., “THE PARADOX OF POWER IN THE MODERN STATE,” University of Pennsylvania Law
Review, January, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827]
Finally, on an elite political level, the existence of a single powerful political actor serves a political
coordination function. 60 A dispersed government with a decentralized political structure has a great deal of
difficulty in reaching cooperative solutions on policy outcomes. Even if it does reach cooperative solutions, it
has great difficulty in reaching optimal results. Today, there are simply too many groups in Washington and
within the political elite to reach the necessary and optimal agreement easily. 61 A central and visible figure
such as the president, who can take clear positions, can serve as a unique "focal point" for coordinating
action. 62 With the ability to focus public attention and minimize information costs, 63 [*850] a president
can also be highly effective in overcoming narrow but powerful sources of opposition and in facilitating
communication (that is, coordination and cooperation) between groups and branches. 64 In technical terms,
he might be viewed as the "least cost avoider." 65 The budget confrontation between Clinton and Congress is
only the most recent example of the president's strategic abilities. 66 In this regard, it is not surprising that
most studies have found that the president's popularity is an important factor in his ability to effectively
negotiate with Congress. 67 For all of these reasons, many scholars, citizens, and politicians believe that the
development of the rhetorical and centralized presidency is an "unqualified blessing." 68 A president who is
visible should be better able and more likely to garner public support and should also have an incentive to
marshall such support for programs that respond to public needs. His centralization and [*851] visibility
afford him the power to be effective, but, at the same time, these qualities increase his democratic
accountability. And even though a modern president is certainly not unitary in the strong sense of that word,
the analogy presumes that future legal and structural evolution should move in that direction. 69Three
different scholars of the presidency, writing in different traditions, have reached similar conclusions
regarding the significance and advantages of stronger presidential power, especially as compared to
legislative influence. Presidential scholar Terry Moehas described the influence of the modern president as
follows: When it comes to building structures of control ... the battle between president and Congress is
lopsided. The president is a unitary decision maker, he can take unilateral action in imposing his own
structures, his individual interests are largely congruent with the institutional interests of the presidency, and
he is dedicated to gaining control over government. Congress is hobbled by collective action problems,
vulnerable to agenda manipulation by the president, and populated by individuals whose interests diverge
substantially from those of the institution. The result is an asymmetry in the dynamic of institutional change,
yielding an uneven but steady shift toward a more presidential system. 70
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
64
Focus key
Obama’s political capital is finite-it’s declining, and each agenda item he pushes makes it
more difficult for him to push the next-focus is key
Freehery, 7-29 (John, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress.
“Obama Enters the Matrix,” CNNPolitics.com, 7/29/09,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/)
Political capital: A president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever get (barring a
war or some other calamity that brings the country together), which is why most presidents try to pass as
much as possible as early as possible in their administrations. The most famous example of that was
Franklin Roosevelt's Hundred Days. But there are other examples. Ronald Reagan moved his agenda very
early in his administration, George Bush passed his tax proposals and the No Child Left Behind law very
early in his White House. They understood the principle that it is important to strike while the iron is hot.
President Bush famously misunderstood this principle when he said that he was going to use the "political
capital" gained in his re-election to pass Social Security reform. What he failed to understand was that as
soon as he won re-election, he was a lame duck in the eyes of the Congress, and he had no political
capital.
President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does. But each day he is in
office, his political capital reserve is declining. And each time he goes to the well to pass things like "cap
and trade" makes it more difficult for him to pass his more important priorities like health care.
Focus: Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. But focus is essential to achieving results.
Presidential focus quite often moves off the domestic agenda and into the wider world of diplomacy. But
that can spell greater political danger for a president and his party.
George H.W. Bush spent most of his presidency winning a war against Iraq and successfully concluded
the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union. But neither of those foreign policy successes helped him
win re-election. His son, George W. Bush, understood that he had to keep a tight focus on the economy
and one big domestic policy item (education), and while the war on terror did end up dominating his
presidency, Bush never forgot to focus on his domestic achievements.
The biggest danger to President Obama is not just foreign entanglements, it is also competing domestic
priorities that threaten to undermine his ability to get big things done. For example, the House vote on cap
and trade has made it very hard for conservative and moderate Democrats to join with Speaker Nancy
Pelosi on a more important health care bill.
Plan ruins agenda order – kills political strength
Derek Thompson, Staff Writer, The Atlantic 7/6/2009
(http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/the_politics_of_a_second_stimulus.php //ZE)
Third, I expect that the politics of shifting attention away from one of the three big issues of the docket -- health
care, climate change and bank regulation -- are dangerous. Conservative Democrats -- and a solid majority of
Americans -- are getting nervous about deficits at a time when the Obama administration is pressing them to help
pass a trillion-dollar health care reform bill and a potentially even more costly climate change bill to cap carbon
emmissions. Say what you want about the long-term impact of climate change and health care reform, but they're
going to cost an intimidating sum over the next few years. If Obama presses for a second stimulus, I expect he'll
meet plenty of resistance from his own party. Politicians should be nervous about these job losses, but come 2010,
they'll be most worried about losing their own.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
65
A2: Winners win
Winners don’t win - statistics
Bond & Fleisher, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996 (Jon R. and
Richard. "The President in Legislation" p.223)//ZE
Presidency-centered variables, however, provide an even weaker explanation of presidential success. We found little
support for the thesis that the weakness of legislative parties increases the importance of presidential skill or
popularity for determining presidential success on roll call votes. Our analysis reveals that presidents reputed to be
highly skilled do not win consistently more often than should be expected given the conditions they faced. Similarly,
presidents reputed to be unskilled do not win significantly less often than expected. The analysis of presidential
popularity reveals that the president's standing in the polls has only a marginal impact on the probability of success
or failure.
Winners don’t win for long
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa University Law Review,
October, 1994
In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might
seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. On any proposed
regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose ability to
modify and kill legislation is well-documented. This is not meant to deny that the President has significant
power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's ability to focus
media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of Congress who
support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the likelihood of
legislative success for particular programs. Repeated use of such tactics, however, will impose economic
costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. At some point the price to the
President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from doing so. Thus, a
President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his policy vision.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
66
Popularity key to agenda
Popularity key to political capital
Bond & Fleisher, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996 (Jon R. and Richard.
"The President in Legislation" p.23-24)//ZE
The belief that presidential popularity affects support in Congress is widely accepted among Washington insiders.
President Johnson, for example, recognized the importance of popular support. Shortly after his landslide victory in
the 1964 election, he told one of his aides, "I keep hitting hard because I know that this honeymoon won't last. Every
day I lose a little more political capital" (quoted in Valenti 1975, 144). More recently, a Carter aide echoed the
sentiment: "No president whose popularity is as low as this president's has much clout on the Hill" (quoted in
Edwards 1980, 87). The president's popularity may influence congressional decisions to support his preferences for
two reasons. First, the desire for reelection might lead members to adjust their support for the president in response
to his popularity -- i.e. members of Congress support the president when it is in their self-interest to do so. Neustadt
(1960,46) argues that "the essence of a President’s persuasive task with congressmen ... is to induce them to believe
that what he wants of them is what their own appraisal of their own responsibilities requires them to do in their
interest, not his” (emphasis in original). The president's "public prestige" affects those subjective calculations of
self-interest because “most members of the Washington community depend upon outsiders to support them ....
Dependent men must take account of popular reactions to their actions. What their publics may think of them
becomes a factor, therefore, in deciding how to deal with the desires of a President. His prestige enters into that
decision; their publics are part of his” (Neustadt 1960, 86, emphasis in original). Similarly, Edwards (1980,88)
makes the point as follows: "Members of Congress may choose to be close to or independent from the president.
depending on his popularity, to increase their chances of reelection." Second, role theory provides a plausible
explanation of why a president's popularity might influence support for his preferences in Congress (Edw ards , 1980,
88). Many members of Congress believe that their role as a representative is to reflect constituency opinion. For
example, Roger Davidson I 1969. 1 18- 19) found that about one-third of the House members in his study agreed
that "a representative ought to work for what his constituents want even though this may not always agree with his
personal views." Representatives who hold this role orientation should increase or decrease their support for the
president in response to changes in his standing with the public. Thus electoral self-interest and role perception
provide a theoretical basis for expecting that a president’s popularity will affect support for his policy preferences in
Congress.
Public key to political capital.
E.J. Dionne Jr. Monday, 7- 20, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901758.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
There is thus an irony to the game Obama must play. He will continue to speak in bipartisan terms to keep open the
possibility of picking off Republicans if they're needed -- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) already seems inclined to
work with him -- and because such an approach appeals to moderate Democrats whose sensibilities he must soothe.
The open-to-the-other-side style also helps him hold support from political independents around the country. He
needs them to preserve his good approval ratings, which are themselves a form of political capital. But Obama must
simultaneously convince Democrats that they are not living in the Republican congressional eras of 1995 or 2003 -that if it's necessary, they have the strength on their own to win. This was the implicit message Obama conveyed to
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to push him to conclude his frustratingly protracted health-care negotiations with
Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee. Getting Baucus to move this week is essential to maintaining
momentum. If Obama seems likely to win, interest groups will be more forthcoming, his own party will be more
likely to hold together and more Republicans will be inclined to cut a deal. And that, finally, is why Obama wants
to make sure his party bets with him, not against him. His core message to fellow Democrats is that the only things
they have to fear are the fears and insecurities bred into them when they were a battered minority. Obama is free of
those doubts because he never knew them.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
67
Popularity key to agenda
Obama’s popularity is key to the agenda
Walter, 7-21 (Amy Walker, “Obama Can Sell, But There’s Little to Buy,” NationalJournal.com, 7/21/09,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ol_20090721_2784.php)
Forty-nine percent of men voted for Obama in 2008; he holds a 46 percent approval rating among men
today. He took 45 percent of the rural vote in '08; today, he's getting 45 percent approval among rural
voters. He won 49 percent of voters making more than $100,000 a year; they give him a 48 percent
approval rating now. He took 52 percent among independents in '08; his approval rating among this group
stands at 48 percent.
His base also remains supportive. He has 64 percent approval among women -- up 8 points from his '08
showing. African-Americans, Hispanics and Democrats also continue to give him solid ratings. He still
has 25 percent of Republicans on his side after taking just 9 percent of the GOP vote in 2008.
This means that Obama can still effectively use his bully pulpit. But what exactly will he be selling?
Organizing For America is giving Obama a push this week. Despite the operation's troubles shifting from
a campaign to a policy megaphone, Obama and OFA both know there's no better way to get around a
recalcitrant Congress than to harness the power of the people. But without an "Obama plan" on the table - indeed, without anything concrete and simple to rally around -- how powerful will that be?
A major decline in Obama’s popularity allows republicans to gain political control
The Examiner, 7-20 (TheExaminer.com, “Democrats, Obama Cannot ignore the Latest Poll Numbers,”
7/20/09, http://www.examiner.com/x-17827-Anne-Arundel-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m7d20Democrats-Obama-cannot-ignore-latest-poll-numbers)
Fortunately for Republicans, the failure of Democrats to effect a positive change in the economy coupled
with an even gloomier long-term economic forecast has instilled fear in many Americans about our
future. Ironically, President Obama has used fear to coerce people into supporting his agenda, but the
anticipated effects of his agenda are bringing about greater fears which continue to erode his popularity.
Should the recent decline in the president’s approval rating fail to recover, Republicans will have a
tremendous opportunity to become relevant on the national political scene once again. Numbers in
politics never tell the whole story, but today’s poll results from Rasmussen serve as a bellwether which
the president and the Democrats cannot ignore.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
68
Popularity not key to capital
Popularity not key to political capital – statistically insignificant
Bond & Fleisher, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham –‘ 96 (Jon R. and Richard.
"The President in Legislation" p.25-27)
The empirical evidence presented by researchers seeking to demonstrate a strong relationship between public approval of the
president and support in Congress is mixed. Even those studies that purport to find a strong relationship have problems that raise doubts
about the evidence. Although Edwards (1980) reports some high correlations, as Rivers and Rose (1985. 184) observe, his results are
"decidedly mixed." Edwards found some negative partial correlations, yet he tends to ignore the inconsistent findings and to
emphasize the strong positive relationships for his conclusion about the importance of presidential popularity.
Rivers and Rose
(1985), however, also fail to provide convincing evidence that public approval is a more important source of presidential success than indicated by Edwards
A reexamination of
Rivers and Rose's results (1985, 192), however, reveals that they clearly overstate the importance of public opinion. They note
that Edwards did not report significance tests or standard errors. As result, we cannot judge the reliability of Edwards's
parameter estimates. They correct this deficiency and use the lack of statistical significance to conclude that some variables in
their model are not important. Yet they argue that the president's Gallup approval rating has a "substantial effect" on success in
Congress (193), even though the coefficient for popularity is not statistically significant. A significance level of .05, of course,
is an arbitrary line. But Rivers and Rose argue that significance tests are appropriate criteria to determine the reliability of
parameter estimates, then fail to apply consistently the criteria they establish to interpret their results.
(1980). They use highly sophisticated methods in 3D attempt to show that simpler methods fail to reveal the true (strong) relationship.
The evidence from the Ostrom and Simon (1985) analysis is also ambiguous. Their study also seeks to analyze the simultaneous relationships between public
approval and presidential legislative success. They use Gallup polls to estimate public approval each month from January 1953 to December 1980. The measure of
presidential legislative success, however, is the “cumulative proportion of of domestic policy votes…in which the position advocated by the president was
The summation of presidential success is restarted at the beginning of each new Congress (341 ). In the model
of public approval, including the president's cumulative legislative success as an explanatory variable makes theoretical sense:
It seems reasonable to suppose that public approval of the president in a given month might be influenced by his legislative
successes in previous months. But analyzing the cumulative legislative success rate as a function of the current month’s public
approval makes little theoretical sense. It is hard to imagine how the level of public approval in December could affect the
cumulative rate of successes over the previous eleven months, because most of the victories occurred before the observation of
popularity. Consequently, it is unclear what Ostrom and Simon's analysis tells us about the effects of public approval on presidential success.
We see therefore that there are problems with the evidence from these studies purporting to show that public approval has a strong
effect on presidential success in Congress. Furthermore, other studies present evidence that the effect of presidential popularity
is marginal at best. Paul Light's analysis of congressional action on presidential proposals from Kennedy to Carter finds that popularity has
a significant effect on congressional action. But the strength of the relationship is much weaker than that reported by Edwards (1980).
The correlations between presidential popularity and congressional action on presidential programs are .28 for
spending programs .27 for large programs, and .19 for new programs (Light 1981 -82. 731).
Similarly, our study of presidential support from members of the House between 1959 and 1974 (Eisenhower to Ford) reveals
limited and indirect effects for public opinion. We found that, controlling for ideological conflict between the president and a
member of Congress, overall presidential popularity is related to support, but partisan forces condition the relationship .
victorious" (340).
Presidential popularity is directly related to support from members of the president's party and inversely related to support from members of the opposition--that is,
popular presidents tend to receive more support from members of their party but less support from members of the opposition (Bond and Fleisher 1980, 75).
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
69
Popularity not key to capital
Public popularity doesn’t create Congressional success
Mark Peterson, professor of policy studies and political science at the UCLA School of Public Policy
and Social Research, 2000, The Presidency and the Political System, Ed. Michael Nelson, p. 493-494.
Media accounts often note the importance of another unstable feature of the political environment, one that
can vary dramatically during a single president’s term: presidential popularity, or, more precisely, the
proportion of the public that approves of the president’s job performance. Presidents are believed to do better
with Congress when the people like them. Thus a certain amount of surprise underlay the Congressional
Quarterly Weekly Report headline in September 19 that reported, “Clinton Prevails on Capitol Hill Despite
Poor Showing in the Polls?’ Consistent with this conventional wisdom, some studies have identified a
significant relationship between a president’s public approval public and effectiveness in Congress.
Competing studies, however, conclude that popular support has an extremely limited or inconsistent effect.
The apparent confusion has many possible explanations. First, although one would anticipate that a president
who is way down in the polls, as Nixon was following the Watergate scandal, will encounter a less
accommodating Congress, more typical fluctuations in popular support are insufficient to alter legislative
politics already shaped by party orientation, ideology, policy preferences, and constituency interests. Second,
levels of presidential job approval must be substantively relevant to members of Congress for them to affect
their decision making. After the victory against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, President Bush’s public
approval rating soared to an unprecedented height—89 percent in one Gallup poll. The popular accolades,
however, had little effect on how Congress reacted to Bush’s domestic initiatives. Legislators could
distinguish between public acclaim for the president’s actions as commander in chief and the electorate’s
considerable reticence about his performance on the domestic (largely economic) front. Third, a popular
president may be emboldened to challenge opponents in Congress, leading to intensified legislative conflict
rather than enhanced success. Although public support probably strengthens the influence of presidents with
their partisan allies, members of the opposition party may react quite differently. Finally, uncertainty exists
about the direction of causality. Does public support breed legislative success, or does legislative success
stimulate favorable ratings? Probably some of each. All that we can safely conclude, then, is that truly
unpopular presidents are likely to encounter stiff congressional resistance. Harry S. Truman, Nixon, and
Carter faced this test more severely than other recent presidents.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
70
Public popularity not key
Obama’s losing support in congress-public popularity doesn’t matter
Burnett, journalist, 6-18 (Bob Burnett, “The Public Eye: Obama’s Honeymoon is Over,” 6/18/09, The Berkeley
Daily Planet, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-06-18/article/33154?headline=The-Public-EyeObama-s-Honeymoon-is-Over)
Five months after his inauguration, Barack Obama has finished his honeymoon period. Republicans
attacked the president from day one, now there’s indication of pushback from Democrats, too.
Obama’s approval ratings continue to be in the low 60s, better than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush
at this stage in their presidencies. But personal popularity doesn’t always translate into effectiveness and
there are huge challenges ahead for this administration.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
71
Flips flops kill agenda
Flip-flops kill the agenda
FITTS 96 Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School [Michael A., “THE PARADOX OF POWER IN THE MODERN
STATE,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827]
< But as the president becomes increasingly able to perform these functions, that is, as he becomes more modern,
unitary, and formally and informally powerful, he can become less able, as a structural matter, to perform many of
the mediation and agenda control functions described above. The reasons for this development are related to his
visibility and singularity, which can undermine the president's ability to avoid issues, control the agenda, and
mediate conflict. Unitary, visible presidents have greater difficulty claiming that it is the "administration" or some
neutral precommitment process of decisionmaking that led the executive branch to a particular position. n126 Under
the theory of the unitary presidency, he alone must bear responsibility. For the same reason, the president may be
less able to take inconsistent or vague positions on different issues or to refuse to take positions on the ground that
inconsistencies should be left to stand. n127 While the president's singularity may give him the formal ability to
exercise agenda control, which public choice scholars see as an advantage of presidential power, his visibility and
the influence of the media may also make it more difficult for him to exercise it. When public scrutiny is brought to
bear on the White House, surrounding such issues as gays in the military or affirmative action, the president must
often take a position and act. n128 This can deprive him of the ability to choose when or whether to address issues.
Finally, the unitary president may be less able to rely on preexisting congressional or agency processes to resolve
disputes. At least in theory, true unitariness means that he has the authority to reverse the decisions or non-decisions
of others - the buck stops [*866] with the president. n129 In this environment, "no politician can endure opposition
from a wide range of opponents in numerous contests without alienating a significant proportion of voters." Two
types of tactics illustrate this phenomenon. First, presidents in recent years have often sought to deemphasize - at
least politically - their unitariness by allocating responsibility for different agencies to different political
constituencies. President Clinton, for example, reportedly "gave" the Department of Justice to the liberal wing of the
Democratic party and the Department of the Treasury and the OMB to the conservatives. n131 Presidents Bush and
Reagan tried a similar technique of giving control over different agencies to different political constituencies. n132
Second, by invoking vague abstract principles or "talking out of both sides of their mouth," presidents have
attempted to create the division within their person. Eisenhower is widely reported to be the best exemplar of this
"bumbling" technique. n133 Reagan's widely publicized verbal "incoherence" and detachment from government
affairs probably served a similar function. n1Unfortunately, the visibility and singularity of the modern presidency
can undermine both informal techniques. To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened visibility
about what he says and does and is led to make increasingly specific statements about who should win and who
should lose on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control the agenda can be undermined. The modern
president is supposed to have a position [*867] on such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the
baseballstrike, and the newest EPA regulations - the list is infinite. Perhapsin response to these pressures, each
modern president has made more speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton giving
three times as many speeches as Reagan during the same period. n135 In such circumstances, the president is far less
able to exercise agenda control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent positions. The well-documented
tendency of the press to emphasize the strategic implications of politics exacerbates this process by turning issues
into zero-sum games. n136 Thus, in contrast to Congress, the modern president's attempt to avoid or mediate issues
can often undermine him personally and politically. >
Flip-flops kill political capital
Wall Street Journal, 4/1/2002
These sellouts of principle can be excused, if you have the right tastes, by crass politics. Vetoing the
campaign finance bill would be throwing down the gauntlet to John McCain, who might decide to play Ross
Perot in the 2004 campaign. The steel decision is aimed at a few congressional seats in Pennsylvania and
West Virginia deemed crucial to continued Republican control of the House in this fall's elections. I tend to
doubt this rationale even on political grounds. Public reversals on principle, even if less dramatic than
renouncing a "read my lips" pledge, erode a president's standing and credibility. But at least the campaignfinance and tariff decisions have an element of calculation, however low. Other presidential setbacks seem to
result from sheer passivity.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
72
Flips flops kill agenda
Flip-flops are unpopular
The Examiner, 7/20/09-(“Is Obama planning national health care to change state abortion laws?”
http://www.examiner.com/x-2359-Evangelical-Examiner~y2009m7d20-Is-Obama-planning-national-health-care-tochange-state-abortion-laws)
Obama ran on a campaign on transparency and openness in government in which he promised his
Administration would be different than past Administrations. That hasn't happened yet, and probably will
not happen during his term as President.
His Administration is not open, candid or honest with the American people. On taxpayer funded
abortions the White House is being manipulative and secretive. During his campaign, he made it clear
that he wanted taxpayer funded abortions to be a major part of health care. Now he's trying his best to
downplay those statements.
Obama needs to stop trying to trick the minds of Americans on this issue. He needs to be up front and
open with his statements, but that may be impossible at this point since he has made so many promises to
the American public that he now realizes that he can't possibly keep. His track record on what he said
during his campaign and what he has done, and/or the issues he has flip-flopped on is borderline
disgusting coming from the President of the United States.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
73
Winners win – Obama
**Winners win – winning on controversial issues is key to Obama’s agenda
Jonathan Singer, JD candidate at Berkeley and editor of MyDD, 3-3-09,
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428
Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's
true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a
President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can
build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to
pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on
Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President
Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly
half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49
percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history
of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent
place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24
percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point,
with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and
further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward
on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.
Obama needs a political victory soon or his popularity will drastically decline
Van Dyk, editor of Cross Cut Magazine, 6-25 (Ted Van Dyk, “Obama Badly Needs A Victory,” 6/25/09,
http://crosscut.com/2009/06/25/politics-government/19077/?pagejump=1)
As has been well reported, President Obama's general approval ratings have remained strong. But confidence in his
domestic policies has been steadily eroding, especially among moderate and independent voters who constitute a
majority in the country. Support has eroded, in particular, because of backlash toward the public costs and federal
role associated with the auto-industry bailout and toward rising federal budget deficits that threaten big inflation
down the road. Obama badly needs a near-term victory — most importantly with his health-care and energy
proposals — lest his general approval ratings begin to sink.
Winners-win – prefer it specific to Obama.
Michael Krebs, 7-19-2009 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276207
"Obama's top strategists -- including Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- have repeatedly defended the
administration's ambitious agenda by saying that success breeds success -- each legislative victory makes the next
one easier to accomplish, they insist," reported the Washington Post. "The flip side, then, is that a health-care failure
could doom the rest of Obama's agenda."
Winners-win – allows Obama to build momentum.
Christopher Drew, NYT Staff Writer, 7-21-2009 “Senate votes to eliminate money for additional fighter jets”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22defense.html
WASHINGTON — With some of his political capital on the line, President Obama won a crucial victory on
Tuesday when the Senate voted to strip out $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters from a
military authorization bill. The president had repeatedly threatened to veto the $679.8 billion bill if it included any
money for the planes. The 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military
spending. The F-22, the world’s most advanced fighter, has been a flashpoint in a battle over the administration’s
push to shift more of the Pentagon’s resources away from conventional warfare projects, like the F-22, to provide
more money for fighting insurgencies. Senate aides said that some Democrats who otherwise might have voted for
more planes sided with the president out of concern that a loss could have hurt him in the fight for health care
reform. “The president really needed to win this vote,” Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan who led the
fight to cut financing for the plane, said after the vote.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
74
Winners win – Obama
Spending capital builds more – the House energy bills proves
Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, 6-29-09, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/49383237.html
Facing a rare defeat, President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major
victory just when he needed one. In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals, Obama leaned
heavily on House Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming.
The measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion. In the end, the president's furious lobbying — coupled with a
final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore — carried much weight. To a certain extent, the victory
validated Obama's governing style — and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority, health care. He
faces an even more difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate.
Obama needs victories to maintain political capital
Drew, staff writer, 7/21/09-(Christopher Drew, “Obama Wins Crucial Senate Vote on f-22,” New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22defense.html)
WASHINGTON — With some of his political capital on the line, President Obama won a crucial victory on
Tuesday when the Senate voted to strip out $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters from a
military authorization bill. The president had repeatedly threatened to veto the $679.8 billion bill if it included any
money for the planes. The 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military
spending. The F-22, the world’s most advanced fighter, has been a flashpoint in a battle over the administration’s
push to shift more of the Pentagon’s resources away from conventional warfare projects, like the F-22, to provide
more money for fighting insurgencies. Senate aides said that some Democrats who otherwise might have voted for
more planes sided with the president out of concern that a loss could have hurt him in the fight for health care
reform. “The president really needed to win this vote,” Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan who led the
fight to cut financing for the plane, said after the vote.
Political victories are key to Obama’s agenda-F-22s prove
Rogers and Dimascio 7/21/9-(David Rogers and Jen Dimascio, “President Obama’s Agenda Gets a Lift with
F-22 Win,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25246.html)
Tuesday’s strong Senate vote to halt production of the F-22 fighter breathes new life into Pentagon procurement
reforms and provides a much needed boost for President Barack Obama’s larger change agenda. A late-breaking
White House lobbying campaign averted what could have been an embarrassing political setback, given Obama’s
faltering support in recent polls and the uphill battle he now faces over health care reform. Instead what emerged
was a new message of three R’s: reform, fiscal restraint — and something rare for this White House: Republicans.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates proved a major asset in drawing senators from both parties; as many as 15
Republicans joined 42 Democrats and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders in backing the president. “The president
really needed this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 itself but in terms of his reform agenda,” said
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told
POLITICO: “We have got to be a leaner, meaner government. We have to be more efficient.”
Capital can’t be saved. Obama needs to spend it now or lose it forever
Lincoln Mitchell, Assistant Professor of Politics at Columbia University
The Huffington Post, 18 June 2009
Political capital is not, however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the right
moment to spend it. Political capital has a shelf life, and often not a very long one. If it is not used relatively quickly,
it dissipates and becomes useless to its owner. This is the moment in which Obama, who has spent the first few
months of his presidency diligently accumulating political capital, now finds himself. The next few months will be a
key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this political capital during the next months, it will likely be gone by
the New Year anyway.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
75
Winners win – Obama
Winners win-Obama’s primaries prove
Nob Central, politics blog, 8-(“Winners Win,” 2/6/8,
http://nobcentral.blogspot.com/2008/02/winners-win.html)
There is an old political adage popularized by an American Enterprise Institute fellow to explain why Bill
Clinton kept the Republicans at bay in the 1990s. He suggested, rather simply, that “winners win and losers
lose” meaning that when a politician has the appearance of winning, he’ll likely win. Clinton was the master
of this, particularly during the State of the Union. He’d laundry list lovely proposals which would never pass
but which would make him quite popular with the public, a public that thought he was despicable on a
personal level, yet lovely on a policy level. He won – even though the GOP through the kitchen sink at him
and eventually caught him in a lie. I mention this because a lot of people are suggesting that last night was
disappointing for Obama. I think they’ve forgotten this adage. Winners win. Obama won 14 states (including
New Mexico – which is still a toss up). He won in the northeast, the south, the Midwest, and the southwest.
He won white and black and even a few Latinos. And while the delegate count is still out, Obama pulled off
the unthinkable. He made California irrelevant.
Winners win-congress wants to support winning politicians
Nob Central, politics blog, 8-(“Winners Win,” 2/6/8,
http://nobcentral.blogspot.com/2008/02/winners-win.html)
Winning comes to those who look like winners. This only sounds redundant or cliche'-ish. If power is the
ability to make people do something they otherwise would not do. Real power is having people do things
they otherwise wouldn't do without anybody making them - when they act in anticipation of what they
think somebody would want them to do. If a president develops a reputation as a winner. somebody who
will pull out victories in Congress even when he is behind, somebody who can say, "Do this!" and have it
done, then Members of Congress will behave accordingly. They will want to cut their deals with the
president early, getting on the winning team when it looks the best and means the most.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
76
Winners win – general
Winners win – one victory builds the habit for future wins
Norman Ornstein, Roll Call, May 27, 1993
2. Winning comes to those who look like winners. This only sounds redundant or cliche-ish. If power is the
ability to make people do something they otherwise would not do, real power is having people do things they
otherwise wouldn't do without anybody making them - when they act in anticipation of what they think
somebody would want them to do. If a president develops a reputation as a winner, somebody who will pull
out victories in Congress even when he is behind, somebody who can say, "Do this!" and have it done, then
Members of Congress will behave accordingly.
They will want to cut their deals with the president early,
getting on the winning team when it looks the best and means the most. They will avoid cutting deals with
the opposition.
Stories that show weakness, indecisiveness, or incompetence in the White House - and
there are always lots of them - will go unreported or will be played down because they will be seen as the
exception that proves the rule of strength and competence.
But the converse is also, painfully, true.
If
a president develops a reputation for being weak or for being a loser - somebody who says, "Do this!" and
nothing happens, who is ignored or spurned by other interests in the political process - he will suffer death by
a thousand cuts.
Lawmakers will delay jumping on his bandwagon, holding off as long as possible until
they see which side will win. Stories about incompetence, arrogance, or failure will be reported always, and
given prominence, because they prove the point.
Looking strong is key to future success
Norman Ornstein, Roll Call, May 27, 1993
1. A president's power is defined by his relations with Congress. A president must exercise power in many
arenas, persuading many audiences at home and abroad. But the key test for a president's clout or success is
how he is judged in dealing with Congress: Does he master them, or do they master him?
The successful
president, I suggested in these pages in March, comes across like animal tamer Gunther Gebel-Williams: He
gets into the ring with the Congressional lions and tigers, cracks the whip, and, although they growl and roar,
they still get up on their tiny little stools and perform. But if a president looks like Gulliver, a pitiful, helpless
giant dominated by Congressional Lilliputians, then watch out.
Must use political capital or lose it
LINDBERG 04 Editor of Policy Review Magazine, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute [Tod,
“Spending political capital,” The Washington Times, December 7. Pg. A21]
Now, in the usual metaphor of political capital, presidents who have it often make the mistake of trying to "hoard" it.
They put their political capital in a safe place in order to bolster their personal popularity. They do not "risk it" in
pursuit of political victories, whether on their policy agenda or for controversial judicial appointments, etc. And
therein, in the conventional application of the metaphor, lies peril. For political capital, when hoarded, does not
remain intact but rather diminishes over time through disuse. It "wastes away" - and with it, a president's popularity
and reputation. Therefore, again in the conventional use of the metaphor, it is mere prudence for a president to
"invest" his political capital. Only by seeking political victories and winning them by such judicious investment can
a president maintain and even increase his political capital. Who dares wins.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
77
Teflon
Obama’s political capital is resilient
Melber, staff writer and political science bachelor, 08
(Ari Melber, staff writer and political science bachelor, 11/08, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/382337)
Because now, Obama's team wants everyone to know. The massive list of energized activists is the
biggest stick Obama will carry in Washington.
It enables direct communication at a remarkable scale. The next President can instantly address 16
percent of his national supporters, based on the popular vote. To put it another way, the list dwarfs the
audience of all the nightly cable news shows combined.
So even after the gauzy honeymoon talk fades, when people start second-guessing how much "political
capital" Obama really has, there will be this resilient network of people committed to enacting the Obama
agenda. In a policy fight with Congress -- or a message battle with the press -- these are the people that
will take action to get Obama's back. They will call their neighbors, or their members of Congress.
They'll knock on doors, or storm local meetings. They'll write letters to the editor or, naturally, email and
prod their networks. They can also hold Obama accountable, of course, by using the same networked
technology to pressure the new administration. Peter Daou, a web strategist and former adviser to Hillary
Clinton's campaign, raised that prospect in the article
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
78
No spillover/vote switching
Senators don’t vote based on capital – it’s all about ideology and representing their local
interests
Matt Yglesias, Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 6-15-09,
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/the-limits-of-political-capital.php
I think the answer to the puzzle is simply that “political capital” is a pretty misleading metaphor. The fact of
the matter is that the Senate is what it is—to wit, an institution with an enormous status quo bias, that’s also
biased in favor of conservative areas. On top of that, the entire structure of the US Congress with its
bicameralism and multiple overlapping committees is biased toward making it easy for concentrated interests
to block reform. Between them, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Kristen Gillibrand, Bill
Nelson, Dick Durbin, Roland Burriss, Arlen Specter, Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, Amy
Klobuchar, Kay Hagan, Bob Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Patty Murray, Maria
Cantwell, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Evan Bayh represent 50 percent of the country’s population. But
that only adds up to 22 Senators—you need thirty-eight more to pass a bill. Meanwhile, the fact of the matter
is that in recent years plenty of incumbent Republicans have been brought down by primary challenges from
the right and as best I know zero Democrats have been brought down by primary challenges from the left.
This has been a huge advantage for the Democrats in terms of winning elections—it’s an important part of
the reason Democrats have these majorities. But it also means that when it comes to policymaking,
Republicans have a lot of solidarity but Democratic leaders have little leverage over individual members. In
other words, nobody thinks that Collin Peterson (D-MN) is going to lose his seat over badly watering down
Waxman-Markey and that matters a lot more than airy considerations of capital.
No political capital spillover for Obama.
TPM 7-20-2009
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/deanie_mills/2009/07/the-art-of-underestimatingoba.php?ref=reccafe
Obama has, of course, done no such thing. He's fought for climate change legislation, health care,
finance regulations, public stimulus plans, ending one war and redesigning another, and so on. All of
which has brought on a firestorm of criticism for doing too much, too fast. Bai says such an outlook may
be outdated: Some of this itinerancy must be attributed to the sheer scope of the wreckage Obama
inherited. When you've got failing banks and corporate giants, two ongoing wars, melting icecaps and
mountainous health care costs, it's hard to see what gets pushed to the margins. It's also true, though, that
Obama's style reflects, whether he means it to or not, a cultural shift on the importance of narrative.
Americans acclimated to clicking around hundreds of cable channels or Web pages experience the world
less chronologically than their parents did. The most popular books now -- business guides like "Good to
Great" or social explorations like "The Tipping Point" -- allow the casual reader to absorb their insights in
random order or while skimming whole chapters. Once we listened to cohesive albums like, say, Bob
Dylan's "Highway 61 Revisited," which kicked off with the snare hit of "Like a Rolling Stone," almost
like a starter pistol, and worked its way toward the melancholy postscript of "Desolation Row." Now your
iPod might jump mindlessly from "Desolation Row" to "Tombstone Blues," or from Dylan to Rihanna.
The shrink-wrapped record has given way to the downloaded single. Wasn't this one reason for all the
tributes to Michael Jackson? It's not that "Thriller" was really as singularly awesome as so many of us
thought it was in high school. It's more that we know there may never be an album that epic again.
Obama is the nation's first shuffle president. He's telling lots of stories at once, and in no particular order.
His agenda is fully downloadable. If what you care most about is health care, then you can jump right to
that. If global warming gets you going, then click over there. It's not especially realistic to imagine that
politics could cling to a linear way of rendering stories while the rest of American culture adapts to a
more customized form of consumption. Obama's ethos may disconcert the older guard in Washington, but
it's probably comforting to a lot of younger voters who could never be expected to listen to successive
tracks, in the same order, over and over again.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
79
No spillover/vote switching
Political Capital is irrelevant – case studies prove
Bond & Fleisher, Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham 1996
(Jon R. and Richard The President in Legislation)
In sum, the evidence presented in this chapter provides little support for the theory that the president's
perceived leadership, skills are associated with success on roll call votes in Congress. Presidents reputed as
highly skilled do not win consistently more often than should be expected. Even the effects of the partisan
balanced Congress, the president's popularity, and, the cycle of decreasing influence over the course of his
term. Presidents reputed as unskilled do not win consistently less often relative to. Moreover, skilled
presidents do not win significantly more often than unskilled presidents on either important votes or close
votes, in which skills have the greatest potential to affect the outcome. Because of the difficulty of
establishing a definitive test of the skills theory, some may argue that it is premature to reject this explanation
of presidential success based on the tests reported in this chapter. It might be argued that these findings by
themselves do not deny that leadership skill is an important component of presidential-congressional
relations. Failure to find systematic effects in general does not necessarily refute the anecdotes and case
studies demonstrating the importance of skills.
Presidential capital isn’t significant – party support and divisions are key
Bond& Fleisher, Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham 1996 (Jon
R. and Richard The President in Legislation) pg 223
Neustadt is correct that weak political parties in American politics do not bridge the gap created by the constitutional
separation of powers. We would add: neither does skilled presidential leadership or popularity with the public. In
tact, the forces that Neustadt stressed as the antidote for weak parties are even less successful in linking the president
and Congress than are weak parties. Our findings indicate that members of Congress provide levels of support for
the president that are generally consistent with their partisan and ideological predispositions. Because party and
ideology are relatively stable, facing a Congress made up of more members predisposed to support the president
does increase the likelihood of success on the floor. There is, however, considerable variation in the behavior of the
party factions. As expected, cross-pressured members arc typically divided, and when they unify, they unify against
about as often as they unify for the president. Even members of the party bases who have reinforcing partisan and
ideological predispositions frequently fail to unify for or against the president's position. Our analysis of party and
committee leaders in Congress reveals that support from congressional leaders is associated with unity of the party
factions. The party bases are likely to unify only if the party and committee leader of a party take the same position.
But party and committee leaders within each party take opposing stands on a significant proportion of presidential
roll calls. Because members of the party factions and their leaders frequently fail to unify around a party position,
there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the outcome of presidential roll calls. Presidency-centered variables,
however, provide an even weaker explanation of presidential success. We found little support for the thesis that the
weakness of legislative parties increases the importance of presidential skill or popularity for determining
presidential success on roll call votes. Our analysis reveals that presidents reputed to he highly skilled do not win
consistently more often than should he expected given the conditions they faced. Similarly, presidents reputed to be
unskilled do not win significantly less often than expected. The analysis of presidential popularity reveals that the
president's standing in the polls has only a marginal impact on the probability of success or failure.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
80
Yes spillover/vote switching
Political capital spills over – 107th congress proves
LEE 05 The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna College – Presented at the
Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference
[Andrew, “Invest or Spend?:Political capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the
George W. Bush Presidency,” http://a-s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf]
The idea of investing political capital also supports the notion that the chief executive specializes in foreign and
defense policy. The president may increase his domestic capital by cooperating on domestic legislation and then
spend it implementing foreign policies. In executing foreign policy, the president will not issue SAPs on his own
foreign policy. For example, if the president signs a treaty, Congress may or may not ratify it, but there is no
opportunity for veto. Therefore, the president’s use of foreign policy is a spend maneuver, whereas his domestic
policy is an invest maneuver. The 107th Congress, during which the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, supports
this theory. President Bush may have spent his political capital towards executing those wars and attempted to invest
his capital by cooperating on domestic legislation.
Yes vote switching – no real impact to ideology
Bond & Fleisher, Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham 1996
(Jon R. and Richard The President in Legislation) pg 54
In a previous study of presidential-congressional relations from Eisenhower to Ford, we found that ideological
conflict between the president and members of Congress was associated with lower support. In general, as
ideological differences increase, the president tends to lose support from members of both parties at about the same
rate, although support from the opposition is lower at all levels of ideological conflict (Bond and Fleisher 1980, 75).
Thus ideological forces in Congress often cause the formation of bipartisan coalitions to support or oppose the
president's policy preferences. These ideological forces help explain why majority presidents have only a limited
advantage over minority presidents in building majority support for their positions in Congress. Majority presidents
inevitably experience defections of partisans who have ideologies in conflict with theirs. Minority presidents, on the
other hand, can frequently build working majorities composed of their partisan base and like-minded members of the
opposition. While political values shared between the president and members of Congress provide an important
linkage source, the effects of ideology are limited for several reasons. First, most members of Congress are
pragmatic politicians who do not have views and preferences at the extremes of a liberal-conservative continuum.
Because the typical American voter is not strongly ideological, most representatives' electoral self-interest is
probably best served by avoiding ideological extremes. As noted above, ideology is a less important voting cue for
moderates than it is for ideological extremists (Kingdon 1981, 268). Second, many votes that may be important to
the president do not involve ideological issues. Distributive or "porkbarrel" programs, for example, typically do not
produce ideological divisions. Even conservatives who want to cut domestic spending and liberals who want to
reduce defense spending work to protect domestic and defense programs in their districts. Presidents who attempt to
tamper with these programs are likely to find few friends in Congress, as President Carter discovered when he
opposed several water projects in 1977, and as President Reagan discovered when he vetoed the highway bill in
1987. Finally, ideological voting blocs are relatively informal coalitions composed of individuals who have similar
values. The "conservative coalition" of Republicans and southern Democrats, for example, appears on certain votes
and sometimes has a significant influence on the outcome of floor votes (Shelley 1983; Brady and Bullock 1980;
Manley 1973). But this coalition of conservatives has no formal organization with elected leaders to serve as a
communication and information center. Although there are several ideologies.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
81
***HEALTH CARE UNIQUENESS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
82
Yes health care – general
Health care reform will pass now – support from liberals and those with private insurance
Wolfe, Staff Writer, 7/20/2009. (Warren Wolfe, staff writer for the Star Tribune. “McCollum: Health care bill
will pass in the House”). http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/51267987.html?page=1&c=y
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said Monday she thinks the House will pass health-care reform this year,
but that to get her vote, the bill must address inequities in the federal Medicare program that "penalize
Minnesota and other high-quality, low-cost states.'' "I think we can get that. And I think we can get the
bill passed fairly quickly in the House," McCollum said in St. Paul after taking testimony from 14
Minnesotans on health care reform. A member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee,
McCollum also said she is hearing growing support for a controversial provision that would provide a
government-run option to compete with private health insurers. She said support is coming from both
liberal advocates of a single-payer system and people who now have private insurance "who want a
public option to fall back on" if their insurance plans or their own needs change.
Health care reform will pass
Condon, staff writer, 7/20/2009. (Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CBS news. “Ted Kennedy renews his
call for health care reform”).
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5174371.shtml
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Washington's foremost champion of health care reform, has been largely
absent from the legislative negotiations in Congress because of his battle with brain cancer, but he spoke
out in the pages of Newsweek over the weekend to say reform must -- and will -- happen. When
Congress finally votes on health care legislation, "a century-long struggle will reach its climax," Kennedy
wrote. He said he believes the bill will pass, "and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major
industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people." Reflecting on
the nation's struggle to reform health care, as well as his own medical struggles, Kennedy lays out basic
principles any reform effort must meet. He emphasizes that "incremental measures won't suffice
anymore." His narrative reveals, however, how complicated and divisive certain elements of reform have
become.
Health care will pass
National Journal, 7-1-09, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090630_7955.php
Certainly, the White House feels a sense of urgency. Last week, after Obama pledged that he would
"absolutely" pass reforms this year, Dianne Sawyer asked, "If you don't, is it over for four years?" Obama
bristled. "We're gonna get it done, so I won't engage in hypotheticals in which we don't." Former Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Obama's original choice to lead the push on reform, told NationalJournal.com
in April that a bill must be passed this year if it is to happen at all. But those who observe the current push
for health care reform and see déjà vu all over again for a young Democratic president may be overlooking
some important inconsistencies in the parallel. Lawmakers are still trying to find common ground on the
shape of the legislation, but polls show public support remains squarely behind health care reform, and there
are now 60 Democrats in the Senate, many of whom campaigned on passing it. No matter the bill's final
language, the bottom line is unchanged: Congress will almost certainly pass some sort of bill, and Obama
will almost certainly sign it.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
83
Yes health care – general
Healthcare reform will pass – only remaining debate is on details
Frank, Staff Writer, 7/24/09 (Jackie, The National Post, “White House sees healthcare bill by year’s end,”
http://www.nationalpost.com/life/health/story.html?id=538f9fbb-fc70-4e56-a571-4d560ded16c1)
Shrugging off delays in a divided Congress, President Barack Obama's administration on Friday said a sweeping healthcare
overhaul would still be approved by year's end to control costs and expand coverage. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
said the Senate's failure to hold to an August deadline to pass an initial version of healthcare legislation would not derail Obama's
central domestic policy objective. "I think we will have a bill by the end of the year for the president to sign on healthcare reform
that controls costs, expands coverage and provides choice," Emanuel told National Public Radio. The reform package under
construction in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled Congress has been hit by criticism of its more than $1 trillion price
tag and its scope, with debates over how to pay for the program and rein in costs. Obama has described healthcare reform as
essential to longterm U.S. economic viability and had asked the Senate and House to pass first versions before leaving for the
summer recess to help keep opposition from building. To speed the measure in the House of Representatives, Democratic leaders
said Friday they may go ahead with a vote in the full House next week without waiting for a deal with fiscally conservative
Democrats concerned about its high cost. Negotiations with that group have not produced an agreement that could pass the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, and its chairman, Representative Henry Waxman, said he would let the full House bypass his
panel if it could not reach a deal. Two other committees have approved the bill. Representative John Larson, the fourth-ranking
House Democrat, said Democrats would discuss the legislation in depth Monday and then decide whether to skip the committee
vote. "They have a lot of stuff that's already done," Larson said. "Whether they vote on that or not, that's another thing." But
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said Thursday the Senate was only likely to debate its version of the legislation in September - throwing open the question of when and what kind of final legislation may emerge. Obama has staked significant political
capital on the passage of a healthcare bill this year before lawmakers turn their focus to 2010 midterm elections. 'DETAILS
MATTER.’ Emanuel said the White House still believed things were broadly on track. "The key thing is ... we are now debating
how to control costs," Emanuel told NPR. "We are down to the final details. Those details matter. But we ... I think are making
progress." Speaking of ways to control costs, which has become a central sticking point on the plan, Emanuel said the White
House is urging Congress to include a proposal for an outside commission on health care costs cutting.
Health care reform will pass – two out of three committees have already approved.
Trygstad and Memoli, reporters 7/17/2009. (Kyle Trygstad and Mike Memoli are reporters for politics
nation. “House Dems: Health Care Bill Will Pass”).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/07/house_dems_health_care_bill_wi.html
Democratic leaders are encouraged by the progress of a health care reform bill that is making its way through three House
committees and are certain the full House will pass it. They held a news conference this afternoon to tout the still-evolving
plan. "Over 100,00 people will have health insurance who didn't have it before," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Over a
hundred million dollars in meeting the needs of public health hospitals will be there. And just a very few people called
upon to help with the revenue stream." Those "very few people" Pelosi was referring to are couples making more than
$350,000 per year, whose taxes will go up to pay for the $1 trillion bill. The three committees involved in marking up the
bill are the Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means. The latter two approved the bill this
morning. Joining Pelosi at the news conference were Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (Calif.), Ways and
Means Chairman Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (S.C.), and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.),
among others. "The American people are demanding health care reform," said Hoyer. "Do we have good health care in
America? We do. But it's not accessible to many, and it costs twice as much as most countries of the world." "We are
going to pass health reform," he said.
Health care reform will pass within the next month
Dunham, staff writer, 7/15/2009. (Richard Dunham is a staff writer for the Houston Chronicle. “Sebelius
optimistic on health care reform”). http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6531197.html
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged Wednesday that the health care reform
process has been “a little messy,” but she predicted that both the House and Senate will approve comprehensive reform
proposals within a month. Speaking to Hearst Corp. executives at Hearst Tower, Sebelius said there “is a dynamic under
way” that eventually will result in an overhaul of America's health care system, something that has bedeviled Democratic
presidents since Harry Truman. “What's going on now is a little messy,” she said. “Comprehensive legislation always is.
But I think that at the end of the day there will be a bill that passes.” The former Kansas governor said the push for reform
was being driven by widespread agreement on “underlying flaws in the current system,” including a growing uninsured
population, higher insurance prices and skyrocketing out-of-pocket medical costs for average Americans.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
84
Yes health care – lobbies
Obama is spending political capital and key lobbies are on board.
WSJ 7-22-2009, Wall Street Journal, “Obama Ups Ante on Health”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124821970259970233.html
President Barack Obama is significantly raising his personal stake in the effort to overhaul America's health-care
system, as Democrats and the public express growing unease about the costs. After weeks of allowing allies in
Congress to shape the emerging bills, the White House signaled its intention to start spending more of Mr. Obama's
political capital. "We're going to have to wade in a little deeper into the nitty-gritty to keep the process going,"
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said in an interview. "We know that and accept that." On Tuesday -exactly six months into his presidency -- Mr.Obama did just that, diving into an intraparty dispute over the cost of
health-care legislation in a long meeting with conservative Democrats. And for the eighth time in nine days, the
president delivered an impassioned pitch for Congress to pass an ambitious bill, urging lawmakers to "insist that this
time it will be different." Mr. Obama plans a prime-time news conference Wednesday as well. "We're using every
single lever that we can to get our message across," said senior adviser David Axelrod. That includes presidential
visits this week to two hospitals, a trip to Cleveland for a town-hall meeting and a conference call urging bloggers to
motivate their followers. But Republicans are explicitly calling for slowing down the move toward action. "Mr.
President, it's time to scrap this bill," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Tuesday. Mr. Obama's intense
personal involvement reflects the enormous political importance of the health debate. His Republican opponents are
making no secret of their hope that defeating the plan would undermine the rest of the Obama agenda this year -including his effort to enact an energy bill to combat greenhouse gases -- and would make next year's midterm
election outlook far more promising for Republicans than the party expected just a few months ago. "President
Obama is ratcheting up the stakes too," said James Carville, a veteran of former President Bill Clinton's failed effort
to retool health care in 1993-94. "He's certainly not talking them down. And they're pretty big. They win this healthcare thing, and they get some decent kind of evidence of [an economic] recovery, they might be in pretty good shape
this time next year. But if they lose this, the Republicans understand the stakes too. Nobody is being very coy about
it." Mr. Obama has faced criticism from some quarters for being too removed from the health debate, and he may
have little choice but to get more deeply involved. Core Obama supporters still are clamoring for passage of
legislation by August, and House leaders signaled yesterday that they will attempt to hold a vote there by the end of
this month. Yet polls show growing doubts among Americans about the effort, and conservative Democrats in the
House are pushing for more cost-containment provisions and protesting the current House plan to finance the effort
with about $500 billion of taxes on the wealthy. House conservatives said Tuesday night they made progress in
addressing their concerns in the White House meeting. Meanwhile, though, the Senate Finance Committee is days
behind schedule in coming up with its own plan for funding a health system. All that leaves the president facing a
political conundrum. He won election in November by attracting a range of unconventional political supporters for a
Democratic candidate, making a huge showing among independents, winning a large number of lukewarm
Republicans and drawing surprising strength from upper-income Americans. Those are the very constituencies now
expressing doubts in polls. Upper-income Americans could face a big tax increase to pay for health care. At the
same time, the deepest passion for retooling health care lies with Obama supporters further to the political left.
Those more-liberal backers are being counted on to put heat on lawmakers to get something done -- though they also
are capable of turning on the president in anger if they see too much compromising to win votes in the center. The
president's ability to juggle those forces will be the stiffest test yet of his political skills. Mr. Obama is hardly
without political assets; he remains the country's most popular political figure, recent polls indicate, and just
yesterday showed his potency on Capitol Hill by defying the defense industry and convincing the Senate to vote 5840 to stop funding the F-22 fighter jet. The X factor may be how well the economy is doing. If the economic growth
numbers for the second quarter due out at month's end show stronger progress than was expected a few months ago,
White House aides hope that will ease some anxieties and embolden Democrats to stick with the ambitious Obama
agenda. That might make it easier to demand more progress from Congress before its August recess, though the
original administration goal of passing a health-care plan by then seems more elusive every day. Still, White House
officials argue that the overall effort is moving at an unprecedented pace. "At no time under five separate presidents
-- Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton or Truman -- have you been this close on health care. It's just a fact," Mr.
Emanuel said. Indeed, the overall effort is well ahead of past attempts. Some key interest groups that opposed past
efforts have campaigned for action this year and remain on board today. And perhaps most critically, unlike in 199394, Democrats are unified on a basic approach to covering uninsured Americans.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
85
Yes health care – lobbies
Lobbies are on board
AP 7-25-2009 “Lobbyist the silver lining in health care storm”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5igfa8hbGjdOo8cuFoH1aPuwmHBWwD99LH9V80
WASHINGTON — Stormy weather in Congress is threatening President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, but
some see a silver lining: the lobbyists are still mostly on board. The drug industry, the American Medical
Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are saying Congress must make major changes this year.
Disagreements — chiefly between liberal and conservative Democrats — brought Congress to a standstill this week.
But television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care
overhaul — not the groups' objections to some of the proposals. "My gut is telling me that something major can pass
because all the people who could kill it are still at the table," said Ken Thorpe, chairman of health policy at Emory
University in Atlanta. "Everybody has issues with bits and pieces of it, but all these groups want to get something
done this year." As a senior official at the Health and Human Services department in the 1990s, Thorpe was deeply
involved in the Clinton administration's failed effort. This time, the health care industry groups see a strategic
opportunity. As lawmakers squabble, the groups are focused on how to come out ahead in the end game. "We're still
optimistic that we can get health care reform accomplished," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's
Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance industry trade group. "There is strong support from policymakers and
from across the health care sector. " It's all got to do with shifts in the economy. Even before the recession hit,
employer-sponsored health coverage had been steadily shrinking, and many people couldn't afford the premiums for
individual policies.
Healthcare reform will pass – lobbyists
Alonso-Zaldivar, AP Writer, 7/25/09 (Ricardo, the Associated Press, “Are lobbyists silver lining in health
care storm?”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5igfa8hbGjdOo8cuFoH1aPuwmHBWwD99LP88G0)
WASHINGTON — A strong force, perhaps as powerful in Congress as President Barack Obama, is keeping the
drive for health care going even as lawmakers seem hopelessly at odds. Lobbyists. The drug industry, the American
Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are all saying Congress must make major changes this
year. Television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care
overhaul — not the groups' objections to some of the proposals. "My gut is telling me that something major can pass
because all the people who could kill it are still at the table," said Ken Thorpe, chairman of health policy at Emory
University in Atlanta. "Everybody has issues with bits and pieces of it, but all these groups want to get something
done this year." As a senior official at the Health and Human Services department in the 1990s, Thorpe was deeply
involved in the Clinton administration's failed effort. President Barack Obama on Saturday continued his full-court
press to pass health care reform legislation. In his weekly Internet and radio address, Obama cited a new White
House study indicating that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies —
a disparity he says is "unsustainable — it's unacceptable." "And it's going to change when I sign health insurance
reform into law," Obama said, adding that he has "a sense of urgency about moving this process forward." This time,
the health care industry groups see a strategic opportunity. As lawmakers squabble, the groups are focused on how
to come out ahead in the end game. "We're still optimistic that we can get health care reform accomplished," said
Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance industry trade group.
"There is strong support from policymakers and from across the health care sector. "It's all got to do with shifts in
the economy. Even before the recession hit, employer-sponsored health coverage had been steadily shrinking, and
many people couldn't afford the premiums for individual policies. Meanwhile, government programs have been
expanding — and they've gotten increasingly friendly to private insurance companies. Insurers now play major roles
as middlemen in Medicare, Medicaid and the children's insurance program. And if the government requires
everybody to get coverage — just what the overhaul legislation calls for — it could guarantee a steady stream of
customers subsidized by taxpayers not only for insurers, but for all medical providers.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
86
Yes health care – lobbies
Health care reform will pass – extensive lobbying proves
Mulins, Farnum & Radnofsky, 7/21/2009. (BRODY MULLINS, T.W. FARNAM and LOUISE RADNOFSKY are
all staff writers for the Wall Street Journal, “Lobbying Spending Rises Only Slightly Amid Health Overhaul”).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124822468274070633.html
"We are going to do whatever it takes to pass comprehensive health-care reform," said Ken Johnson, a
vice president for the trade association. The lobbying data comes as President Barack Obama and
members of Congress race to approve a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. health-care system. Another
big stakeholder in the health-care debate, America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents health
insurers, spent $1.9 million in the second quarter, about the same as a year ago. "Our No. 1 priority is
advancing bipartisan comprehensive health-care reform," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the
association. Most individual drug companies increased lobbying expenditures, including Eli Lilly & Co.,
Pfizer Inc. and Amgen Inc., which posted double-digit increases compared with the 2008 period.
Compared with the same period in 2008, Eli Lilly increased lobbying spending by 26% to $3.6 million;
Pfizer increased spending by 82% to $5.6 million; and Amgen increased spending by 19% to $3.4
million. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. reported a 34% slide in lobbying activity to $1.5 million in the last
three months from $2.2 million during the same period in 2008. The American Hospital Association, the
industry's third-largest lobby, spent 14% less to influence Washington in April, May and June than it
spent in the same period in 2008, according to the disclosure statements. The organization reported that it
spent $3.5 million on lobbying in the second quarter, down from $4.1 million during the 2008 period.
The new lobbying reports show that the rare slump in Washington's influence industry continued during
the second quarter, despite a busy agenda on Capitol Hill that could revamp major swaths of U.S.
industry.
Healthcare will pass – major lobbies are switching sides
The Day, 7/5/2009 (Connecticut Newspaper. http://archive.theday.com/re.aspx?re=bdc5c556-443b-401a-b128b890f7bef5b9 //ZE)
The health care debate is changing. Groups that once sought to forestall any dramatic change in the health care
system are now positioning themselves to influence the change they see coming. President Barack Obama deserves
much of the credit for this. He has put his considerable political capital at risk to fix America's health care system.
The president has set the tone that this time it will get done. With a solid Democratic majority in the House and
filibuster-proof numbers in the Senate, he has considerable political advantage. Americans spend about one dollar
in six on health care, double the number in other industrialized nations. Yet too many Americans are obese and
infant mortality, heart attack recovery and life expectancy rates compare badly with other rich countries. Major
players are recognizing they had better be part of the solution, or the solution they end up with may prove
unpalatable. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), long fearful of drug price
controls, announced last month that its members will cover up to 50 percent of the cost of name-brand drugs for
seniors caught in the so-called “doughnut hole,” the gap in Medicare Part D drug coverage. PhRMA joined with
Families USA - a consumer-oriented advocacy group devoted to health care reform, including price controls - in a
media campaign supporting numerous key lawmakers pushing for reforms, including Connecticut Sen. Christopher
J. Dodd. PhRMA and Families share a common goal “to make health care more affordable.” This past week WalMart Stores Inc. informed the president it supports his proposal requiring all major employers to provide health
insurance to workers, quite a departure for a company that long resisted calls to boost worker access to health
benefits. Stranger yet, also signing the letter to the White House was the Service Employees International Union.
The biggest union and the non-union Wal-Mart formed the group “Better Health Care Together,” to fight for
lowered costs. What gives? Recognition, apparently, that out of control health costs and lack of coverage is bad for
all - consumers and business. Controlling costs will be the biggest challenge. Begin basing fees on medical results,
not the number of tests or procedures ordered. Reform a sue-happy legal system that drives up malpractice
insurance. Better manage health care with greater emphasis on prevention. A tough fight remains for the president,
but it appears change is in the air.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
87
Yes health care – momentum
Healthcare reform closer than ever.
Deborah Tedford, NPR Correspondent, 7-21-2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106855579&ft=1&f=1007
President Obama tried Tuesday to create momentum for overhauling the nation's health care system,
saying Congress is closing in on a plan that will provide care to all Americans. Despite increasing
criticism from Republicans and a recent poll that shows public dissatisfaction with his handling of the
issue, "we are closer than ever before to the reform that the American people need," Obama said, before
going into a health care meeting with House Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Obama said the House and Senate bills agree on major issues, including providing coverage for 46
million uninsured Americans. The bills also align on covering those who have pre-existing conditions,
those who become seriously ill and those who leave their jobs, lose jobs or start their own businesses.
Republicans have stepped up criticism of the president's push for a health system overhaul, saying the
president's timeline for passage is too soon. During a speech at the National Press Club in Washington on
Monday, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said Obama was "conducting a dangerous
experiment with our health care and with the quality of our lives." In addition, a Washington Post-ABC
News poll released Monday showed approval of Obama's handling of health care had slipped below 50
percent for the first time. Obama has pushed for passage of a bill through the House and the Senate before
the August recess, though on Monday he said the end of the year would be acceptable. In an interview on
NBC's Today show, Obama said it was necessary to set a deadline or risk the issue being bogged down by
politics. "If you don't set a deadline in this town, nothing happens," he said. During the Today interview,
Obama acknowledged that lawmakers must come up with more money to pay for covering the 46 million
Americans who are now uninsured. "Right now they're not where they need to be," he said. But he
insisted that progress is being made. In the House, two of three committees have signed off on a health
care bill, but some Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have raised objections
that money in the bill would fund abortions. Late Monday, committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a
Democrat from California, said members are making headway. Democrats on the committee were
scheduled to meet with Obama Tuesday afternoon. The president has embarked on a campaign to drum
up support for his health care initiatives, devoting much of last week and this week to the effort.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
88
Yes health care – Obama
Healthcare reform will pass – Obama’s Army
Copeland, Political Analyst, 7/25/09 (George, The Examiner, “RNC effort to derail Obama healthcare bill
appears doomed,”
http://www.examiner.com/x-13572-RNC-Examiner~y2009m7d25-RNC-effort-to-derail-Obama-healthcare-billappears-doomed)
President Obama is unleashing the same marketing machine that brought him victory in 2008 to pass HR
3200, his healthcare reorganization bill. His political website, Organizing for America (OFA), displays a
fully developed marketing effort for the bill, complete with "door-to-door canvasses, phone banks,
roundtable discussions and community gatherings." These are the same organizing techniques that Obama
implemented during the runup to his election. OFA is the new incarnation of the marketing effort Obama
implemented during his Presidential campaign. The core of the system is a database of thirteen million
supporters, connected via cell phone text messages and email. According to Sourcewatch, "the scope and
technological sophistication of the organization is unprecedented for any previous president." Micah Sifry at
HuffPo has the details of the organizational effort. This apparatus has been made available to the Democratic
National Committee to enact the Obama healthcare bill. Republicans have expressed some joy and relief at
their apparent success thus far in stalling the President's healthcare bill. However, if Obama's organizing
efforts are successful, and there is no reason to assume that they will not be, any such perceived success will
be short-lived. Given the enormous and proven effectiveness of Obama's organizing and lobbying skill,
passage of the President's bill seems virtually guaranteed. The RNC marketing effort appears to consist
mainly of a YouTube video and a website that contains little useful information and virtually no supporter
organization. In contrast to OFA, the RNC effort seems paltry to the point of vanishing. As blogger Greg
Sargent notes, "[T]here is probably no greater test than health care reform of whether Obama’s
groundbreaking campaign apparatus can be pressed into service to drive his governing agenda."
Healthcare reform will pass – Obama political capital
Fox News 7/22/09 (Politics, “President Obama uses magnetism, political capital to push healthcare bill,”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capital-push-health-care/)
President Obama is spending his considerable political capital and using his personal magnetism
Wednesday in a prime-time appeal to Americans on the virtues of the 10-year, $1 trillion-plus health care
reform package big-footing its way through Congress. Swaying public opinion would go a long way
toward convincing resistant lawmakers that a massive health care reform bill is vital and needed
immediately. The task could be a heavy lift for the president, who so far is getting little love from either
voters or Congress despite talking about the topic 10 times over the past 10 days.
Healthcare reform will pass – Obama is taking the right tack
Klein, Staff Writer, 7/26/09 (Ezra, The Washington Post, “The Ghosts of Clintoncare,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072401876.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Where Clinton and his team crafted their health-care reform plan in the executive branch, Obama has left
the details of his effort almost entirely to Congress. Where Clinton pursued an ambitious reconstruction
of the entire sector, Obama has sought to preserve existing insurance arrangements and win the support of
industry players. Where Clinton spent a year developing his bill before even getting to Congress, Obama
lashed his efforts to a tight (and apparently unrealizable) timetable. Even the atmospherics offer contrasts:
Clinton's big push for reform came in a soaring 1993 speech before a joint session of Congress, in which
he offered painstaking details of his plans; Obama made his argument to the nation at a news
conference last week, addressing concerns more than specifying proposals. Obama's reluctance to follow
Clinton's example is understandable: Few legislative failures have been as catastrophic as Clinton's on
health-care reform. Yet the ghosts of the early 1990s still hover over today's debates.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
89
Yes health care – Obama
Obama has enough political capital now for healthcare – delaying kills reform
Jackie Frank 7-17-2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1017928320090718?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's far-reaching plan to guarantee all Americans
healthcare ran into trouble on Friday over its more than $1 trillion price tag, forcing Democrats to look for
ways to reduce costs as they moved the bill forward. Obama took his case for his signature domestic issue to
the American public, insisting that "now is not the time to slow down" the effort to overhaul the troubled
system. "Now we've got to get over the finish line, and part of this process is figuring out how to pay for it,"
he said at the White House. A preliminary analysis of the plan being pushed by Democrats in the House of
Representatives concluded the legislation would increase federal budget deficits by $239 billion over 10
years. The analysis was conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation,
both of which work for Congress. But changes to the House Democrats' plan were already under
consideration and the House Energy and Commerce Committee late on Friday insisted that the healthcare
reform effort will be fully paid for. Three of five congressional committees have agreed to a plan that would
revolutionize the $2.5 trillion healthcare industry by setting up a government-run health insurance plan to
compete with private insurers. It would also bring insurance coverage to many of the 46 million uninsured
and ease the burden of high medical costs on millions more. Obama, who said he was "absolutely convinced"
it could happen this year, has high public approval ratings that give him the political capital to spend when
hammering out a deal with lawmakers. A delay to 2010, a congressional election year, could make it harder
to reach a final deal. But there is dissent among his own Democrats, who control Congress. Two groups
totaling about 70 lawmakers have said healthcare costs must be brought down further if they are to back the
bill. The loss of these votes could scuttle the bill in the House of Representatives. One of these, a group of
first-term House Democrats, brought their concerns about higher taxes to White House chief of staff Rahm
Emanuel on Friday. They are worried that new taxes would harm small business and further hurt
employment. "Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden
eggs of our recovery," Representative Jared Polis said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Health care will pass – Obama is spreading goodwill in Congress
National Journal, 7-1-09, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090630_7955.php
Either way, Obama has bought himself an insurance policy in the event that legislation fails or falls short of
what his supporters are hoping for, argued Chris Jennings, a member of Bill Clinton's health care team in the
early 1990s. Clinton drafted a 1,300-page bill without consulting lawmakers and then drew a line in the sand
and declared a public insurance option non-negotiable. His total ownership let critics label the plan
"HillaryCare" and left him holding the bag when the reforms failed. "I think the lesson from 1994 is not to
craft a bill in secret that affects one-sixth of the economy and dump it on Congress," said David Mermin, a
partner at Lake Research who has done polling for Health Care For America Now. "It's becoming an
American solution -- not an Obama solution, or a [Max] Baucus solution, or a [Edward] Kennedy solution,"
said Jennings, who now runs a health policy and advocacy consulting shop. "If you personalize it to one
person, it's far easier to attack and malign." By leaving the details up to Congress, Obama also increases his
chances of getting bipartisan support. The tone Obama has set has already sparked some aisle-crossing: Sens.
Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Bob Bennett, R-Utah, have enlisted Democrats and Republicans behind a bill that
would eliminate employer-provided health care coverage in an effort to make the insurance market more
competitive.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
90
Yes health care – bipart
Healthcare reform will pass – bipartisanship
Donmoyer, Staff Writer, 7/25/09 (Ryan, Bloomberg, “Grassley, Ross Say Passage of Health-care Bill likely
this year,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIiiRyGaM.Os)
July 25 (Bloomberg) -- The top Senate Republican drafting health-care legislation and a leader of House
Democrats balking at the plan said they don’t expect committee and floor-vote delays to keep a bill from
passing this year. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said “it’s
going to be difficult” for his panel to approve legislation in the next two weeks. Beyond that, the odds of
Congress enacting an overhaul later this year are “very, very good,” the Iowa senator said in an interview
with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. Representative Mike
Ross of Arkansas, chairman of the health-care task force for the Blue Dog Coalition, about 50 selfdescribed fiscally conservative House Democrats, said it would be a mistake for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to
bring the measure to the chamber’s floor before lawmakers take their August recess. “I don’t think they
have the votes,” Ross said in a separate “Political Capital” interview. By year’s end, “we will meet the
president’s goal of passing meaningful and substantive health-care reform,” he also said. House
Democratic leaders will try to push a health-care overhaul measure through its final House committee
next week to clear the way for a floor vote even as the disputes within the party leave the bill’s passage
by August in doubt.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
91
Yes health care – predictive
Dems will unite to pass health care – prefer our evidence because it predicts how they’ll
eventually VOTE, not just what they say now
Ramsey Baghdadi, managing editor of "The RPM Report", a publication devoted to prescription drug regulation,
In Vivo, 6-22-09, http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/health-care-reform-too-big-to-fail.html
The first, 79, is the margin Democrats enjoy in the House. The second, 59+1, is the number of Democrats
(we'll count independents who vote with Democrats) plus Al Franken, who could be seated as the junior
Senator of Minnesota at anytime, in the Senate. The sum of the equation gives Democrats the filibuster-proof
60 votes they desperately need to move forward. That's not the same "60" we mean by the last number. That
60 is Obama's approval rating; 60% of all Americans approve of the job he's doing, according to an average
of polls from Real Clear Politics. Now, there is the strong argument that Democrats themselves don't all
agree on health care reform and certainly wouldn't vote in lockstep along party lines to pass sweeping
legislation that impacts one-sixth of the economy. Presently, that's absolutely the case and was reinforced by
comments on the Sunday morning talk shows. However, we bet that health care reform--particularly
universal coverage--is so important in defining the future of the Democratic Party that they will have no other
choice than to come together. If they don't, Obama will make that case to them in the final stage of the
legislative process. And if those three numbers (79, 59+1, and 60) aren't enough, there's always a fourth
number, 51. That's the simple majority it would take to pass reform as part of the budget reconciliation
process in the Senate, with healthy margins assured in the House. Democrats themselves point to 51 as a
course of last resort. But the only way to get to 60 votes in the Senate may be to make sure you have 51--a
threat of inevitability that would persuade conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans to sign on to a
sweeping health reform bill. We believe the 51-vote strategy is one of last resort, but one Democrats will
resort to if necessary if the choice is between that and no health care reform. Put simply, Democrats have
placed too much of the Party's future in the health reform basket to abandon it now.
Trends are toward compromise. They’ll get a bill
Trish Turner, 6-23-09, http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/23/senate-makes-progress-on-health-care/
Senators are making progress on health care reform behind the scenes with one key committee beginning to
make progress on the stickiest of problems, getting the cost of a bill under control, though challenges remain.
The Finance Committee, where a bipartisan product is being crafted, has found $400 billion in additional
savings this week, bringing the total bill “in the range of $1.2 trillion,” according to Sen. Kent Conrad, DND. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which tallies the cost of legislation for members, has
been working with the committee for some time, throwing a wrench into the gears just last week with an
exceedingly high price tag that sent members back to the drawing board on a number of issues. Conrad said
that CBO estimates that the bill will now cover 96 percent of Americans with a coverage comparable to that
of Medicare. “I am increasingly confident that we will get a bipartisan bill…We’re still not there yet,”
Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-MT, adding, “We’re getting much closer.” The chairman has set a goal
of getting the final price tag under $1 trillion.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
92
Yes health care – vote count
Healthcare reform will pass – enough votes
O’Connor, Political Analyst, 7/22/09 (Patrick, Politico, “Pelosi confident in votes needed to pass health
care bill,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25271.html)
Democrats' sweeping health care bill still has a long way to go in the House, but House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) claimed Wednesday that she has the votes to pass it on the floor — even though she still
lacks critical support to get it out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "I have no question we have
the votes on the floor of the House," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol. The speaker would
still like to bring the bill up for a vote by the end of next week, when members are scheduled to leave
town for the August recess. But that timeline looks less and less likely as negotiations on the Energy and
Commerce Committee stretch beyond their pre-set deadlines. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (DCalif.) spent another day negotiating with moderate Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition to break a
deadlock that has forced him to suspend consideration of the bill. The two sides have a tentative
agreement to grant more authority to an outside body for cutting health care costs under Medicare.
Health care will pass – enough votes to end a filibuster
Beutler, Staff Writer 7/21/2009. (Brian Beutler, staff writer for the TPMDC, “With Every Vote Needed To Pass
Health Care Reform, Byrd Returns To The Senate”). http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/with-every-voteneeded-to-pass-health-care-reform-byrd-returns-to-the-senate.php
Roll Call reports that 91-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has returned to work after a weeks-long
illness. Byrd was hospitalized for about six weeks, leaving him unable to vote on any legislation. During
his absence, and with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) also suffering severe health problems, the Democrats'
60 vote majority was effectively reduced to 58. Now it's back up to 59. Sixty are required to overcome a
filibuster--and will almost certainly be required to pass health care legislation in the Senate.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
93
Yes health care – reconciliation
Health care will pass via reconciliation
AP, 6-29-09, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsKP5waZIVYrxEZ6VNvOxw9a79QD994J7780
Mainstream Democrats close to Barack Obama are warning Republicans about insisting on too many changes to the president's
health care overhaul, saying the Democratic-controlled Congress will move ahead without GOP input if they do. A
strong-arm partisan approach may be unpleasant, these prominent Democrats say, but it is better than letting
Republicans dictate spending cuts and insurance rules that many Democratic voters oppose. For weeks, staunchly liberal
groups have complained as key Senate Democrats insisted on a bipartisan approach, especially in the Finance Committee. The
strategy is giving Republicans more clout than their minority status deserves, these critics said. Now, similar comments are
coming from veteran, pragmatic Democrats who have worked closely with Obama and his top aides. They reject the notion
that a controversial Senate tactic — "reconciliation," which essentially bars the minority party from using filibusters
to block legislation — is unworkable or politically unacceptable in the health care debate. "I would not hesitate to
use it" if efforts at genuine bipartisanship fail, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Monday. The price that
Senate Republicans are demanding so far is too high, said John Podesta, a White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton
and now head of the Center for American Progress. "There is a point at which you have to move on," Podesta said, and
reconciliation can be the vehicle when that time comes.
Health care will pass – they’ll fall back on reconciliation if necessary
USA Today, 6-29-09
The month of July looms as "the most consequential period for health reform perhaps in all of history," Daschle
said. Podesta said: "This is the time real decisions are going to have to be made." Both put the odds of the House
and Senate passing a bill before the August recess as somewhat better than 50-50. They called for flexibility and
compromise to reach an agreement, but neither seemed particularly optimistic about the chances of drawing significant
Republican support. Asked to define "bipartisanship," Daschle replied, "The involvement of one or more Republican." He said
the use of a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation was "certainly a viable fallback." Using reconciliation
would prevent opponents from threatening a filibuster, meaning a plan could pass with Democratic votes alone.
Dems will use reconciliation – claims to the contrary are just political management
Washington Examiner, 7-2-09, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltwayconfidential/Got-60-Who-Cares-49684612.html
So how can reconciliation be used now? Frankly, any way the Democrats want to use it. Disregard the
rhetoric you hear this summer about the White House or Congress "preferring regular order" -- you might
have heard it from Robert Gibbs on Monday, but don't believe it. Watch instead how Obama and the
Democrats in Congress prepare for this fall. They can save themselves a lot of arm-twisting if they just use
reconciliation for health care, or for cap-and-trade -- or for both.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
94
Yes health care – Dems
Healthcare reform will pass – top Democrats
Yang, Editor, 7/25/09 (Yang, Xinhua News Agency, “Obama still optimistic about passage of healthcare
reform,”
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2009/07/25/1361s504077.htm)
U.S. President Barack Obama's administration remained optimistic about the passage of the overhaul
healthcare reform at Congress by the end of the year, said a White House official on Friday. White House
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said in a radio interview that the president would stick to the healthcare
reform as his domestic policy objective although the Senate failed to meet the deadline he has set for the
passage of the bill by August. "I think we will have a bill by the end of the year for the president to sign
on healthcare reform that controls costs, expands coverage and provides choice," Emanuel told National
Public Radio. He made these remarks after Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on
Thursday that his floor would rather have a product "that is one that is based on quality and
thoughtfulness" than "trying to jam something through." "The decision was made to give them more time
for the finance committee part of what we're trying to do and I don't think it is unreasonable. This is a
complex, difficult issue," he said. In recent weeks, Obama has stepped up his efforts to push forward his
overhaul healthcare reform at Congress, which is aimed at curbing rapidly rising costs and expanding
health insurance coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans. The president has earlier set a timetable
for Congress to vote on the healthcare reform bill before its month-long recess starting Aug. 7. To push
the legislation forward in the House of Representatives, Democratic Party leaders said on Friday that they
are likely to go ahead with a vote in the full House next week without reaching agreement with fiscally
conservative Democrats who objected to the bill for concern on its high cost.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
95
Yes health care – Medicare provisions
Healthcare reform will pass – ok’ed Medicare provisions prove
Espo, Staff Writer, 7/25/09 (David, The Washington Post, “House Dems clear 1 health obstacle, others
loom,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/25/AR2009072500617.html)
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats announced agreement Friday on far-reaching steps designed to rein
in the relentless growth of Medicare, part of a concerted effort to counter the impression that President
Barack Obama's health care legislation is in deep trouble. Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the agreement as a
"giant step forward" for the bill that Obama has made a test of his leadership. Advocates said it eventually
would turn Medicare toward a program that rewards quality, rather than volume, as well as alter a system
that pays doctors and other providers more in some regions of the country than others. Yet the leadership
all but abandoned a pledge to approve legislation before a monthlong vacation scheduled to begin at the
end of next week. Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, left open the possibility that
lawmakers would be held in session a day or more longer than scheduled to allow time for a vote. If not,
"We have every intention of passing it by the fall," he said. Separately, talks between the leadership and
rebellious conservative and moderate Democrats demanding changes in the bill collapsed in acrimony
during the day, then were revived with a handshake a few hours later. In a further attempt to blunt
criticism, Democrats circulated a breakdown claiming to show the benefits of the legislation in each of
the nation's 435 congressional districts.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
96
Yes health care – soon
Despite setbacks, health care reform will pass before the August recess.
Fox News, 7/13/2009. (FOX News' James Rosen and Chad Pergram contributed to this report. “Pelosi Predicts
Health Care Package Can Pass By August Recess”). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/pelosi-predictshealth-care-package-pass-august-recess/
Despite a series of setbacks, House Democrats plan to introduce a health care reform package Tuesday
with the goal of passing the bill before Congress leaves for the August recess, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi said Monday. Pelosi stayed optimistic as President Obama called anew on his congressional allies
to push through comprehensive health care reform. "We have to roll out this program this week," Pelosi
told reporters at a press conference. "We will be on schedule to pass this bill before we leave for the
August recess." Pelosi suggested the delay so far in rolling out their package was nothing to worry
about, quipping: "Welcome to the legislative process. In case you haven't noticed, this is how it works."
The president, while naming his new surgeon general Monday, seemed to recognize that during his
travels overseas the health care reform push developed significant complications. But he used that
backdrop to strengthen his call for action. "I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a
lot of chatter during the week that I was gone," he said. "We are going to get this done. Inaction is not an
option."
Health care reform will pass by the end of next week despite GOP opposition
Russert, NBC reporter 7/27/2009. (Luke Russert, “House Health Bill to Pass Next Week?”).
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/21/2003594.aspx
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) expressed optimism for passing health-care reform possibly by the
end of next week saying, “I believe we are going to get to a place where we can create consensus where
there will be agreement.” Later he added, “We have every intention of passing health care and we want to
pass it next week.” Hoyer, speaking in his weekly off-camera briefing with Capitol Hill reporters, started
off by vehemently going after Republicans who have suggested that Democrats are rushing health-care
reform through Congress: “In the last 18 months, we’ve been discussing it extensively. This is not a rush
to judgment.” Hoyer then pushed what is now a popular Democratic talking point after Republican Sen.
Jim DeMint’s comment that health-care reform would be Obama’s “Waterloo,” Hoyer said: “This is
consistent with what Republicans are trying to do. Their interest is much more in making failure happen
then progress for the American people.”
While much has been made of the infighting between
Democrats in recent weeks over health-care reform, Hoyer attempted to calm the situation by reiterating
that every Democrat wants to see health-care reform passed, “People are at the table, because it confirms
the fact that everybody wants to see a health-care reform bill that they can vote for.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
97
Yes health care – win on F-22
Eliminating funding to F-22 was the first step for Obama to win healthcare
Marcus, Washington Post Staff Writer, 09
(Ruth Marcus, Washington Post Staff Writer, 7/22/09, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072102811.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Medicare costs matter not just because Medicare consumes such a large and rapidly growing share of
government spending. Because Medicare is the 800-pound gorilla of health care, its reimbursement
policies also drive payment arrangements between private insurers and providers. Health care is like the
F-22, except more so: It affects constituents, influential employers and jobs in every congressional
district. Draining the politics out of health-care decision making is a first step toward reducing costs.
It is Congress's job to make tough policy choices. Resorting to commissions is generally an admission of
a broken political process. But MedPAC on steroids would be different: Its recommendations mostly
involve technical questions outside congressional expertise. Meanwhile, at midday Tuesday the Senate
voted -- by a surprisingly robust 58 to 40 margin -- to eliminate the F-22 funding. That's good news -- and
not just for more rational defense spending. The politics of health-care make the F-22 fight look simple. It
won't be easy to expand coverage in a way that controls costs.
Democrats side with Obama on F-22 to save healthcare
Drew, New York Times staff writer, 09
(Charles Drew, New York Times staff writer, 7/21/09,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22defense.html)
WASHINGTON — With some of his political capital on the line, President Obama won a crucial victory
on Tuesday when the Senate voted to strip out $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters
from a military authorization bill.
The president had repeatedly threatened to veto the $679.8 billion bill if it included any money for the
planes. The 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military
spending.
The F-22, the world’s most advanced fighter, has been a flashpoint in a battle over the administration’s
push to shift more of the Pentagon’s resources away from conventional warfare projects, like the F-22, to
provide more money for fighting insurgencies.
Senate aides said that some Democrats who otherwise might have voted for more planes sided with the
president out of concern that a loss could have hurt him in the fight for health care reform.
“The president really needed to win this vote,” Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan who led
the fight to cut financing for the plane, said after the vote.
Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-22, has estimated that work on the plane provides 25,000
jobs and indirectly supports about 70,000 others. But Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, has said that
the Pentagon needs to accelerate a new plane, the F-35, and that doing so would offset the job losses.
About 1,000 suppliers in 44 states provide the jobs, which will gradually be phased out as some of the
187 F-22s that have been ordered are completed.
About two-thirds of the jobs are in California, Texas, Georgia, Washington and Connecticut. Several
large unions who supported Mr. Obama in his campaign for the presidency, back building more planes.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
98
Yes health care – finance committee
Healthcare reform will pass – finance committee
Farmer-Stockman 7/24/09 (Western, Staff Editorial, “President eases pressure on health care passage,”
http://westernfarmerstockman.com/story.aspx?s=25123&c=8)
There will be no health care vote in the Senate until after the August recess. That's the word from Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who says it is better to have a product based on quality and
thoughtfulness rather than trying to jam something through. The decision to delay a Senate vote came
after President Obama backed away from his August deadline for passing legislation. In the House,
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says a bill could be voted on in the next 48 hours. The Senate Finance
Committee has been active in health care negotiations. Reid says ongoing talks with Ranking Finance
Committee Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and two other panel Republicans, Olympia Snowe of
Maine and Michael Enzi of Wyoming, were productive and would lead toward Senate approval of the
final bill with at least the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural challenges. Senator Orrin Hatch, RUtah, a member of the Senate Finance Committee says he will walk away from the health care debate
because of his concern with costs.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
99
Obama pushing health care
Obama will start spending political capital which is key to the process.
US NEWS 7-22-2009 “Political Bulletin” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090722.htm
The Los Angeles Times reports that "the White House had been selling the president's popularity on
Capitol Hill, reassuring lawmakers that he will help those who support his top domestic priority."
However, "some of his critics...have speculated that a failure to pass healthcare soon could weaken
Obama as he fights for other priorities." On its front page, the New York Times writes, "What's in it for
me? On the subject of health care reform, most Americans probably don't have a good answer to the
question. And that, obviously, is a problem for the White House and for Democratic leaders in Congress."
The Wall Street Journal reports the White House "signaled its intention to start spending Mr. Obama's
political capital." White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "We're going to have to wade in a
little deeper into the nitty-gritty to keep the process going. ... We know that and accept that." Senior
adviser David Axelrod, meanwhile, said, "We're using every single lever that we can to get our message
across." Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said on MSNBC, "Too many of the
Republicans in the House just have pushed away from the table, aren't even part of the conversation,
decided long ago before there even was a bill that they were not going to participate." White House
Office of Healthcare Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle said on MSNBC's Ed Show that Republicans
are "trying to delay and slow this thing down so they can kill it." Sen. Tom Harkin said on MSNBC's Ed
Show, "The conservatives, they just want the status quo." But Sen. Jim DeMint said on Fox News' Your
World that when Obama "was in the Senate, he voted against every reform proposal that Republicans put
up that would have made health insurance more affordable and more accessible. Now what he wants to
do is a government takeover."
Obama willing to spend all his political capital on healthcare.
John Ibbitson, Thursday’s Globe and Mail, 7-23-2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-setsa-no-excuses-deadline-for-health-care-reform/article1227934/
His hopes for fundamental reform to America's troubled health-care system endangered by a revolt from
within his own party, Barack Obama Wednesday night staked his presidency on an ultimatum. Americans
“are looking to us for leadership, and we must not let them down,” the President vowed in a prime-time
press conference. “We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that
every American can count on. And we will do it this year.” With that stark declaration, Mr. Obama threw
down a gauntlet to his Republican opponents and to nervous Democrats worried about what reform might
cost. With opposition growing and Mr. Obama's popularity slipping, hopes that legislation could be
passed before Congress rises for its August vacation at the end of next week are fading. By nonetheless
imposing an end-of-year deadline for final passage of a bill, the President is gambling all of his political
capital on success. If the year passes without his signature on a bill, the political costs of such failure will
be enormous. Negotiations to craft a reform bill have been complicated by so-called Blue Dog Democrats
in the House of Representatives. They are alarmed at projections from the Congressional Budget Office
that the current plan would increase the deficit by $239-billion (U.S) over 10 years, the very opposite of
the administration's goal of expanding coverage while reining in spiralling expenses. Conservative
Democrats in the House energy and commerce committee are holding up passage of the bill until their
cost concerns are met. Representatives and senators, especially those in the Senate finance committee, are
negotiating non-stop in an effort to craft legislation that extends benefits without increasing costs.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
100
Obama pushing health care
Obama will spend whatever necessary political capital.
Richard C. Dunham, Houston Chronicle Staff Writer, 7-15-2009
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6531197.html
Sebelius argued that the political dynamic in Washington was “very different than the early '90s,” when
President Bill Clinton attempted to overhaul the health care system, an effort that collapsed without even
a vote in Congress. The biggest difference, she said, is that most of the health care stakeholders now are
involved in discussions aimed at reaching legislative consensus. “There is a general recognition that the
status quo is unsustainable,” she said. Republicans have complained that the trillion-dollar health reform
proposals working their way through congressional committees would result in higher taxes on
businesses, government mandates on individuals and rationing of health care. Some Democrats have
complained that the White House has been pushing Congress to act before they can secure the votes
needed to pass any proposal. But Sebelius — the nation's top health policymaker — insisted there was
“plenty of time” for the House and Senate to approve legislation before their planned August vacations.
Sebelius said President Obama will use whatever political capital is needed to achieve his “top priority.”
She also said at the Hearst meeting that the U.S. was gearing up for a possible spike in H1N1 flu cases
this fall, but that the administration has decided to change its guidance to U.S. school districts for
combating H1N1. “The preference is to keep schools open and keep kids learning,” Sebelius said. “We're
trying to strike a balance between panic and complacency.”
Obama will spend political capital on healthcare.
Matthew DoBias, 7-14-2009 http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090714/REG/307149967/0
President Barack Obama, in public and private meetings Monday, used some of the strongest language
yet to urge lawmakers to sidestep delays and deliver comprehensive health reform legislation in the next
two weeks. Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties to express the administration's
growing urgency over what has become its key singular domestic issue this year, according to lawmakers
who attended the meeting. “There's no question that the president is ready to use whatever political
capital he has to make this work,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (DN.Y.) said. Rangel told reporters that Obama sought assurances from Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who also attended the meeting, that he would deliver a bill and have it
completed next week. Baucus' Republican counterpart on the committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, told
reporters Monday that a bill could come out on Thursday, though it's unclear how firm that timeline is.
For his part, Baucus declined to comment on a specific timetable. The senator, however, was quick to
relay the importance the administration put on the discussions. “I got the sense that the urgency barometer
is going up,” he said. Meantime, the House is expected to formally introduce its version of health
overhaul legislation today. Rangel said that House members have grown increasingly concerned over the
Senate's slower pace, where two committees are drafting legislation. “That is a big political concern,”
Rangel told reporters. “Not just the substance, which we've had our problems with, but no problem is
bigger than asking members to take this vote and not know if we're going to have a Senate bill.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
101
Obama pushing health care
Obama is pushing healthcare
Joe Weisenthal, 7-20-2009, http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-wagers-it-all-on-pelosicare-2009-7
A week ago we asked what Obama would spend his political capital on: healthcare, stimulus, climate ore
financial reform. There's no way he can get it all done, as ambitious and popular as he is. Well, now we
know, the entire bet is on healthcare, as evidenced by his now-daily speeches on the subject, and the fact
that he's rolling up his sleeves on this one. Carol Lee at Politico reckons that the beginning of the
healthcare fight marks the end of the honeymoon period: President Barack Obama has been ad-libbing
aggressively in speeches this week, as his twin priorities — turning around the economy and overhauling
health care — have run into trouble. Straying from prepared remarks is out of character for the
disciplined president, and lately he’s been doing it to deliver his most biting rhetoric — whether to take
on his critics or to pressure Congress. The president even had a “bring it on” moment this week, when he
veered off his text to call out Republicans, without saying he was calling out Republicans. “Now, my
administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet,” Obama said in
Michigan, following the text scrolling on the teleprompter. But instead of moving on to his efforts on the
auto industry, as planned, Obama detoured: “And it’s a job I gladly accept,” he said sharply. “I love these
folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy.’ That’s fine.
Give it to me.”
Obama will spend political capital, but having enough is key.
Galesberg News 7-12-2009
http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=072009&newsid=158
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin says the Senate wants to debate health care reform over the next three weeks.
Durbin acknowledges this is an aggressive schedule, but the Senate wants to present the president with a
bill he can sign this summer. Specific legislation is still being formulated in Senate committees. Durbin
says President Obama plans to spend a lot of political capital to enact a program that covers the
uninsured. Durbin says those who are worried only about the cost of a program that covers the uninsured
need not worry so much, since those with health insurance pay an average of $1,000 a year to cover costs
providers incur in caring for uninsured patients who can't pay. (Research suggests this figure is really in
the vicinity of $800, but has been rounded up for rhetorical purposes by reform advocates.) Durbin says
he's not for a single-payer program, in which the government is the sole health insurer, but he is for a
public option to make sure private insurers have competition.
Obama pushing healthcare
Reuters 6-20-2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN208242420090720?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Public support for President Barack Obama's strategy to overhaul the U.S.
healthcare system appeared to waver as Republicans stepped up attacks on Monday on a plan they say is
costly and unworkable. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele called Obama's efforts
to push healthcare legislation through Congress before the August recess "a reckless experiment." "The
president is rushing this experiment through Congress so fast, so soon, that we haven't had a moment to
think if it would work -- or worse, to think about the consequences to our nation, our economy and our
families' economic future if it doesn't," he said at the National Press Club. Obama was to campaign for
the $1 trillion plan at a local children's hospital, then in a round of television interviews and on the
Internet as his administration tries to build momentum for congressional passage in two to three weeks.
His administration has struggled to overcome concerns among fiscally conservative Democrats that
already burdened federal and state governments could not afford to expand healthcare for the estimated
46 million uninsured. Last week, nonpartisan congressional budget analysts said the plan would add $239
billion to the budget deficit over 10 years, casting doubt on Obama's pledge to keep the plan within the
budget. Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama's signature domestic priority and a
major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time to get the enabling legislation passed this year.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
102
Now key
Obama must push while he has political capital.
Daily News 7-22-2009 “A Bending Curve?
http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=39346&CHID=36
In making his case for health-care reform, President Obama has repeatedly stated the system’s current
course is not “sustainable.” But can’t the same be said of the path on which he wants to take the nation?
Testifying late last week before the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, emphatically said that it can. Mr. Elmendorf said the plan being
shepherded through Congress does not make “the sort of fundamental changes” requisite to reining in the
soaring costs of government health programs. More than that, the $1.6 trillion initiative, as currently
configured to include a “public option” for health insurance, would simply heap additional burden on
taxpayers — now and in the future — already obliged to pick up the tab for Medicare and Medicaid. And
if anyone should know, it is Mr. Elmendorf. The CBO is merely the official arbiter of the cost of
legislation. Of course, Mr. Obama says otherwise, averring that his proposal would, in time, “bend the
curve,” or trajectory, of federal spending on health care. Again, Mr. Elmendorf — erstwhile senior fellow
at the Brookings Institution, hardly a conservative think tank — begged to differ. He said, simply, “The
curve is being raised” — meaning that the nation’s financial condition, hardly rosy, could become even
worse. With his bountiful reservoir of political capital starting to erode — a recent Washington Post poll
saw the president’s approval on health-care issues slip below 50 percent for the first time — Mr. Obama was
eager to see his plan pushed through Congress by the August recess. Now, he seems to be backing off that
ambitious timetable, primarily because fiscal conservatives within his own party — that cadre of Blue
Dog Democrats — are ratcheting up efforts to present more financially palatable, and responsible,
legislation. These efforts are to be encouraged. All that hangs in the balance is the world’s finest healthcare system.
Obama pushing but now is key.
Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, 7-20-09 8:44 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/why-the-health-care-clock-might-be-ticking.html
White House staffers were working all weekend with members and staffers from the House and Senate to
try to resolve more than a dozen major points of disagreement on health care reform -- from how to fund
it to whether there should be a public plan. And from his sick bed, Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has
written an essay in Newsweek backing the president's effort calling health care reform the cause of his
life. President Obama wants the Senate Finance Committee to finish their bill by Friday. So all week,
starting today, the president will be aggressively pushing for quick congressional action -- a prime time
press conference Wednesday, a trip to the Cleveland Clinic Thursday. In a new ABC News/Washington
Post poll, the President's approval rating for handling health care has slipped under 50%. And for first
time in our polling significantly more Americans disapprove strongly of his handling of health care
reform than approve strongly, so he's dealing with an intensity gap as well. The fact that the president's
job approval rating is so closely tied to the economy, and both are sinking, sheds some insight into why
he's pressing for health care reform now. As the economy continues to tank, he may not have for much
longer the political strength to push something this dramatic. As our polling director Gary Langer points
out, the president's challenge, simply, is that pushback to health reform works. As much as they like the
idea of fixing the system, most Americans also are satisfied with their current quality of care, coverage
and even cost, and are worried that a new system might make these worse. The new poll included a
question describing an outline of the health care reform plan that House Democrats recently introduced,
and 54% expressed support for it. That's not an incredibly high number, and that didn't include any of the
pushback language that for so long has worked so effectively on countering health care reform efforts.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
103
Now key
Obama’s political capital is running out – now is key.
Fox News, 7-16-2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533154,00.html
But, you know, Jeri, we've got an infomercial, media mentality out there where you're not getting the
scrutiny that we're going to give to this not only tonight but in the weeks to come. They're trying to rush
this through. I think that Obama senses that his political capital is beginning to wane. The polls show that
eight out of 10 key issues Republicans now lead, that the country is on the wrong track, that the
Democrats are too liberal. So are they going to be successful in pushing this through without having any
American read this thing?
Now is key – Obama’s political capital won’t last forever
Wizbang 7-15-2009 http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/15/why-the-rush-on-health-care.php
Even the Washinton Post is beginning to doubt the wisdom of the massive tax increases Congress
envisions to pay for ObamaCare: The deeper issue, though, is whether it is wise to pay for a far-reaching
new federal social program by tapping a revenue source (the "rich") that would surely need to be tapped if
and when Congress and the Obama administration get serious about the long-term federal deficit.
....Pretending that "the rich" alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the
president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it. It's no mystery why the Democrats
are rushing this legislation. Their political capital is diminishing at an alarming rate as the public comes
to view the stimulus legislation as an abject failure and Cap and Trade as a massive regressive tax on
consumers. It's now or never for the progressives on ObamaCare and therein is the opportunity for an
opposition party. As they did on the stimulus bill, Republicans in the House should unanimously reject
Obamacare. Even if the Democrats succeed in peeling off RINO Senators Snowe and Collins in the
Senate, a united Republican opposition may pay off in 2010 as voters continue to witness double digit
unemployment and flat to negative economic growth. The urgency about health care legislation today is
rooted in political expediency. Unlike the stimulus, where the perception of economic Armageddon was
the hammer used to pass the legislation, there is no healthcare crisis. The crisis is the sinking ship of
Democratic political capital, much of which has been squandered in record time by a Congress and
President that are amazingly removed from the lives of their constituents ObamaCare debate is
exclusively an affliction of the Washington ruling class.
Now is the last chance
Michael Riley The Denver Post, 7-20-2009 http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12873342
Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat, without enough time to change and wearing the wrong attire to
introduce a rules amendment at nearly 4 a.m. on a recent Thursday, was forced to slip a tie borrowed
from a colleague over his turtleneck (a moment lost to posterity, because by that time the C-SPAN
cameras had been turned off). Strike while the iron is hot Political strategists say there are tactical
advantages to the pace on Capitol Hill so far this year — the momentum of a historic election at their
backs, congressional leaders and their administration allies realize that the window of opportunity is small
and chances of success highest now. If a health care reform bill isn't passed before the Congress starts its
August recess, some Democratic leaders fear, the chance to do it at all may be gone, with the forces of
opposition and nervousness of lawmakers growing almost by the day. "President (Barack) Obama, like
Lyndon Johnson, is very aware that even after a big dramatic election like we just had, your time is
limited," said Julian Zelizer, a Congress expert at Princeton University. "The perception is that presidents
lose a significant amount of their capital quickly, within the year. As the mid-terms approach, you want to
spend all the political capital you have." But the strategy also comes with risks. Massive bills are being
pushed along at an unrelenting pace. The 1,040-page stimulus bill came back from conference in the
middle of the night, and lawmakers had just a few hours to review it before they had to vote the next day.
One little-noticed clause allowed AIG Insurance to pay massive bonuses to managers who had led the
company to the brink of collapse, producing the Democratic coalition's first major black eye.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
104
Now key
Obama is pushing, but action before the recess is key.
LA Times 7-22-2009, By Christi Parsons “Obama Urges Action, Not Just on Politics, On Healthcare”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-healthcare22-2009jul22,0,1104975.story
Reporting from Washington -- Urging lawmakers to move quickly to overhaul American healthcare,
President Obama on Tuesday criticized the "politics of the moment" and said some in Congress were
trying to put off decisions on legislation "until special interests can kill it." Speaking to reporters in the
White House Rose Garden, Obama said: "We can choose to follow that playbook again, and then we'll
never get over the goal line. Or we can come together and insist that this time it will be different. We can
choose action over inaction." The remarks were part of a White House blitz to promote the president's
healthcare agenda this week, a strategy that also includes television interviews, a prime-time news
conference today and a Thursday town hall in Cleveland. A poll released Tuesday provided a sense of
the battle Obama is facing. By 50% to 44%, Americans disapprove of how the president is handling
healthcare policy, the USA Today/Gallup poll found. But the White House had been selling the
president's popularity on Capitol Hill, reassuring lawmakers that he will help those who support his top
domestic priority. Obama has said he wants a healthcare bill passed before the August congressional
recess. Some of his critics, however, have speculated that a failure to pass healthcare soon could weaken
Obama as he fights for other priorities. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee,
took aim at Obama's argument Tuesday, asking why the administration was rushing to action on one of
the most complicated elements of the American economy. "Why this rush to get a healthcare bill signed
or at least passed before the August recess?" Steele asked. "The way the administration is going about it
is not appropriate to me." The path forward is by no means clear. House Energy and Commerce Chairman
Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) delayed his panel's hearings on healthcare until today, after a
private meeting between the committee's Democrats and Obama. Two other House panels have approved
a healthcare bill, but Waxman is working to garner support among colleagues on his committee.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign to fight "government-run healthcare,"
its characterization of the plan Obama favors. The chamber's Campaign for Responsible Health Reform is
running print and online ads and inundating key members of Congress with letters and protest calls. At
his Rose Garden appearance, Obama attacked the "familiar Washington script" of inertia over action. He
outlined the common ground among several bills now making their way through Congress, arguing that
lawmakers had agreed on a range of features -- including a public healthcare option and guaranteed
coverage for people with preexisting conditions. "Make no mistake," Obama said. "We are closer than
ever before to the reform that the American people need. . . . Americans don't care who is up or down in
Washington politics. The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
105
August deadline not key
August deadline not make or break.
CNN 7-22-2009 “Obama: Efforts to delay healthcare a political ploy”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/health.reform/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama responded Tuesday to Republican opposition to health care
reform, saying that political motives are behind efforts to block progress on the issue. Republicans "who
openly announce their intentions to block this reform" would "rather score political points" than confront
the ailing health care system, Obama said in a Rose Garden statement. Republicans responded that
Democratic proposals so far would fail to deliver what they promise and eventually lead to a government
takeover of health care. Delaying action now "is so we can be smart about the action we have to take,"
said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Amid the sharpened debate, a leading
House Democrat said Tuesday the chamber may not vote on a bill before Obama's deadline of August 7,
when Congress goes on recess. Obama and his chief spokesman indicated the deadline was more a target
for progress, rather than a make-or-break moment. "We're going to come back here after the August break
and have a lot of work to do on health care," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. At issue is
overhauling a health care system beset by spiraling costs while leaving 46 million Americans uninsured.
The House and Senate are considering Democratic proposals that would create a government-funded
public health insurance option to compete with private insurers blamed for driving up costs. A fiscally
conservative House Democrat said Tuesday he reached a verbal agreement with Obama and House
Democratic leaders on reducing costs of health care reform legislation.
August deadlines are gone.
US NEWS 7-22-2009 “Political Bulletin” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090722.htm
August Healthcare Deadline May Be Dead ABC World News reported, "White House officials have
backed off their August deadline" for healthcare reform, "which they now say was a way to poke and
prod Congress to act." NBC Nightly News also said the August deadline "is virtually gone. Expect to hear
the President talk about just trying to get the committee work done by the August recess." Likewise,
McClatchy reports, "Democratic leaders expressed doubts Tuesday that they can meet the deadline."
Senate leader Harry Reid, for example, said, "The goal is not deadlines; the goal is comprehensive health
care reform. Not piecemeal health care reform, comprehensive health care reform."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
106
***HEALTH CARE INTERNALS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
107
Capital key to health care
**Obama’s capital is key to get health care
Ceci Connely, Washington Post Staff Writer, 7-14-2009
President Obama returned to domestic affairs yesterday after a weeklong overseas tour with a warning for skeptics
of his stalled health-care overhaul: "Don't bet against us." The tough talk in the Rose Garden gave way hours later
to behind-the-scenes Lyndon B. Johnson-style lobbying, as Obama pledged in a pair of private meetings with
Democratic lawmakers to stake his political capital on this year's top agenda item. "I just want to put everybody on
notice because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone," he said. "Inaction is not an option."
Despite Obama's forceful reengagement, congressional Democrats continued to struggle last night to finalize details
of legislation aimed at overhauling the nation's health-care system. House leaders wrangled with rank-and-file members
over plans to pay for expanded insurance coverage by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. At the White House session,
Senate leaders came under fire for a slipping timetable that may make it difficult to meet Obama's deadline for floor action by the
August recess. "The urgency barometer is up," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said after the
meeting. Obama conveyed to the Senate leaders that he still expects the committee to begin action next week, two Democratic
sources said. The legislative tussles spoke to the daunting challenge of remaking a health system that consumes $1 out of every
$6 spent in the country and illustrated why many reform advocates have been clamoring for Obama, who has studied the Johnson
model, to dive deeper into the high-stakes battle. Members understand this is really the centerpiece to the president's
agenda. They understand he values their input and their concerns," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who spent
three days last week listening to House colleagues catalog their questions, fears and gripes about the proposed bill.
"Now that health care's front and center in both the House and Senate, he should have even more of an impact." In
sessions with Democrats, Obama and his advisers remind lawmakers that the defeat of President Bill Clinton's health-care
overhaul spelled electoral disaster for the party in 1994, costing Democrats control of both the House and Senate. "Behind closed
doors, he essentially says: If this sinks, we will have trouble in 2010," said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at the moderate
Third Way think tank. "If this goes down, they will lose a whole lot of momentum on everything else. Clinton's whole agenda
went down" after the reform's defeat. In mapping its strategy, the Obama team chose to take its cues from another Democratic
senator-turned-president: following the legislative model employed by Johnson to enact Medicare in 1965. "There are two
qualities these presidents have in common," said White House senior adviser David Axelrod. Like Obama, Johnson "had a big
vision and drove the country toward it, and second, he had a great appreciation for the legislative process." Early on, Obama and
health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle discussed the parallels with Johnson and creation of the health program that serves 45 million
seniors and people with disabilities today. Just as Johnson gave legendary lawmaker Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.) latitude to craft the
Medicare bill, Obama has asked Congress to write the health-care revamp legislation. And just as Johnson was known for his
powers of personal persuasion, Obama, a former senator himself, has assiduously cultivated and cajoled lawmakers.
"He becomes Lyndon Johnson in a more graceful form but just as steely," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). "Obama
isn't a toucher" like Johnson, Rockefeller said, "it's just intellect, this sort of streaming knowledge and a deep voice that never
seems to get weary. It's clear he has to have this." Obama devotes at least one hour a day to health care, often studying briefing
memos about individual lawmakers and their pet issues, said one White House aide. The topic is woven into most of his public
appearances, as he "makes the case that inaction has disastrous implications for the future," Axelrod said. In private meetings or
phone calls with legislators, Obama "has an easy familiarity," said DeParle, who often joins the sessions. "He has a way of
getting right to the heart of the matter. He's pushing and prodding and giving no ground." When the president leans
back in his chair, flashing a broad smile, "he is very persuasive," she said. After he listens to lawmakers' concerns,
he often replies: "There's no reason to delay." As a reminder of the blueprint they have settled on, DeParle keeps a
Johnson quotation under glass on her desk, just above the keyboard. It reads: "There is but one way for a president
to deal with the Congress, and that is continuously, incessantly, and without interruption." Obama has lavished
attention on moderate GOP senators such as Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), who
provide the seal of bipartisanship he covets. His message to Snowe, like many others, is that "this is his highest
domestic priority, and he wants to get it accomplished and done this year," she said. "I indicated to him it was
important to be flexible on the time frame and on trying to draft the substance of legislative policy." Snowe and
Rockefeller praised Obama for his deference to the legislative branch, but both signaled he may soon have to wade
into the messier details of the bill. "At some point, the president's going to have to play a pivotal role in shaping
what happens," Snowe said. "It is crucial." On Capitol Hill, conservative House Democrats are pushing back against
a graduated surtax on incomes exceeding $350,000 a year, saying the plan would unduly increase the highest
marginal tax rate. Many senators expressed a distaste for any tax increase for the wealthy. Obama appeared
undeterred. "I understand people are a little nervous and a little scared about making change," he said. "The muscles
in this town to bring about big changes are a little atrophied, but we're whipping folks back into shape."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
108
Capital key to health care
Political capital key to health care – failure to get full support now kills momentum
Chris Frates, Staff Writer for Politico, 7/2/2009 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24479.html //ZE)
President Barack Obama told top congressional Democrats Thursday that he was putting his political capital
behind health care reform and reminded them that it was crucial for both chambers to pass legislation this month,
according to three sources familiar with the conversation. The mid-afternoon conference call with the nation's top
Democrats came as Obama prepares to leave the country next week to attend the G-8 summit and served as a
reminder that Congress cannot let momentum slow. Obama acknowledged that the House and Senate would likely
pass strikingly different bills. "Obama made a very firm pitch that they need to get the bills out of the House and
Senate, and we'll worry about the details in September," said a health care insider.
Obama’s political capital key for compromises on health care.
Michael Krebs, 7-19-2009 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276207
After the Congressional Budget Office warned that the health care plans in Congress would hurt the economy - and
many legislators, including Democrats, have kept their distance - Obama is planning a major public offensive. The
sense in Washington is that the next two weeks are critical for President Obama's health care reform package and for
Obama's political currency in general. The White House realizes this and has decided to put President Obama on the
offensive, with aggressive plans to reach out to the public in a major blitz that will include a prime time news
conference on the matter. "With skepticism about the president's health-care reform effort mounting on Capitol Hill
-- even within his own party -- the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to dramatically
increase public pressure on Congress: all Obama, all the time," the Washington Post reported on Sunday. Plans
include an internet video for amplification beyond traditional media, outreach to the private sector, and major
televised appearances. "Our strategy has been to allow this process to advance to the point where it made sense for
the president to take the baton. Now's that time," senior adviser David Axelrod told the Washington Post. "I don't
know whether he will Twitter or tweet. But he's going to be very, very visible." Conservative Democrats are
promising to vote against the health care reform plans as they currently stand, and President Obama is facing
considerable pressure from the Senate to reverse plans to implement taxes on employer-provided medical coverage.
It is becoming more and more apparent that Obama will have to make significant compromises with lawmakers.
President Obama has been adamant about pursuing a timetable that demands closure on the health care bill before
the August recess. Congress has been increasingly vocal in saying that Obama's demands are not realistic. Placing
Obama on the front lines carries huge risks for the president. If he fails to convince a legislative body that is
controlled by Democrats, he will have to explain his failure publicly.
Political capital key to resolve intra-party battles
AP 6/29/2009 (Associated Press. “Analysis: Obama Scores Major Victory on Climate.” Lexis. //ZE)
It was a win Obama certainly needed. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and already health
care was hanging in the balance. While his popularity remains strong, Obama's overall ratings have slipped a bit.
This restive nation also is wary of some of his proposals, including deficit spending as Obama pumps an enormous
amount of money into the economy and elsewhere. The narrow House vote suggests potential trouble ahead with
the Democratic rank-and-file as the White House seeks to tackle more big-ticket issues in Obama's first year in
office; health care tops the list. As Congress tackles that contentious issue, Obama's left flank is beating up him and
his allies over the effort to overhaul the costly and complex U.S. medical system. Moderate Democrats are looking
to forge compromises to pass a measure; liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in any legislation.
Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government program to compete
against private insurers. Democrats have a comfortable House majority. But the climate legislation pitted
Democrats who represent East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Midwest
and other places that rely heavily on coal and industry. They have a longer, more expensive path to meet
requirements in the measure. Senate passage is far from certain, given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to
cut off a likely filibuster. Obama's personal touch and another dose of his political capital will be required again.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
109
Capital key to health care
Obama’s political capital is key to get funding for health care
John Mercurio, 7-15, 2009 http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ps_20090715_6922.php
Like a father frustrated with children who stayed up too late and didn't do their homework, President Obama
returned last weekend from a weeklong overseas trip, threw down his luggage and stormed back into a health
care debate that now threatens to derail his top domestic priority, drain his political capital and upend the
2010 midterm landscape. "Don't bet against us," Obama said Monday in the Rose Garden. "We are going to
make this thing happen." But later, Politico reported, the president joked with congressional Democrats in a
closed-door meeting that he'd campaign next year for a key Senate Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, if
he'd endorse a Democratic health care plan. Attacks from the newly revitalized GOP already are having an
effect on conservative Democrats, who could ensure that the House health care plan goes down in flames. In
the first real sign of struggle for this young administration, Democrats are increasingly worried that the
recession, which propelled Obama into office and bolstered their congressional majorities, now could bury
their biggest priority -- comprehensive health care reform. On the same day Obama issued his Rose Garden
rallying cry, his own administration placed a huge obstacle in his path, announcing that the deficit through
the first nine months of this budget year hit a milestone in June, topping $1 trillion for the first time ever.
That news didn't stop House Democrats, who on Tuesday unveiled a 1,000-page bill that would create a new
surtax on households making at least $350,000 a year. The new taxes would raise around $540 billion over
10 years while enabling Obama to keep his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those making $250,000 a
year or less. Still, that's only enough to pay for half of the health care plan. And it provides more than enough
fodder for Republicans to use over the August recess in TV and radio ads attacking Democrats in competitive
districts and states as tax-and-spend liberals who want to create a government-run health care system. In fact,
Republicans have already started framing the debate. On Tuesday, GOP aides noted that Obama, while
praising the House Democrats' overall plan in a statement, made no mention of tax hikes. "Seems like a
pretty solid indication that House Democrats are going to get BTU-ed by their liberal leadership yet again,"
said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, referring to a controversial vote
on a 1993 energy bill that cost many conservative Democrats their House seats the following year. "They'll
vote for a massive, job-killing tax hike (like the 'cap n' trade' national energy tax) only to watch the Senate
and White House ignore it. I wonder if they trust Lucy every time she offers to hold the football, too." As
polls show, Democratic leaders are increasingly on the defensive. A new CBS News survey shows Obama's
popularity down 11 percentage points since late April, and voters' opinion of his economic performance is
down 9 points in the last month. Attacks from the newly revitalized GOP already are having an effect on
conservative Democrats, who, if they remain united in opposing the House plan, could ensure that it goes
down in flames. That is, unless Obama decides to act more aggressively -- a call being made with increasing
degrees of urgency from his allies in Congress. "At some point, the White House is going to have to weigh
in," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Bloomberg News. "The heavy lifting will come when we get to the pay
portion. That's when the White House is going to have to spend some political capital." So far, however, the
White House apparently prefers to let Congress get its hands dirty. Asked in the Rose Garden on Monday
whether the White House should take a more prominent role in a debate he considers a defining priority for
his first term, Obama paused and smiled. "We're going to get this done," he said before walking back into the
Oval Office. If he does, it will be a crowning achievement for the president and his party. If he does not, the
debate will have exposed a series of rifts that could be difficult for Democrats to heal in the 16 months before
they again face voters.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
110
Capital key to health care
Obama’s political capital is key to effective health care, but now is key.
Robert J. Wilde Anderson 7-17-2009
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2009/jul/17/what-kind-health-care-reform-can-public-expect/
OK, so the “single-payer” option is off the table. But what is on the table? A “public plan” as part of a
competitive exchange? “Voluntary” cost- and premium-reductions over the next decade on the part of
hospitals and pharmaceutical companies? “Shared responsibility” of a worker tax on the health-care
premiums paid by employers? Exactly who will be covered? Everyone, most everyone, legal and/or
illegal immigrants? The principles President Barack Obama set out from the beginning of this reform
effort are affordability, quality care and inclusiveness. To date, the president has not been out front in
setting a bottom line of what he will or will not accept in the reform bill. Meanwhile, behind the scenes
all the proposals, deals and compromises are being fought out among Congress, lobbyists and the publicinterest sectors. The president said that he wants Congress to take the lead in working on the bill with
input from various agencies of his administration. However, the longer he waits before setting his bottom
line, the weaker the final bill will be, and it may not deserve the name of “health-care reform” at all.
When will the president state where he stands and then use his oratory skills and political capital to insure
that the bill embodies the principles he has set out from the beginning?
Political capital is key for healthcare, but time is running out.
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau 7-12-2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/12/MN5G18LOCK.DTL
As President Obama's first signature achievement, touted as not only promoting recovery but laying a
new economic foundation, the stimulus is drawing fierce GOP attack, stirring agitation on the left for a
second stimulus and sowing doubts about Obama's credibility on health care reform and energy.
Nationwide, unemployment has reached 9.5 percent and is headed higher. Terrible job losses in June
were followed Friday by a report of plunging consumer sentiment. Obama said the stimulus would "save
or create" 4 million jobs, but 6.5 million have been lost since the recession began 19 months ago. The
political landscape has shifted since winter, with the financial crisis supplanted by worries about
staggering federal debt. Democrats are hard-put to find more than $1 trillion to overhaul health care.
Political capital and legislative time for health care and climate change bills are growing scarce. Pelosi
quashed a second stimulus Thursday. "We have much more to gain from seeing through the first
stimulus," she said.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
111
Capital key to health care
Obama is using his political capital on healthcare, having enough is crucial to passage.
KHN, 7-22-2009 – Kaiser Health News http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/July/22/WedAdmin.aspx
President Barack Obama prepares his primetime address for tonight as he ups the ante for reform. This week alone,
Obama has visited two hospitals, made a trip to Cleveland for a town-hall meeting and conducted a conference call
urging bloggers to motivate their followers. Such efforts come amid increasing difficulties and roadblocks set by the
GOP as health care bills stall in Congress. The Wall Street Journal reports: "President Barack Obama is significantly
raising his personal stake in the effort to overhaul America's health-care system, as Democrats and the public
express growing unease about the costs. After weeks of allowing allies in Congress to shape the emerging bills, the
White House signaled its intention to start spending more of Mr. Obama's political capital. 'We're going to have to
wade in a little deeper into the nitty-gritty to keep the process going,' White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
said in an interview. 'We know that and accept that.'" The Journal reports: "On Tuesday -- exactly six months into
his presidency – Mr .Obama did just that, diving into an intraparty dispute over the cost of health-care legislation in
a long meeting with conservative Democrats. And for the eighth time in nine days, the president delivered an
impassioned pitch for Congress to pass an ambitious bill, urging lawmakers to 'insist that this time it will be
different.' Mr. Obama plans a prime-time news conference Wednesday as well. Mr. Obama's intense personal
involvement reflects the enormous political importance of the health debate. His Republican opponents are making
no secret of their hope that defeating the plan would undermine the rest of the Obama agenda this year -- including
his effort to enact an energy bill to combat greenhouse gases -- and would make next year's midterm election
outlook far more promising for Republicans than the party expected just a few months ago." The Journal reports:
"Mr. Obama has faced criticism from some quarters for being too removed from the health debate, and he may have
little choice but to get more deeply involved. Core Obama supporters still are clamoring for passage of legislation by
August, and House leaders signaled yesterday that they will attempt to hold a vote there by the end of this month.
Yet polls show growing doubts among Americans about the effort, and conservative Democrats in the House are
pushing for more cost-containment provisions and protesting the current House plan to finance the effort with about
$500 billion of taxes on the wealthy" (Meckler, Weisman, Seib, 7/22). The Los Angeles Times reports that Obama
urges action, not just politics, on health care: "Urging lawmakers to move quickly to overhaul American healthcare,
President Obama on Tuesday criticized the 'politics of the moment' and said some in Congress were trying to put off
decisions on legislation 'until special interests can kill it.' Speaking to reporters in the White House Rose Garden,
Obama said: 'We can choose to follow that playbook again, and then we'll never get over the goal line. Or we can
come together and insist that this time it will be different. We can choose action over inaction.'" The Los Angeles
Times notes: "A poll released Tuesday provided a sense of the battle Obama is facing. By 50% to 44%, Americans
disapprove of how the president is handling healthcare policy, the USA Today/Gallup poll found" (Parsons, 7/22).
The Boston Globe reports that Obama will court health plan skeptics tonight. "The president's allies in Congress...
want Obama to reassure the nation that the healthcare legislation will save families money, not cost them higher
taxes, and that it will improve the nation's long-term economic outlook rather than add to mounting deficits. ... The
political difficulty Obama and his party face is similar to the last time a major healthcare overhaul was tried, in 1993
and 1994. Then, as now, a majority of Americans already had health insurance, and they were more interested in
having their costs reduced than they were in extending coverage to the uninsured, the legislation's most widely
understood goal. Fast forward to 2009: Middle-class sentiment is similar, and voters again fear getting stuck with the
$1 trillion tab." According to the Globe, American's fears "are compounded by rising unemployment, escalating
federal deficits, and healthcare inflation that is devouring workers' wages. Republican leaders are doing their best to
stoke fears about the costs, keenly aware that after President Clinton lost his healthcare fight in 1994, the GOP made
enormous gains in the midterm elections and regained control of the House for the first time in 40 years"
(Wangness, 7/22).On CBS, Obama also talked to Katie Couric about health care reform, Blue Dog Democrats and
illegal immigrants (7/21). Several news outlets report on Obama's reaction to legislative delays. The AP reports:
"President Barack Obama may have to settle for a fallback strategy on health care overhaul" (Alonso-Zaldivar,
7/22). Meanwhile, NPR reports: "President Obama tried Tuesday to create momentum for overhauling the nation's
health care system, saying Congress is closing in on a plan that will provide care to all Americans" (Tedford, 7/21).
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
112
Capital key to health care – Dems
**Obama needs capital to bring the Democrats in line
Christi Parsons and Noam N. Levey | Tribune Newspaper 7-21, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-obama-health-0720-0721jul21,0,1958021.story
WASHINGTON - -- President Barack Obama is becoming more personally invested in rallying the public and
Congress behind an overhaul of the U.S. health care system, even as some Republicans raise the stakes in the debate
by claiming that defeating the president's plan would undermine his presidency. Leaving little doubt that his
popularity and political capital are on the line, Obama has scheduled a stream of public appearances this week to
push his top domestic priority, including television interviews, a town hall meeting and a prime-time news
conference set for Wednesday. At the same time, the president and his senior aides are intensifying their efforts to
prod, cajole and comfort congressional Democrats nervous about the escalating battle. On Monday, the president
began by criticizing Republicans for putting politics ahead of what he called a national problem. During an
afternoon trip to a local children's hospital, Obama seized on a recent statement by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who
said health care could prove to be the president's undoing. Just the other day, one Republican senator said -- and I'm
quoting him now -- 'If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,' " Obama told
reporters "Think about that," he said. "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care
system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy." The
political peril is highlighted by a new poll suggesting that public approval of Obama's work on health care has
dropped below 50 percent for the first time. Though the Washington Post/ABC poll found that a majority of
respondents supported the chief elements of the plan put forth by House Democrats, the research also suggests that
those voicing strong support and those in strong opposition were about equal. Critics smell opportunity. Republican
National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Monday went after Obama in a harshly critical evaluation of his
health care initiative, at one point affirming DeMint's comparison with the defeat that ended Napoleon Bonaparte's
reign as emperor of France. Nevertheless, the White House shows signs of doubling down on health care reform
with a strategy first developed on the campaign trail last year and honed in the early legislative battles of his
presidency. Obama will use the bully pulpit to talk directly to Americans, and to present the message with his own
personal flair. The fate of Obama's health care agenda hinges on the president's ability to rally enough Democrats to
push legislation through the House and Senate. Though the legislative campaign is still in its early stages, that is
emerging as a major challenge. Many congressional Democrats are growing increasingly uneasy about criticism
from industry groups and others, including the Congressional Budget Office, that the bills developed in the House
and the Senate do not do enough to control health care spending. A bloc of centrist "Blue Dog" Democrats in the
House have warned they may fight a provision in the current bill to create a new government insurance plan to offer
Americans an alternative to private insurers. Freshman House Democrats are expressing concerns about provisions
in the House bill to raise taxes on the wealthy. And in the Senate, centrist Democrats and Republicans have urged a
slower pace in developing legislation. Obama has privately prodded senior Democratic leaders to keep legislation
moving, a message he reinforced repeatedly last week in conversations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,
and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., according to aides briefed on the talks. And last week the
administration went one more step, for the first time suggesting specific health care legislation, a move Obama had
resisted.
Obama stepping in and political capital key.
CNN 7-22-2009 “Obama: Efforts to delay healthcare a political ploy”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/health.reform/index.html
A senior Democratic congressional source told CNN that members of the president's own party are frustrated over
not getting more specific direction from him on health care. "We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to
ratchet up the pressure, but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is the president to weigh in and make
decisions on outstanding issues," the source -- who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely about private
Democratic feelings about the president -- told CNN. "Instead of sending out his people and saying the president
isn't ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support -- especially on how to
pay for his health reform bill."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
113
Capital key to health care – public
Political capital key to get public on board which is key to passage.
FOX News 7-22-2009 “President Obama Uses Magnetism, Political Capital to push healthcare bill”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capital-push-health-care/
President Obama is spending his considerable political capital and using his personal magnetism
Wednesday in a prime-time appeal to Americans on the virtues of the 10-year, $1 trillion-plus health care
reform package big-footing its way through Congress. Swaying public opinion would go a long way
toward convincing resistant lawmakers that a massive health care reform bill is vital and needed
immediately. The task could be a heavy lift for the president, who so far is getting little love from either
voters or Congress. Causes for hesitation include, among other issues, the massive price tag, the number
of people covered, the elimination of insurance options, the fear of long lines and inability to access
physicians, the increase in taxes to pay for it and concern that the 1,000-page bill is not being vetted
enough as it is moves quickly through Congress. Previewing his 8 p.m. ET press conference, the
president told CBS in an interview that aired Tuesday morning that the country needs a reform bill
immediately to stem the rising costs of health care. He defended himself against claims that the bill is
being hustled through without proper consideration. "We've been studying this ad infinitum. Starting in
November after my election, a lot of members of Congress, including the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Max Baucus, started meeting and working through ideas," Obama said. "So we've actually
been working on this for a good solid nine months now." Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed weeks
ago that the House would vote by the end of July on the legislation to meet the goals established by
Obama months ago. Still, the pace of movement is concerning both Democrats and Republicans alike.
"No one wants to tell the speaker that she's moving too fast and they damn sure don't want to tell the
president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a key committee chairman, told a fellow lawmaker as the two
walked into a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. The remark was overheard by reporters. "If we don't put
the brakes on the president, he's going to break our country right now," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told
FOX News. "And the last time we let him ram something through Congress, we ended up with this
catastrophic stimulus failure that's hurting our jobs and mortgaging our future. And now he's trying to
push this trillion-dollar health care bill through in two weeks, before we go home on the August break.
And we've got to slow him down." Adding to the suspicions about the bill are reports of a meeting held at
the White House with a group that included Congressional Budget Office Director Dougles Elmendorf,
who upset Democratic supporters of the plan by putting the $1 trillion-plus price tag on it, sending shock
waves through Washington and beyond. It's very unusual for the CBO director, who is appointed by the
majority party to serve as the official numbers cruncher, to go to the White House, and Elmendorf's visit
raised questions about whether he was being pressured to revise his dire analysis.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
114
Capital key to health care – momentum
Obama pushing, but delay kills bill.
Kent Garber 7-21-2009 “Obama, Democrats Push Ahead on Healthcare”
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/07/21/obama-democrats-push-ahead-on-healthcare.html
For weeks there had been hiccups, angry tweets, warnings of doom, and exhortations from the White
House for Congress to move on healthcare reform. Then came last week, which will most likely be
looked back on as a pivotal moment in this year's debate, regardless of its final outcome. First there was
progress of a sort, if only because Democrats finally dropped the charade of seeking a bipartisan bill and
pushed ahead on their own. And yet by week's end, in a show of how quickly things can change in
Washington, their momentum had all but vanished. It was only a week ago, in fact, that House leaders
unveiled their bill, complete with a government-run insurance plan, amid a gaggle of collegial smiles.
The next day, in the room where lawmakers once held hearings to examine the sinking of the Titanic,
Democrats on the Senate Health Committee pledged not to let healthcare sink the country and approved
their own bill along party lines. Applauding the effort was President Obama, who told critics not to bet
against him. "He's willing to expend every bit of political capital he has to achieve reform of the
healthcare system of this country," said Sen. Chris Dodd. After much hand-wringing over whether reform
could get done before the August recess, Democrats last week said they were back on track and would, if
necessary, forgo summer trips to the beach so that Americans don't have to keep paying for trips to the
hospital by the uninsured. "We cannot put it off again," said Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the Energy
and Commerce committee, the last of three House committees that must now approve the bill. But the
past five days have surely tested that resolve. Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office said the
House bill would not control the country's rising healthcare spending. Moderate and conservative House
Democrats revolted. A group of centrist senators sent a letter to the White House, urging the president to
slow down. By Friday afternoon, a tired-looking Obama gave a brief speech from the White House
urging politicians not to lose track of the bigger picture. Waxman, dubbed "legislative maestro" by House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, now has some serious harmonizing to do this week. There is much disagreement
on his committee between progressive Democrats and fiscally conservative "blue dog" Democrats about
what reform should contain and how to prevent small businesses from being penalized by new fees.
According to estimates, the House bill would cost more than $1 trillion, mostly to help pay for subsidies
that would expand insurance to about 97 percent of Americans. But blue dogs say the bill doesn't do
enough to make care cheaper. That view is shared by Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas
Elmendorf, who testified last week that the bill does not provide the "sort of fundamental changes"
needed to curb federal spending. The 52 blue dogs have the power to force party leadership to listen. The
bill only narrowly passed two committees last week, and Waxman's committee has 36 Democrats, eight
of whom are blue dogs. If those eight, plus the Republican members, vote against the bill—a
possibility—it will fail. "The bill doesn't satisfy everyone," Rep. Pete Stark, who chairs an influential
health subcommittee, said last week. "For progressives, it isn't single payer. For my friends on the right, it
has the audacity to include a public health insurance option." Nonetheless, he said, "this bill will be one
of the most important votes any of my colleagues will take in Congress." Obama, recognizing the need to
get more involved to avoid failure in the House, summoned Democrats on the Energy and Commerce
Committee to the White House today. Then there's the Senate. The House would raise money for its plan
with a tax on incomes above $280,000. After some House Democrats balked at that figure, Pelosi this
week suggested raising it to $500,000. Several Democratic senators have already said that just won't fly
in their chamber. Meanwhile, Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is still trying to
work out a bipartisan deal behind closed doors.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
115
Focus key to health care
***Exclusive focus on healthcare key now and to passage.
NYT 7-22-2009, “Battle over health care leaves blood in the water for climate bill”
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/22/22climatewire-battle-over-health-care-leaves-blood-in-the61585.html?pagewanted=1
Going forward, some senators say the White House will be instrumental in deciding which bill should
have the top billing. "I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and
spending their political capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive
push on health care. Will they split their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and
some folks on climate change? I don't think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose." David
Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, insisted in a June interview that there is no competition between
the two top-tier items. "Obviously, health care is in high gear right now, and we want to move that
forward," he said. "But both of these are going to have a lasting impact on our future competitiveness, on
our future as a country. So they're two valued children. We're not going to put one above the other." But
Obama and his Democratic allies have had to make decisions about which bill to move on first. In the
House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went with climate. She scored a nail-biter of a floor victory last
month that required help from eight Republicans while forcing some of her own moderates to take
difficult votes. Indeed, many in the Democratic caucus wanted Pelosi to start first with health care,
arguing that it remains a higher priority for the American public. "I think it's the wrong time for a cap and
trade," Rep. Artur Davis, a candidate for Alabama governor in 2010, told E&E in May. "I think health
care is achievable. It's doable. And when I move around my district, and my state, and people ask me
what is Congress going to do to fix health care. They don't frankly ask me what Congress is going to do
to fix climate change."
Focus is critical for healthcare – new agenda items undermine healthcare reform.
John Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress, 7-21-2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/
Focus: Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. But focus is essential to achieving results.
Presidential focus quite often moves off the domestic agenda and into the wider world of diplomacy. But
that can spell greater political danger for a president and his party. George H.W. Bush spent most of his
presidency winning a war against Iraq and successfully concluded the Cold War conflict with the Soviet
Union. But neither of those foreign policy successes helped him win re-election. His son, George W.
Bush, understood that he had to keep a tight focus on the economy and one big domestic policy item
(education), and while the war on terror did end up dominating his presidency, Bush never forgot to focus
on his domestic achievements. The biggest danger to President Obama is not just foreign entanglements,
it is also competing domestic priorities that threaten to undermine his ability to get big things done. For
example, the House vote on cap and trade has made it very hard for conservative and moderate
Democrats to join with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a more important health care bill. After the cap and
trade vote, opponents deluged the offices of centrist House Democrats with loud complaints about the
costs of the energy bill, and according to media reports, that has made these critical members even more
nervous about the budget ramifications of the health care reform package being pushed by the president.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
116
Focus key to health care
Spending capital elsewhere makes health care reform impossible
John Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress, 7-21-2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/
Time: The legislative calendar is simply not that long. A new administration has a little less than a year to
pass its big-ticket items, mostly because it is very hard to get major initiatives done in an election year.
Take away the three months it takes to hire key staff, a couple of months for the various congressional
recesses, and you have about six months to really legislate. Since Congress is supposed to use some time
to pass its annual spending bills (there are 12 that need to be passed each year, not counting supplemental
spending bills), time for big initiatives is actually very limited. Each day the president takes time to travel
overseas or to throw out the first pitch at an All Star game, he is taking time away from making contacts
with legislators whose support is crucial for the president's agenda. Time is not a limitless resource on
Capitol Hill. Political capital: A president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever
get (barring a war or some other calamity that brings the country together), which is why most presidents
try to pass as much as possible as early as possible in their administrations. The most famous example of
that was Franklin Roosevelt's Hundred Days. But there are other examples. Ronald Reagan moved his
agenda very early in his administration, George Bush passed his tax proposals and the No Child Left
Behind law very early in his White House. They understood the principle that it is important to strike
while the iron is hot. President Bush famously misunderstood this principle when he said that he was
going to use the "political capital" gained in his re-election to pass Social Security reform. What he failed
to understand was that as soon as he won re-election, he was a lame duck in the eyes of the Congress, and
he had no political capital. President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does.
But each day he is in office, his political capital reserve is declining. And each time he goes to the well to
pass things like "cap and trade" makes it more difficult for him to pass his more important priorities like
health care.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
117
Spending kills health care
Increased spending kills health care reform
John Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress, 7-21-2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/
As the president moves forward on his ambitious legislative agenda, it might seem as if he is entering
"The Matrix," a surreal world that only has the vaguest connection to real life. And, indeed, the Congress
has its own rules that make quick legislative action, no matter how popular with the American people,
hard to achieve. The Obama agenda is breathtaking in its scope and eye-popping in its cost. He seeks to
completely recast the health care, energy, financial services and automobile sectors of this country, as he
seeks to make the tax code more progressive, retirement programs more sustainable, and the immigration
system more welcoming to immigrants. And he also wants to stimulate the economy and get us out of
what some people are calling the "Great Recession." But can it all get done, and in a form that makes his
political base happy? The president insists that he can get this all done, and his chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, has implied that the financial crisis has actually given the White House more momentum to get
it all done. But history tells a different story. Congress has its own code, and cracking that code usually
means taking into account five different factors. These five factors are: Money: It may seem trite, but the
biggest factor in determining the size and scope of a legislative agenda is how much money -- and more
importantly, the perception of how much money -- is available for the government to use. Bill Clinton's
legislative agenda was necessarily limited because his budget constraints made it difficult to spend money
on big things. George Bush, who inherited a fairly large budget surplus, had money to burn, which
allowed him to pass a prescription drug benefit. President Obama has no money, which means that if he
wants to pass a big new entitlement like a health care public option, he will have to make the Congress
take the painful step of raising a lot of taxes.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
118
Hyde link – kills health care
Allowing Medicaid money to go to abortions would crush support from anti-abortion
democrats who are key to healthcare passage.
CNN 7-22-2009 “Obama: Health care reform central to economic recovery”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/obama.health.care/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
White House aides say the administration is concerned about three centers of serious opposition from
House Democrats: the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are worried about the cost of a
public health care plan; the freshmen and other Democrats from high-income districts who are concerned
about taxes for high-income Democrats, and the anti-abortion Democrats who are concerned about
federal funding going for abortion services, and whether health care providers can opt out of certain
procedures. One official said the administration is aware that "if any of these three groups abandon the
effort the bill would be impossible to get out of committee, much less pass." Aides say the president and
lawmakers also discussed the public option versus a co-op option.
Allowing Medicaid to fund abortion results in opposition to healthcare because the current
healthcare reform is an expansion of Medicaid.
CNN 7-22-2009 “Anti-abortion congressmen take on healthcare legislation”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/health.care.abortion/index.html?iref=werecommend
The contentious health care reform debate intensified Wednesday as a bipartisan group of congressmen
opposed to abortion pledged to fight any bill that fails to exclude the procedure from the scope of
government-defined benefits. "This issue is not about party politics. It's not about obstructionism. It is
about saving lives and protecting pro-life Americans across the country," Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania,
said. "American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortion. Nor should they be forced to be
unwitting participants as the abortion industry uses [the health care debate] to mainstream the destruction
of human life into America's health care industry." The group argued that, under the current version of the
House Democratic leadership's bill, most Americans ultimately would be forced to participate in a plan
that covers abortion services. They complained that amendments specifying the exclusion of abortion
mandates and subsidies had already been rejected by two of the three House committees handling health
care legislation. "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion will [eventually] be determined to be included in
[the] benefits standards" by either Congress or the courts, Pitts predicted. He cited the example of
Medicaid, which federal courts ruled had to cover abortion services until Congress passed legislation
stating otherwise. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, warned that any comprehensive federal health care law
would pre-empt individual state decisions regarding abortion services "By making abortion an essential
benefit and requiring that provider networks' enrollees have access to the items and services covered, this
legislation would negate more than 200 individual laws in nearly every state that have stood the test of
time and the scrutiny of the courts," he claimed. Abortion rights advocates brushed aside the legislators'
concerns, asserting that the issue of whether or not to cover abortion services would, in the end, still be
decided by individual providers. "Reps. Stupak and Pitts are obsessed with abortion, even though the
health care bills don't reference abortion at all," said Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice
America. "At the end of the day, we expect that the plans will decide what services to cover -- just like
they do now."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
119
Popularity key to health care
Obama’s personal popularity is key to health care
FoxNews, 09
(FoxNews, 7/09, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capitalpush-health-care/)
President Obama is spending his considerable political capital and using his personal magnetism Wednesday in a
prime-time appeal to Americans on the virtues of the 10-year, $1 trillion-plus health care reform package big-footing
its way through Congress. Swaying public opinion would go a long way toward convincing resistant lawmakers that
a massive health care reform bill is vital and needed immediately. The task could be a heavy lift for the president,
who so far is getting little love from either voters or Congress despite talking about the topic 10 times over the past
10 days. Causes for hesitation include, among other issues, the massive price tag, the number of people covered, the
elimination of insurance options, the fear of long lines and inability to access physicians, the increase in taxes to pay
for it and concern that the 1,000-page bill is not being vetted enough as it is moves quickly through Congress.
Public opinion key to healthcare
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, 6-29-2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/health/policy/30health.html?ref=health
WASHINGTON — With Democrats deeply divided over health legislation, President Obama is trying to enlist the
nation’s governors and his own army of grass-roots supporters in a bid to increase pressure on lawmakers without
getting himself mired in the messy battle playing out on Capitol Hill. In a meeting last week with five governors —
including Republicans who may be more sympathetic to health legislation than those on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama
privately urged them to serve as his emissaries to Congress. He even coached them on the language they should use
with lawmakers, two of the governors said, advising them to avoid terms like “rationing” and “managed care,”
which evoke bitter memories of the Clintons’ ill-fated health initiative. The hourlong session in the Roosevelt Room
was part of an intensifying but potentially risky White House strategy to shift the health care debate away from
Washington and to the states. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama will travel to Virginia to hold a town-hall-style meeting
on health care — his second in two weeks — that will include questions from online communities like Facebook and
Twitter. With members of Congress back in their districts for the Fourth of July recess, Mr. Obama’s political group,
Organizing for America, has recruited thousands of supporters to participate in blood drives, raise money for
medical research and volunteer at community health clinics this week, all with the intent of sending reminders to
lawmakers that the public wants action on health care. “The main thing,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior
adviser, said, “is to involve as many people as possible and demonstrate in a variety of ways the level and degree of
intensity of support that this has.” Of Mr. Obama’s supporters, Mr. Axelrod said, “There’s no issue that motivates
them more than health care.” While this outside-the-Beltway strategy lets Mr. Obama stay out of Democrats’
internal fights — for now at least — there are risks. If Mr. Obama waits too long to exert his presidential muscle to
forge consensus on Capitol Hill, his moment of opportunity could pass. He could also lose control of the final
outcome if lawmakers cut backroom deals he dislikes, for example, by deciding to pay for the expansion by taxing
employee health benefits, a move that worries Mr. Obama’s political advisers because it could cause the president to break a
campaign promise. Some Democrats are privately pushing the president to do more to bring his party in line. When Rahm
Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went to Capitol Hill last week, the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada,
pressed for the president to intervene more directly to settle Democrats’ disputes over Mr. Obama’s call for a government-run
insurance plan to compete with the private sector, two people familiar with the session said. Mr. Emanuel, in an e-mail message,
acknowledged that some Democrats “wanted more direct and specific involvement,” but said others were happy with the
president’s level of engagement, adding, “We received a lot of advice.” Over the last several weeks, Mr. Obama has steadily
increased his contact with lawmakers on health care, even as he steers clear of specific policy disputes. He met
privately with Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and telephoned Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee to check
on their progress and urge them to stick to his timetable for a final bill to reach his desk in October. John D. Podesta, who ran Mr.
Obama’s transition to the presidency and consults closely with the administration on the health bill, predicted that the White
House would resist the urge to “knock heads and hammer consensus” at least until after the Finance Committee produced a bill,
sometime after the Fourth of July holiday. But if the panel, widely regarded as Mr. Obama’s best hope for a bipartisan measure,
gets stuck or further delayed, Mr. Podesta and other Democrats say, Mr. Obama will have to step in to broker a deal. “He’s the
president of the United States; he does have to lead and he will,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North
Dakota. “But he’s got to pick his spots.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
120
Bipart key to health care
Bipart is the crucial internal link for health care
CNN 7-21-2009 “Obama’s health care push met with pushback”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/obama.health.care/index.html
As President Obama steps up his push for health care reform, there is a growing effort to stop it, and
rising doubts about how Obama is handling the issue. The president said from the first day of his
administration that health care was a top domestic priority, and some observers say he's taking a risk in
addressing the nation through a primetime news conference Wednesday with little to show after months
of wrangling. Obama and top Democrats are seeking an overhaul to ensure that health insurance is
available to the 46 million Americans currently without coverage while preventing costs to both the
government and individuals from continuing to climb. Obama had set a deadline for passage of a bill
before the August congressional recess, but in an interview Monday with PBS' Jim Lehrer, the president
said that if Congress tells him it's "going to spill over by a few days or a week," that's fine. But the battle
over health care reform is weighed down by complex problems, competing interests, a $1 trillion price
tag, conservative Democrats in sticker shock and Republicans far from eager to sign on to the proposed
plans. Even among Democrats, there's no consensus. In the House, they want a surtax on the rich. In the
Senate, the Finance Committee chairman wants to tax health care benefits. And some conservative
Democrats are voicing concerns after a new budget analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office revealed the leading Democratic health plans will increase the debt and not provide the savings
Obama promised. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman canceled his
committee's health care markup for the day in order to continue negotiating behind closed doors with the
conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who don't think their party's bill does enough to cut medical costs.
Obama on Tuesday was scheduled to meet with Democrats on the committee, including some of the Blue
Dogs who are wary of the current proposals. Without a solid Democratic bloc, Obama will need
bipartisan support. Conservative Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard blog on Monday encouraged them to
resist: "With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their
criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let
the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound
reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of
weeks or months.
Obama needs moderate and republican support to keep political capital
Dionne, Washington Post staff writer, 09
(E.J. Dionne, Washington Post staff writer, 7/09, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901758.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
The numbers work Obama's way on other issues. Much was made of the 44 House Democrats who defected
from the president's position by opposing the cap-and-trade bill last month. The more important fact is that
Democrats have such a big majority that they could lose all those votes and still prevail, even if narrowly.
The same numbers give Speaker Nancy Pelosi significant room to maneuver in selling the House health-care
bill.
And with 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats can, in principle, work their will on health care without any
Republican support. Obama is bound to make compromises, partly to bring along moderate Democrats. But
the size of the Democrats' Senate majority means they won't be able to blame the Republicans if health
reform dies. This increases the pressure on moderate Democrats to get something done.
There is thus an irony to the game Obama must play. He will continue to speak in bipartisan terms to keep
open the possibility of picking off Republicans if they're needed -- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) already
seems inclined to work with him -- and because such an approach appeals to moderate Democrats whose
sensibilities he must soothe.
The open-to-the-other-side style also helps him hold support from political independents around the country.
He needs them to preserve his good approval ratings, which are themselves a form of political capital.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
121
Bipart key to health care
Bipartisan support needed
Jensen and Litvan, staff writers, 09
(Kristin Jensen and Laura Litvan, staff writers, 7/09,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqeBGYbfHaO0?
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, who has won three legislative victories in his bid to
overhaul the U.S. health-care system, is now ramping up pressure on the congressional panel that may
matter the most.
The Senate Finance Committee, which is seeking a bipartisan compromise, has failed to reach an
agreement even as two House committees and a Senate panel cleared their versions of the legislation with
only Democratic approval. Chairman Max Baucus said a deal will come this week at the earliest, a month
after he had planned to finish a draft and get a panel vote.
Obama and Democratic leaders are meeting resistance from both Republicans and members of their own
party over the more than $1 trillion cost of the legislation and how it would extend insurance coverage.
It’s unlikely they can pass a measure without bringing around some skeptics, making Baucus’s effort to
reach out to Republicans all the more critical.
“It needs to be on a bipartisan basis,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who met with
Obama at the White House on July 16. “If we work though this process over the next couple of weeks,
it’s possible that we could get something done.”
Obama, who has placed the issue at the top of his agenda, said failure isn’t an option. “We will reform
health care,” he told reporters at the White House on July 17. “It will happen this year.”
Bipart key to healthcare.
Kristin Jensen and Laura Litvan, Staff Writers, 7-20-2009
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqeBGYbfHaO0
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, who has won three legislative victories in his bid to
overhaul the U.S. health-care system, is now ramping up pressure on the congressional panel that may matter
the most. The Senate Finance Committee, which is seeking a bipartisan compromise, has failed to reach an
agreement even as two House committees and a Senate panel cleared their versions of the legislation with
only Democratic approval. Chairman Max Baucus said a deal will come this week at the earliest, a month
after he had planned to finish a draft and get a panel vote. Obama and Democratic leaders are meeting
resistance from both Republicans and members of their own party over the more than $1 trillion cost of the
legislation and how it would extend insurance coverage. It’s unlikely they can pass a measure without
bringing around some skeptics, making Baucus’s effort to reach out to Republicans all the more critical. “It
needs to be on a bipartisan basis,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who met with Obama at
the White House on July 16. “If we work though this process over the next couple of weeks, it’s possible that
we could get something done.” Obama, who has placed the issue at the top of his agenda, said failure isn’t
an option. “We will reform health care,” he told reporters at the White House on July 17. “It will happen this
year.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
122
Bipart key to health care
Bipartisanship key to healthcare reform.
Heidi Przybyla Bloomberg staff writer,7-17-2009
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHjwQOq9bQYg
Political Calculations It’s politically tough advice that underscores the peril Obama faces on health care. If
he sacrifices the public option, Obama risks a backlash from progressives in the Democratic Party like former
Vermont Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who recently
threatened to challenge the re- election of Democrats who don’t support the public option; and, if he allows
his self-imposed deadline to slip, he may risk even greater odds the entire initiative will implode as critics are
given more time to argue against it. Yet it is crucial for the legislation to be bipartisan, said Senator Kent
Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who sits on the Finance Committee. “For it to be sustainable in the long
term there’s got to be some measure of Republican support for this,” he said. The odds of crafting a bill with
broader Republican support already appear to be declining. Republican Position Republican Senators Bob
Corker of Tennessee, Collins of Maine, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska met at
the White House with Obama two days ago. Corker said he was not optimistic. “He agrees that in order for
us to achieve savings we’ve got to work through some delivery process issues that will stand the test of
time,” Corker said of Obama. “On the other hand, he’d rather pass something now than take the time to do
that,” said Corker. “He feels some incredible sense of urgency as it relates to his political capital to do
something right now even if mistakes are made.” Nelson said he cautioned the president that a vote on the
bill in August would probably be a mistake without more painstaking work to carve out cost savings. “I don’t
think the president’s anxious to accept that,” he said.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
123
Moderates/Blue Dogs key to health care
Blue dogs key – not supporting it now.
CNN 7-22-2009 “Obama: Efforts to delay healthcare a political ploy”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/health.reform/index.html
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, a member of the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats concerned about the high
cost of health care reform, said those at the meeting agreed to create an independent council to set health
care reimbursement rates as a way to hold down spiraling costs. The Blue Dog Democrats comprise
enough votes to defeat the health care bill at the committee level. Ross cautioned that his group also
wants other changes in the House bill, including raising the exemption for small businesses required to
provide health insurance to workers, and unspecified changes to a government-funded public health
insurance option in the bill. Despite the breakthrough, Democratic grumbling about Obama's handling of
health care reform is growing as prospects dim for passing bills in either the House or Senate before the
August recess.
Dissident democrats key to passage.
Michelle Levi 7-21-2009 “House Freshman : Taxes Are not Answer to Health Care
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5177492.shtml
Representative Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia) explained to CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday’s
"Washington Unplugged" why the tax increases in the House version of the health care bill give him (and
at least twenty two other freshman Democrats) pause. "Looking at a tax increase before we have rung out
every possible cost savings, I think is a mistake," he said. The portion of the House of Representatives'
1,018 page health care reform bill which Connolly and some other Democrats have questions oppose
states that individuals making over $280,000 and households making over $350,000 annually may see a
tax increase of up to 5.4 percent. Connolly represents the wealthy Fairfax district in northern Virginia. In
an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said that while the White House says the bill raises taxes for
just 1 percent of the U.S. population, 14 percent of the households in Connolly's district will be affected -and "they all vote." He defended those who would be taxed by the House plan, noting that many of those
considered "wealthy Americans" are small business owners and double-income families. "This isn't just
the super wealthy," he said. Connolly added that his constituents want to see health care reform but are
not convinced all other options have been explored. As president of the freshman class in the House,
Connolly has led a group of Democrats in questioning the tax portion of the bill and has received an
audience with President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Connolly said that the White
House wants to "preserve as much fluidity as possible so that they can inject themselves at the appropriate
time in the legislative process." Dissident Democrats have proven to House leaders that they have the
political capital to affect the bill, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said she would
consider increasing the threshold for those would see a tax increase. "She has been kind in listening to the
freshman," Connolly said. He added that he and most of his collegues want to find "a path of getting to
yes" in voting on the proposed legislation and urged insurance companies to find a way to contribute to
the cost of reforming the system.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
124
Moderates/Blue Dogs key to health care
Blue dog support key and opposed now.
BILL THEOBALD • Gannett Washington Bureau • 7-22, 2009
http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20090722/NEWS01/907220301/1002/Conservative-Dems-atcenter-of-healthcare-reform-debate
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Zack Space, along with several other conservative House Democrats, thrust
themselves into the middle of the health-care reform debate this week, blocking legislation drafted by their
own party's leadership. If the 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition remain united against the bill, they
could bar its passage in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and later in the full House. On
Tuesday, objections by Blue Dog members of the committee to the cost and other aspects of the health-care
bill prompted committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to delay discussing and amending the
legislation for at least a day. Also Tuesday, President Barack Obama met with all Democratic members of
the committee, including Space, of Dover. Eight of those Democrats are Blue Dogs. Seven of the eight -Space and Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Bart Gordon of Tennessee, Baron Hill of Indiana, Jim Matheson of
Utah, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana and Mike Ross of Arkansas -- said they have serious problems with the
bill's estimated $1 trillion cost over 10 years. "I and the rest of my Blue Dog Coalition ... are deeply
committed to fixing the health-care-delivery system," Space said in an interview Tuesday. "However, we
share some concerns about the bill that's been presented to us by leadership, specifically concerning cost
issues and the speed at which we are moving." Only one Blue Dog on the Energy and Commerce Committee
-- Rep. Jane Harman of California -- spoke in favor of the legislation. In a show of solidarity, the seven other
Blue Dogs on the panel read the same opening statement last week when the committee began discussing the
bill. "Our current system is riddled with inefficiencies and waste," the statement said. "We cannot fix these
problems by simply pouring more money into a broken system."
House democrats key to passage.
US NEWS 7-22-2009 “Political Bulletin” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090722.htm
Though President Obama again accused Republican lawmakers of blocking his healthcare initiative
yesterday, media commentators generally portrayed divisions within Democratic ranks as the biggest
obstacle to the President's reform -- and some cast the President as attacking his opponents. The
President, as ABC World News put it, yesterday "questioned the motives of those who oppose" his plan.
Obama was shown saying, "These opponents of reform would rather score political points than offer
relief to Americans who've seen premiums double and costs grow three times faster than wages." The
Financial Times reports Obama faces "his own Democrats divided and Republicans determined to kill
off" the "legislation before the congressional recess next month." However, "differences within the
Democratic party were emerging as" Obama's "main challenge." The CBS Evening News similarly
reported that the President is "facing tough opposition, and not just from Republicans." The AP reports
House Democrats "fear voting for a healthcare bill with tax increases." NBC Nightly News noted that
"the last time a US Congress had to vote to raise taxes -- that's what is going to happen here with
healthcare -- was in 1993."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
125
***IMPACTS
***ECONOMY
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
126
Health care key to economy – debt spirals
**Failure on health care reform collapses international support for holding US debt,
causing quick economic collapse
Michael Scherer, 2-23-09, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881223,00.html
As daunting as the obstacles to reform are, Obama is banking on a number of recent developments to allow
him to succeed where Bush and Clinton failed. For one, there is significant appetite in the Democratcontrolled Congress for providing more health care to the growing ranks of the uninsured. It's a campaign
promise that Obama made, which he now intends to pair with a demand to reduce long-term health-care
inflation in what some observers have called a grand bargain. "We would not do an expansion of health care
without a lot of savings," one high-level White House official told TIME last week. In practice, this will
mean giving uninsured Americans good news, while at the same time telling patients and health providers
that bad medicine is on the horizon. "Someone is going to have to tell people you are not going to get the
care you want," says Howard Gleckman, a research associate at the Urban Institute. "Covering the uninsured
is easy compared to that." The companies that depend on federal and state health largesse are already
mobilizing to fight back against spending reductions that could hurt their balance sheets. One industry front
group, called the Partnership to Improve Patient Care, mobilized last month to water down a House plan for
more than $1 billion in the stimulus bill to study the relative effectiveness of certain medical treatments, a
widely recognized first step in controlling costs. The provision passed, but not before its language was
changed to decouple the effort from evaluating the costs of competing treatments. In the meantime, other
provisions of the stimulus bill, like money for new health-information technologies and preventative disease
spending, have effectively jump-started the move to a more cost-contained health-care system. Early last
week, Obama made no secret of his pride in these measures, declaring at the bill signing in Denver, "We
have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health reform than this country has done in a decade."
The effort to reform Social Security, which is generally seen as a less complex problem, is likely to take a
backseat over the coming months to health-care efforts. This is partly because of resistance by many House
liberals to the idea of reducing Social Security benefits. This group includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
who was able to take over the reins in Congress in part because of the resentment caused by Bush's failed
reform effort. Although Administration officials don't like discussing the problem on the record, the White
House has not yet ruled out the idea of establishing an independent commission (outside the congressional
committee structure) to look at creating a specific reform plan, an approach supported by many experts as the
best way to break the political deadlock. Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper, a centrist Democrat,
recently discussed his proposal for such a commission during a White House meeting with Obama and other
moderate, so-called Blue Dog Democrats. "We have to approach the topic very gingerly," Cooper said in an
interview, noting the concerns of certain congressional leaders that they will lose jurisdiction with an
independent commission. "The key is going to be a required congressional vote, so we can't duck the
problem any longer." Perhaps the biggest advantage that Obama has as he prepares to tackle entitlement is
the financial crisis, which has forced everyone in Washington to focus on the nation's long-term fiscal
problems. The recent explosion of government spending to handle the banking collapse and housing crisis
has concerned nations like China, which buy government debt. A drop in international interest in U.S. debt
could lead to a spike in interest rates, which would have a damaging impact on the U.S. economy. On
Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Chinese leaders to continue their investments in U.S. debt.
"We are truly going to rise and fall together," she warned.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
127
Debt spiral impact short-term – signal
*Action to resolve entitlements sends a signal that prevents imminent collapse of US fiscal
credibility
J. D. Foster, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at Heritage, 1-31-09,
http://www.speroforum.com/a/17955/Obama-leading-world-into-debt-bubble
Take immediate action to reduce future spending in the major entitlement programs, especially Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security. President Obama has stated his intention to take action on these wildly
unsustainable programs. In the past, entitlement reforms have been couched in terms of improving the longterm fiscal picture. Taking action on these programs today by aligning tomorrow's promised benefits with
available resources would be another powerful signal to credit markets, thereby restoring the credibility of
United States government's fiscal policy and further relieving the upward pressure on interest rates.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
128
Health care key to economy – laundry list
***Health care saves the economy – costs killing business, state budgets, bankruptcy
Washington Post 7-18 (Micheal Fletcher, staff writer, July 18, 2009,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/18/obama_urges_congress_to_pass_h.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
President Obama urged Congress today to push past growing doubts and pass comprehensive health-care
reform package this year, saying that a better opportunity to remake the nation's health care system may not
arise for generations. The president urged lawmakers Friday to take bolder steps to achieve health-care
reform, and today in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama called reform essential not only to
expanding health care coverage to the 46 million Americans who lack it but also to restoring the nation's
economic stability. "This is an issue that affects the health and financial well-being of every single American
and the stability of our entire economy," Obama said. With the cost of health-care coverage rising at three
times the rate of wages in recent decades, Obama called the status quo in health care unsustainable. That
fast-increasing cost of health insurance is crippling businesses, which are finding it difficult to afford to
provide coverage. It is also placing a difficult burden on state and federal governments, who find increasing
shares of their budgets consumed by Medicaid and Medicare costs. In addition, individuals who lack
coverage frequently find themselves at risk of being thrown deep into debt by just one medical emergency.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
129
Health care key to economy – bankruptcy
**Healthcare ends cycle of foreclosure and saves the economy
Charles Haines 7-22-09 (writer for The Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/x-12581-St-Louis-LiberalExaminer~y2009m7d22-Health-care-part-1-quality-not-worth-the-price)
Those costs are wrecking peoples' lives and weighing down the economy. The figures available before the mortgage
collapse from a study published in the American Journal of Medicine indicated that medical costs were a factor in 62
percent of bankruptcies, and surprisingly, 78 percent of those were filed by people who had medical insurance
(indicating, BTW, that private health insurance is providing inadequate coverage at high costs). Nobody yet knows
how much these totals are adding to total bankruptcies now that the economy has become so much worse. The
damage from medical bankruptcies undermine the rest of the economy. It initially hits all other creditors outside of
health care who also have to eat the costs. Its effects, however, are lasting. Bankrupt people do not buy houses or
cars at the same rate others do, and even getting an apartment might be difficult. They live with diminished
consumer spending. It takes them 14 years on average to catch up to the non-bankrupt's net income. They are less
likely to have retirement funds or savings which would provide capital for banks. Those are just the bankruptcies.
Since former-President George W. Bush made declaring bankruptcy much more difficult, many more families
would be limping along live in an impoverished financial state with even less hope for recovery. In theory, medical
care is available to all, but at very high prices, and of course, if the patient gets treatment and cannot pay, almost
surely they will still be responsible for the bill. Those unpaid bills often end up in collection and wreck people's
credit. They are not going to be buying houses or cars either. According to a report from the Center for Disease
Control National Center for Health Statistics a high percentage of the uninsured of ages under 64 are so afraid of the
costs that they delayed or totally avoided needed medical care.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
130
Health care key to economy – general
Health care reform is the only way to resolve the core economic problems and prevent
certain collapse – health costs drive foreclosures and kill small businesses
Jim McDermott, McClatchy-Tribune, 1-23-09,
http://tallahassee.com/article/20090123/OPINION05/901230323/1006/OPINION
Some say we cannot afford health-care reform during this time of economic upheaval. But I say that we
cannot afford to delay any longer and that this is precisely the time to act. If we hope for true economic
recovery, we have to address the crisis in our health-care system. This is not just about covering the
uninsured. This is about providing real health-care security for all Americans. Whether we like it or not, our
health-care financing structure is directly tied to our employment structure. To truly understand why healthcare reform must be part of an economic recovery plan, one only needs to look at the reasons our economy is
in free fall. First it was the housing crisis. As more and more homeowners went into foreclosure, the value of
our housing stock plummeted, which negatively affected all homeowners. The trickle-down effect of the
housing crisis is well documented; first housing, then banks and here we are. But health-care costs have had
a direct impact on foreclosures. A recent survey estimates that 25 percent of people entering foreclosure said
that their housing problems resulted from medical debt. Health care is an expense that you cannot postpone
or shop around for when you need it. If you have a heart attack, you go to the nearest emergency room. If
your child has a fever, you go to the doctor. An estimated 1.5 million families lose their homes to
foreclosure every year because of unaffordable medical costs, and many of these families are insured as well.
Today, being insured does not mean access to affordable health care. Another contributing factor to our
economic recession has been the growing inability of our large and small businesses to afford health care.
General Motors cannot compete with foreign car companies that do not have the health-care costs burden
facing GM. How could GM possibly compete when it is facing double-digit increases in the cost of health
care? Health insurance costs also have resulted in a stagnation of wages for all workers — giving them less
discretionary income to spend. Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family
coverage than they did in 1999. Health insurance premiums have risen nearly 6 percent a year over the last
several years, yet wages have not kept pace.
*Current health care damages businesses, costs skyrocketing
Philadelphia Inquirer, 6-21-2009, “Fixing health care- Democrats: We must hold down costs for families
and provide meaningful coverage.” http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090621_Fixing_health_care.html
Health-care reform is the number-one issue my constituents raise with me, and a leading concern of business
owners. For Democrats in Congress, health-care reform is a moral and an economic imperative.
American families are facing inadequate health coverage, mounting bills, and lack of access to care. They
like their doctors and appreciate the quality of care provided by their hospitals. But, they have deep worries
that their current coverage may change suddenly and limit access to their doctor or to needed benefits.
Business owners are struggling to pay for health benefits for their workers, forcing them to pass greater costs
to employees or drop coverage.
Increasing costs for the federal government are neither sustainable, nor producing the health outcomes they
should. Taxpayers pay 46 percent of our nation's $2.5 trillion health-care costs. And, just as in the private
market, costs are skyrocketing. The share of our GDP devoted to health-care spending has doubled in the last
20 years, threatening our budget stability.
The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. We must do a better job to contain costs for families,
businesses, and the government, and to ensure meaningful, affordable coverage for all Americans.
Economic recovery impossible without health care reform
CNN, 2-24-09, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/obama.health.care/index.html
The president's health-care message was applauded by Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a
national organization for health care consumers. "President Obama is absolutely correct that the nation's
economy and the federal budget deficit cannot be fixed without meaningful health-care reform," Pollack said
in a statement.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
131
Health care key to economy – general
Health care reform key to the economy
Nancy H. Nielsen, President, American Medical Association, 2-25-09,
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s.php
We agree that there is an urgent need for action on health system reform. There is broad recognition that we
cannot let this opportunity slip by. We applaud President Obama for heralding his commitment to making
health system reform a reality this year. I was honored to be included in Monday’s White House economic
summit, and the AMA pledges to work constructively with President Obama and Congress to improve the
health care system for all Americans. Health care reform can play a role in jumpstarting our economy by
making private health care affordable and providing coverage to all, regardless of employment.
Health care reform would save the economy
Harrop 2008
(Froma Harrop,November 27, 2008, “Health Care Reform Must Start Now”;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/health_care_reform_must_start.html)
This would seem a heckuva time to unfurl a national health plan. Washington has big fires to put out in the
financial markets. Taxpayers, meanwhile, face a zillion-dollar bill for economic stabilization on top of
already soaring deficits. Can we afford a big new government program right now? We have no choice.
Health care is part and parcel of the economic crisis. Costing $2.4 trillion this year, our chaotic system drains
the economy of resources that could go elsewhere. It straps ankle weights onto American businesses
competing with foreign rivals whose governments have contained health-care spending. The bright side is
that comprehensive health-care reform could save Americans major money in the long run. You can't say
"comprehensive" too many times. The goal isn't just finding more dollars to cover America's 46 million
uninsured. Reformers must venture deep into the machinery of the health-care megalopolis and change a
slew of perverse incentives that drive up medical costs. We're not talking about the easy things, such as
computerizing medical records or better managing chronic illnesses. Even covering the uninsured is simple to
fix, according to Alan Sager, a health policy expert at the Boston University School of Public Health.
Health care is key to the economy
Mandel 2008
(Michael Mandel, November 7, 2008, “Health Care: The Economy's Lifeline”;
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2008/db2008117_727014.htm
Call this revenge of the health-care economy. For years politicians and economists have denounced health spending
for being out of control. But now health-care hiring is one of the few things keeping the economy from collapsing
completely. The federal employment report released Nov. 7 shows that the private health-care industry added 26,000
jobs in October, while the rest of the private sector lost 289,000 jobs. Over the past year the pattern is even starker—
health-care employment rose by about 350,000 while the rest of private-sector employment plunged by a stunning
1.7 million. These health-care organizations, such as hospitals and physicians' offices, are paying, on average, a lot
more than the minimum wage. The average compensation per full-time equivalent worker in health care was
$57,000 in 2007, about equal to the average pay for all private-sector jobs. Indeed, total payrolls in health care
actually exceed compensation in finance and insurance, despite the higher pay in those industries. What's more, the
hiring in health care should continue. For one, this is a continuation of a long-term pattern. Over the past eight years,
the private sector has generated 3 million new jobs, and 2.5 million of those have come from health care. The
reason: The population is aging, and there's no way to outsource most health-care jobs. By comparison, employment
in finance and insurance is up only 400,000 over the last eight years, despite the boom, because many of the backoffice and IT jobs were created overseas.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
132
Health care key to economy – general
Health care is key to the economy
David Martin, “Obama calls for health-care reform in 2009” 2009,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/obama.health.care/index.html)
Obama's prescription for health-care reform included making "the largest investment ever" in preventive care,
rooting out Medicare fraud and investing in electronic health records and new technology in an effort to reduce
errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy and save lives. "I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process," the
president said, adding that he was scheduling a gathering next week of "businesses and workers, doctors and healthcare providers, Democrats and Republicans.""The cost of health care has weighed down our economy and our
conscience long enough. So let there be no doubt, health-care reform cannot wait, it must not wait and it will not
wait another year," Obama said to a standing ovation.
Current health care cripples business, causes bankruptcy in medical crises
The Pickens Sentinel, 6-23-2009, http://www.pickenssentinel.com/pages/full_story/push?articleHealth+care+reform+is+long+overdue+%20&id=2776715Health+care+reform+is+long+overdue+&instance=secondary_opinion_left_column
They realize that healthcare costs are straining family budgets to the breaking point, They've experienced the
fact that in the last eight years healthcare premiums have increased four times faster than wages. For a
majority access to healthcare is dependent on the security of their employment, therefore a shift in working
status has far reaching consequenses for the family's medical wellbeing. They realize that a catastrophic
medical situation could devour everything one has spent a lifetime building. It's estimated a healthcare
related bankruptcy occurs in America every 30 seconds. Those having health coverage find that increases in
deductibles make it difficult to use except in extreme situations. Instead of utilizing the cost saving
advantages of preventive medical care most opt to wait until they have no other choice before accessing their
coverage. Many fear having their insurance provider deny services, thus abandoning them when their
situation is most critical.
Along with the stresses placed on the family, our current healthcare system has a crippling effect on business.
Out of control healthcare cost consume much of the profit margin within American industry. It undercuts the
competitive ability of American business within the world economic community. The fiscal health of
companies is directly connected to their ability to absorb rising healthcare cost. Small business in particular
cannot retain quality employees because they are unable to afford health benefits essential to working
Americans. A recent report by the consulting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers estimates business related
healthcare expense will increase by 9% next year alone.
There are over 46 million Americans who are uninsured in this country. With the current economic climate
that figure will continue to increase. It's estimated that an additional 9 million Americans have fallen into the
ranks of the uninsured over the last 8 years. The cost of emergency room care necessary for this group is
being shouldered by everyone. Beyond these economic justifications for reform there lies the moral question.
In the greatest nation on the planet, should basic healthcare be considered a privilege or a right available to
all? The United States is the only industrial nation where elected leaders are guaranteed excellent coverage at
taxpayer expense while millions of their fellow citizens find themselves without the most basic safety net.
The majestic words "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" rings hollow when one faces a
medical crisis without healthcare security.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
133
Health care key to economy – general
Current health care is broken- spiraling costs, burden on budgets and small businesses
Washington Post, 6-6-2009, “Obama Says Congress Must Act to Fix 'Broken' Health-Care System”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/06/obama_says_congress_must_act_t.html?wprss=44?hpid=secpolitics
Stepping up his push to enact legislation to reform the nation's health-care system, President Obama today
declared, "The status quo is broken," and he warned that the current system could eventually collapse if
nothing is done to control spiraling costs.
With Congress poised to debate sweeping health-care legislation in the coming weeks, Obama warned that if
"we do nothing, everyone's health care will be put in jeopardy."
Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said that the fast-rising cost of health care is
placing an unsustainable burden on personal budgets, small businesses and the federal government.
"Within a decade we'll spend one dollar out of every five we earn on health care -- and we'll keep getting less
for our money," he said. "That's why fixing what's wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury
we hope to achieve; it's a necessity we cannot postpone any longer."
High health care costs contribute to economic downturn
John Sweeney, president of the 11-million-member A.F.L.-C.I.O., the umbrella organization of the labor
movement, 6-23-09, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/americas-health-care-priorities-i-consumerspatients-workers/
Some will say we can’t fix health care until the economy is back on its feet again. But in fact, it’s more the
other way around.
Excessively high health care costs are a drag on economic recovery as working families put more and more
money into health care instead of consumer purchases. Working people are falling further and further behind
and too many wind up bankrupt when they’re sick — the leading root cause of personal bankruptcy in our
nation is a major health care crisis. Meanwhile, companies that provide adequate employee health care
benefits are at a severe competitive disadvantage against companies that do not.
We simply will not be able to fix our economy for the long term until we fix our health care system.
So what should health care reform look like?
We have heard it repeatedly: We must lower health care costs in order to provide affordable options for
families. Lower costs will go a long way toward expanding access to more people and relieving the
pocketbook pressures on even those with insurance. Our current system is unaffordable. With a system with a
price tag of $2.3 trillion a year, we are spending more and more money and getting less and less health care for our
dollars.
This model is shutting people out of the system: people like Karen from Florida, who recently told of an insurance
deductible that equals four to five months of her take-home pay each year even though her insurance bill is split with her
employer. Karen feels she can’t even afford to see a doctor.
Health care providers have to do their part to eliminate inequities in health care and all employers must be required to pay
their fair share.
Changing the way we pay for health care must also be a part of the solution. We cannot continue to pay for expensive
technology and treatments that have no evidence of effectiveness. Health care providers should be compensated for the
quality – and not the quantity – of health care they deliver.
As the technology revolution continues to sweep our country and change the way we communicate, our
health care system has fallen behind. We must streamline and modernize the way we access medical records
and eliminate inefficiencies and flaws in the system that cost money and cost lives.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
134
Health care key to economy – most important factor
Health care reform outweighs all other economic problems
David Cutler, professor of economics at Harvard, Brad DeLong, professor of economics at University of
California, Berkeley, and Ann Marie Marciarille, adjunct law professor at McGeorge School of Law, September
16, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html
The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care. The
doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and
hiring fewer workers. Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The
result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal
bankruptcies. Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain
propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior. Sen. Obama's proposal
will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works
well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five
ways: - Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty
billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best
providers, treatments and patient management strategies. - Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid
for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by
keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals
and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a
coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care. - Pooling. The
Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large
patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would
no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses
and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process. - Preventing.
In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services
-- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services
around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money. Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured.
The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions
previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
135
Health care key to economy – state budgets
Lack of health care reform kills state budgets
The New York Times, 6-29-2009, “In a crisis, rethinking fiscal federalism”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/in-a-crisis-rethinking-fiscal-federalism/
Take health care, for example.
States and localities are intimately involved in delivering, financing, administering and monitoring health
services, and are responsible for wide national variations in access and quality. Serious health care reform at
the federal level must address two intertwined realities: First, Medicaid is killing state and local budgets.
Second, legally and fiscally constrained states lack the capacity and administrative tools to spend health care
monies well.
Adjusted for inflation, state and local health expenditures have more than tripled since 1980 and continue to
grow. The ranks of the uninsured have swelled, and include increasing numbers of immigrants and
Americans with costly needs.
Local safety-net providers traditionally bear much of the resulting burden. It is not surprising, then, that states
and localities are groaning under the load, or that they are cutting services at precisely the moment of greatest
need, when elementary macroeconomics suggests that service cutbacks most harm the overall economy.
Lack of health care leads to chronic illness that drains state funds
The Boston Globe, 7-2-2009, “The recession is making us sick”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/02/the_re
cession_is_making_us_sick/
“Recession obesity’’ is the term du jour for the unhealthy side effects of people who lose their jobs and
health insurance, then drop their gym memberships, delay medical care, and eat cheaper but less healthy
meals. One discouraging sign of the times: The consumption of fast food is actually increasing during the
downturn - because it’s cheap and it’s filling.
Massachusetts residents are particularly vulnerable to these unhealthy trends. As the Boston Foundation and
the New England Healthcare Institute pointed out in their 2007 report “The Boston Paradox: Lots of Health
Care, Not Enough Health,’’ the Bay State’s population is comparatively old, with significant health
disparities and weak income growth, and with more than half of all residents either overweight or obese.
Combine all of this with increasing unemployment and we have a recipe for accelerating the vicious cycle of
rising (but preventable) chronic disease driving ever-higher healthcare costs. Chronic illness currently costs
Massachusetts $34 billion annually, a drain that is crowding out investment in other priorities that are also
key to good health like education, public safety, and environmental protection.
But it doesn’t have to be this way; we can do something about it, and we should start now.
Much chronic disease could be prevented if we could find ways to eliminate the unhealthy behaviors causing
these illnesses. Poor diet, inadequate physical activity, smoking, alcohol abuse, and poor sleep habits are all
behaviors that create risks for obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and stroke.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
136
Health care key to economy – small businesses
Expensive health care kills small businesses
( JOAN VERPLANCK, July 05, 2009 “Not all health care reform”;
http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/oped/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1246901112150170.xml&coll=5)
An employer mandate would cripple small companies that are not able to afford health
insurance. As a result, they may have to lay off employees or invest less in the business.
Employers nationwide already voluntarily pay $500 billion annually for health benefits for
employees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has testified before Congress that a minimum
benefits package might force all health plans to be expensive "Cadillac" plans. Health reform
needs to be affordable, or it will not be successful. Finally, ERISA allows large companies to
offer health benefits to their employees that are specifically designed to meet their needs. We
oppose any change to the ERISA pre-emption so that employer-provided benefits continue. The
number of people who are provided insurance through small New Jersey companies -- firms with
between two and 50 employees -- has shrunk by 111,667 in the past 10 years, including a
staggering 36,000 in the past year, according to the state Department of Banking and Insurance.
Today, at least 1.3 million state residents are uninsured, and the numbers are growing. The lack
of affordability has resulted in roughly half of the state's uninsured being full-time workers.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
137
Health care key to economy – chronic illness
New solutions for chronic diseases key to health and economic security
Billy Tauzin, the president and chief executive of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
(PhRMA) and former US congressman from Louisiana, 6-23-2009,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/americas-health-care-priorities-i-businesses-competition-and-innovation/
A flurry of activity is taking place on Capitol Hill as Congress explores ways to hold down the cost of health
care reform. President Obama has repeatedly stressed that as a nation, we spend more than $2 trillion a year
on health care yet many patients are not getting the quality care they need to better fight their disease. While
many proposals have been put on the table to help address these concerns, one extremely promising topic
must stay front and center in the debate: reducing the devastating impact of chronic disease.
Collectively, chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease are the greatest drivers of health care
spending in the United States. They hurt the American economy and, most importantly, they affect the
health, well-being and productivity of millions of Americans.
If we don’t act soon to better equip ourselves to win the fight against the growing epidemic of chronic
disease, our health care security – and economic security – will surely continue to be threatened.
This is the problem: 75 percent of all health care spending in the United States involves the treatment of
chronic disease. In America, more than 162 million cases of seven chronic diseases were reported in 2003.
The annual cost of treatment for just those seven chronic diseases was $277 billion. The costs associated with
lost productivity were even greater: $1 trillion, for a total cost of $1.3 trillion.
We now live in a country where more than half the adult population is overweight, and obesity is an evergrowing problem. Current obesity trends are frightening: If they continue — to cite just one shocking
example –– one of every three children born in 2000 will get diabetes in his or her lifetime.
It is well-known that exercise, healthy eating and medicines can help prevent and manage diabetes. The good
news is that there are chronic disease management programs that are gaining more traction around the
country – like the Diabetes Ten City Challenge – that offer free screenings and medicines to participants
suffering from diabetes. These programs are modeled from the Asheville Project in North Carolina, a
diabetes management program that helped patients bring their blood sugar under control within a year and
yielded an average 34 percent savings in health care costs.
Such innovative initiatives bring together public officials, local businesses, health care professionals and
patients. The value differs for each participant, but they all share a common goal: reducing the effects of
disease. If pursued on a nationwide scale, such approaches offer great promise to significantly improve
patient care and decrease costs.
At this point in the health reform process, it’s all about the numbers. While the Congressional Budget Office
has begun to score health reform proposals to help calculate the price tag for reform, it hasn’t scored the
potential savings to the federal government of chronic disease prevention and management programs. It’s
admittedly difficult to quantify the long-term impact of prevention initiatives, but we are seeing more and
more evidence from smaller-scale programs like the Ten City Challenge of the potential economic impact of
such coordinated approaches. We believe such programs are critical long-term investments that will help
bend the curve and also improve and save lives.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
138
Health care reform key to solve chronic illness
Current health care is causing more chronic illnesses and diseases
The Huffington Post, 6-17-2009, (Ken Dychtwald, Ph.D) “The Biggest Problem With U.S. Health Care -And How To Fix It!” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-dychtwald/the-biggest-problem-with_b_216446.html
While most of the current healthcare debate has focused on how to cover the tens of millions of uninsured
Americans and who should pay (granted, these are critically important issues), after thirty-five years working
at the intersection of gerontology and healthcare, I'm convinced that we have the WRONG healthcare system
for our aging nation. If your train is headed in the wrong direction, it doesn't help to give everyone a seat.
And, since the U.S. currently spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as all the other
modernized nations, while our national life expectancy ranks a humiliating 42nd worldwide, it's not that we
throw too little money at the problem, but that we may not be spending it in the wisest ways.
Until recently, most people died relatively young of infectious diseases, accidents, or in childbirth. When the
first US census was taken in 1790, half the population was under the age of 16 and less than 2 percent of the
4 million Americans were 65 and older. As a result, society rarely concerned itself about the needs of its
aging citizens. The elderly were too few to matter.
However, during the past century, advances in medical diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, surgical techniques, and
nutrition have eliminated many of the problems that once caused most people to die young. And so, the irony
is that our medical successes have produced tens of millions of long-lived men and women who now struggle
for decades with debilitating chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, COPD
and Alzheimer's -- that our system is absolutely NOT prepared to handle -- causing immeasurable suffering
and trillions of misspent tax dollars.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
139
A2: Raises prices
Health care reform won’t raise prices.
The Associated Press, July 1, 2009 Wednesday “Obama argues against taxing health benefits”
President Barack Obama says he doesn't want to see people have to pay more for health care as part of his health
care overhaul plan. And he says that's why he's not backing the idea of taxing health care benefits. He told a town
hall forum in Annandale, Va., on Wednesday that the proposal would help pay for health care reform but that he
thinks a better way to pay for it is to cap itemized deductions. Obama says his "bottom line" is that people who now
have health care shouldn't see their costs go up as part of health care reform.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
140
A2: Raises taxes
The Taxes in the healthcare bill are key to saving the economy
John B. Judis 7-21 (He is a senior editor at The New Republic and a contributing editor to The American
Prospect. July 21, 2009 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106837924)
House Democrats have proposed to pay for their national health insurance by imposing a one percent surtax on the
income tax bill of couples making more than $350,000—that's the top 1.2 percent of households. The surtax would rise to
5.4 percent for households making more than a million dollars. That's pretty small potatoes for the country's high-rolling class,
but the proposal has encountered stiff resistance from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, as well as from the editorial pages
of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. These critics don't make the obvious complaint—that the tax increases
would target high-value political contributors who are important to congressional Republicans and to Democrats who can't
depend on contributions from labor unions or liberal professionals. Instead, they focus their opposition on the economics of the
proposal. The Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, along with The Wall Street Journal, say it will hurt small business and
discourage "entrepreneurial activity." The Washington Post maintains that taxing the rich to pay for the health care program
would deprive Congress of a revenue source it would need in the future to reduce the deficit. These arguments make little sense.
According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, very few small businesses would be affected. And
small businesses that offer health insurance will see their costs reduced by the health plan. And as my colleague
Jonathan Chait has pointed out, The Washington Post is arguing that we shouldn't use an effective means for
reducing future deficits to reduce future deficits. If you can figure out the reasoning there, you are smarter than I am.
But I want to take the argument a step further and address the Republican/Blue Dog argument that taxing the rich
will—in the words of one clumsily written congressional letter—"kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our
recovery." I think it's important to realize that during a recession, taxing the rich can speed a recovery as long as the
revenue it creates is spent rather than saved. And during a recovery, taxing the rich can help stabilize the economy.
It can be a good thing to do in either case. I. Taxing the rich can stimulate consumer spending If the Obama
administration were to tax the rich, and then use the money to pay down the deficit, or keep it in the proverbial
social security "lock box," then taxing the rich would probably damage an economy in recession by reducing
consumer demand—whether it is for necessities or luxuries. But if the administration were to take the revenue from
a tax increase on the very rich and give it to the less well-to-do through government spending or a tax cut, then the
result would be a net increase in consumer demand, because the less well-to-do are more likely to spend rather than
save what they earn. So the result of taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the middle class or the poor
through government spending would be a net increase in consumer demand, and a boost to an economy in recession.
The administration's health care proposal would do this. It would create jobs and help many small businesses, which
include physicians' offices, pharmacies (if they are not part of nationwide chains), clinics, and a myriad of medical
and hospital supply companies. II. Taxing the rich won't hurt investment The Wall Street Journal editorial page has
promoted the notion that the way to encourage growth is by putting more money into the hands of wealthy. By this
reasoning, any proposal to tax the rich would threaten the economy. These arguments were made, of course, against
the Clinton administration's tax increases in 1993. But afterwards the country enjoyed an economic boom. There is
also, however, a theoretical point worth considering. If you look at economic recoveries during the 20th century,
what you find is that they were often driven by increases in consumer demand (including residential housing) rather
than by business demand for capital goods. The former eventually led to the latter. What was important in spurring
recovery was government spending that made up for the decline in consumer demand. If you look at the recovery that
occurred in the middle of the 1930s and that was interrupted by Franklin Roosevelt's budget balancing in 1937, and then resumed
again, you can find a better model of what could occur now. As historian James Livingston has noted, the gross domestic product
fell steadily from 1929 to 1933, but then began to rise rapidly from 1933 to 1937. It fell from 1937 to 1938, but resumed its rise
through the war. Yet during this entire period, net non-residential private investment (new business investments that don't
include replacing old plant and equipment) remained little above the levels of 1929 to 1933. For instance, it had plummeted from
$4.1 billion in 1929 to $1.9 billion in 1930, but it was still floundering at $100 million in 1939, even though growth and
employment were on the rise. Net investment didn't reach the level of 1929 until 1946. What spurred the recovery was the growth
in government investment and in consumer demand. The recovery was demand-driven, not supply-driven. It's likely that we are
in a similar position today. Supply-side policies aimed at encouraging business investment through lowering interest
rates on loans or through cutting taxes on the wealthy or on business are not likely to create the basis for a recovery.
Just look at the effect so far of near-zero interest rates. What is needed is government spending that increases
consumer demand and convinces entrepreneurs (big and small) that there are hungry consumers out there who want
to buy golden eggs. Raising taxes on the rich won't stimulate investment by itself. That's for sure. But in the present
situation, it is not likely to depress it. And the combination of a tax increase on the rich and spending increases
aimed at the middle class will increase consumer demand and eventually investment.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
141
Health care key to competitiveness
Health care reform is key to competitiveness
Cornelius Hogan 7-17 2009 (http://www.vermontbiz.com/article/july/health-care-reform-what-‘make-or-break’issue-it’s-cost Hogan was Secretary of Vermont’s Human Services Agency under Governor’s Richard Snelling and
Howard Dean.)
In the biggest sense the unyielding cost increases of health care is hurting our international competitiveness. In the
auto industry, for example, each car produced in the US costs $1500 more than those produced by our international
competitors. That plus the company burdens of health benefits for retirees has contributed greatly to our overall noncompetitiveness. Our health care costs are also influencing where our multinational companies locate. It is no secret
that IBM for example puts a lot of its facilities in places like Ireland and France. Those nations (and all other
westernized nations) have found national solutions to health care costs, where their citizens pay on average about
one half of what we pay per capita. The accumulated ability of families and individuals to pay for health care is now
resulting in an ever more obvious drag on our economy. Half the bankruptcies in this country can be traced to a
medical event. A serious question to ponder is 'Can the per cent of gross national product dedicated to health care
reach 20 percent and not clearly harm our economy?’ We’re now at 16 percent and rising rapidly. Vermont is now at
17 percent. The President’s Council of Economic Advisors just issued a report on health reform. They said clearly
that health reform can give us a stronger economy…but if we keep doing more of the same, we will all pay a heavy
price. They specifically said that if health care costs can be controlled that gross domestic product could increase by
more than 2 percent in 2020 and by nearly 8 percent by 2030. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston now reports
that, ‘Escalating medical costs are threatening the nation’s financial well-being and its health with insurance
premiums increasing 78 percent between 2001 and 2007 and wages by only 19 percent...’ In sum, what began as an
‘affordability’ problem 20 years ago has grown to the point where health care costs are marbled through out overall
economy. A tree cannot grow to the sky, as an old saying goes. But health care has gotten at least to the cloud level.
Health care is critical to maintain competitiveness
Council on Foreign Relations, 3-4-9 (Lee Hudson Teslik Toni Johnson, Staff
Writerhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/)
The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed nation. The
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without
changes to federal law (PDF). Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance
system. According the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 71 percent of private employees in the United States
had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report notes that
access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF) among low-income workers, and
health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade. Small businesses are less likely than large
employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, health care is the most expensive
benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.These ballooning dollar figures
place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial
competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large multinational corporations, footing healthcare
costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and
former employees, and the company says it spent roughly $5.6 billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. GM says
healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes. Health benefits
for unionized auto workers became a central issue derailing the 2008 congressional push to provide a financial
bailout to GM and its ailing Detroit rival, Chrysler.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
142
Health care key to competitiveness
Rising health care costs tank U.S. competitiveness – reform is key
Teslik, Editor for the Council on Foreign Relations, ’08
(Lee Hudson Teslik, Associate Editor for the Council on Foreign Relations, March 18, 2008, “Healthcare Costs and
U.S. Competitiveness,” online: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/)
Factoring in costs borne by government, the private sector, and individuals, the United States spends over
$1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. Researchers at
Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than
Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for
member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These costs
prompt fears that an increasing number of U.S. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore business
operations completely. U.S. Representative John P. Sarbanes (D-MD), a member of the House Education and
Labor Committee, told CFR.org that in light of these concerns a “consensus is emerging” on Capitol Hill to
do something to ease pressures on U.S. employers. Many experts recommend some form of increased publicprivate partnership, though the specifics of competing plans vary wildly. With the 2008 presidential
campaign in full swing, Democratic and Republican candidates disagree sharply on which way reform should
go. Democrats embrace expanding public-private partnerships while Republicans generally favor less
government control. Competitive Disadvantage Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the
U.S. health insurance system. According to 2005 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the most recent official
data available, employer-provided health benefits cover 175 million Americans, or about 60 percent of the
population. Those numbers have fallen since 2001, when 65 percent of the country had some form of
employer coverage, based on data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit focused on healthcare
issues. Premiums have skyrocketed, rising 87 percent since 2000. In 2004, health coverage became the most
expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to a report by the Employment Policy Foundation.
These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and
can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large
multinational corporations like General Motors, which covers more than 1.1 million employees and former
employees, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense—the company says it spent roughly $5.6
billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. GM says healthcare costs alone add $1,500 to the sticker price of
every automobile it makes, and estimates that by 2008 that number could reach $2,000. It is difficult to
quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the U.S. job market. Healthcare is one of
several factors—entrenched union contracts are another—that make doing business in the United States
expensive and it’s difficult to parse the effects of each factor. Moreover, economists disagree on the number
of U.S. jobs that have been lost to offshoring—the transfer of business operations across national boundaries
to friendlier operating environments. The Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder, in a 2006 Foreign Affairs
article, says that judging by data compiled from “fragmentary studies,” it is apparent that “under a million
service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to date.” Blinder goes on to predict that
somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U.S. jobs are “susceptible” to offshoring in a future where
technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs. Many other economists, however, have shied away
from making such estimates, and some have criticized Blinder’s approach. It is clear, however, that
healthcare expenses affect every level of U.S. industry. For large corporations they mean the massive “legacy
costs” associated with insuring retired employees. For small business owners they can be even more
devastating. “In many places, you have small businesses that simply cannot afford to offer coverage,”
Sarbanes says. Often, he says, healthcare expenses make it impossible for small business owners to hire
candidates they would otherwise desire.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
143
***ENTITLEMENT SPENDING
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
144
Health care solves entitlement spending
Health care reform is key to prevent runaway spending, which crowds out the rest of the
budget
Robert Samuelson, Washington Post Staff Writer 1-12-09 “Obama’s Healthcare Headache”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/obamas_health_care_headache.html
Barack Obama talked somberly last week about getting the federal budget under control once the present
economic crisis has passed. To do that, he'll have to confront the rapid growth of health spending, which
in 2007 was already a quarter of total federal spending of $2.7 trillion. If Obama is serious, he should
read a fascinating study from the McKinsey Global Institute, the research arm of the famed consulting
company. American health care has gone haywire. It provides much splendid care but has glaring
deficiencies. It is so costly that 15 percent of the population lacks health insurance. Runaway spending is
also crowding out other government programs and, through bloated insurance premiums, squeezing
workers' take-home pay. What McKinsey provides is a plausible estimate of the overspending: one-third.
In 2006, U.S. health spending totaled $2.1 trillion. Of that, McKinsey figures that $650 billion exceeded
the norms of other rich nations.
Commitment to solve long-term entitlements is necessary to salvage current spending on
key budget items
JIM KUHNHENN and CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press Writer, February 21, 20 09 “Obama
Now Focusing on Healthcare, Cutting Deficit” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=6928629
This coming week will mark a turning point from what Obama felt compelled to do, to what he wants to
do. It also may test how much spending, change and ambition the American people and their elected
officials can stomach in a short time. On Monday, Obama will try to snap Washington's collective mindset back to fiscal restraint, just days after signing a record-breaking spending plan to stimulate the
moribund economy. His afternoon-long "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House is bound to set
off sparks. Come Thursday, he will send Congress highlights of his budget request. One administration
official says it will disclose that Obama plans to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term,
mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government.
Liberals worry that renewed attention to long-term deficits will stall their progressive agenda, which they
don't feel should suffer because of transgressions by banks, mortgage lenders and automakers. Some
worry that Social Security is being unfairly lumped with Medicare's more serious financial problems, and
they are determined to squelch any hints of curbing benefits in the retirement program.
Health care costs will force massive spending cuts
James Kvaal, Senior Fellow at American Progress, December 9, 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html
Rising health care costs are the primary reason that our federal budget is on an unsustainable path. The
federal government is responsible for nearly half of America’s health care expenditures, including
Medicare, Medicaid, tax subsidies for private sector insurance, and health coverage for federal
employees, retirees, military personnel, and veterans. Public health care costs are rising at similar rates
and for similar reasons as private costs. Medicare has low administrative costs, but like most public
spending on health care, it finances care in the same settings and with the same providers as private
insurance. Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone is projected to increase from 4 percent of
the economy today to 12 percent in 2050. As Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron has pointed out,
their rapid growth accounts for the entire long-run federal fiscal deficit under Congressional Budget
Office projections. Without a new direction, higher health care costs will force budget deficits to “levels
that will seriously jeopardize long-term economic growth,” according to Peter Orszag, recently
designated to head the Office of Management and Budget.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
145
Health care solves entitlement spending
Health care reform will massively cut costs and save the budget
James Kvaal, Senior Fellow at American Progress, December 9, 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html
The good news is that there is an opportunity for health reform that covers every American and slows the
growth in health care costs. Such a reform may require an up-front investment, even in these times of
large budget deficits; it might cost the federal government between $100 billion and $150 billion
annually, not including any savings it generates by making the health care system more efficient. But it
could also generate very large economic and fiscal benefits. The first step is universal coverage.
Coverage is an essential step toward controlling health care spending because it allows a rational
financing system that does not rely on inefficient and inequitable cross-subsidies to care for some
Americans. Universal coverage will also facilitate early prevention and detection of disease and better
management of chronic diseases, which can improve health and reduce costs. Investments can improve
the quality of care while reducing costs. Research into the comparative effectiveness of treatments—
funded partly by taxpayers—can identify treatments that provide the best results, often at a lower cost
than treatments widely used today. These steps can ensure that medical advances continue and are used
wisely. Greater use of electronic medical records and other health information technology could reduce
errors, diminish the need for duplicative tests, improve the quality of care, and gather data on effective
treatments. There are other important steps to reduce the growth of health costs without compromising
the quality of care. Payment reforms can encourage doctors and hospitals to improve management of
chronic diseases and adopt proven treatments. And greater use of generic drugs can provide equally or
even more effective treatment at lower cost.
Rising health care costs will drown the budget and push out other spending
James Kvaal, Senior Fellow at American Progress, December 9, 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html
Second, ever-rising health care costs are threatening to drive an unsustainable explosion in the national
debt. The rising tide of red ink that threatens to drown the federal budget and swamp the economy in the
coming years is primarily due to rising health care costs. If health reform slows growth in health care
costs, it could be the most fiscally responsible course, even at the cost of higher deficits in the short term.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
146
Health care solves entitlement spending
Health care reform is key to rein in deficits – prevention reduces overall cost
Jack Lewin, CEO, American College of Cardiology, 2-26-09,
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s.php
President Obama's proposals to look at prevention; reduce hospital readmissions; improve patient safety,
quality of care and program integrity; look at private sector ideas to ensure appropriate use of
technologies like imaging; and encourage implementation and use of health information technology make
a lot of sense. By making healthy patients the goal of any reform efforts, we create less of a financial
burden on our health care system that is already 17-percent of the nation’s GDP. We’re getting this
commitment to reform on top of the investment the President made to update our nation’s health
information technology when he signed into law the stimulus package earlier this month. The use of
modern technology will make the delivery of health care more efficient, and ultimately, more affordable.
For instance, we as physicians will be able to begin using the most up-to-date technology to treat our
patients. Electronic prescriptions will greatly reduce the 1.5 million annual medical errors, not to mention
makes our health system more efficient. It will also save money. According to a Harvard Medical School
Study, for every 100,000 prescriptions that are filled electronically, $845,000 can be saved.
Health care is the only way to save the budget
Max Baucus, D-Mont., Committee Chairman Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, 2-24-09,
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s.php
I participated in President Obama’s summit on fiscal responsibility on Monday and found many of my
colleagues agree that health care reform is the path to fiscal health in this country. In the last eight years,
we’ve seen health spending grow from 12 percent to 17 percent of the U.S. economy, but quality needs to
be improved, with Americans receiving recommended care only half of the time. In the next ten years,
the cost of providing health care for older and vulnerable Americans through Medicare and Medicaid is
projected to increase by 114 percent. Health care reform is not only fiscally wise, it is imperative.
America needs to get health care costs under control now. Last November, I laid out a plan for health
care reform that will help to get those costs in check. Addressing cost, quality, and health coverage for
the uninsured and underinsured will restore the health of this country’s people and its pocketbook. My
plan invests in a high-quality, efficient health care system for all Americans that will provide far greater
value for our health care dollars and contain costs in the long run. The keys to containing costs lie in the
ways Americans access, receive, and pay for health care. My plan makes affordable health care
accessible to all Americans, so they are able to seek preventive treatment and catch health problems
before they become significant and costly. That will keep people healthy as they age into Medicare,
helping to lower costs in that program. Making sure patients receive care more efficiently will also
control costs. My plan strengthens the role of primary care doctors to improve coordination of care and
reduce duplicate work among all of a patient’s providers. It also invests in health care technology and
research that can keep doctors on the cutting edge of medicine and help deliver the right care at the right
time. And my plan reforms the way Medicare and Medicaid pay for care. Today, the government pays
doctors based on the volume of care provided – regardless of whether it works, but under my plan,
payments would be made based on the quality of care delivered and outcomes, refocusing the system on
providing the most effective care possible. Reforming America’s broken health care system is the most
fiscally responsible action Congress can take this year and I’m confident we will. I intend to work with
my colleagues in Congress and members of the health care community to develop comprehensive,
consensus legislation and I look forward to being back at the White House later on this year to watch
President Obama sign that bill.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
147
Health care reform saves money – prevention
New preventative care will save money on health costs in the long run
Signa, 6-23-2009, “Private Sector’s Experience in Prevention and Wellness Can Benefit Health Reform”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/americas-health-care-priorities-iii-insurers-and-insurance-systems/
Other proposals call for implementing innovative, evidence-based prevention and wellness programs at the
local level that employ best practices. Experience shows that this approach can bring about real and
measurable results; coaching and other interventions that help shift individuals from the high category of
dangerous risk combinations to the low category can save more than $4,000 in annual costs. Toward that end,
at Cigna we have developed intensive on-site group coaching programs targeted at improving coronary and
metabolic health — in other words, patients with metabolic syndrome or diagnosed diabetes, hypertension or
heart disease — that have been shown to help patients significantly lower cholesterol, improve their glucose
levels and lose weight in just 30 days.
The point is — there are many positive studies and a wealth of private-sector experience demonstrating how
targeted approaches to prevention and wellness can work and prove cost-effective. However, Congress needs
to recognize and continue to incorporate these innovative private sector experiences when evaluating
alternative health care policies. As a result and most importantly, the American taxpayer and all consumers
of health care will benefit from these real world experiences.
We can save money and lives by making prevention and wellness a key part of comprehensive health reform;
it has worked in the private sector and can work across the health care system, too.
Preventative health care drives down prices
Creston News Advertiser, 7-3-2009, “Prevention- the cheapest medicine”
http://www.crestonnewsadvertiser.com/articles/2009/06/30/r_y3tac8zsvwiiftbbcklja/index.xml
We agree entirely that preventative care is the cheapest medicine and it is a shame that insurance companies
do not include more preventative services in their coverage. We also believe that Americans should take
initiative and seek out preventative care on their own. Although this approach will cost consumers money in
the short term, long-term health care savings would drive down insurance prices and save individuals money
in premiums.
With the current focus of medical professionals on diagnosing and treating conditions that have occurred due
to a lack of preventative care, doctors have become accustomed to treating those who are already sick. While
medical doctors would no doubt love to discuss preventative care for their patients, patients rarely schedule
an office visit to talk about the lifestyle changes they need to make. Therefore, a large part of preventative
care falls into the hands of other specialists: massage therapists, dietitians, physical therapists, athletic
trainers, chiropractors or mental-health providers.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
148
Health care reform saves money – generics
Health care bill would promote generic drug production- key to saving millions of dollars
Silicon Valley Mercury News, 7-3-2009, “Big push underway for generic biotech drugs”
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12744099?nclick_check=1
Biotech drugs were largely excluded from the 1984 landmark law that permitted the sale of generic
medicines. But a push is underway to correct that omission — a move supporters say could boost access to
vital treatments for cancer, heart disease and other ailments, saving consumers billions of dollars a year.
White House officials recently disclosed that they are working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
to begin approving so-called generic biologics "as quickly as possible," if a bill is enacted. And with
President Obama promoting the idea to help trim the country's staggering health-care costs, experts on both
sides of the issue say pressure is building to pass such a measure.
"This is a huge issue," said David Sloane, senior vice president of government relations and advocacy for
AARP, noting that drug costs are the number one issue for his organization's 40-million members. "There are
enormous health implications and there are enormous cost implications."
But many biotech industry leaders and some consumers, including 59-year-old cancer patient Jack Aiello of
San Jose, fear the legislation could make it so hard for companies to profit from biologic treatments that it
could discourage them from creating new drugs, which could wind up hurting consumers.
"I'm all for cheaper drugs when the generic versions become available," said Aiello, a former marketing
executive diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 1995. "I just don't want the research efforts to be discouraged
because of that."
That concern is acute in the Bay Area, which has the world's biggest cluster of biotechnology companies.
Once generic biologics hit pharmacy shelves, those firms may find it harder to obtain financing to develop
drugs, some executives fear.
"I think you would find a lot of questioning among people in this industry whether this is worth investing in,"
said Dr. David Lacey, a senior research executive at Amgen, the world's biggest biotech company, which is
based in Thousand Oaks and also has Bay Area operations.
If a bill is passed, biotech executives want to make sure it keeps their confidential drug data from being made
available to generic drug makers for at least 14 years after their medicine is marketed. But with the White
House proposing to protect that data for only seven years and some lawmakers favoring only five years,
some drug industry officials fear they soon could get stuck with a law that decimates their businesses.
"There is a lot of momentum building to pass something in this Congress," said Marie Vodicka of the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents biotech and other drug
companies. "What it's about in this legislation is getting it right."
Generics tend to be cheaper than the medicines they copy because they do not have to undergo the same
testing as the originals. The savings from the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permitted the sale of generics 25
years ago, has been enormous, according to an analysis in May by the market research firm IMS Health.
Commissioned by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, it concluded that generic drugs saved the U.S.
health-care system $734 billion over the past decade. The Hatch-Waxman Act only permitted generic
versions of chemically synthesized drugs regulated under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Biologic
drugs, covered under the federal Public Health Safety Act, were excluded. And many people say its time that
changed, given the growing numbers of biologics being approved for sale.
In 2007, about $40 billion of the nearly $287 billion that U.S. consumers spent on prescription drugs were for
biologics, according to the Federal Trade Commission, which threw its support behind generic biologics in a
report last month.
Some people say generic biologics are especially needed because some biologic drugs carry a high price.
Avastin, a cancer drug made by the Genentech division of Roche in South San Francisco, can cost a patient
more than $8,000 a month, although the company provides it free to some patients.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
149
Health care reform saves money – generics
Generic drugs are part of Obama’s health bill- key to reducing costs
Bloomberg News, 6-25-2009, “Biotech Drugs Need Only 7 Years Protection, U.S. Says”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aUvylSy1iI8Q
June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Biologic drugs should be subject to generic competition in the U.S. after seven years,
the Obama administration said, calling it a “generous compromise.”
Access to cheaper copies of medicines made by Amgen Inc., Roche Holding AG and other biotechnology
companies is “a key element” in reducing health-care costs, White House officials said in a letter to
Representative Henry Waxman obtained today by Bloomberg News. Brand-name companies have lobbied
for 12 to 14 years of exclusivity, while Waxman proposed only five.
Americans spend more than $60 billion a year on biologic drugs to treat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and
other serious illnesses at a cost of as much as $200,000 for each medicine, Ernst & Young estimates. Unlike
conventional pills, biologics can’t be copied even after patents expire. Patient groups, payers and generic
drugmakers have battled biotechnology companies for more than two years over how to allow competition.
“Lengthy periods of exclusivity will harm patients by diminishing innovation and unnecessarily delaying
access to affordable drugs,” wrote Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the Office of Health Reform, and Peter
Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, in the letter dated yesterday.
Obama has urged lawmakers to rein in record health-care spending, expand coverage to the 46 million
uninsured and modernize record-keeping. His proposed budget in February called for legislation allowing
generic biologics after a period “generally consistent” with the 1984 law that provides five years of
protection to most conventional pills and seven years of protection to so-called orphan drugs for rare
diseases.
Health-Care Overhaul
Waxman, a California Democrat and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent a letter
to Obama earlier this month asking him to discuss the potential savings from generic biologics and what can
be done to prepare the Food and Drug Administration to regulate this new category of products.
The White House is conducting “a serious review of FDA’s existing authorities” to ensure that the agency
can quickly take on the role of approving generic biologics once legislation is passed, DeParle and Orszag
wrote to Waxman.
Generic biologics may be included as part of the Senate health committee’s plan to overhaul the $2.5 trillion
U.S. health-care system, but lawmakers haven’t agreed to specific details for their proposal. The panel passed
a bipartisan bill in 2007 that called for 12 years of exclusivity.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
150
Health care reform saves money – A2: big upfront cost
Even if the upfront costs are huge, the savings will be big in the long run
New York Times, 7-7-09
The first task is to find savings. Some respected analysts suggest that as much as 30 percent of all health care
spending in this country — some $700 billion a year — may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not
improve the health of the recipients. If even half that money could be recaptured, the amount saved would be
more than enough to finance health care reforms. Overspending, however, permeates the system and would
be devilishly difficult to eliminate in any systematic manner that reaped savings within the decade. Most of
the truly “game-changing” innovations that could slow the rate of increase in health care costs — electronic
medical records, research comparing the effectiveness of treatments, restructuring the way doctors organize
themselves — will take years to affect costs and quality. Still, it is important to push ahead quickly. Even if
the benefits won’t show up for two or three decades, it is imperative to slow the rise in costs to a more
affordable rate. And some respected analysts believe the big long-term reforms could yield some relatively
quick savings.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
151
Health care solves fiscal discipline
Fiscal discipline is impossible without health care reform
David B. Kendall, Senior Fellow for Health Policy, Progressive Policy Institute, 2-23-09,
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s.php
Health care reform is an opportunity to improve fiscal discipline. In fact, it is a necessity. Without reform
that includes cost restraint, the prospects for covering the uninsured will diminish, and the long-term
fiscal health of the nation will be at risk. Fiscal discipline is inextricably linked to health care. The public
foots the bill for about 56 percent of the nation’s health care spending. The biggest spenders, Medicare
and Medicaid will push up the government’s share even further as the baby boomers retire and as medical
inflation continues to exceed general inflation. Another big spender, the tax break for job-based coverage
also erodes government funding for other public priorities as health care costs rise.
Healthcare reform key to solve the economy.
Maya Jackson Randall and Tom Barkley, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES, 7-21-2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090721-711731.html
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Tuesday warned
lawmakers about the country's fiscal problems, urging Congress to help address health-care costs as part
of a long-term plan to bring down deficits. Bernanke highlighted health care as a critical issue for
policymakers to tackle. "That's the most important determinant right now of our long-run fiscal situation,
and even under the status quo we have a very serious problem," he said, citing the aging U.S. population.
Bernanke said there's not much that can be done about this year's deficit or even next year's deficit. "But
Congress needs to develop a broad plan ... that shows a moderation of the deficit over time to something
sustainable," Bernanke said, adding that a sustainable level would be 2% or 3% of gross domestic
product. "We need to show we have a plan for getting back to a more sustainable level," Bernanke said.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
152
Health care key to economy – entitlements
*Current health care will collapse US economy due to high costs
Congress Daily, 7-2-2009, “Entitlement programs put growing pressure on the budget”
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070209cdpm3.htm
Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and
then roughly stabilize at that level through 2080, the report estimated. "In the long run, the path we are on is
unsustainable," Horney said.
Under the assumptions used for CBO's long-term projections, government spending on activities other than
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the federal debt -- such as national defense and a wide
variety of domestic programs -- is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future
decades.
"If we don't bring the long-term deficits under control ultimately all the programs in the federal government
will be squeezed, certainly appropriations will be among them, particularly since you've got to consider the
appropriations bills every year, so you have easy targets out there," Horney said.
Brian Riedl, a senior policy analyst on budget issues at the Heritage Foundation, said: "If lawmakers do
nothing the U.S. economy would eventually collapse under the weight of the debt from Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid. And every year we wait the cost goes up by trillions of dollars."
Healthcare saves the economy from rising cost
Dean Baker, economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 7-20 (New York Times
7-20-9 By. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/should-the-rich-pay-for-the-uninsured/?apage=18)
It is difficult to take the alarm over the projected cost of the health care bills being debated in Congress very
seriously. In spite of the hyperbole, the sums are not very large in the terms of the overall budget or the
economy and some of the alleged cost is simply an accounting question. In this vein, whether or not we fill a
projected shortfall with a tax on the rich will not make very much difference to either the economy or the
people facing a larger tax burden. Starting with the accounting question, the baseline budget calls for large
cuts over the next decade in doctors’ reimbursements under Medicare. Congress has always voted to waive
these cuts. The health care reform bill will make this waiver permanent at a cost of more than $200 billion. It
is disingenuous to get outraged over this expense, since we always knew that Congress would not allow the
baseline cuts to go into effect. More generally, if we end up with a gap of $300 billion over a decade, as the
scoring of some bills imply, this would be roughly equal to 0.15 percent of gross domestic product over this
period. By comparison, the increase in defense spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
was more than 1.0 percent of G.D.P. If the former cost is enormous, then how do we describe the cost of
these wars? Of course, the real story is that we need to contain health care costs, not just for the budget, but
to protect the economy. If the health care bill includes a strong public plan, it will have put in place a
mechanism to contain costs. If we let health care costs continue to expand at their baseline rate, that spending
will bankrupt the economy even if we shut down the government health care programs altogether. Fixing the
health care system should be the main focus of Congress, not the comparatively minor deficits that may
result from efforts to extend coverage.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
153
Entitlement spending threatens economy
*Current spiraling economy will hurt future generations with taxes and federal cuts
The Heritage Foundation, 6-30-2009, “Entitlement Reform Is Necessary for Long-Term Fiscal Stability”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg2291.cfm
The U.S. faces a fundamental budgetary challenge that will have severe economic implications over the long
term. However, the scale of these challenges and the severity of an attendant economic collapse demand a
near-term approach to bring the U.S. fiscal situation back into balance.
Entitlement spending seriously threatens U.S. fiscal solvency. Left unchecked, it will contribute to a
crippling national debt burden, which will stifle economic growth and force later and thus, less fortunate,
generations to bear the cost of these imbalances through severe federal cuts or draconian tax increases.
Health care will collapse economy- Medicare and Medicaid costs
The Washington Post, 7-1-2009, “Obama Addresses Health-Care Reform at Virtual Town Hall Meeting”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070102149.html
It's also not too soon to reform our health care system, which we've been talking about since Teddy
Roosevelt was president. We are at a defining moment for this nation. If we act now, then we could rebuild
our economy in a way that makes it strong, competitive, sustainable, and prosperous once more. We can lead
this century the same way that we led the last century.
But if we don't act, if we let this moment pass, we could see this economy just sputter along for decades, a
slow steady decline in which the chances for our children and our grandchildren are fewer than the
opportunities that were given to us. And that's contrary to the history of America. One of our core ideas has
always been that we leave the next generation better off than us. And that's why we have to act right now.
I know that people say the costs of fixing our problems are great. And in some cases, they are. The costs of
inaction, of not doing anything, are even greater. They are unacceptable. And that's why this town hall and
this debate that we're having around health care is so important.
Let me just give you a few statistics. Many of you already know these. In the last nine years, premiums have
risen three times faster than wages for the average family. I don't need to tell you this because you've seen it
in your own lives. If you -- even if you've got health insurance, and 46 million people don't, if you've got
health insurance, you have senior costs double. They've gone up three times faster than wages.
If we do nothing, then those costs are just going to keep on going higher and higher. In recent years, over
one-third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the
early '90s not because small business owners don't want to provide benefits to their workers but they just
simply can't afford it; they don't have the money.
If we don't act, that means that more people are going to lose coverage and more people are going to lose
their jobs because those businesses are not going to be competitive. Unless we act, within a decade, one of
out of every $5 we earn will be spent on health care. And for those who rightly worry about deficits, the
amount our government spends Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our
government spends today on everything else combined -- everything else combined.
The Congressional Budget Office just did a study that showed that when you look at the rising costs of
entitlements, 90 percent of it is Medicare and Medicaid. It's not Social Security. 90 percent of it comes from
the federal share of health care costs. So if we want to control our deficits, the only way for us to do it is to
control health care costs.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
154
Entitlement spending threatens economy
Entitlement spending will swamp the economy
The Heritage Foundation, 6-30-2009, “Entitlement Reform Is Necessary for Long-Term Fiscal Stability”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg2291.cfm
The most current long-term projections of growth in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare (often referred
to as entitlements) paint a bleak fiscal picture, which emphasizes the need for reform. Left unchecked,
entitlement spending is projected to exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2060. Viewed in
isolation and from the distance of 50 years, this may not seem altogether daunting--distressing perhaps, but hardly
alarming. However, the federal budget would also need to expand to include discretionary spending and the other
mandatory outlays. Even more important, mandatory outlays would include spending a crushing 22 percent of GDP to
service the debt accumulated from five decades of debt-financed federal spending. The projections beyond 2060 reflect
the snowball effect of compounding debt and dwarf the nearer-term estimates. Regardless of the time horizon, addressing
U.S. fiscal straits will require increasingly drastic measures.[1]
The projections demonstrate the futility of attempting to finance entitlements with debt . On its present course, this
debt and the accompanying interest will swamp the U.S. economy, harm U.S. standing in world capital
markets, damage capital formation and productivity growth in the United States, and reduce future standards
of living.
The problem needs to be addressed soon, but some proposed solutions will not work. Raising taxes to match
the growth in the spending would dramatically harm economic growth and competitiveness. Similarly, it is
unrealistic to expect sustained GDP growth sufficient to afford this spending. Instead, addressing the longterm fiscal challenges confronting the United States will require fundamentally reforming entitlement
spending.
Current Medicaid and Medicare will drain the federal economy
Democracy Now, 6-25-2009, “Headlines for June 25th, 2009”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/25/headlines
Obama: Healthcare Costs Untenable
President Obama, meanwhile, continued his push for healthcare reform with a televised forum from the
White House. Obama said current healthcare costs are unsustainable.
President Obama: “If we don’t do some of the things that we’ve talked about tonight, you know, changing
how we pay for quality instead of quantity, making sure that we are investing in prevention, all those gamechangers that I discussed earlier—if we don’t do those things, Medicare and Medicaid are going to be broke,
and it will consume all of the federal budget. Every program that currently exists under the federal budget,
except defense and entitlements, all that would be swept aside by the cost of healthcare, if we do nothing.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
155
***SPACE
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
156
Space 2NC
Health care reform is key to prevent budgetary collapse from entitlement costs
Jason Rosenbaum, Deputy Director of Online Campaigns, Health Care for America Now, 2-23-09,
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s.php "Obama’s Fiscal Summit and
Healthcare”
As pointed out by others here and elsewhere, Medicare and Medicaid are in fact set to rise in cost
dramatically, and this is indeed a problem. And it's not just Medicare and Medicaid. Our entire health care
system is set to rise in cost, a cost that's projected to reach almost 20% of GDP by 2017 if current trends
continue. So it's not just the federal government that has a problem. With one out of every five dollars in our
economy writ large projected to be spent on health care, every person in this country has a problem. The cost
of health care must be brought under control to claim fiscal responsibility, and not just the cost of Medicare
and Medicaid but the cost of health care for everyone. So, how do we control costs? We control costs first
and foremost by getting everyone in America affordable coverage with benefits that meet their needs. We do
this by giving people a choice to keep their private health insurance plan or the option to buy into a public
health insurance plan, filling in the gaps in private insurance so everyone can have coverage. When people
are covered by insurance, they get the care they need, not just catastrophic care at the emergency room when
their health problems become dire (which is much more expensive). This prevention lowers cost and
improves health outcomes. As this chart from the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows, if we can
get our health care costs in line with other countries (the "Low Health Care Costs line) as opposed to our
projected exponential growth, our budget deficit will stabilize. Fiscal responsibility therefore means
controlling all health care costs, not just Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama understands this problem,
and though it may require an upfront federal investment, in the long run it's the only way to use taxpayer
money wisely.
Failure to fix entitlement costs kills funding for NASA, ending space exploration
Charles Miller, President of Space Policy Consulting, Inc., and Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space
Review, April 14, 2008, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1106/1
Obviously, these long-term trends in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not sustainable, and our
national leaders will be forced to do something about it. This is our point. A near-term fiscal crisis is
emerging in the next decade, and solving it will be the responsibility of the next President of the United
States and the US Congress. Recent history provides a taste of what NASA may be facing in the very near
future. During the Bush Administration NASA has done reasonably well in terms of spending: its budget, in
constant 2008 dollars, has increased from $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2001 (the last Clinton Administration
budget) to $17.1 billion in fiscal year 2008. This 0.7% real increase per year, on average, is far short of the
increases that many space advocates have been seeking, but it is better than what some other agencies have
received during the same period. However, this small budget increase has taken place during a time when
balancing the budget has not been a priority for either a Republican President or the U.S. Congress. By
comparison, during the Clinton Administration, when both the Democratic White House and Republican
Congress sought (and achieved) a balanced budget, NASA fared far worse: in constant 2008 dollars, its
budget fell from $20 billion in fiscal year 1993 to $16.3 billion in 2001, a decline of nearly 20 percent.
Considering the budgetary challenges created by the retirement of the baby boomers, the next graph may be a
better guide to the austerity NASA will face in the years to come than its experience of the last few years.
These fiscal pressures will force the next president—regardless of whoever is elected in November—to make
some hard decisions in the years to come about discretionary spending. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA
will somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. A budget cut in the next Administration that is
equivalent to last decade’s cut would result in reduction of NASA’s budget of over $3 billion per year. If that
happens, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the current exploration architecture to continue in anything
resembling its current form and schedule. It will be significantly delayed, radically altered, or even cancelled.
Should that happen, is there a way to keep the Vision for Space Exploration alive?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
157
Space 2NC
Extinction
Paul Spudis, Principal Investigator in the Planetary Geology Program of the NASA Office of Space Science, Solar
System Exploration Division and Senior Professional Staff, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
August 4, 2004,
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Opinion_Editorial/The%20Space%20Program%20and%20the%20Meaning%
20of%20Life.htm
The race to the Moon did more than prove American technical skill and the power of a free society. The real
lesson and gift from Apollo was a wholly unexpected glimpse into our future. From both the chemical and
physical evidence of impact (which we learned from the record of the lunar rocks) and the fossil record, we
discovered that large body collisions had occurred in our past and will occur again in our future. Such
catastrophes resulted in the widespread destruction of life, in some cases instantaneously eliminating more
than 90% of all living species. In short, we discovered that ultimately, life on Earth is doomed. Our new
understanding of impact as a fundamental geological force, leaves us only with the question of when, not if,
the next large collision will occur. And ‘when’ is something we cannot predict. Human civilization is
cumulative. Our culture provides positive and beautiful things through music, art and knowledge – it
embodies the wisdom of all who have gone before us. With that wisdom, we have rejected the evil doctrines
of slavery, Nazism and communism. People live longer, happier and more productive lives as time goes on.
So one must ask, are we here for a reason and if so, to what purpose? Before passing the torch to their
children, humans feel the need to create something of long-term value – something that will exist long after
their time here on Earth. Be it a garden or a cure for cancer, we want to leave this world a little bit better
than we found it. Will the prospect of our extinction harden our resolve to survive, or will it hasten the decay
of our culture? Without an escape hatch, our children will lose focus - lose sight of goals and grand visions.
The President’s Vision for Space directs us to extend human reach by developing new capabilities in space
travel. Returning to the Moon will facilitate that goal. There we will gain technical ability and learn how to
use the abundant energy and material resources waiting on other worlds. With the knowledge of how to “live
off the land” in space, we can move out into the universe – populating one world after another. We must
not die out here on Earth. Our values, culture and ability to leave this planet set us apart as a species. We
have looked into the past and have seen the future of our world. Life here on Earth is destined for extinction.
By venturing forth beyond Earth, we can ensure our survival. To extend and preserve humanity and human
achievement, we must advance new capabilities in space travel. The President has asked for $1 Billion
(about 0.0004 of the Federal budget) spread over the next four years, to begin this journey. As we acquire
capability with resources derived from the Moon and elsewhere, we will create a spacefaring infrastructure.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
158
Entitlement reform  NASA funding
Entitlement costs will kill funding for NASA, ending space exploration
Space Politics, April 14, 2008, “The Coming NASA budget crush”
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/04/14/the-coming-nasa-budget-crunch/
In response to the avalanche of comments to an earlier post about a presentation Charles Miller gave at
the Space Access conference last month about the budgetary pressures NASA is facing and one potential
solution, Charles approached me about fleshing out that talk into a more detailed essay. Part one of that
essay appears in Monday’s issue of The Space Review and goes into detail about the budget crunch
NASA and other discretionary spending programs will be facing in the near future as the Baby Boomers
retire. That wave of retirements will cause mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) to
increase, putting pressure on other programs. While NASA has done reasonably well in the current
administration, when there has been little pressure to balance budgets, it did suffer a cut of nearly 20
percent during the Clinton Administration when there was a bipartisan push to balance the budget—a
portent of what may come when there are similar pressures to cut spending. A key paragraph from the
article: These fiscal pressures will force the next president—regardless of whoever is elected in
November—to make some hard decisions in the years to come about discretionary spending. It is
unrealistic to expect that NASA will somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. A budget cut in
the next Administration that is equivalent to last decade’s cut would result in reduction of NASA’s
budget of over $3 billion per year. If that happens, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the current
exploration architecture to continue in anything resembling its current form and schedule. It will be
significantly delayed, radically altered, or even cancelled.
Rising entitlement costs kill space exploration
Space Politics, April 14, 2008, “The Coming NASA budget crush”
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/04/14/the-coming-nasa-budget-crunch/
At the Space Access ’08 conference in Phoenix on Friday, Charles Miller, a member of the board of
directors of the Space Frontier Foundation, gave a presentation with a provocative title: “The Vision for
Space Exploration (VSE) and the Retirement of the Baby Boomers: Is this the Beginning of the End? or
The End of the Beginning?” Miller took aim at one of the core assumptions behind the planning for the
VSE and its implementation, dating back to the budget projection “sand chart” from January 2004: that
NASA’s budget would grow at roughly the rate of inflation for the foreseeable, if not indefinite, future.
Current administrator Mike Griffin, for example, has said on a number of occasions that budget growth
that keeps pace with inflation would be sufficient to allow humans to land on Mars by the mid-2030s,
among other things. The problem with that assumption, Miller said, is that the budget is facing a major
crunch in the relatively near future, as the Baby Boomer generation retires and starts putting increasing
fiscal strain on programs like Social Security and Medicare. “Mandatory” programs, like those, now
account for 53% of the overall federal budget, compared to 26% in 1962, according to OMB data released
last month with the President’s FY09 budget proposal. Discretionary spending, which includes NASA as
well as the military and many other agencies, has seen its share of the budget pie shrink from 68% in
1962 to 38% now. Those discretionary programs will continue to be squeezed, Miller believes,
particularly once Boomers start retiring en masse around 2010. “There’s going to be blood on the floor
for a wide variety of programs, and it’s going to include NASA,” Miller predicts. “A conservative
projection for NASA’s real budget in the long term, for 50 years, needs to take this into account, and
should consider significant reductions in the top-line NASA budget.” In such a scenario, it seems
unlikely that the Vision would continue in anything like its current ESAS implementation. That is likely
to be true regardless of who becomes the next president, as he or she will have to grapple with the same
fiscal realities. “I think it [ESAS] is going to probably die in the next administration,” Miller said. Which
begs the question: what should replace it?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
159
NASA cuts kills space exploration
NASA cuts kill space exploration
Eric Berger, Houston Chronicle, 2-28-07, http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/02/who_really_thin.html
A similar chain of events unfolded in 1989, when President George H.W. Bush proposed an ambitious trip to
Mars, only to have it scuttled by budgetary concerns. The large projects sound great, but they require longterm funding commitments, which are hard to come by in Washington. The current President has less than
two years left in office. The next President will face war bills, increasing entitlement costs and who knows
what else -- I have to believe returning to the moon will carry a low priority. Especially so if Bush is
succeeded by a Democrat, someone who probably won't be been keen on continuing a major program begun
by Bush.
Cuts to space funding would doom space exploration
Dave Weldon, US Representative from Florida, press release from his office, January 31, 2007,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21772
In a fiscal year 2007 budget released today, the new Democrat majority proposed sweeping cuts to NASA's
budget that could jeopardized the future of space exploration. U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), who
represents many workers from NASA and Kennedy Space Center, called the cuts draconian, saying the Democrat
leadership is using NASA and our nation's space program as a piggy bank for other liberal spending priorities. "The raid
on NASA's budget has begun in earnest. The cuts announced today by House Democrat leaders, if approved by Congress,
would be nearly $400 million less than NASA's current budget," said Weldon. "Clearly, the new Democrat leadership
in the House isn't interested in space exploration. Their omnibus proposal lists hundreds of new increases,
including a $1.3 billion increase‹over 40% for a Global AIDS fund, all at the expense of NASA." Much of
the proposed cuts would come from NASA's Exploration budget, which includes funding for the new Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the future replacement for the current shuttle fleet. According to Weldon, these particular
cuts would jeopardize thousands of jobs in Florida, Alabama, and Texas. Weldon today led a bi-partisan group of
colleagues, including Reps. Ralph Hall (D-TX), and Tom Feeney (R-FL), in offering two amendments to the bill that
would restore NASA's funding.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
160
A2: VSE not key to exploration
The VSE is key to colonization – it’s the only firm commitment
Taylor Dinerman, editor and publisher of SpaceEquity.com, October 25, 2004,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/253/1
The details of the Vision for Space Exploration may be less important than the fact that the US now has
space exploration as a major national goal. The implication here is that we will someday reach the Moon and
Mars and that we will not stop with simple exploration. The technology needed to build bases on the Moon
and Mars could also be used to build sustainable permanent colonies on these bodies. Once built, such
colonies will be the first steps towards our species expansion into the solar system.
Going to the moon is a necessary first step to space exploration
Paul Spudis, Principal Investigator in the Planetary Geology Program of the NASA Office of Space Science, Solar
System Exploration Division and Senior Professional Staff, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Washington Post, December 27, 2005
Living on the moon will expand the sphere of human and robotic activity in space beyond low-Earth orbit.
To become a multiplanet species, we must master the skills of extracting local resources, build our capability
to journey and explore in hostile regions, and create new reservoirs of human culture and experience. That
long journey begins on the moon -- the staging ground, supply station and classroom for our voyage into the
universe.
Going to the moon is key to building support for broader space objectives
Paul Spudis, Principal Investigator in the Planetary Geology Program of the NASA Office of Space Science, Solar
System Exploration Division and Senior Professional Staff, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Testimony to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science, April 1, 2004,
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Opinion_Editorial/Spudis%20House%20testimony%20April%202004%20FI
NAL.htm
By learning space survival skills close to home, we create new opportunities for exploration, utilization, and
wealth creation. Space will no longer be a hostile place that we tentatively visit for short periods; it becomes
instead a permanent part of our world. Achieving routine freedom of cislunar space makes America more
secure (by enabling larger, cheaper, and routinely maintainable assets in orbit) and more prosperous (by
opening an economically limitless new frontier.) As a nation, we rely on a variety of government assets in
cislunar space, from weather satellites to GPS systems to a wide variety of reconnaissance satellites. In
addition, commercial spacecraft continue to make up a multi-billion dollar market, providing telephone,
Internet, radio and video services. America has invested billions of dollars in this infrastructure. Yet at the
moment, we have no way to service, repair, refurbish or protect any of these spacecraft. They are vulnerable
with no bulwark against severe damage or permanent loss. It is an extraordinary investment in design and
fabrication to make these assets as reliable as possible. When we lose a satellite, it must be replaced and this
process takes years. We cannot now access these spacecraft because it is not feasible to maintain a humantended servicing capability in Earth orbit – the costs of launching orbital transfer vehicles and propellant
would be excessive (it costs around $10,000 to launch one pound to low Earth orbit). By creating the ability
to refuel in orbit, using propellant derived from the Moon, we would revolutionize our national space
infrastructure. Satellites would be repaired, rather than written off. Assets would be protected rather than
abandoned. Very large satellite complexes could be built and serviced over long periods, creating new
capabilities and expanding bandwidth (the new commodity of the information society) for a wide variety of
purposes. And along the way, we will create new opportunities and make ever greater discoveries. Thus, a
return to the Moon with the purpose of learning to mine and use its resources creates a new paradigm for
space operations. Space becomes a part of America’s industrial world, not an exotic environment for arcane
studies. Such a mission ties our space program to its original roots in making us more secure and more
prosperous. But it also enables a broader series of scientific and exploratory opportunities. If we can create a
spacefaring infrastructure that can routinely access cislunar space, we have a system that can take us to the
planets.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
161
VSE key to whole space program
VSE failure kills the whole space program
Paul Dietz, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, “To Infinity and Beyond,” May 19, 2005,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/05/16/to-infinity-and-beyond/
I am objecting to a program that appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately. Choice of goals is
very important, since the program will optimize to achieve the stated goals, not the unstated goals you wished
it had. Thus the analogy to Apollo. The program was optimized to reach the moon before 1970, not to create
anything economical or sustainable. As a result, it didn’t do the latter, and the house of cards collapsed when
the stated goal was achieved. If you support a big government space program, this should worry you. VSE is
NASA’s last best hope. If they screw this up like they screwed up shuttle and ISS, I don’t see them
continuing to exist.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
162
Space key to human survival
Space is key to prevent extinction
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 19 99, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from
opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow
men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect,
and help the rest of mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people
from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors
and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species
must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the
very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species
depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might
someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to
avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares
humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will
wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of
new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of
space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new
sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the
detriment of more than our country.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
163
Space exploration key to heg
*A strong space program is key to heg
Marc Kaufman, science writer, Washington Post, December 4, 2006
In Griffin's big-picture view, the stakes in space are high -- which helps explain why he is so driven about
return to manned lunar exploration and beyond. Not only are there major national security issues involved -the country relies on space-based defense like no other nation -- but the NASA administrator said the United
States can remain a preeminent civilization only if it continues to explore space aggressively. If the United
States pulls back, Griffin said, others will speed ahead. Russia and China have sent astronauts into low-Earth
orbit, and India, Japan and the Europeans all have the technical ability to do the same now -- and far more in
the future. International cooperation has been ingrained into the government's thinking about space, but the
United States and others remain committed to manufacturing their own rockets and space capsules and will
be looking for international cooperation only once they are on the moon or Mars or some asteroids in
between. "I absolutely believe that America became a great power in the world, leapfrogging other great
powers of the time, because of its mastery of the air," Griffin said. "In the 21st century and beyond, our
society and nation, if we wish to remain in the first rank, must add to our existing capacities . . . to remain
preeminent in the arts and sciences of space flight.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
164
Got to Get off the Rock by 2050
We’ll all be dead by 2050 unless we colonize space
Daily Record, 7/8/2002
THE Earth will be so gutted, wrecked, over-exploited and the barren seas so fished out that we will have to
find a new planet - or even two - by 2050. Environmentalists at the World Wildlife Fund say we have just
another half century of luxury living left before the Earth becomes a spent husk. By that time, we will either
have to colonise space or risk human extinction as population and consumption expand.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
165
Space Colonization Solves War
Space colonization solves all wars
Isaac Asimov, visionary genius, 1985,
http://info.rutgers.edu/Library/Reference/Etext/Impact.of.Science.On.Society.hd/3/4
I have a feeling that if we really expanded into space with all our might and made it a global project, this
would be the equivalent of the winning of the West. It's not just a matter of idealism or preaching
brotherhood. If we can build power stations in space that will supply all the energy the world needs, then the
rest of the world will want that energy too. The only way that each country will be able to get that energy will
be to make sure these stations are maintained. It won't be easy to build and maintain them; it will be quite
expensive and time-consuming. But if the whole world wants energy and if the price is world cooperation,
then I think people are going to do it. We already cooperate on things that the whole world needs.
International organizations monitor the world's weather and pollution and deal with things like the oceans
and with Antarctica. Perhaps if we see that it is to our advantage to cooperate, then only the real maniacs will
avoid cooperating and they will be left out in the cold when the undoubted benefits come in. I think that,
although we as nations will retain our suspicions and mutual hatreds, we will find it to our advantage to
cooperate in developing space. In doing so, we will be able to adopt a "globalist" view of our situation. The
internal strife between Earthlings, the little quarrels over this or that patch of the Earth, and the magnified
memories of past injustices will diminish before the much greater task of developing a new, much larger
world. I think that the development of space is the great positive project that will force cooperation, a new
outlook that may bring peace to the Earth, and a kind of federalized world government. In such a
government, each region will be concerned with those matters that concern itself alone, but the entire world
would act as a unit on matters that affect the entire world. Only in such a way will we be able to survive and
to avoid the kind of wars that will either gradually destroy our civilization or develop into a war that will
suddenly destroy it. There are so many benefits to be derived from space exploration and exploitation; why
not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction of all that
humanity has struggled to achieve for 50000 years? That is one of the reasons, by the way, that I have come
from New York to Hampton despite the fact that I have a hatred of traveling and I faced 8 hours on the train
with a great deal of fear and trembling. It was not only The College of William and Mary that invited me, but
NASA as well, and it is difflcult for me to resist NASA, knowing full well that it symbolizes what I believe
in too.
Space colonization harmoniously unites humanity
The Columbus Dispatch, 5/23/2001
There may come a time when humans will consider space colonization. Initiatives such as the space station
and a manned Mars landing could be steppingstones toward pitching a tent on another world. In one
unexpected consequence, an international push into space could be the great uniter. The heavens, so immense
and enigmatic, could make ethnic and religious groups look beyond their problems with each other. Everyone
has a stake in this trip.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
166
***NMD
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
167
NMD 2NC
Limiting entitlement spending key to NMD funding.
Economists for Peace and Security 1-3-2003, “The Full Costs of Ballistic Missile Defense.”
http://www.epsusa.org/publications/papers/bmd/execsum.htm
The projected rise in spending for BMD as system deployment accelerates in 2007 and after would coincide directly
with a steep rise in entitlement spending for the elderly. For the next several years the combined Social Security and
Medicare Hospitalization Trust Funds will collect over $100 billion per year more than they disburse and will lend
this money to the Treasury. The combined surpluses of the trust funds are projected to begin declining in 2009,
however, and to drop by an average of about $18 billion per year through 2015. When the surpluses of these
programs decline, this source of revenue for other purposes will dry up, forcing other funds to be found to replace
them. Trust-fund surpluses would turn to deficits in about 2017, and these deficits would increase by amounts
averaging some $50 billion per year through 2020 and more thereafter. Hence, demands for cash over and above
earmarked tax receipts for Social Security and Medicare would swell by such amounts each year and have to be met
by cutting benefits or other federal spending, raising revenues and/or borrowing more in bond markets. Some people
suggest that the Social Security problems can be solved by switching to private accounts invested partly in corporate
stocks. Whether or not that is a good idea, any transition to individual accounts would greatly worsen the federal
budget outlook for at least two decades. This analysis does not suggest that a commitment to BMD alone would
require cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare. It would, however, be a significant element contributing to a very
tight budget environment in which changes in these programs will be made. As the period of BMD’s phase-in
stretches onward, the demands of Social Security and Medicare are likely to create desperately tight budgets year in
and year out. If spending for BMD systems rises more slowly than assumed by the ambitious deployment dates, and
there reaches its peak beyond 2015, spending would collide even more directly with the impending financial crisis in
oldage entitlement programs.
NMD is critical to avoid nuclear war.
Investor’s Business Daily, 11-7, 2007
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=279331529327444
Is it possible that Democrats are still skeptical that a missile shield will actually work? If so, evidence that it will has
reached the point that it can no longer be denied. Or is their lack of support simply due to a reflexive opposition to
the military and toward symbols of what they perceive to be projections of U.S. power? Either way, their actions
could leave us vulnerable to nuclear attack from a rogue nation such as Iran (see editorial at left) or North Korea,
which is supposedly backing down on its nuclear weapons program but will remain a threat as long as its communist
regime stays in place. The risk doesn't end, however, with those two legs of the Axis of Evil, both of which are on
the State Department's list of terrorist states. Nuclear-armed Pakistan is now an ally, yet it could become an enemy
depending on how its internal turmoil is resolved. Both al-Qaida and the Taliban have powerful bases in the region.
What if the Musharraf government one day falls and one of those terrorist groups suddenly has the keys to a nuclear
arsenal? It's just as plausible that the threat could come from any of the Mideast nations that want to keep up with
Iran's nuclear program. With Egypt making its announcement last week, there are now 13 countries in the region
that have in the last year said they want nuclear power. They can claim, as Iran has, that they want it merely for
energy. But the step from nuclear power to nuclear weapons is not that far. Given the volatility of the region, it
would be wise to make sure that all precautions — and that includes a missile defense — are taken. Even Russia,
with its extensive nuclear weaponry, could be a threat. President Vladimir Putin has raised objections to America's
allying with former Soviet satellites to place U.S. missile defense components in their countries. This, warns Putin in
language reminiscent of the Cold War, will turn Europe into a "powder keg." For his part, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov has declared: "The arms race is starting again." Are congressional Democrats prepared to leave us
only partly protected in a world where nuclear arms might soon begin to spread like a Southern California wildfire?
Some have looked at the Democrats' actions and said, emphatically, yes. "Their aim," Heritage Foundation defense
analyst Baker Spring said earlier this year, "is to force the U.S. to adopt a position that prohibits it from developing
— much less deploying — missile defense interceptors in space under any circumstance and for all time."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
168
NMD good – prolif
NMD key to check proliferation
Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, is a senior fellow for National Security Affairs at
the Heritage Foundation, 11-8, 2007, online:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E2E0BCA0-8DDF-484C-B974-22FE89CF0715,
If anything, the opposite is true. Defensive weapons systems such as missile defense have a stabilizing
effect on the security environment, as opposed to offensive weapons, which research has shown can be
destabilizing. As a defensive capability, U.S. missile defense plans for Europe will act as a deterrent to
rogue nations and non-state actors from acquiring ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
There will be less motivation for ballistic missile capability if Europe has the ability to defend against it.
To make America and its allies deliberately vulnerable to attack is not only nonsensical, it is likely to
incur further proliferation. As President Bush stated, "Missile defense is a vital tool for our security, it's a
vital tool for deterrence and it's a vital tool for counterproliferation."[8]
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
169
NMD good – terrorism
NMD in Europe is key to deter and prevent nuclear terror strikes on the U.S. and allies
Joe Pitts, U.S. Representative (R-PA), 11-2, 2007, online: http://www.truthnews.net/world/2007100430.htm,
The strange irony is that in the first decade of the 21st century the United States and its allies may be
more vulnerable to the threat of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles today than we were during the
Cold War. Though there were certainly serious times of raised tensions, the dry logic of mutually assured
destruction kept the major actors in the Cold War from ever actually using nuclear armed ballistic
missiles. Today, rogue nations and non-state terror organizations operate outside the realm of mutually
assured destruction. A terrorist organization has no territory or population it must protect. Pariah nations
that chronically operate outside the realm of the international community, like North Korea, Iran, and
Iraq, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, may not follow the same rational logic that prevented the U.S.
and the Soviet Union from launching nuclear missiles. The United States continues to work on nonproliferation measures to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of countries or groups that
might use them against the United States and its allies. However, the global nuclear arms sales network of
A.Q. Khan, of Pakistan, was evidence that nuclear weapons can and have been proliferated into the hands
of enemies of the United States. It would take just one nuclear warhead to destroy an entire city. The toll
in human lives would be massive and catastrophic. It is an issue that we should not take lightly. It is a
threat that we must address. The U.S. Department of Defense began deploying long-range missile
interceptors in Alaska and California in 2004. These interceptors would protect the United States from a
long-range missile threat from rogue nations in Asia, such as a launch from North Korea. The United
States has ground-mobile and sea-based systems as well that would combat short-range ballistic missiles.
What is currently missing from a global ballistic missile defense is a system that would protect our
strategic interests and allies in Europe. The threat from a potentially nuclear armed Iran cannot be
ignored. I believe we should continue working toward a diplomatic resolution with Iran over the issue of
nuclear weapons. However, we cannot assume such a resolution will take place, and need to move
forward in tandem with a plan to provide defense against a nuclear armed.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
170
NMD good – Iranian prolif
NMD key to avoid Iranian proliferation.
Charlie Szrom, research assistant in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute,
12-21, 2007, The Weekly Standard, online:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp%3FidArticle%3D14496%26r%3Dnzhfp&cid=1125250328,
THE NEW NATIONAL Intelligence Estimate has led many to call for a new policy towards Iran. Sen.
Hillary Clinton "vehemently disagree[s]" that "nothing in American policy has to change." Russian
foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said the report confirmed the Russian view that "there is no military
element in [Iran's] nuclear program." Doesn't all this mean we should drop support for missile defense?
No. The threat has not changed significantly and missile defense remains one of the few options still
available to lessen the power of potential Iranian nukes. The program can also turn positive relationships
with Central European states into long-term, mutually-dependent alliances. Iran tested a new missile,
called the 'Ashura,' as recently as late last month. This 2000-kilometer-range weapon could potentially
reach U.S bases in the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe, including such U.S. allies as Romania,
Georgia, or Ukraine. The announcement may just be bluster, but the unveiling alone shows that Iran has
no intention of backing down militarily. A careful reading of the NIE makes an even stronger case for a
continued menace. The report admits that Iran continues to enrich uranium, that Iran "probably would be
technically capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon sometime during
the 2010-2015 time frame," and that it "will be difficult" to convince the Iranian leadership to abandon
eventual development of a nuclear capability. The basic facts remain the same; perhaps the only
revelation is that Iran, if anything, has made a tactical decision to delay warhead production so it can buy
enough time for the more difficult task of enriching uranium. After the marathon of amassing sufficient
fuel, Tehran just has to sprint through the relatively simple process of developing warheads. Our missile
defense partners recognize the enduring danger. The Czech foreign ministry stated that, "'According to
the report, Iran will probably be capable of producing a sufficient quantity of nuclear material for the
production of a nuclear bomb between 2010 and 2015. This corresponds with the previous estimates. By
this date the European pillar of anti-missile defense should be in place.'" The threat still exists. How can
we continue to pressure Iran? The report dashed hopes for any broad UN sanctions against Iran, as Russia
and China, reluctant beforehand to impose serious punitive measures on Iran, now have a ready excuse.
Military strikes now also seem highly unlikely, given the lack of urgency precipitated by the NIE. Those
opposed to an Iranian nuclear program might still enact smart sanctions--targeting, for example, the
participation of Iranian regime elements in the international financial system--in coordination with a few
hardy European allies. One such ally, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, said through a spokesman
that "the report confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons."
But such action will not be enough. The United States needs a response that will directly address the
physical threat of Iranian nukes. Missile defense development avoids the problem of UN-based
obstruction by Russia or China, and it remains one of the few remaining pressure points we can use
against Iran.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
171
NMD good – Iranian prolif
NMD is key to counter Iranian proliferation and nuclear capabilities.
Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, is a senior fellow for National Security Affairs at
the Heritage Foundation, 11-8, 2007, online: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E2E0BCA08DDF-484C-B974-22FE89CF0715,
In fact, the emerging Iranian threat is nothing less than a race against the clock. Iran is involved in both a
long-range missile program and a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Both programs could reach
initial operating capability in the 2013-2015 timeframe or even earlier. Pending immediate approval,
current projections forecast completion of the Polish and Czech "third site" installations within five years,
which is only marginally ahead of Iran's estimated long-range ballistic missile capability and nuclear
capability.[3] Moreover, with the possibility of a Manhattan Project-like effort by Iran, supported by
countries such as North Korea, Iran's capability may well be realized even earlier than currently expected.
With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saber-rattling and threatening to "wipe Israel off the face
of the earth,"[4] it is incumbent upon the United States to take the growing Iranian threat seriously by
taking steps to protect itself, its forward-deployed troops, and its friends and allies.
NMD is critical to avoid Iranian proliferation.
Lukasz Kulesa, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, April 12, 2007, “Missile Defense Dossier:
The Polish Perspective,” online:
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_eng.pdf,
To put it simple, the Americans feel they need to have an MD system and are able to build it. The
decision to field a European MD component comes directly from this logic, and it appears futile to look
for some hidden motives (for example, an attempt to divide the European Union). The radar is meant to
provide better tracking of Iranian missiles, and the interceptor base would give the US additional
interception opportunities of an ICBM aimed at the US, plus some rudimentary level of protection for
their bases in Europe and parts of European territory (excluding south-eastern part of the continent). On
this last point, it is worth to point out that spending lots of money and efforts on protecting someone
else’s territory makes in this case perfect strategic sense. After all, if the US is protected by the antimissile shield, what would be the ‘next best thing’ for Iranian planners wishing to deter the West from
interfering in Iran’s affairs?
NMD is critical to prevent Iran from proliferating – it sends a clear signal.
Lukasz Kulesa, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, April 12, 2007, “Missile Defense Dossier:
The Polish Perspective,” online:
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_eng.pdf,
Arguments pointing to the slow pace of the Iranian missile developments, lack of strategic rationale for
Iran to build an arsenal for striking Europe or the United States when better targets are available in the
neighbourhood (e.g. American bases across the Gulf), or the availability of other means of transporting
WMD to the target, will have no impact on the United States. Scrapping the system would be equal with
admitting the fundamental flaws of the ‘undeterrable rogue states’ doctrine. Neither this, nor any next
administration seems prepared to make such a move. Of course, as with every major armaments
programme, there is also the self-perpetuating internal logic of ‘we have advanced so far, and cannot stop
here…’.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
172
NMD good – Russia
NMD is critical to prevent Russian expansion.
Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, is a senior fellow for National Security Affairs at
the Heritage Foundation, 11-8, 2007, online:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E2E0BCA0-8DDF-484C-B974-22FE89CF0715,
If anything, the opposite is true. Defensive weapons systems such as missile defense have a stabilizing
effect on the security environment, as opposed to offensive weapons, which research has shown can be
destabilizing. As a defensive capability, U.S. missile defense plans for Europe will act as a deterrent to
rogue nations and non-state actors from acquiring ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
There will be less motivation for ballistic missile capability if Europe has the ability to defend against it.
To make America and its allies deliberately vulnerable to attack is not only nonsensical, it is likely to
incur further proliferation. As President Bush stated, "Missile defense is a vital tool for our security, it's a
vital tool for deterrence and it's a vital tool for counterproliferation."[8] However, the failure of third site
negotiations would embolden those in Russia who believe that the United States is negotiating from a
position of diplomatic and military weakness. Putin would claim--with some credibility--to have scored a
diplomatic victory over the United States. Failure would also increase Russian boldness in intimidating
former satellite states, adding to instability in Eastern Europe.
NMD is key to stop Russian expansion.
Lukasz Kulesa, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, April 12, 2007, “Missile Defense Dossier:
The Polish Perspective,” online:
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_eng.pdf,
Which threat is so potent that it requires the US base as an ‘insurance policy’ against aggression? Most of
the supporters of Poland’s involvement in the Missile Defence project point unanimously at Russia and
the possible future course of its policy. With the new strength coming from gas and oil revenues, Russia
looks determined to increase its influence not only in the ‘near abroad’ (i.e. former USSR), but also
globally. At home, the Kremlin-devised concept of ‘sovereign democracy’ provides a basis for a stable
system political which has most of the attributes of a democracy (e.g. periodic elections), but little of its
spirit (no real choices for the voters). According to some commentators, the new over-confident Russia
may, in the medium to long-term perspective, try to use not only the energy weapon, but also the threat of
military force as a foreign policy tool.
Russian military expansionism gets modeled by India and Pakistan
Business Week Online , September 30, 2002
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_39/b3801084.htm
But heightened activity in the Caucasus presents risks for the U.S., too. One is the danger that U.S.
advisers in Georgia get targeted in a new flare-up of violence. America's global image could also suffer
through a closer identification with aggressive Russian war methods. And a dangerous precedent could be
set. If Putin mounts a larger military effort with the tacit approval of Washington, countries in other hot
spots could follow his example. Analysts fear India, for example, could invoke the same argument Putin
is using to launch a major strike against the part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. ''This has got to be
very carefully controlled'' by U.S. policymakers, says Fiona Hill, an expert on the Caucasus region at the
Brookings Institution. Even as Putin cooperates with the war on terror, he's posing yet another dilemma
for Bush's hard-pressed anti-terrorism team.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
173
NMD good – A2: Russia backlash
The U.S. will never go to war with Russia over NMD.
Alexander Golts, St. Petersburg Times, 11-6, 2007
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=23554
It is clear that Moscow has no desire to reach a compromise on the missile defense issue. On the contrary,
the Kremlin has a vested interest in preserving an ongoing, smoldering conflict with the United States
over nuclear weapons and missile defense. Putin and his inner circle are convinced that this is the only
way Russia can regain its status as a superpower and stand on equal footing with the United States -- at
least in the nuclear sphere. This is why Moscow is always pushing for negotiations on nuclear weapons,
such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I. And in
order to underscore the importance of such talks, the Kremlin periodically threatens to pull out of a treaty
or to deploy a mysterious, miracle warhead capable of overcoming U.S. missile defense systems. In
reality, however, the nuclear factor plays an increasingly minor role in U.S.-Russian relations. And,
paradoxically, its importance began to diminish after the Cuban missile crisis, when it became clear that
neither side was willing to use its nuclear weapons against the other. Despite having 20 times more
nuclear weapons than the Soviet Union, the United States rejected any plan involving a first strike against
Moscow. In the late 1950s, Robert McNamara calculated the probable losses in the event of a Soviet first
nuclear strike against the United States. After becoming defense secretary in the early 1960s, however,
McNamara acknowledged that Soviet nuclear weapons were not capable of inflicting the level of damage
that he had earlier estimated, and he thus ruled out any plan for a U.S. first strike. For nuclear weapons to
be an important factor in politics, there must be a real fear that the leader possessing the weapons is crazy
enough to actually use them. That is why the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea have generated
such heightened concern around the world. Putin, however, has shown — whether he intended to or not
— that he is a rational leader. And even drawing unfounded, exaggerated historical parallels with the
Cuban missile crisis can’t ruin that reputation — at least not yet.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
174
NMD good – works
Current NMD technology works and can stop nuclear attacks.
Lukasz Kulesa, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, April 12, 2007, “Missile Defense Dossier:
The Polish Perspective,” online:
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_eng.pdf,
For many countries, the perspective of having a shield protecting its territory against long-range ballistic
missiles may be attractive (the Russians only have a system protecting Moscow, using nuclear warheads),
but only for the United States that option has become both technically achievable and affordable. An
impressive work has been done on the development and integration of the MD system of sensors
(including space assets and radars), weapons (maritime and ground component) and command & control
architecture – all thanks to the US technological potential and industrial prowess. Technical problems and
failed tests notwithstanding, it seems now that the system will indeed offer high chances of intercepting a
simple, non-decoys-included, ballistic missile. And in the gargantuan US military budget, the money
spend on Missile Defence (almost 100 billion USD so far) is just a fraction of the overall expenses.
Recent, demanding tests show that NMD system works.
Investor’s Business Daily, 11-7, 2007
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/missiledefense/index?more=5814422
While the rest of the country went about its business Tuesday night, the Missile Defense Agency
conducted another successful test, this time hitting not one but two missiles. It was the first time multiple
targets had been used. Shortly after 8 p.m. Pacific time, two short-range ballistic missiles were launched
from Hawaii. Within minutes, interceptors fired from the USS Lake Erie's weapon system struck and
destroyed the missiles more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean. The hits were the 10th and 11th for
the Aegis sea-based part of the missile shield program. Adding to their significance is the fact that the
Lake Erie crew was not informed of the time of the launch, though it was on alert.
Successful dual-warhead tests are a significant improvement for NMD
Brendon Nicholson The Melbourne Age, 11-9, 2007 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/successfulmissile-tests-a-poser-for-us/2007/11/08/1194329414564.html
THE US Navy has tracked and destroyed two ballistic missiles in space within seconds of each other in a
test that will have implications for Australia's next government. The successful destruction of two
missiles almost simultaneously is a significant step in the development of the controversial US antiballistic missile system in which Australia will play a part. Previously single missiles have been
destroyed in space by US warships armed with the Aegis anti-ballistic missile system.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
175
***DISEASE/HEALTH/POVERTY
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
176
Bioterror 2NC
Lack of solid health care makes the US more susceptible to bioterrorism
Shane K Green, Ph D, May 2004 (“Bioterrorism and Health Care Reform: No Preparedness Without Access.”
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2004/05/pfor2-0405.html)
The temporal correlation between the occurrence of wars or epidemics and attempts at health care reform
exists in large part because the health of the public gains importance when its absence threatens a nation's
integrity and security. The US learned this valuable lesson during the Revolutionary War, when American colonial
forces were weakened early on as nonimmunized soldiers fell victim to smallpox, while British soldiers, who had
encountered the disease in England and had thus acquired immunity, were relatively unaffected. Recognizing that
protecting national interests in times of war necessitates a healthy fighting force, the US government instituted health
care coverage for members of the US Armed Forces and Merchant Marine [1]. But with the US presently engaged in
a "war on terror," in which not only soldiers but also civilians are targets, a healthy fighting force is no longer
enough to ensure national security; the time has come for this country to take up reforms that promote the
health of all Americans. Reassuringly, this is not a novel proposal. Reflecting upon statements made in 1944 by
American medical historian Henry E. Sigerist, MD, concerning the power of external security threats to stimulate reform,
a recent editorial in the American Journal of Public Health suggested that, "[t]his incendiary moment may be just the
time for rekindling reform" [2]. Similarly, emergency physician and medical ethicist C. Griffin Trotter, MD, PhD,
recently declared: "National security, I submit, is the new banner for health care reform" [3]. Consider the
threat of bioterrorism: the potential use of biological weapons against this country raises the specter of a
unique kind of war in which battles will be fought not against soldiers and artillery but against epidemics.
Without significant reform to ensure access to health care for all Americans, the US will be unable to fight
such battles effectively. Why Access? Using infectious diseases as weapons, bioterrorism threatens to
weaken the civilian workforce and, hence, a nation's ability to go about its daily business. Moreover, in the
case of diseases that are transmissible person to person, each infected individual becomes a human weapon,
infecting others, who then infect others, and so on, tying up medical responders and overwhelming medical
resources. A nation's greatest defense against bioterrorism, both in preparation for and in response to an
attack, is a population in which an introduced biological agent cannot get a foothold, ie, healthy people with
easy access to health care. Yet, in spite of spending significantly more per capita on health care than any other
developed nation, the US is peppered with communities in which many people have little or no access to health care. This
may be due to a lack of adequate health insurance—a fact of life for over 43 million demographically diverse
Americans—or to cultural barriers that inhibit proper utilization of available services, or to inadequate distribution of
health professionals and services. These communities are more vulnerable to infectious diseases [4] and therefore might
be considered the nation's Achilles' heal in a bioterrorism attack. Take, for example, vaccination. A lack of access to
health care among US citizens, particularly immigrant populations and those living in poverty, is associated
with a failure to be vaccinated. This can have a serious impact on the spread of contagion, as evidenced by a
rubella outbreak in 1997 in Westchester County, New York, in which a readily containable virus managed to infect a
community composed largely of immigrants who had not been immunized [5].
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
177
Bioterror 2NC
Biological terrorist attack would cause extinction
Steinbruner, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute 1997 [John, Sr. Fellow @ Brookings institution, “Biological
Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses”, Foreign Policy, Winter 1997-1998, p. 85-96, JSTOR]
Ultimately the world's military, medical, and business establishments will have to work together to an
unprecedented degree if the international community is to succeed in containing the threat of biological
weapons. Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as
potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens
are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not
independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple
observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the
damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in
a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to
estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is
an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended
process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the
predominant drawback Biological Weapons is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an
effective weapon. But for a few pathogens ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones
most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use-the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal
pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an
intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza
epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
178
Health care solves bioterror
Health care prevents bioterror and disease spread
Laura Kahn 7 (2-1-07 researcher at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/laura-h-kahn/the-security-impact-of-the-uninsured)
The 9/11 Commission revealed important information regarding U.S. preparedness and response to the attack on the
World Trade Center. However, there has not been an independent investigation focusing on the nation's response to
the anthrax letters. It's important to note that a delay in seeking care and proper treatment proved fatal for five of the
eleven inhalational anthrax victims. Seven of the eleven individuals were federal postal workers, all of whom were
eligible for health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Five of these postal
workers survived because they sought care and received correct treatment early. But what would have happened if
the inhalational anthrax victims had been food handlers, child care workers, or farm workers who lacked health
insurance? In May 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report that estimated that roughly 30
million working age adults were uninsured. The report found that these individuals often delay seeking treatments
for illnesses and lack an ongoing relationship with a medical professional. In April 2006, The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation released a state-by-state report (The Coverage Gap: A State-by-State Report on Access to Care) that
found that (during the study period from 1998 to 2003) 41 percent of uninsured adults avoided seeking medical care
because of cost compared to 9 percent of insured adults. Another IOM report released in January 2004 estimated
that because of poorer health, the uninsured cost the United States somewhere between $65 billion and $130 billion
annually more than if they were insured. In the long run, their health care costs are much higher because they delay
seeking care until their illness is severe, or in some cases, untreatable. When time is of the essence, these
findings provide a sobering backdrop in our struggle against future bioterrorist attacks and emerging infectious
disease outbreaks. For example, delays in seeking or obtaining care could have catastrophic consequences in the
event of a communicable disease outbreak such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, pandemic influenza, or
smallpox. Public health interventions such as vaccination, quarantine, and isolation rely on the early recognition of
an outbreak to successfully contain it. This strategy would be seriously hindered when at least 15 percent of the total
U.S. population lacks health insurance, which diminishes access to medical care. Yet, despite the problems
posed by the lack of health insurance for a significant fraction of Americans on overall health care costs, human
suffering, and national security, would universal health insurance ever be a viable option in the United States?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
179
Health care key to biotech
The biotech sector is on the verge of collapse – health care reform is key
The News and Observer, 2-18-09, “Biotech firm raises concerns”
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/1409448.html
The Triangle's two-day biotechnology conference ended Tuesday amid worries about how the industry
will weather the crisis in the financial markets. As public and private investors are tightening their purse
strings, cash reserves at many companies are dwindling. It's a problem particularly for development
companies without product revenue. Much of North Carolina's biotech industry, the third-largest
nationwide and concentrated in the Triangle, depends on investments for survival. How to fund
operations is among companies' top concerns, said Jim Greenwood, chief executive of BIO, the industry's
national trade group. Greenwood was one of the key speakers at the Council for Entrepreneurial
Development's biotech conference, which attracted about 1,000 attendees. Tuesday morning, he talked
with staff writer Sabine Vollmer about what keeps BIO members up at night: Funding The biotech
industry raised 55 percent less in funding in 2008 compared with the year before, because more than a
dozen initial public offerings were withdrawn. Venture capital investments dropped as the stock market
tanked. Many smaller biotech companies are desperate for cash, Greenwood said. About 30 percent of
BIO's publicly traded members have less than six months' worth of cash on hand. Another 45 percent
have less than 12 months of cash available. As a result, biotech companies across the country filed for
bankruptcy, laid off employees and shelved promising drug development programs, Greenwood said. He
expects further pain in 2009. Health care policy BIO supports universal health care, a topic high on the
Obama administration's to-do list. But biotech companies oppose health care reform that would lower the
cost of prescription drugs, Greenwood said. The industry is also preparing for generic competition,
which is not expected for at least another five years, and lobbying for better protection, he said. Last
year, Congress considered four bills to establish exclusivity for biotech drugs for up to 14 years. None of
the bills was approved, but Greenwood expected that Congress will take another look at them this year.
Health care reform is key to biotech
Jim Greenwood, Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) President and CEO, 2-25-09,
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090225006333&ne
wsLang=en
“The biotechnology community applauds and shares many of the priorities outlined by President Obama
last night. We believe our industry is uniquely positioned to help achieve these goals. “We share
President Obama’s stated goal of expanding access to health care. We believe biotechnology can play a
key role in this quest. Biotechnology can help bring needed innovation to modernize and add efficiencies
to our nation’s health care system. Innovation in health care, including health care solutions such as new
therapies and diagnostics, has always been and will continue to be central to realizing our health care
goals. Further, we believe that market-based reforms provide the best opportunity to achieve the goal of
universal access while providing high quality care and incentives for the discovery and development of
innovative improvements throughout the health care delivery system.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
180
Health care key to pharma
Health care reform forces innovation through generics and rescues pharma from imminent
collapse
Joe Pieroni, President and CEO, Daiichi Sankyo Inc., Parsippany, 2-1-09,
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090201/BUSINESS/902010393/1003
While the pharmaceutical industry was not hit as hard as other industries this past year, we certainly will
face more than a few challenges in 2009. Health care access and affordability will be important goals of
the Obama administration as they tackle health care reform. The pharmaceutical industry shares these
goals and needs to play an active role in this dialogue, ensuring that new approaches will support both a
healthy nation and a healthy industry. With patient costs associated with medical care (including
copayments, which patients feel directly) on the rise, adherence to medication regimens to treat chronic
illnesses, such as heart disease, can suffer. While this is a serious health issue for patients who need these
medications to manage their illness, it's also a financial concern for society. Patients who do not take
medications as prescribed risk suffering undesirable medical outcomes, which ultimately are much more
expensive for the health care system. As patents expire and generic medications come onto the market as
lower-cost alternatives to branded drugs, the health of the pharmaceutical industry will rest on our ability
to bring innovative products to market. Therefore, a top priority for pharmaceutical companies is to
ensure that our new products offer patients and society incremental and quantifiable benefits over existing
therapies. We are making significant effort as an industry, and certainly within Daiichi Sankyo, to be able
to articulate that new "value proposition" for our products in order to ensure informed decisions by
physicians and the health care system administrators. Unrestricted access to value-based medicine is
where our future lies. Understanding how to conduct clinical trials to reveal these important dimensions
of a new therapy, and delivering this information in an understandable and compelling way to health care
decision-makers, are the challenges that await us in 2009 and beyond. Never before is research and
cutting-edge science more important to ensure a steady flow of innovation. This requires companies to
supplement their own research and development efforts through external alliances and in-licensing of
promising compounds. Last year, Daiichi Sankyo made several such strategic agreements including the
acquisition of German biotech company, U3 Pharma, as well as an agreement for a new product and
technology platform with Massachusettss-based ArQule. Continued economic pressures may actually
facilitate other such merger and acquisition activity between biotech and pharmaceutical companies in
2009. We are likely to see some plan for universal healthcare coverage move forward in the near future -and this is a good thing for patients, the industry, our country and the government. However, there is
concern that the government would have a heavy hand in setting formularies and price controls, which
could stifle research and development. A universal healthcare system that is based upon a single
government payer model, ultimately puts prescribing rights in the hands of lawmakers, not physicians,
limits patient choice and removes incentives for competition and innovation.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
181
Health care key to pharma
Healthcare reform revitalizes research in pharmaceuticals
Heller and Rocklin, ’08
(Jacob and Gabriel, "Promoting Pharmaceutical Research under National Health Care Reform"
http://step.berkeley.edu/White_Paper/heller_and_rocklin.pdf)
Rather than lamenting political pressure to cut costs, upcoming health care reforms are an opportunity to rebuild the
pharmaceutical innovation system from the ground up. The current crisis in the industry has not been exclusively
caused by the patent system, but the patent system has strongly contributed, as we will describe later. Moving to a
price controlled system in the U.S. should save enormous amounts of money that can be redirected to new research
incentives. In Medicare alone, if patented drugs were bulk purchased near generic prices, combined savings to the
Federal Government, state governments, and individual premium payers would add up to $600 billion in the 8 year
period between 2006-2013, even after accounting for an increase in utilization (Baker 2006). By using a portion of
these funds to support a new incentives system, we could channel the innovative capacity of the pharmaceutical
industry directly toward important medical advances. A new
It should be low cost and cost effective.
Health care reform helps drug companies – expanded demand overwhelms any hit they
would take
Timothy P. Carney, DC Exmainer Staff Writer 2-25-09, http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Insurers-drugmakers-poised-to-profit-from-Obama-health-plan_02_25-40257852.html
La Merie, a “business intelligence” publisher, wrote in a recent pharmaceutical industry report: “Obama’s
new universal health-care program will increase demand for drugs, both branded and generic, reduce the
need for free drug programs due to universal health-care coverage, and boost pediatric drug and vaccine
programs.” Sounds like a good deal for drug makers.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
182
Pharma solves bioterror
Strong pharma industry solves bioterror attack
Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 30, 2008; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901921.html
Seven years after the 2001 anthrax attacks, a congressionally ordered study finds a growing threat of biological
terrorism and calls for aggressive defenses on par with those used to prevent a terrorist nuclear detonation. Due for
release next week, a draft of the study warns that future bioterrorists may use new technology to make synthetic
versions of killers such as Ebola, or genetically modified germs designed to resist ordinary vaccines and antibiotics.
The bipartisan report faults the Bush administration for devoting insufficient resources to prevent an attack and says
U.S. policies have at times impeded international biodefense efforts while promoting the rapid growth of a network
of domestic laboratories possessing the world's most dangerous pathogens. The number of such "high-containment"
labs in the United States has tripled since 2001, yet U.S. officials have not implemented adequate safeguards to
prevent deadly germs from being stolen or accidentally released, it says. "The rapid growth in the number of such
labs in recent years has created new safety and security risks which must be managed," the draft report states. The
report is the product of a six-month study by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Terrorism, which Congress created last spring in keeping with one of the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. Drafts of chapters pertaining to bioterrorism were obtained by The Washington Post. The document
cites progress in many areas of biodefense since the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, including major investments in
research, stockpiling of drugs and development of a network of sensors designed to detect airborne viruses and
bacteria. The Bush administration has spent more than $20 billion on such countermeasures, far more than any of its
predecessors. But the report says the next administration must do much more to prevent dangerous pathogens from
falling into the wrong hands in the first place. While politicians often warn about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, a
serious biological attack would be easier to accomplish and deserves a top priority, it says. "The more probable
threat of bioterrorism should be put on equal footing with the more devastating threat of nuclear terrorism," the draft
states. It calls on the Obama administration to develop a comprehensive approach to preventing bioterrorism and to
"banish the 'too-hard-to-do' mentality that has hobbled previous efforts." Some bioweapons specialists have argued
that it is practically impossible to prevent a biological attack, because lethal strains of anthrax bacteria and other
deadly microbes can be found in nature. But the report argues that it would be far easier for bioterrorists to obtain
the seeds of an attack from laboratories that have ready supplies of "hot" strains. U.S. officials think an Army
biodefense lab was the source of the anthrax spores used in the 2001 attacks that killed five people. The biodefense
research industry that sprang up after 2001 offers potential solutions to a future attack, but also numerous new
opportunities for theft or diversion of deadly germs, the report says. Today, about 400 research facilities and 14,000
people are authorized to work with deadly strains in the United States alone, and several of the new labs have been
embroiled in controversies because of security breaches, such as the escape of lab animals. No single government
agency has authority to oversee security at these U.S. labs, most of which are run by private companies or
universities. Such facilities in the United States "are not regulated" unless they obtain government funding or acquire pathogens
from the government's list of known biowarfare agents. Because of this gap, labs can work with "dangerous but unlisted
pathogens, such as the SARS virus," which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, without the government's knowledge.
Internationally, the challenges are even greater. While the U.S. government continues to spend billions of dollars to secure ColdWar-era nuclear stockpiles, similar efforts to dismantle Soviet bioweapons facilities have been scaled back because of
disagreements with the Russian government, the report notes. The only global treaty that outlaws the development of biological
weapons has no mechanism for inspections or enforcement. Efforts to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention were
dealt a symbolic blow in 2001 when the Bush administration withdrew its support for a new accord that had been under
negotiation for six years. Meanwhile, the growth in biodefense research seen in the United States has spread to dozens of
countries, including developing nations such as Malaysia and Cuba that are investing heavily to develop world-class biotech
industries. One of the fastest-growing technologies is DNA synthesis, which offers new capabilities to alter the genes of existing
pathogens or synthesize them artificially. While governments, trade groups and professional organizations are experimenting
with various voluntary controls over such new capabilities, the United States should lead a global effort to strengthen oversight
and clamp down on the unregulated export of deadly microbes, the panel said. "Rapid scientific advances and the global
spread of biotechnology equipment and know-how are currently outpacing the modest international attempts to
promote biosecurity," the report says.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
183
Pharma solves bioterror
The Pharmaceutical Industry is key to preventing bioterrorism
Washington Post 2001 (Justin Gillis, "Scientists Race for Vaccines," lexis)
U.S. scientists, spurred into action by the events of Sept. 11, have begun a concerted assault on bioterrorism,
working to produce an array of new medicines that include treatments for smallpox, a safer smallpox vaccine
and a painless anthrax vaccine. At least one major drug company, Pharmacia Corp. of Peapack, N.J., has
offered to let government scientists roam through the confidential libraries of millions of compounds it has
synthesized to look for drugs against bioterror agents. Other companies have signaled that they will do the
same if asked. These are unprecedented offers, since a drug company's chemical library, painstakingly
assembled over decades, is one of its primary assets, to which federal scientists usually have no access. "A
lot of people would say we won World War II with the help of a mighty industrial base," said Michael
Friedman, a onetime administrator at the Food and Drug Administration who was appointed days ago to
coordinate the pharmaceutical industry's efforts. "In this new war against bioterrorism, the mighty industrial
power is the pharmaceutical industry." One example of the new urgency is an initiative launched by Eli
Lilly & Co. One of the company's infectious-disease experts, Gail Cassell, realized during the anthrax scare
that her company had three drugs that might work as treatments for smallpox, even scarier than anthrax as a
potential terrorist weapon. In a matter of days Cassell, a Lilly vice president, tore through paperwork that
normally would have taken months, put samples of the drugs on a plane and flew them to government
laboratories in the Washington area to be tested against smallpox. It's not clear yet whether the drugs will
prove effective. "We all have to think of the situation as being rather urgent," Cassell said. "You're kind of
waiting for the next shoe to drop, given the events of the last two months." Researchers say a generation
of young scientists never called upon before to defend the nation is working overtime in a push for rapid
progress. At laboratories of the National Institutes of Health, at universities and research institutes across the
land, people are scrambling. "This has been such a shock to so many people," said Carole Heilman, a
division director at NIH, which is paying for much of the bioterror research. "People aren't sleeping anymore.
Everybody is working as much as they possibly can. Bureaucracy is not a word that's acceptable
anymore." But the campaign, for all its urgency, faces hurdles both scientific and logistical. The kind of
research now underway would normally take at least a decade before products appeared on pharmacy
shelves. Scientists are talking about getting at least some new products out the door within two years, a
daunting schedule in medical research. If that happens, it will be with considerable assistance from the
nation's drug companies. They are the only organizations in the country with the scale to move rapidly to
produce pills and vials of medicine that might be needed by the billions. The companies and their
powerful lobby in Washington have been working over the past few weeks to seize the moment and
rehabilitate their reputations, tarnished in recent years by controversy over drug prices and the lack of access
to AIDS drugs among poor countries. The companies have already made broad commitments to aid the
government in the short term, offering free pills with a wholesale value in excess of $ 1 billion, as well as
other help. The question now is whether that commitment will extend over the several years it will take to
build a national stockpile of next-generation medicines. "This is a time of crisis," Friedman said. "I
think the industry is going to be very patient and going to be making a long-term commitment. It's the right
thing to do."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
184
A2: Generics hurt innovation
Current drug innovation is bad innovation – reform is necessary to direct it on useful
tracks
Ezra Klein, associate editor at The American Prospect, 1-5-09,
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=pharmaceutical_innovat
ion
No one wants to be against "innovation." The word is practically a synonym for "awesome." And who wants
to be anti-awesome? But the problem with our health care system is that far too little effort is expended
making sure the innovation is good innovation. Take the case of Claritin, the wonder anti-allergy drug. In
2001, loratidine, Claritin's active ingredient, went off patent. Generic producers streamed into the market.
Many more people could access Claritin, or at least the compounds that made Claritin powerful. Right on
schedule, Schering, Claritin's producer, emerged with Clarinex. Now the active ingredient was desloratadine,
and it was said to be effective, for longer. There was little evidence of that. But it was eligible for patent
protection, and Schering spent billions of dollars convincing doctors to prescribe it, and so they made profits
and health care became a bit more expensive. That was bad, or at least useless and costly, "innovation." On
the other side, there's much good innovation. And there should be some status quo bias in favor of protecting
a system that does produce important advances. The problem is, we actually do need to strike a balance. In
health care, unlike in other industries, almost anything that is approved is prescribed and paid for. By all of
us. bad innovation imposes public costs. Pharmaceutical companies are incredibly sophisticated at generating
their own demand. So what to do? My preference, at least in the short-term, would be an alternative track for
drug development based around prizes, not patents. This would not replace the current patent system, but
compete with it. Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz advocates this idea ("The fundamental problem
with the patent system is simple: it is based on restricting the use of knowledge"), and Senator Bernie
Sanders has turned it into legislation. It could do much to ease the most perverse incentives of the private
sector -- the need to induce demand and wall off research -- while preserving the incentives for innovation. It
could be funded by the public sector but the decision makers -- those competing for the prize -- would remain
private. It might not solve our problems, but it could help. It's worth trying.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
185
Biotech good – heg
Biotech is key to U.S. economic competitiveness and hegemony
Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, Professor of Sociology, ’04
(Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems, Armando LaraMillan, Dept of Sociology, and Dr. Richard Niemeyer, 3-15-04 Institute for Research on World-Systems, University
of California-Riverside, "biotechnology in the global political
economy"http://www.irows.ucr.edu/research/biotech/isa04biotech.htm)
Biotechnology has been heralded as the potential basis for a new round of U.S. economic hegemony. In
this discussion we will distinguish between medical biotechnology and food-producing biotechnology.
We want to separate food-producing biotechnology from medical applications in order to examine how
these may by differently related to public attitudes. Agricultural biotechnology is the application of
genomics to create new crops, new sources of animal protein, and to protect crops and domesticated
animals from pests. Much of agricultural biotechnology is intended to improve the human food supply
by lowering the costs of production and by improving the products. Medical biotechnology is intended
to improve human health by developing new medicines and techniques for preventing diseases, curing
ailments, producing products for transplants and improving the genetic makeup of individuals. An
important critical literature has emerged that discusses the ethical dimensions and political implications
of biotechnology (e.g. Shiva 1997; Rifkin 1998; Fukuyama 2002). Extremely fundamental issues are
becoming important in public discourse, and the governance of biotechnology research and applications
will be an increasingly central part of politics in the twenty-first century (e.g. Fukuyama 2002). In this
research project we will discuss the politics of biotechnology only insofar as it may come to be an
important influence on the potential role of biotechnology as a new lead industry that might function as
the basis of a new round of U.S. economic hegemony. In order for biotechnology to function as a new
lead industry that could serve as a basis for a new round of U.S. economic hegemony several conditions
would have to be met. Investments in biotechnology would have to produce a large number of products
that can be profitably sold, and these would need to be purchased within the United States and in the
world market. Firms producing these biotechnology products would need to be able to obtain
technological rents over a period of time long enough to recoup the costs of research and development.
And public investment would need to also be recouped lest the private accumulation amount only to a
transfer from taxpayers to private investors. And the biotechnology industry would need to serve as a
source of spin-offs for the rest of the U.S. economy to a degree greater than in the national economies of
competing powers. Allegedly high start-up costs of biotechnology research and development should
retard the emergence of competitors. This has been seen as part of the explanation for why biotechnology
research, development and commercialization in Europe and Japan have lagged behind the U.S. But
there have been some developments that cast doubt on these characterizations. The Peoples’ Republic of
China began a substantial state-sponsored initiative in biotechnology in the 1980s and many important
creations of this program have been implemented in Chinese agriculture on a huge scale, with allegedly
great beneficial effects. Perhaps the large size of semiperipheral China allows massive resources to be
concentrated on targeted research and development efforts, making this development not so surprising.
But Singapore, a city-state in Southeast Asia, has also succeeded in establishing a successful
biotechnology industry by importing scientific talent from abroad. These start-ups imply that entry into
the biotechnology industry is not as restricted as had been assumed, and that competition for shares of
world demand for the products of biotechnology will speed up the product cycle, making it more difficult
for particular countries, including the U.S., to garner technological rents for very long.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
186
Biotech good – famine
Biotechnology key to solving the food crisis and poverty
Reuters, ’08
(June 3rd,08, “Biotechnology a key to fighting world food crisis-US
says” http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03566931.htm)
Biotechnology can help solve the world's food crisis with benefits such as flood-resistant rice in Bangladesh
or higher cotton yields in Burkina Faso, a senior U.S. official said at a U.N. food summit on Tuesday.
"Biotechnology is one of the most promising tools for improving the productivity of agriculture and
increasing the incomes of the rural poor," U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said. "We are convinced of
the benefits it offers to developing countries and small farmers," he told a U.S.-led briefing on the sidelines
of the June 3-5 summit seeking ways to combat high food prices when climate change may aggravate
shortages. Some green groups say genetically-engineered crops threaten biodiversity while many European
consumers are wary of eating products dubbed by critics as "Frankenfoods". Schafer said biotechnology,
including genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), could help produce more food by raising yields and
producing crops in developing nations that are resistant to disease and pests. "Genetic engineering offers
long-term solutions to some of our major crop production problems," said Philippine Agriculture Minister
Arthur Yap. But he said that it was not a panacea for all of his country's agricultural problems. Progress being
made in the Philippines included research into rice and coconuts resistant to disease, he said. "We're also
working on virus-resistant papaya, papaya hybrids with a longer shelf life that should be ready for market in
2009," he said. Climate change could aggravate production around the world with more droughts, floods,
disruptions to monsoons and rising sea levels, says the U.N. Climate Panel. In Africa alone, 250 million
people could face extra stress on water supplies by 2020. Burkina Faso Agriculture Minister Laurent Sedogo
said the African country had worked with U.S. agriculture group Monsanto <MON.N> to battle pests that
blighted the cotton crop. "We are about to plant 15,000 hectares" of a new crop that was resistant to pests, he
said. That would also cut down on the use of pesticides that could damage the health of farmers. The World
Bank and aid agencies estimate that soaring food prices could push as many as 100 million more people into
hunger. About 850 million are already hungry. Bangladesh said that it was going ahead with efforts to make
crops able to survive floods and more salinity in the soil. A cyclone last year "is a wake-up call for all of us",
said C.S. Karim, an adviser to Bangladesh's agriculture ministry. "It shows the vulnerability of Bangladesh."
Food scarcity leads to World War Three
Calvin, Neurophysiologist, ’98
(William H. Calvin, Theoretical Neurophysiologist @ the University of Washington, January 1998, "The great
climate flip-flop," The Atlantic Monthly 281(1):47-64, http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm,
ACC: 6.28.07, p. online)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands — if only because their armies, unpaid and
lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will
attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining
resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end:
eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem — and could easily lead to
a Third World War — but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the
Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than
650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost
the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
187
Pandemic 2NC
Health care reform is key to prevent diseases from becoming pandemics. It solves
mutation and transmission
Vanessa Mason, BA from Yale, August 16, 2008, http://vanessamason.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/universalhealth-care-series-the-national-security-argument/
Fences and security checkpoints versus pathogens. David versus Goliath. While it seems that one side has the brute
strength and power to counter the other, we all know how the second conflict ends. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed
one-fifth of the world’s population in about two years, resulting in more deaths from the epidemic than World War I.
Our interconnected society makes epidemics more likely to occur with the ease of mobility within countries and in
between them. A recent epidemic scare happened in 2007 when Andrew Speaker, after receiving a diagnosis of drug-resistant
tuberculosis, proceeded to travel overseas and back on commercial flights for his wedding and honeymoon. Speaker was already
out of the country when before authorities realized that he was infected with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, which is the most
difficult strain to treat. Fortunately, no one was infected; also fortunately, Speaker was diagnosed and authorities were informed
that he was infected. Imagine what could have happened if Speaker could not have seen a doctor. MRSA and other “superbugs”
are becoming increasingly frequent. Avian flu and pandemic flu are also looming biological dangers. Imagine a
situation where a patient has a bacterial infection but never goes to see a doctor because they can not afford the visit.
The patient would continue to pass through the general population, infecting others. Public health officials would have
greater difficulty finding the source of the infection because there would be so many more cases. Imagine a situation where a
patient actually sees a doctor, but in a crowded emergency room. The doctor, overwhelmed with cases, quickly diagnoses the
bacterial infection and prescribes penicillin. The patient takes the medication, but the bacteria becomes resistant to penicillin. His
condition worsens and he can spread a drug-resistant strain to others. Imagine a situation caused that as a byproduct of his
socioeconomic status, the patient lives in conditions that are ripe for the spread of infections: close quarters and poor ventilation.
Poverty also compromises the strength of one’s immune system, leaving the body open to infections and once infected, the body
can not fight infections well. 1) Universal health care provides a greater likelihood of early detection to curb infections
before they grow too quickly. Early detection is a key advantage in controlling epidemics and preventing deaths.
Earlier detection also helps to reduce the likelihood that drug-resistant strains develop in the general population. 2)
Increasing access to health care allows health care professionals to identify patients at risk and intervene to offer
ways to reduce the risk of infection. 3) Universal health care enables consistent access to proper treatment. Treating
infections with the wrong medication or with an insufficient dosage can cause the pathogen to mutate, creating drugresistant strains. Preventing epidemics should be a priority of paramount concern if the government actually wants
to ensure national security. Implementing universal health care is an important step in the right direction.
Pandemics risk extinction
Frank Ryan, M.D., 1997, virus X, p. 366
How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally intrusive species,
with its transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent regions —
where the virus is most likely to first emerge — a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water supplies and
hospitality to biting insects' The virus is best seen, in John Hollands excellent analogy, as a swarm of competing mutations, with
each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in
the new ecological habitat.3 With such a promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must eventually
come to dominate viral behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a
coevolution takes rather longer in "human" time — too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. A rapidly lethal
and quickly spreading virus simply would not have time to switch from aggression to coevolution. And there lies the
danger. Joshua Lederbergs prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical one. Pandemics are inevitable. Our
incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the advances of our complex industrial society,
all have moved the natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change, has greatly augmented the
potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison, scientific director of
Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: "Will we survive!” We have invaded every
biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day
when no life exists on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An
increasing multitude of disturbed viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This
is a dangerous situation. And we have seen in the previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It
begs the most frightening question of all: could such a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
188
Health care solves pandemics
Health care reform is necessary to prevent pandemics
Amanda Norris, The Hour Staff Writer, December 28, 20 08 “Group Discusses U.S. Healthcare”
http://www.thehour.com/story/462219
One group debated whether health care should be universally provided by the government the same way
that public education is, and, if so, at what cost and to whom. Two business owners appeared to square
off over whether universal health care was desirable or even possible. Both of the men said they provided
health insurance to all their employees and both said the exorbitant cost of doing so had led them to
provide basic, "catastrophic" plans with limited coverage for more minor procedures and services. Roy
Kamen, owner of Kamen Entertainment, a company that makes health and fitness DVDs, said he is
certain that the nation could not handle a major pandemic or biological-based terrorist attack. Kamen was
hopeful that president-elect Obama's administration would provide a solution. "I don't think the insurance
companies are going to solve this," Kamen said. "I was an Obama supporter, and I think they virtually
have to solve this. This is really a new time. There is a new mindset. The greed of the past is gone."
Health care reform is necessary to prevent pandemics
The Hour, December 28, 2008
One group debated whether health care should be universally provided by the government the same way that public
education is, and, if so, at what cost and to whom. Two business owners appeared to square off over whether
universal health care was desirable or even possible. Both of the men said they provided health insurance to all their
employees and both said the exorbitant cost of doing so had led them to provide basic, "catastrophic" plans with
limited coverage for more minor procedures and services. Roy Kamen, owner of Kamen Entertainment, a company
that makes health and fitness DVDs, said he is certain that the nation could not handle a major pandemic or
biological-based terrorist attack. Kamen was hopeful that president-elect Obama's administration would provide a
solution. "I don't think the insurance companies are going to solve this," Kamen said. "I was an Obama supporter,
and I think they virtually have to solve this. This is really a new time. There is a new mindset. The greed of the past
is gone."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
189
Swine flu 2NC
Reforming Health Care is key to diagnosing Swine Flu and preventing a Large Scale
Epidemic
Angiel, ’09
(Pierre Angiel, April 27, 2009,
http://open.salon.com/blog/pierre_angiel/2009/04/27/swine_flu_proves_need_of_socialized_medicine)
In the news today comes the report that there are 20 cases of Swine Flu in the US and 1,600 cases in Mexico. Many
have died. Because Swine Flu is spread through the air and by contact with objects touched by those with the illness,
it is imperative that anyone ill should have access to free medical care and diagnoses. Since merely touching
something, including an ATM key, can transmit an illness like Swine Flu, diagnoses becomes extremely important.
Diagnoses helps to enable treatment and to isolate those with the illness, if necessary. The isolation can be
mandatory, as was true during the tuberculosis scares of the early 20th century, or it can be voluntary. But when
medical care isn't free to the public, diagnoses and treatment becomes very difficult. The 20 cases reported of Swine
Flu in the US reflect only a small number of the population who have the illness. Few of our population can afford
visits to physicians even if they have medical insurance. Paying from 20% to 100% of the cost of a medical visit
isn't easy for most of the population. Diagnosis and treatment is expensive. As a result, any illness which arises in
our population and which otherwise could be stopped in its tracks, brings the threat of epidemic. If the illness is
easily passed and is severe, a repetition of the 1918 epidemic will occur. It is easy to see how easily illness will be
spread in a country without free medical treatment to all. The cost of socialized medicine could easily be handled by
taxing the rich and taxing corporate profits.
Swine flu spurs H5N1 Pandemic - the US is Key
Greger, ’06
(Micheal, Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Hathing)
Specific to the veal crate-like metal stalls that confine breeding pigs like those on the North Carolina factory from
which the first hybrid swine flu virus was discovered in North America, the Pew Commission asserted that
"[p]ractices that restrict natural motion, such as sow gestation crates, induce high levels of stress in the animals and
threaten their health, which in turn may threaten human health."[32] Unfortunately we don't tend to "shore up the
levees" until after the disaster, but now that we know swine flu viruses can evolve to efficiently transmit human-tohuman we need to follow the Pew Commission's recommendations to abolish extreme confinement practices like
gestation crates as they're already doing in Europe, and to follow the advice of the American Public Health
Association to declare a moratorium on factory farms. With massive concentrations of farm animals within whom to
mutate, these new swine flu viruses in North America seem to be on an evolutionary fast track, jumping and
reassorting between species at an unprecedented rate.[33] This reassorting, Webster's team concludes, makes the 65
million strong U.S. pig population an "increasingly important reservoir of viruses with human pandemic
potential."[34] "We used to think that the only important source of genetic change in swine influenza was in
Southeast Asia," said Christopher Olsen, a molecular virologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Now, "we
need to look in our own backyard for where the next pandemic may appear.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
190
Swine flu 2NC
Bird flu causes extinction
Greger, ’06
(Michael, Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Hatching)
Other public health authorities have expressed similar sentiments on a global scale. World Health Organization
executive director David Nabarro was recently appointed the bird flu czar of the United Nations. At a press
conference at UN headquarters in New York, Nabarro tried to impress upon journalists that “we’re dealing here with
world survival issues—or the survival of the world as we know it.”583 “The reality is that if a pandemic hits,”
explained the executive director of Trust for America’s Health, a public health policy group, “it’s not just a health
emergency. It’s the big one.”584 Similar fears reportedly keep U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike
Leavitt awake at night. “It’s a world-changing event when it occurs,” Leavitt said in an interview. “It reaches
beyond health. It affects economies, cultures, politics and prosperity—not to mention human life, counted by the
millions.”585 Yes, but what are the odds of it actually happening? What are the odds that a killer flu virus will
spread across the world like a tidal wave, killing millions? “The burning question is, will there be a human influenza
pandemic,” Secretary Leavitt told reporters. “On behalf of the WHO, I can tell you that there will be. The only
question is the virulence and rapidity of transmission from human to human.”586 The Director-General of the World
Health Organization concurred: “[T]here is no disagreement that this is just a matter of time.”587 “The world just
has no idea what it’s going to see if this thing comes,” the head of the CDC’s International Emerging Infections
Program in Thailand said, but then stopped. “When, really. It’s when. I don’t think we can afford the luxury of the
word ‘if’ anymore. We are past ‘if’s.’”588 The Chief Medical Officer of Great Britain,589 the Director-General of
Health of Germany,590 the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,591 the Senior United Nations
Coordinator for Avian and Human Influenza,592 and the director of the U.S. National Security Health Policy
Center593 all agree that another influenza pandemic is only a matter of time. As the director of Trust for America’s
Health put it, “This is not a drill. This is not a planning exercise. This is for real.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
191
Poverty 2NC
Health care reform solves poverty.
Rev. Gregory Seal Livingston, 6-11-09, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-seal-livingston/health-careand-poverty_b_214610.html
For the millions of American children who are living below the poverty line, escaping the cycle can seem
impossible. Statistics show that children from poor families are more likely to drop out of school before
attaining their high school diplomas -- and that individuals without a high school diploma are more likely
to be poor. A recent study from the Schott Foundation shows that 7 of 10 black and brown males in major
urban centers don't finish high school. They are also exponentially more likely to be incarcerated and
unemployed throughout the course of their lives. Quite simply, the odds are stacked against these young
people. One of the ways to explain this crippling cycle is as follows: When you feel better, you do better.
When you feel bad, you do bad. In my anti-poverty work I have experienced the truth of this statement
firsthand. The more than 10 million adolescents who currently live in low-income families are not just
denied life's little luxuries. They also are denied basic human rights, such as healthcare and nutritious
food. Many of these children are unable to see a dentist because their families don't have insurance, and
their parents can't take time off from work to spend the whole day waiting at the public health facility.
Many of them have poor vision but do not get glasses since their families don't have insurance for vision
care. Furthermore, many of these children are malnourished, which means they are either underweight or
overweight. Just because a child's bones aren't sticking out does not mean that his body is well nourished,
as obesity has a myriad of health problems that can complicate a child's life. However, many families are
forced to rely on cheap, unhealthy sustenance, including fast food and empty candy store calories.
Healthy foods such as produce and lean meats are more expensive than fried, fatty foods, and most
families don't have the option of buying the fresh food their children need to be healthy. These are just a
few of the very basic health problems that can prevent a child from excelling in school. When children's
teeth ache from cavities, when their vision is too blurred to see the chalkboard, and when all they had for
breakfast was a candy bar and a soda, it is no wonder that their school performance is poor and their
behavior is aggressive. We need to help the impoverished feel better so they can do better. We must
work on legislative, faith-based, private and public sector solutions. Poverty is much too pernicious to
fight over turf. Healthcare is just one area we must acutely address and until we do the poverty cycle will
continue to ruin lives and imprison dreams.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
192
Obesity module 2NC
Health care reform is key to solve obesity
Kenneth Thorpe, Ph.D., Robert W. Woodruff Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Policy &
Management, in the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 2-25-09,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-thorpe/the-obama-budget-and-heal_b_169854.html
Of the $2.2 trillion we pour into health care each year, a frightening 75 cents of every dollar goes towards treating
patients with chronic illnesses. In Medicaid, this figure is an even more regrettable 83 cents of every dollar; in
Medicare, it's an astounding 96 cents. Illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, that in many cases could
have been prevented by changes in behavior or could be better managed through early detection and appropriate
access to treatment, have risen dramatically over the past three decades, leaving Americans in much worse shape at
earlier and earlier ages. The rise in obesity is at the root of this increase. With younger and younger Americans
suffering from overweight and obesity, the outlook is grim for finding a solution to stem rising health costs short of
helping Americans transform their unhealthy behaviors. The truth is, we can never expect to improve the
affordability of health care until we face the dual crises of obesity and chronic disease. And, until we deal with cost,
the chance of extending health care coverage to more Americans is grim. The good news is, President Obama has
already achieved two important down payments for health care reform through recent allocations in the stimulus
package: $19 billion for health information technology and $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. Both
signal a promising new approach to health care -- one that seeks not only to expand coverage but also to improve
efficiency and health outcomes. In addition to the stimulus investments in health information technology and
comparative effectiveness research, President Obama must realign health system incentives to prioritize prevention
and chronic care management by creating new primary care models that are more accountable and better coordinate
care between physicians, hospitals and other health providers.
Obesity kills – it’s as bad as a pandemic or war
Robert Lalasz, Senior Editor at Population Reference Bureau, May, 2005,
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/WillRisingChildhoodObesityDecreaseUSLifeExpectancy.aspx?p=1]
A new study contends that rising childhood obesity rates will cut average U.S. life expectancy from birth by two to
five years in the coming decades—a magnitude of decline last seen in the United States during the Great Depression.
The study, published in the March 18 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, contradicts recent government
projections that U.S. life expectancy will reach at least the mid-80s by the year 2080.1 Such forecasts, write lead
author S. Jay Olshansky and his nine co-authors, are a "simple but unrealistic extrapolation of past trends in life
expectancy into the future." In turn, other demographers have characterized the Olshansky team's analysis as largely
unsupported by evidence, and the article has spotlighted a long-standing debate about whether there are biological
limits to an individual human lifespan—all amidst a recent flurry of contradictory research about how obesity effects
morbidity and mortality rates. One new study from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even
argues that being overweight has a positive effect on life expectancy.2 But Olshansky, a professor of epidemiology
and biostatistics at the University of Illinois-Chicago, remains convinced by his team's conclusions. "If anything,
we're being conservative in our estimates," he says. "We're assuming no change in obesity levels from 2000 levels,
and actually, they've gotten worse." Obesity and the Future of Medicine Projecting life expectancy is more than an
academic exercise. Many U.S. government agencies—including the Social Security Administration, Congress, and
the military—use such forecasts to guide policymaking on issues from tax rates to the solvency of age-based
entitlement programs. And almost all these projections assume that U.S. life expectancy will continue to rise as
steadily as it has since the 1930s, spurred by new medical approaches and technology as well as behavioral shifts
towards healthier lifestyles. But Olshansky and his co-authors question whether medicine and public health
interventions can counter the rapid increases in U.S. obesity rates over the last two decades, especially among
children. The incidence of obesity—which researchers have linked to an elevated risk of type-2 diabetes, coronary
heart disease, cancer, and other health complications—rose approximately 50 percent in the United States in both
the 1980s and 1990s. Two-thirds of all U.S. adults are now classified as overweight or obese, as are 20 percent to 30
percent of all children under age 15. And Olshansky argues that this rapid rise in obesity rates will cause a "pulse
event" of mortality in the United States—akin to the large number of deaths caused by an influenza pandemic or a
war, but spread out over the next four or five decades.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
193
Healthcare = Moral Imperative
We have to moral imperative to provide universal healthcare
Shear and Vargas Washington Post Staff Writers 7-2-2009 (Michael D. Shear and Jose Antonio Vargas,
Thursday, July 2, 2009 “A Pitch on Health Care To Virginia And Beyond”; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070100950.html
With the president's health-care ambitions meeting a cool reception on Capitol Hill, the administration is
increasingly seeking to pressure lawmakers with evidence of the public's desire for action as well as proof
that the health-care industry is a stakeholder in -- not an opponent of -- the effort. "The naysayers are
already lining up," he said in remarks before taking questions. The challenge for opponents, he said, is:
"What's your alternative? Is your alternative just to stand pat and watch more and more families lose their
health care?" Obama made his pitch before an audience of about 200 people at Northern Virginia
Community College's Annandale campus, including students, administrators, professors and local
residents. But the real targets of the message were far beyond Annandale, and the White House is hoping
to use social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook to reach constituents across the country. "This is a
moral imperative, and it is an economic imperative," he told the live and online audience as he waded
through health-care financing statistics.
Health care is a moral imperative.
CNA 7-22-2009 “U.S. bishops call for life protecting health care reform for all” Catholic News Agency
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16624
Washington D.C., Jul 22, 2009 / 03:02 am (CNA).- As national debate about a major Congressional
health care bill continues, the U.S. bishops have called for “genuine” health care reform that protects
human life and provides comprehensive health care access. Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York
William F. Murphy, writing a July 17 letter to Congress on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB), commented: “Genuine health care reform that protects the life and dignity of all is a
moral imperative and a vital national obligation.” Bishop Murphy, who is chairman of the USCCB’s
Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, said that the U.S. bishops have advocated
health care reform for decades. He also outlined four criteria for health care reform, listing respect for
human life and dignity, access for all, pluralism and equitable costs. Concerning respect for human life,
the bishop insisted that no health care reform plan should “compel us or others to pay for the destruction
of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion.” “Any such
action would be morally wrong,” he stated, noting that U.S. law already bars federal funding for most
abortions. Health care reform, he said, should not be a vehicle for abandoning a “consensus” that
“respects freedom of conscience and honors our best American traditions.” “Any legislation should
reflect longstanding and widely supported current policies on abortion funding, mandates and conscience
protections because they represent sound morality, wise policy and political reality.” Discussing access to
health care, Bishop Murphy remarked, “All people need and should have access to comprehensive,
quality health care that they can afford, and it should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether
they or their parents work, how much they earn, where they live, or where they were born.” The bishop
said the USCCB believes health care reform should be “truly universal” and “genuinely affordable.”
Noting that some families, including immigrants, will not be covered by health care reform, Bishop
Murphy urged Congress to fund adequately clinics and hospitals that serve these populations. He also
advocated more cost-sharing protections and new coverage options for poorer families, limits or
exemptions on premiums for those who are near poverty, and increases in eligibility levels.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
194
***AGENDA
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
195
Health care  permanent Democratic majority
Health care reform is key to sustained Democratic political control
David Sirota, fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, November 21, 2008,
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/tuning-out-the-braindead-megaphone.html
Additionally, as with everything in Washington, a political motive is needed for action – and even
conservatives acknowledge Democrats have such a motive when it comes to health care. Fifteen years ago,
Republican strategist William Kristol warned that the Clinton administration's universal health care proposals
represented "a serious political threat to the Republican Party" because, if passed, they "will revive the
reputation" of Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests." As we all remember,
Democrats failed to capitalize on the health care opportunity. But Kristol's prophecy was correct then, as it is
now. With huge Democratic majorities in Congress come 2009, only the Braindead Megaphone is in
Obama's way.
Health care reform is key to long-term support for Dems
Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at Cato, November 13, 2008, http://www.cato-atliberty.org/2008/11/13/blocking-obamas-health-plan-is-key-to-the-gops-survival/
Why? Norman Markowitz, a contributing editor at PoliticalAffairs.net (motto: “Marxist Thought Online”),
makes an interesting point about how making citizens dependent on the government for their medical care
can change the fates of political parties:
A “single payer” national health system – known as “socialized
medicine” in the rest of the developed world – should be an essential part of the change that the core
constituencies which elected Obama desperately need. Britain serves as an important political lesson for
strategists. After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly
conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the
Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party… I’m no student of British history, but
that sounds about right. Markowitz continues:
The best way to win over the the portion of the working
class in the South or the West that supported McCain and the Republicans is to create important new public
programs and improve the social safety net. National health care [and other measures] will bring reluctant
voters into the Obama coalition. That is how progress works. Republicans might want to take note.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
196
Health care  whole agenda
Healthcare victory key to agenda
Edward Luce, Financial Times, 7/1/2009 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28542258-667c-11de-a03400144feabdc0.html //ZE)
Critics and supporters see Mr Obama’s attempts to push his flagship healthcare reform through Congress this month
as a critical test of the president’s pledge to take on Washington’s most powerful lobby groups. Addressing a town
hall meeting in Virginia on Wednesday, Mr Obama warned that “the hardest part is yet to come – because that’s the
part when the nay-sayers and cynics use every excuse and scare tactic in the book to stop reform from happening.
And it’s already happening as we speak”. Democratic doubters have watched Mr Obama make what they see as
excessive compromises, particularly over his plans to reregulate Wall Street and accept a cap-and-trade bill on the
environment that they say has too many special interest provisions. In their eyes, Mr Obama would redeem himself
if he could pull off a robust healthcare reform bill. But disillusion would spread if Mr Obama accepted a bill that
resembled the horse-trading it took to pass cap-and-trade in the House of Representatives. The confirmation this
week of Al Franken’s election as a Minnesota senator has given the Democrats an edge in this forthcoming
legislative battle. Legions of Obama supporters, at least 2m of whom volunteered for his campaign because of his
promises to change the way business was done in Washington, will be looking to see if the president has the appetite
for political street fighting. “President Obama was elected to make Washington work in the national, not the special,
interest,” says Simon Rosenberg, head of NDN, a prominent liberal advocacy group. “The greatest threat to his
personal brand would be the sense that rather than taming Washington, it had tamed him – that rather than the
visionary leadership he promised, he was just another politician.” How and when Mr Obama intervenes to shape the
passage of healthcare will reveal a great deal about how he plans to conduct his presidency on a range of other
issues. “We are entering the post-declarative and post-positioning stage of the Obama presidency,” says David
Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official. “How he handles healthcare in practice will be a defining
moment.” White House officials say they want to enact all of their priorities in 2009 – including cap-and-trade,
financial sector reform and healthcare. From next January, electoral calculations in advance of the mid-term
congressional elections in November 2010 are likely to dictate caution. If Mr Obama can pass a healthcare bill that
most Americans believe will improve their lives and contain costs, he could help deliver a Democratic victory next
year that would be followed by reforms in 2011 spanning immigration, new energy initiatives and structural changes
to the US economy.
Loss on Healthcare Collapses Obama’s agenda
Aaron, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, ’08
(Henry J. Aaron, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, 9-29, 2008, “Healthy Choice: A
Step-by-Step approach to Universal Health Care,” online:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0929_universal_health_aaron.aspx)
The Political Fallout From Failure Would Be Devastating. The unsuccessful Clinton health plan was a
political catastrophe for his party. That failure was a major factor in the massive Democratic Party loss in the
1994 congressional election. Were an Obama administration to fail similarly, the political consequences for
the administration and the party could be equally serious. Numerous Other Problems Cannot Wait. The next
president will face an avalanche of issues neglected or mishandled by the Bush administration. To the
financial crisis, which is an obstacle more for the political energy that it will absorb than for its cost, add
global warming, energy prices, Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arab-Israeli conflict, recession,
income inequality, Social Security, rebuilding the U.S. military, and tax reform. To be sure, presidents
always have to do many things at once, but their capacity to pursue major objectives simultaneously is
severely limited. A failed effort to reform the U.S. health care system would not only generate direct political
losses; it will also divert time and effort from other issues, some of which simply cannot wait or that offer
greater opportunities for success than large-scale health care reform does.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
197
Health care  whole agenda
Healthcare determines new legislation and other items on his agenda
Jackson, USA Today staff writer, 09
(David Jackson, USA Today staff writer, 7/09,
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/07/68494956/1)
Monday's dust-up between President Obama and Republican senator Jim DeMint underscored the high stakes
of the health care debate, both for now and in the future. Health care isn't Obama's only major political
project. He also wants new legislation on global warming and new regulations of the financial system.
Obama's ability to get these and other items on his agenda will rise or fall depending on what happens on
health care. That's what DeMint seems to think. The conservative Republican from South Carolina, described
Obama's health care plan as "D-Day for freedom in America. If we lose this, we'll probably have half of our
economy in some way controlled by the federal government." DeMint also said: "If we're able to stop Obama
on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him. And we will show that we can - along with the American
people - begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
198
Health care  cap and trade
Health care win causes cap and trade
Serlin, Adjunct Professor at University of Arizona, ’08
(Adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, MBA from the University of Michigan, resident and co-founder of
AAA Personal Finance Education, Richard H., "There's nothing more important for Obama to achieve than universal
health care.")
Why is this? Isn't there more potential to do good (or prevent bad) in combating global warming? Yes, but
the best way to combat global warming is to pass a good universal health care program, or at least to move us
greatly in that direction. The reason is that this would be so enormously good for people's lives, and for the
economy, that it would generate a gigantic amount of gratitude and political capital for the Democrats, and
that would allow them to push through far stronger anti-global warming legislation -- a lot more money for
alternative energy, a lot greater conservation measures, etc. And it would also help Democrats in elections for
decades to come, greatly decreasing the harm Republicans can do on so many issues (at least in the
Republican party's present extreme, anti-thinking form).
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
199
***AFF ANSWERS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
200
No health care – no capital
**Obama has no effective political capital left for healthcare – it’s dead.
Joe Weisenthal, The Business Insider Staff Writer, 7-23-2009 “Obama Flopped Last Night”
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-flopped-last-night-2009-7
Obama has seen his political capital shaved down, and what of it does remain is less effective than it used
to be. It's a matter of diminishing marginal returns. There's only so much he can get out of a big,
primetime media event -- a trick he's used so effectively in the past (like when he sealed the election
against McCain with his big infomercial). Obama really is a master of this format, and last night he hoped
to save health-insurance reform, but we doubt it happened. For one thing, a lot of people didn't watch -no doubt the result of some Obama-media fatigue (again, diminishing returns). And for another thing, it
doesn't sound as though he broke new ground. The best analysis we've seen is from "The Cajun Boy" at
Gawker: Going into this whole thing, we were sure that Obama would take the opportunity of a
primetime news conference on health care reform to carefully and eloquently lay out his detailed plan to
the American people, you know, going through everything step by step to explain exactly what it all
meant and how it would be paid for. What we got instead was all-too-familiar flowery rhetoric about how
there are too many uninsured people in America and how we must do something now to correct this. We,
of course, agree with this wholeheartedly, something must be done and we really want him to do
something sensible, but at some point he's got to detail exactly how he's going to overhaul the system. We
thought he would do that tonight. Sadly, he did not. In short, the president whiffed tonight completely.
His opponents are using every political scare tactic in the political scare tactic playbook to win the battle
for public opinion on this issue, while doing virtually nothing to offer up their own solution, but it
appears as though the Obama administration is hoping it can ride the president's noted charm and
charisma horse to the finish line on this one. We don't think that's going to work. The sheen of the Obama
presidency is beginning to dull and people, even those who supported him in the 2008 election, are
beginning to yearn for more than well-articulated good intentions. If the White House wasn't yet prepared
to roll out the details of their plan, then they shouldn't have called the press conference in the first place.
This only makes it harder for them to reach people when they're actually ready to roll out the important
details of a plan, as you get the sense that people are beginning to just tune out on the issue, despite the
fact that having so many uninsured citizens is one of this country's great modern shames. Again, the
Obama administration had an opportunity tonight, and they let it slip away from them. The problem, we
think, is that Americans sense in their gut that a massive, Congressionally-lead "reform" won't bring them
to the land of milk-and-honey. Americans could be wrong (easily), but it's Obama's job to prove them
otherwise. "Yes we can" isn't cutting it.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
201
No health care – cost
Health Care Reform won’t pass now – not enough money to implement
Skalski, Staff Writer, 7/23/2009. (Liz Skalski is a staff writer for the gazette.net, a Maryland community based
newspaper, “Residents weigh in on national health care reform debate”).
http://www.gazette.net/stories/07232009/largnew175832_32529.shtml
President Obama (D) has pushed Congress to sign a health care bill before its August recess but has been met
with opposition stemming from how the country will afford the hefty cost of about $1 trillion during the next
decade. The plan would require all Americans to have health insurance and all employers to provide it. The
poor would get subsidies to purchase insurance and insurance companies would be prohibited from denying
coverage to people based on pre-existing medical conditions. Cardin said the reform is only in the first
stages and that no bill has been drafted by either the House or the Senate. "It will cost money to get to the
plateau we want," he said. "We need to bring down the growth rate of overall health care costs of America."
Healthcare reform won’t pass – CBO report
Washington Post 7-17-2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/17/politics/washingtonpost/main5168032.shtml
Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals
drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and
pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains
federal spending. Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf,
director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the
Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the
skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf
said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured. Though President
Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The
curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the
measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse. Elmendorf's blunt language startled
lawmakers racing to meet Obama's deadline for approving a bill by the August break. The CBO is the
official arbiter of the cost of legislation. Fiscal conservatives in the House said Elmendorf's testimony
would galvanize the growing number of Democrats agitating for changes in the more than $1.2 trillion
House bill, which aims to cover 97 percent of Americans by 2015. A lot of Democrats want to see more
savings, said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who is leading an effort to amend the bill before next week's vote
in the Energy and Commerce Committee. "There's no way they can pass this bill on the House floor. Not
even close." Republicans also seized on Elmendorf's remarks, with House Minority Leader John A.
Boehner (R-Ohio) saying they prove "that one of the Democrats' chief talking points is pure fiction."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Elmendorf's testimony should serve as a "wakeup call" to Obama and Democratic leaders to heed requests from lawmakers in both parties to slow down
the process. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she delivered that message directly to Obama at the
White House yesterday, and strongly urged him to give up his August deadline so bipartisan negotiators
in the Senate Finance Committee can craft a new reform plan that does more to control costs. "I think it
would be prudent for the president to be patient," said Snowe, whom Obama is courting aggressively.
Bipartisan approval of a finance bill "can provide huge impetus for the success of this legislation and
achieving broader support as it goes through the legislative process."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
202
No health care – Blue Dogs
Health Care Reform won’t pass – Blue Dogs will kill legislation in committee
Barton, writer, 7/17/2009. (Paul Barton is a blog writer, but a legitimate one because he cites statistics and quotes
congressmen’s opinions, “Mike Ross defends slowdown”).
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2009/07/mike_ross_defends_slowdown.aspx
WASHINGTON – Rep. Mike Ross strongly denied Friday he was acting contrary to the interests of his
constituents by trying to slow down House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care reform bill. Ross, head of
health task force of the Blue Dog Democrats, a fiscally conservative caucus, said many “progressives”
and “liberal” Democrats have quietly thanked him for trying to slow down the process, he said in a lateafternoon telephone interview with Arkansas Times. Ross, a major figure in headlines coming out of
Congress this week, said he is by no means trying to “kill health care reform” but just make sure its cost
doesn’t overwhelm a federal budget already deeply in the red. He and other Blue Dogs have threatened to
keep legislation from emerging from the House Energy and Commerce Committee next week unless it is
shaped more to their liking. About 45 million to 50 million Americans lack health insurance of any kind.
As for his south Arkansas, 4th District constituents? “They get it,” Ross said. “They want us to slow
down and get it right and actually have time to read the bills we’re voting on.” Ross said his days are now
covered up with health-care reform meetings, such as regular talks with California Rep. Henry Waxman,
chairman of Energy and Commerce, to Pelosi, the director of the Congressional Budget Office and the
head of the Office of Management and Budget. He also continues to talk to Pelosi. Overall, he said, the
party leadership is beginning to realize its vision of health care reform will not pass. He and about five
other Blue Dogs met with President Obama at the White House around 6 p.m. Monday for about 45
minutes.
Health care won’t pass- Blue Dogs
ABC 7-22-09 (abc’s lead white house correspondent Jake Tapper
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/leading-blue-dog-democrat-pelosi-does-not-have-the-votes-forhealth-care-reform.html)
But a leading conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat told ABC News that claim is questionable.
“No, I don’t think they have the votes,” Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said, arguing if that were the case he and the other
six Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who have been holding up the bill in committee
would be under far less pressure. Ross says the concerns Blue Dogs have about the current House bill being too
expensive and not doing enough to contain health care costs are widespread.
“We’re speaking for a silent majority within the Democratic caucus,” he said. “The American people want us to
slow down and they want us to get it right.” And what about on the Senate side? Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair
of the Senate Finance Committee, was overheard jokingly telling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland,
“let me tell you, praying might be helpful here.
Health care won’t pass- Blue Dogs
FOX 7-24-9 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/24/democratic-leaders-consider-bypassing-housecommittee-advance-health/)
The Democratic Party is at war with itself, trying to pump out a deal on health care reform without fracturing on the
floor of Congress. Negotiations broke down Friday afternoon, at least temporarily, between party leaders and the
group of fiscally conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs, who are trying to win concessions on the health
care package. "It pretty much fell apart this afternoon," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., part of the Blue Dog
Coalition. "I've been lied to. I've not had legitimate negotiations," Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., another Blue Dog,
said after talks hit a wall between his group and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
203
No health care – Dems
Health care won’t pass- Senate
Jim Cramer 7-17-09 (Cramer is the host of CNBC's Mad Money and a co-founder of TheStreet.com. He is also a
regular contributor to New York magazine and an occasional contributor to Time Magazine.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/17/cramer-on-bloggingstocks-the-senate-wont-pass-this-onerous-hea/)
But the Senate could be a different story. Remember Pelosi and co. need 60 votes, and there are exactly 60
Democrats. There are two publicly quoted Democratic senators who are not even the most likely biggest objectors -Sen. Ben Nelson from Nebraska and Sen. Evan Bayh from Indiana. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New
Mexico who sits on the Finance Committee, says, "I don't think it is going anywhere in the Senate." He's a key vote.
There are two Democrats from Arkansas who are both up in 2010; both are questionable supporters of the bill. I
count six to eight Democrats in the Senate who are against this socialization of medicine at the expense of the rich.
That's all you need to stop it.
Democrats will disrupt health care passage
Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, 7-22-2009, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/health.reform/
As President Obama prepares to address the nation in a primetime news conference, some sources say Democratic
grumbling about his plan for health care is growing louder. One Democratic senator told CNN that some congressional
Democrats are "baffled," and another senior Democratic source told CNN that those members are frustrated that that they're not
getting more specific direction from him on health care. "We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the
pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on
outstanding issues," the senior Democratic congressional source said. "Instead of sending out his people and saying the
president isn't ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support -- especially on how to pay
for his health reform bill," the source added. The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for
months could bear fruit in time for the president's news conference Wednesday night. But multiple Democratic sources told
CNN that's looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source said some Democratic leaders are frustrated
that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines." The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats
said Tuesday night that they reached one breakthrough on controlling the cost of health care at a meeting with Obama, House
Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and other House Democrats. Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas, told
reporters after the meeting that the group came to a "verbal agreement," to add a "some type of hybrid of an independent
Medicare advisory council " that would set reimbursement rates for health care providers to the House Democrats' bill. He
referred to the agreement as a "breakthrough." But Ross cautioned it was only one of 10 items that the Blue Dogs wanted
changed. He predicted Obama would talk about the idea at his news conference on Wednesday night, and credited
the president with pushing for it when he first talked about health care reform. Ross said that opposition from
committee chairs kept it out of the House Democrats' bill. Despite the progress on that major issue, Ross
emphasized that Blue Dogs still want more structural changes to the House Democrats' health care bill. "One of the
things that we'd like to see is a House bill that is more closely aligned with what the Senate Finance Committee is
likely to do," Ross said. Obama had set a deadline for passage of a bill before the August congressional recess, but
in an interview Monday with PBS' Jim Lehrer, the president said that if Congress tells him it's "going to spill over
by a few days or a week," that's fine. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer signaled Tuesday that the House could
leave for its month-long break in August without voting on health care reform. "If we can get consensus, we're going to
move. If we can't get consensus we're going to continue to work on creating consensus," Hoyer told reporters. He added that he
doesn't think it is "necessarily necessary" for the House to stay in session into August to continue working on health care
legislation. His words were in contrast to those of Waxman a week ago, when House Democrats unveiled their version of the
health care bill before sending it to three committees for consideration. "We quite frankly cannot go home for a recess," said
Waxman, chairman of one of those committees, "unless the House and Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health
care system." Hoyer said Democrats still want to pass a bill next week and will continue to discuss changes to the proposal.
"We'll see," he said. "I'll make that decision next week, I'm not going to make it now." The majority leader also conceded that
concerns about the House bill are not limited to a group of conservative Blue Dog Democrats who have publicly stated their
opposition to the bill. "It's not just Blue Dogs. I want to make it very clear -- progressives, Blue Dogs and everybody in between
has expressed concerns, and we're working on that," Hoyer said. Obama on Tuesday responded to Republican opposition to
Democrats' health care plans, saying that political motives are behind efforts to block progress on the issue. Republicans "who
openly announce their intentions to block this reform" would "rather score political points" than confront the ailing health care
system, Obama said in a Rose Garden statement. Republicans responded that Democratic proposals so far would fail to
deliver what they promise and eventually lead to a government takeover of health care.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
204
No health care – Dems
Healthcare won’t pass – democratic infighting.
CNN 7-24-2009 “House Democrats Splinter over healthcare”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/24/health.care.slowdown/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats split sharply over the issue of health care reform Friday as
negotiations between a committee chairman and party conservatives broke down. A leader of the party's
conservative faction in turn declared that the party's internal negotiations over health care had failed and warned the
party leadership not to ram the current version of the health care bill through by circumventing the traditional
legislative process. The escalating public dissension within the ranks of House Democrats raised new questions
about the bill's prospects. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said on Capitol Hill
that he is willing to keep talking with members of the Blue Dog coalition, an influential group of fiscal
conservatives, but also made clear that he intends to move forward with the legislation. Waxman, a California
Democrat, indicated that he would bypass a committee vote if necessary and bring the bill directly to the House
floor for a final vote. "We're not going to let [the conservatives] empower the Republicans. I don't see any other
alternative," he said. Waxman's is one of three House committees that is supposed to clear the health care bill; the
other two have already done so. Legislation is typically approved by the relevant committees before being
considered by the full House. On rare occasions, however, House leaders can remove a bill from a committee and
bring it directly to a vote by the full House. Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a key member of the Blue Dog coalition,
predicted that the bill would fail if Waxman circumvented the committee. "I think it would be a huge mistake if they
removed the bill from our committee of jurisdiction and simply [took] it to the House floor," he said. "We're not
empowering Republicans," he insisted. "We're trying to save this bill and save our party." Several representatives of
the 52-member Blue Dog coalition have expressed concern that the legislation being pushed through the House of
Representatives does not do enough to rein in health care inflation. They've also expressed disagreement with the
bill's government-funded public health insurance option and its $1 trillion price tag. Ross and Waxman held a "very
good meeting" on Friday, a Waxman aide said, and talks are continuing. A Democratic leadership aide told CNN
that Waxman and Ross apologized to each other after their meeting for the back-and-forth on Friday and said they
will continue to talk on Monday. The aide asked not to be identified. Bills considered so far by various House and
Senate committees include Democratic proposals for a public option, mandates for people to be insured and for
employers to provide coverage, and an end to lack of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Republicans oppose a
government-funded option and any requirement for employers to provide coverage. They also call for limits on
medical malpractice lawsuits, which Democrats don't favor, along with a number of provisions contained in the
Democratic bills, including increased efficiency in Medicare and Medicaid and a focus on preventive health
programs. "Let's not rush it. Let's slow down. Let's get it right and ensure that the American people get the kind of
health care that they need and deserve," Ross said earlier in the day on CNN's "American Morning." He later noted
that only one out of 10 items on the Blue Dogs' list of concerns had been sufficiently addressed, despite meetings
over the past few days with President Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Ross reached an
agreement with Obama and Waxman on Tuesday to create an independent council to set Medicare reimbursement
rates as a way to help hold down costs. "Unfortunately, we have failed to reach an [overall] agreement," Ross said.
The public bickering over the bill raised new questions over the timing of a final vote on the legislation. House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said earlier in the week that she thinks she has the votes to pass the current version of the
health care plan. However, Ross insisted Friday that Pelosi was wrong. "It's not just the seven of us on the Energy
and Commerce Committee that are conservative Democrats that have concerns with the bill," he said. "It's almost
the entire Blue Dog coalition, and I can tell you if [the Democratic leadership tries] to bring it up for a vote on the
House floor, it would be a mistake," Ross said. On Thursday, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate said his chamber
won't vote on a health care reform bill until after the upcoming August recess. The announcement by Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada went against Obama's stated timetable for both the House and Senate to turn
out bills before the August break. After Reid's statement, Obama said he would accept a delay so long as work
toward passing a bill continued. Obama met with Reid and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus at the
White House on Friday to discuss the state of the bill.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
205
No health care – Dems
Healthcare not passing now – too much opposition on all sides.
Reuters 7-22-2009 “Obama to make prime time healthcare appeal”
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN208242420090722
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will plead his case for a broad healthcare overhaul in a
prime-time news conference on Wednesday, with doubts growing about the plan even among his fellow Democrats
and polls showing slipping public support. Leaders in Congress struggled to find common ground on the cost and
scope of a proposal that Obama has made his top legislative priority, and hopes dimmed they could meet his goal of
passing early versions by the August summer recess. The package has run into opposition from all sides, with a
group of conservative Democrats questioning the cost and funding, liberal Democrats concerned it would not do
enough and Republicans blasting the more than $1 trillion price tag and seeing a chance for a crushing political
defeat of Obama. "We need to put the brakes on this president. He's been on a spending spree since he took office,"
Republican Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative who recently said the healthcare debate would be Obama's
"Waterloo," told NBC's "Today" show. "The policies are not matching up to the promises. They're loading trillions
of dollars of debt onto the American people," DeMint said. Obama has stepped up his involvement in the debate,
meeting with rebellious House of Representatives Democrats at the White House on Tuesday and scheduling
healthcare events throughout the week, topped by the nationally televised news conference at 8 p.m. EDT
(0001GMT) on Wednesday. The overhaul plans call for a government-run insurance program to compete with
private insurers, expand coverage to most of the 46 million uninsured Americans and hold down soaring healthcare
costs that are rising faster than inflation. But the details have proven difficult for lawmakers to nail down, and a
series of opinion polls show Obama's approval rating dipping and his support on the healthcare issue falling to
below 50 percent in a Washington Post poll. The House Energy and Commerce Committee canceled a planned
drafting session for the second consecutive day on Wednesday in order to work with the fiscal conservatives on the
committee, who could scuttle the bill. Another panel, the House Ways and Means Committee, was to meet to
discuss taxes and other roadblocks to its version of the bill. Its plan to add a tax on the wealthy, to raise about $544
billion over 10 years, has come under fire. Members of the Senate Finance Committee, meanwhile, will continue a
series of closed-door meetings aimed at finding a compromise that could be crucial to getting the proposal through
the Senate. Obama said on Tuesday that the bills were "not where they need to be" but he remained confident that he
could win approval. The August deadline for passing versions in each chamber of Congress appeared to be slipping,
however, and Republicans pushed hard to put on the brakes. Obama wants the first versions of the bills passed
before the monthlong break to keep opposition from rallying during the recess.
Healthcare won’t pass – prospects diminishing.
Washington Post 7-25-2009 “Democrats Brawl over healthcare reform”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32136295/ns/politics-washington_post/
WASHINGTON - House Democrats feuded openly over health care Friday before shaking hands on a deal that
guaranteed only that they would keep negotiating, wrapping up a week in which consensus on a sweeping overhaul
of the nation's health-care system seemed to diminish by the day. White House aides announced a week ago that
President Obama was ready to "take the baton" for his biggest domestic campaign initiative, and indeed Obama
campaigned for his proposals nearly nonstop this week, including taking an hour to make his case directly to the
American public on prime-time television. Despite the president's attentions, Congress was further Friday from
passing health-care legislation than it was on Monday, with only days left before lawmakers leave Washington for
their August recess. Senate Democrats announced a day after the news conference that they could not meet Obama's
deadline for passing a health-care bill, while the House has been hung up by differences between liberals and more
conservative members of the party. Tensions in the House over the issue reached a boiling point Friday, when,
during a back-and-forth day of private huddles, Democrats emerged at times to accuse one another of lying or
"empowering the Republicans."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
206
No health care – Bayh
Health care reform won’t pass Bayh
Howey Politics Indiana 7-24-9 ( http://www.howeypolitics.com/2009/07/24/july-24-2009-hpi-daily-wire/)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision Thursday not to seek a Senate vote on health reform before the recess
means the House most likely won’t act either — putting the votes off until September. The delay opens the most
ambitious legislative initiative in more than 40 years to a month of fierce scrutiny as special-interest groups ramp up
what was already expected to be a firestorm of ads, organizing and lobbying. Democrats will head home without a
single plan to promote, complicating efforts to counter a suddenly more cohesive Republican opposition built
around the plan’s trillion-dollar price tag. And although the end of the year is still five months away, the job
becomes exponentially harder as the days tick down toward the 2010 election. Also, it was Obama himself who set
the August mark specifically because he was worried about the dangers of delay. He had hoped to lock in bills from
each house to create a legislative point-of-no-return and ease the process of merging the bills in the fall. However,
Reid, a Nevada Democrat, finally conceded what had become obvious to many involved in the negotiations and
announced the Senate could not pass a bill by August. The decision came a day after Obama held a prime-time news
conference aimed at breaking the logjam on Capitol Hill — a move health reform advocates clearly hoped would put
the full weight of Obama’s personal popularity and salesmanship skills behind the effort.
BAYH SAYS ‘DEVIL IS IN DETAILS’ ON REFORM: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) seems thoroughly unconvinced
by President Obama’s healthcare pitch Wednesday night (The Hill). Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe
Thursday, Bayh, one of a handful of centrist Democrats that could determine whether healthcare makes it through he
Senate, sounded quite skeptical of the legislation his party has been crafting. “The devil is in the details, and we’re
now starting to get into some of those details,” Bayh said. “One of which is, How do we afford this? Because
frankly the country is going broke. It’s not something we like to recognize, but it’s true.” Bayh was pessimistic that
spending money on healthcare now will help reduce the deficit in the long run, one of President Obama’s key
arguments. “It is I think appropriate to have some skepticism about the federal government saying, ‘Well look,
we’re going to spend money today, but trust us it’s going to save you money tomorrow.’” Bayh said. Bayh argued
that many of the cost control measures being discussed are “very small pilot projects” that won’t “really save you
much money over the next ten years. And if we don’t come to grips with this deficit over the next years, it’s really
going to get away from us.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
207
No health care – GOP
Health Care reform won’t pass – GOP opposition
Parrish, staff writer, 7/9/2009. (Jacob Parrish is a staff writer for the world magazine, “Health care reform will
linger”). http://online.worldmag.com/2009/07/09/health-care-reform-will-linger-on/
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said at a press conference in the Senate press gallery on Wednesday afternoon
that the Democrats’ summer timetable on health care reform is not attainable. His prediction is a dramatic
contrast to Senate Democrats’ hopes of completing a health care reform package in the next three weeks
before their long August break. “The Senate will not pass a [health care] bill before the August recess,”
Gregg said. He explained that the Finance Committee, which already slowed down their version of the
bill, may not even be done with its own mark ups by that point, and then it will take two or three weeks to
debate the bill on the Senate floor. Democrats are accusing Republicans of slowing down the process and
defending a status quo that is in desperate need of health care reform, while Republicans say they cannot
support a government-run health care system and they have not even seen a complete bill in committee
yet. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday morning that Democrats will lower the costs
of health care, make sure every American has access to quality, affordable care, and give people the
power to choose their own doctors, hospitals, and health plans. Gregg said the Democrats’ bill in the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee all boil down to a single-payer system, where
bureaucrats come between the patient and the doctor. Republicans have a few counter-proposals, but none
of the Republican proposals are being considered in the HELP committee.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
208
No health care – partisanship
Health care legislation in danger – partisanship
Barnes, executive editor of the weekly standard and staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 09
(Fred Barnes, executive editor of the weekly standard and staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 7/09,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804492049963557.html)
It usually doesn't happen this quickly in Washington. But President Barack Obama and congressional
Democrats are finding that the old maxim that what goes around, comes around applies to them, too. Less
than six months into his term, Mr. Obama's top initiatives -- health-care reform and "cap and trade"
energy legislation -- are in serious jeopardy and he has himself and his congressional allies to blame.
Their high-pressure tactics in promoting and passing legislation, most notably the economic "stimulus"
enacted in February, have backfired. Those tactics include unbridled partisanship, procedural short cuts,
demands for swift passage of bills, and promises of quick results.
With large majorities in Congress and an obsequious press corps, Mr. Obama was smitten with the idea of
emulating President Franklin Roosevelt's First 100 Days of legislative success in 1933. Like FDR, Mr.
Obama tried to push as many liberal bills through Congress in as brief a time as possible.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
209
No health care – public
Health Care Won’t pass – public opinion and GOP in the House
Belz, Staff Writer, 7/23/09. (Emily Belz is a staff writer for World Magazine, “As public support for healthcare
reform slips, President Obama tries to revive enthusiasm”). http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15696
Public approval of the president’s healthcare reform has descended to under 50 percent for the first time
according to a Washington Post/ABC poll released Monday. Independent voters moved from a 53 percent
approval of his healthcare approach in April to 44 percent now. He did little to rekindle the public admiration
for the reform by giving rote responses on an issue he has hammered on since the campaign. He did address
concerns about federal spending on healthcare in the midst of massive deficits. “If we do not control these
costs, we will not be able to control our deficit,” he said, and reminding later, “We inherited an enormous
deficit.” Then he employed a medical allusion to say, “The American people are understandably queasy
about the huge deficit and debt we’re facing right now.” Aside from eroding public support, the president
faces a hostile House of Representatives, where the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats are laying out
obstacles to passage of the legislation—one of the few times the group has bucked Democratic leadership.
Health care won’t pass-public
Politico.com 7-23-09 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Public_option_dead_Scott_predicts.html)
The more President Obama talks about the details of his plan, support for it drops accordingly. In June of this year,
Rasmussen Reports had Americans in favor of the President’s plan by a 50-45 margin. Now, Americans oppose the
plan by 53-44 – a reversal of almost 14 points – almost exclusively since the President kicked-off his health reform
campaign. Clearly, Americans perceive that the rhetoric doesn’t square with the facts.
Throughout this debate,
we have focused on educating Americans about the dangers of government-run health care in other countries – so
much so that part of the reason for their skepticism about Obama’s plan is that they just don’t believe him or
congressional Democrats when they’re told more government involvement will help the system. They believe
exactly the opposite: that government involvement will not control health costs, which in turn could hurt them
financially even more than the already pressing financial troubles most Americans are facing right now.
Americans did not fall for what was, essentially, an attempt to pull a bait-and-switch in broad daylight: Congress
and the President tell the people that government involvement won’t raise costs or ration care (in the face of clear
evidence to the contrary). Then, once in place, the government would have drained the life from the free market
providers and take control of the entire system. The evidence that this was the plan is overwhelming – Congress
passed and Obama signed into law a national health care board modeled after the British board which rations care,
and every economic forecast – especially from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office – shows the plan
would require trillions of dollars in spending and would result in higher premiums and higher taxes.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
210
No health care – cap and trade
Cap and Trade drained the capital necessary for health care
Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, 09
(John Feehery, staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress, 7/09,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/)
President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does. But each day he is in
office, his political capital reserve is declining. And each time he goes to the well to pass things like "cap
and trade" makes it more difficult for him to pass his more important priorities like health care.
Focus: Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. But focus is essential to achieving results.
Presidential focus quite often moves off the domestic agenda and into the wider world of diplomacy. But
that can spell greater political danger for a president and his party.
George H.W. Bush spent most of his presidency winning a war against Iraq and successfully concluded
the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union. But neither of those foreign policy successes helped him
win re-election. His son, George W. Bush, understood that he had to keep a tight focus on the economy
and one big domestic policy item (education), and while the war on terror did end up dominating his
presidency, Bush never forgot to focus on his domestic achievements.
The biggest danger to President Obama is not just foreign entanglements, it is also competing domestic
priorities that threaten to undermine his ability to get big things done. For example, the House vote on cap
and trade has made it very hard for conservative and moderate Democrats to join with Speaker Nancy
Pelosi on a more important health care bill.
After the cap and trade vote, opponents deluged the offices of centrist House Democrats with loud
complaints about the costs of the energy bill, and according to media reports, that has made these critical
members even more nervous about the budget ramifications of the health care reform package being
pushed by the president.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
211
No health care – A2: win on F-22
A victory on the F-22 may not be enough for healthcare
Montanaro, NBC political researcher, 09
(Domenico Montanaro, 7/09, NBC political researcher,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/22/2004073.aspx)
The Boston Globe's lead story: "President wins on defense spending." The Globe says, "Obama scored a
major victory" on the F-22 vote.
The New York Times: “Senate aides said that some Democrats who otherwise might have voted for more
planes sided with the president out of concern that a loss could have hurt him in the fight for health care
reform. ‘The president really needed to win this vote,’ Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan
who led the fight to cut financing for the plane, said after the vote.”
The Washington Post curtain-raises the Maliki visit to DC this week, which begins today with a meeting
with President Obama. "Iraq would like the United States to provide more economic support, help resolve
problems with some of its neighbors and -- when asked -- assist in combating the myriad security
problems it still faces. Otherwise, it would like the Americans to leave it alone. For its part, the Obama
administration wants Baghdad to stop the sectarian disagreements that continue to impede economic and
political progress, show a little more public respect for U.S. sacrifices on its behalf and start behaving like
a normal, oil-rich democracy. Those issues, politely stated, will form the basis of talks during Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki's first visit to the Obama White House on Wednesday, according to U.S. and
Iraqi officials."
The administration’s auto task force chief, Ron Bloom, found himself on the receiving end of a lot of
complaints from Congress over the GM/Chrysler bailouts.
"An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country
is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.
Obama still has a solid 55 percent approval rating -- better than Bill Clinton and about even with George
W. Bush six months into their presidencies -- but there are growing doubts about whether he can succeed
at some of the biggest items on his to-do list. And there is a growing sense that he is trying to tackle too
much too soon."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
212
No health care – before recess
Dems backing off passing healthcare before august recess.
FOX NEWS 7-21-2009, “Hoyer suggests health care might not be done by august break”
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/21/hoyer-suggests-health-care-might-not-be-done-by-august-break/
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) Tuesday backed off from previous leadership goals of
passing a massive health care reform bill before the August recess. “We want to pass it next week,”
Hoyer said at his weekly meeting with reporters at the Capitol. “Hopefully we’ll bear fruit and meet the
schedule that we’re hopeful of meeting.” But the leader signaled that deep divisions among Congressional
Democrats could preclude the House from having enough votes to approve the reform plan before going
on vacation. “If we get consensus, we’ll do it,” Hoyer said of passing the legislation next week, the final
week the House is scheduled to be in session until September. But the Maryland Democrat noted that he
didn’t believe it would be productive to delay the break if the health bill isn’t wrapped up. “I don’t think
staying in session is necessarily necessary to getting consensus,” Hoyer added. When asked if the House
could stay in session to forge an agreement, Hoyer responded, “We’ll see.” Conservative and moderate
Democratic members of the so-called “Blue Dog” coalition are skeptical about the cost of the legislation,
proposed tax hikes and the speed at which the House is moving on health care. A team of Blue Dogs
huddled Tuesday with President Obama at the White House in an effort to break the impasse imperiling
the administration’s leading policy goal. In the House, Democrats appear to be stymied in passing a bill
without support of the Blue Dogs and other key Democrats. Many of the Blue Dogs remain shell-shocked
after taking a tough vote in June to approve an energy and climate bill. That package was a priority of
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Many voters gave moderate and conservative Democrats an earful
over the July 4th break for voting in favor of Pelosi’s plan. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
said he thought Democrats were struggling to cobble together a coalition to approve the health care bill
because of the vote on the energy-climate legislation, known colloquially as cap and trade. “There are
Democrats who feel there were a lot of arms broken after the cap and trade bill,” said Boehner. “And
there are no more arms to be broken. But Hoyer rejected that claim. “I think the energy and climate bill
was an excellent bill,” Hoyer said. “I think if our members go on offense on that bill, we’ll win on that
bill.” Still, Republicans were nearly giddy at the Democrats’ health care conundrum. “A bipartisan
majority has formed against this health care bill,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). “Mr.
President, it’s time to scrap this bill. Let’s start over in a bipartisan way,” added Boehner. But Hoyer shot
back the GOP. “They are much more interesting in making failure happen,” Hoyer said.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
213
Obama won’t push health care
Obama backing off
Daily News 7-22-2009 “A Bending Curve?
http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=39346&CHID=36
In making his case for health-care reform, President Obama has repeatedly stated the system’s current
course is not “sustainable.” But can’t the same be said of the path on which he wants to take the nation?
Testifying late last week before the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, emphatically said that it can. Mr. Elmendorf said the plan being
shepherded through Congress does not make “the sort of fundamental changes” requisite to reining in the
soaring costs of government health programs. More than that, the $1.6 trillion initiative, as currently
configured to include a “public option” for health insurance, would simply heap additional burden on
taxpayers — now and in the future — already obliged to pick up the tab for Medicare and Medicaid. And
if anyone should know, it is Mr. Elmendorf. The CBO is merely the official arbiter of the cost of
legislation. Of course, Mr. Obama says otherwise, averring that his proposal would, in time, “bend the
curve,” or trajectory, of federal spending on health care. Again, Mr. Elmendorf — erstwhile senior fellow
at the Brookings Institution, hardly a conservative think tank — begged to differ. He said, simply, “The
curve is being raised” — meaning that the nation’s financial condition, hardly rosy, could become even
worse. With his bountiful reservoir of political capital starting to erode — a recent Washington Post poll
saw the president’s approval on health-care issues slip below 50 percent for the first time — Mr. Obama was
eager to see his plan pushed through Congress by the August recess. Now, he seems to be backing off that
ambitious timetable, primarily because fiscal conservatives within his own party — that cadre of Blue
Dog Democrats — are ratcheting up efforts to present more financially palatable, and responsible,
legislation. These efforts are to be encouraged. All that hangs in the balance is the world’s finest healthcare system.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
214
Capital not key to health care
Political capital is irrelevant – its about the substance.
Charles D. Ellison, author and commentator, 7-22-2009 “Advice for POTUS on Healthcare”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25275.html
“The details of health care reform are both voluminous and wonkishly complex: Keep it simple, stupid. Which is a
main reason it’s dragging, because there is no mass movement of citizens who actually get it. The president’s
intentions are all good and in the right spot, but there is too much complexity. He has political capital based on
successful branding of his personal image. But he’ll need leverage on the substance. Yet it is either he or his circle
of bookish Ivy Leaguers who are having serious trouble connecting the dots in such a way that folks are both
reassured and inspired. A bit of street sense could be essential. Ultimately, average people on the street also want to
see something green and crumply in their hands, something they can touch and feel.”
Political capital not the issue – votes will be ideological
Mike Celizic TODAYShow.com contributor 7-21-2009, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32024198/ns/todaywhite_house/
President Barack Obama admitted that there is not enough money in the system to pay for medical coverage for the
46 million Americans who have none, and that to bridge the gap additional taxes will probably have to be levied on
the nation’s wealthiest citizens. The president focused on health care reform during a wide-ranging interview with
TODAY’s Meredith Vieira that aired Tuesday. But he also covered subjects both trivial (his choice of jeans to wear
to the All-Star Game) and deeply individual: a father’s five-year international battle to regain rightful custody of his
son, and an American soldier being held captive in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Health care and politics Obama has
told Congress he wants a universal health care plan before the nation’s lawmakers leave town for their traditional
August recess. Given the enormous complexity and cost of the proposals being floated in the corridors of power,
Vieira asked why the president is so insistent on a hard deadline. “Because if you don’t set a deadline in this town,
nothing happens,” Obama replied. “The default in Washington is inaction and inertia. And there’s a reason why we
haven’t had health care reform in 50 years. The deadline’s not being set by me; the deadline’s being set by the
American people.” Some Republicans have grabbed on the President’s crusade and made it a political battleground,
with Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina going so far as to say, “If we are able to stop Obama on this, in new health
care reform, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” When Vieira repeated that comment, Obama laughed. “This
is all about politics,” he explained. “That describes exactly an attitude that we’ve got to overcome, because what
folks have in their minds is that, somehow, this is about me. It’s about politics and the ability to win back the House
of Representatives. And people are thinking back to 1993 when President Clinton wasn’t able to get health care, and,
right after that, the House Republicans won.” The president agreed that he has a lot invested personally in achieving
health care reform, but he also said that other Americans have a lot more at stake than he does. “This is not as
important to me as it is to the people who don’t have health care. I’ve got health care,” Obama told Vieira. “This
isn’t as important to me as the family that’s gone bankrupt because they got a bunch of medical bills that they
thought the insurance companies had covered that turned out they weren’t covered. So, yes, absolutely, I am deeply
invested in getting this thing done. But this isn’t Washington sport. This isn’t about who’s up and who’s down. This
is about solving an enormous problem for the American people.” Vieira put Obama on the line about the possibility
of paying for universal health care by imposing a surtax on incomes above $280,000. For the first time, the president
said some such tax is a likely part of the ultimate package he promises to sign into law. While saying, “it’s one
option among many,” he also said, “What I’ve said is, and I have stuck to this claim, I don’t want to see additional
tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less … I think that ultimately, what we’re going to have is a
package which will probably include some additional revenue from well-to-do people, including me and you, who
can afford to pay a little bit more so that working families, people who are going to their job every single day, can
have a little more security on their health care.” “Isn’t that, in effect, punishing the rich?” Vieira asked. “No, it’s not
punishing the rich,” Obama replied. “I think the way I look at it is that if I can afford to do a little bit more so that a
whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a
community.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
215
Employment/econ key to health care
Increasing employment would give Obama more political capital to pass healthcare.
HotAir.Com 7-22-2009 “Happy Talk Will Not Jump-start Obama Care”
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/07/22/happy-talk-will-not-jump-start-obamacare/
Rep. Henry Waxman had to cancel the Energy and Commerce Committee markup of Obamacare for the
second day running. Apparently, the happy talk coming from Waxman and Blue Dog Democrats opposed
to the current bill was just that — happy talk. At least four polls this month show Pres. Obama failing to
crack 50% approval on healthcare (and the AP-GfK poll barely reaches 50%). In this gloomy climate for
nanny statists, Nate Silver looks at Pres. Obama’s options. The first — whipping Democrats into
submission — no doubt has the most appeal to the Left, which hopes to pass any two bills and dare
moderate Democrats to filibuster a conference report on their party’s Holy Grail. However, this option
may be over-committed to the premise that the failure of healthcare reform in 1994 was responsible for
the GOP tsunami in that election. Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore notes that “it’s not entirely clear that
the failure to enact health reform, as opposed to the unpopularity of the reforms being proposed (not to
mention the timing of the health care debate, which in 1994 was on the very brink of the midterm
elections), was the predominant factor.” Silver still thinks trying to use the budget reconciliation process
to pass healthcare reform is an option, but he underestimates the difficulties, which I have been noting for
months. Silver also suggests that Obama would have more political capital for this issue if the
unemployment or stock market numbers were to suddenly improve dramatically — and the lapdog press
went into full-on propaganda mode about it. But Silver admits that scenario is unlikely.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
216
Winners win on healthcare
Winners and win and Obama’s political capital is key to pass healthcare-previous victories
prove
Sidoti, AP staff writer, 9-(Liz Sidoti, “Analysis: Obama Scores Major Victory on Climate,” AP,
7/29/09,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnhTeebN9eTDwp8tp3UooPwNWEqgD
994DN8O0)
Facing a rare defeat, President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a
major victory just when he needed one.
In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals, Obama leaned heavily on House
Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming. The
measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion.
In the end, the president's furious lobbying — coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice
President Al Gore — carried much weight. To a certain extent, the victory validated Obama's governing
style — and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority, health care. He faces an even more
difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate.
Obama recognizes as much.
"Now my call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future.
And we must not be prisoners of the past," Obama said in his weekend Internet and radio address. He
scrapped his talk on his original topic, health care, and recorded the climate bill speech shortly after the
Democratic-controlled House backed the measure on a 219-212 vote late Friday.
It was a win Obama certainly needed. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and
already health care was hanging in the balance. While his popularity remains strong, Obama's overall
ratings have slipped a bit. This restive nation also is wary of some of his proposals, including deficit
spending as Obama pumps an enormous amount of money into the economy and elsewhere.
The narrow House vote suggests potential trouble ahead with the Democratic rank-and-file as the White
House seeks to tackle more big-ticket issues in Obama's first year in office; health care tops the list.
As Congress tackles that contentious issue, Obama's left flank is beating up him and his allies over the
effort to overhaul the costly and complex U.S. medical system. Moderate Democrats are looking to forge
compromises to pass a measure; liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in any
legislation. Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government
program to compete against private insurers.
Democrats have a comfortable House majority. But the climate legislation pitted Democrats who
represent East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Midwest and
other places that rely heavily on coal and industry. They have a longer, more expensive path to meet
requirements in the measure.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
217
Obama Pushing kills health care
Obama pushing kills healthcare reform.
HotAir.Com
7-22-2009
“Happy
Talk
Will
Not
Jump-start
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/07/22/happy-talk-will-not-jump-start-obamacare/
Obama
Care”
Finally, Silver doesn’t “see any particular reason why the Administration couldn’t press the reset button”
and push for a bipartisan healthcare bill like the Wyden-Bennett bill. Silver is not looking very hard. In
his heart, Pres. Obama favors a Canadian-style, single-payer system and probably believes he is making
an enormous compromise already. Indeed, Obama keeps making arrogant comment after arrogant
comment on healthcare to demonstrate his lack of interest in any compromise, let alone a bipartisan one.
So what we are likely to see at tonight’s prime-time presser is an option left off Silver’s menu: more
happy talk. Indeed, Obama will have little else to offer, given the roadblocks still present in both
chambers of Congress. And happy talk is not only unlikely to jump-start Obama’s proposed government
takeover of our healthcare, but also likely to work against it. As Rich Lowry observes: The problem for
Obama is that now, in contrast to the campaign last year, his words can be checked against actual existing
legislation. He can’t just make dubious, free-floating, all-things-to-all-people promises. Or he can, but
they are belied by the legislation he’s touting. No matter how often he says that people will be allowed to
keep the coverage they have now if they like it, or that the cost curve will be bent downward, it doesn’t
change the fact that the Democratic legislation does neither of those things. It may be that the harder
Obama pushes on this, the more he discredits himself. Pres. Obama is about to embark on his tenth
straight day of healthcare talk. Last week, the media covered healthcare more than at any time since
January 2007 at the very least. So far, the polls are proving Lowry’s theory.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
218
Health care reform fails
Healthcare reform won’t be effective.
DAVID LEONHARDT, NYT Staff Writer 7-21, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Mr. Obama says many of the right things. Yet the White House has not yet shown that it’s willing to fight the
necessary fights. Remember: the $6,500 tax benefits someone. And that someone has a lobbyist. The lobbyist even
has an argument about how he is acting in your interest. These lobbyists, who include big names like Dick Armey
and Richard Gephardt, have succeeded in persuading Congress to write bills with a rather clever feature. They
include some of the ideas that would cut costs — but defang them. One proposal would pay doctors based on the
quality of care, rather than quantity, but it’s a pilot project. Doctors who already provide good care may well opt in;
doctors providing wasteful but lucrative care surely will not. The bills would also finance research on which
treatments are effective. But Medicare officials would not be prevented from continuing to spend taxpayer money on
ineffective treatments. In reaction, some people who should be natural supporters of reform have become critics.
The Mayo Clinic — one of Mr. Obama’s favorite models of care — says the legislation fails to “help create higherquality, more affordable health care.” On Thursday, Mr. Obama will visit another example he likes to cite, the
Cleveland Clinic. Its successes capture what real reform would look like. Like Mayo, the Cleveland Clinic pays its
doctors a salary, rather than piecemeal, and delivers excellent results for relatively little money. “I came here 30some years ago,” Delos Cosgrove, a heart surgeon who is the clinic’s chief executive, told me. “And I have never
received any additional pay for anything I did. It never made a difference if I did five heart operations or four — I
got paid the same amount of money. So I had no incentive to do any extra tests or anything.” This is the crux of the
issue, economists say: the current fee-for-service system needs to be remade. The administration has made some
progress, by proposing a powerful new Medicare overseer who could force the program to pay for good results and
stop paying for bad ones. But even a strong Medicare plan won’t be enough. Reform will need to attack the
piecemeal system in numerous ways. Among the most promising, which Mr. Obama has resisted, is a limit on tax
subsidies for the costliest health insurance plans. This limit would give households and employers a reason to
become smarter shoppers. Above all, reform can’t revolve around politely asking the rest of the medical system to
become more like the Cleveland Clinic. In recent weeks, polls have shown that a solid majority of Americans
support the stated goals of health reform. Most want the uninsured to be covered and want the option of a
government-run insurance plan. Yet the polls also show that people are worried about the package emerging from
Congress. Maybe they have a point.
Only a watered down version of the bill will pass –can’t solve the impacts
Buzzone, Staff Writer for the Examiner, 6-24
(Arthur Buzzone, San Francisco Examiner political examiner ”Feinstein dealls Obama;s health care reform a death
blow”, 6-24-09, http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d24-Feinstein-deals-Obamashealth-care-reform-a-death-blow)
SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been the canary in the mineshaft for major Democrat policy
issues. Her recent comments insure that health care reform -- as envisioned by the President -- is essentially dead on
arrival. "I'm concerned that there not be another entitlement," Feinstein said. "Entitlements are well over 50 percent
of every dollar the federal government spends this year and are going straight up. If you add more entitlements, it's a
problem." (SF Chronicle) With a $1.8 trillion Federal deficit likely this fiscal year, the senator from San Francisco
is voicing the concerns of the blue dog democrats who have warned all along that you can 't have reform it stresses
further a budget dangerously out of control. While Senator Feinstein comes from San Francisco -- with the highest
per capita municipal budget in the country -- she has been a fiscal hawk for most of her term. "All the talk is how
much we need health care reform, and we all agree we need it," Feinstein said. "The problem is how to do it and
how to pay for it. The specifics of that need to get laid out in a crystal-clear, uncomplicated manner." With the bar
raised that high, it's unlikely Feinstein will support the current proposal. What will happen is that Congress will
pass a watered down health care measure, that will be gutted of both reform and added expenditures. And those
with health insurance will continue to subsidize those without it, through the country's emergency rooms.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
219
Health care kills economy – raises costs
Health care will kill the economy
Donald Lambro 7-20-09 ( Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times., The
Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/20/phony-arguments-for-costly-plan/?page=20
President Obama repeatedly states two things about his national health care initiative that are not true.
The first untruth is that we cannot have truly long-term economic growth until we replace the present health care
system with an entirely new government-imposed one. The second untruth is that the plan will end the explosion in
health costs. In fact, there have been periods in our country's economic history when we've experienced relatively
long-term growth with the health care system we have now. The most recent was the nearly 25 years of growth that
followed the 1981-82 recession (with a shallow slide in the early 1990s) when the Dow rose to 14,000,
unemployment fell to about 4 percent, U.S. exports were booming, and new-business formation soared. Indeed,
during that time, the health care industry was one of the biggest and most dependable sources of job creation even
when jobs became increasingly hard to find elsewhere in the economy. As for reducing spiraling health care costs,
just the opposite is likely to result as health care demands skyrocket, fueled by trillions of dollars in government
subsidies that will be poured into the system, overburdening an industry struggling to keep up with the demands we
place on it now. "The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term
health costs facing the government," said Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf on Thursday.
Meanwhile, despite claims that his health care plan will spur economic growth for years to come, Mr. Obama is
pushing so-called health care reforms that will, in fact, weaken our economy.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
220
Health care kills economy – taxes
Taxes in the health care plan kill the economy
Forbes 07.22.09 (Lee E. Ohanian, Lee E.is a professor of economics and the director of the Ettinger Family
Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA., http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/21/obama-health-care-incometax-gdp-oecd-opinions-contributors-lee-e-ohanian.html
Obama's income surtax is quite the wrong way. President Obama has noted that his health care plan will
"probably include some additional revenue from well-to-do people." The numbers that are being discussed in policy
circles will increase marginal tax rates among the highest earners substantially. The House version of the health
care plan will place a 5.4% income surtax on the highest income earners, and this surtax, combined with the
expiration of the Bush tax cuts, will raise marginal tax rates about 10 percentage points. This means that states with
high state income tax rates, such as California and New York, will have combined federal-state marginal tax rates
that will approach 60%. Now, there is no getting around the fact that these marginal rates are indeed high, bringing
tax rates up to levels we have not seen in this country for many years, and making tax rates on high-income earners
comparable to those in Western and Northern Europe. Some economists worry that these tax increases will so
reduce the incentives to work and save as to damage economic growth, and are particularly worried about the timing
of this change, as it is occurring during our current economic crisis. Others, including many in Congress, believe
that these tax increases will not impact growth very much at all, and it is worthwhile to reduce after-tax incomes of
high earners to enact an overhaul of the health care system. The impact of tax changes on the economy largely boils
down to what economists call "elasticities"--that is, the sensitivity of household labor supply and savings to changes
in taxes. The position of those supporting the view that these higher marginal tax rates won't reduce economic
activity very much is that high-income earners are not very elastic--they won't change their labor supply or savings
decisions very much in response to higher taxes. Research I have conducted with Richard Rogerson of Arizona
State University and Andrea Raffo of the Federal Reserve Board (click here to read more) suggests that this view is
mistaken, and that raising marginal tax rates to these levels could reduce gross domestic product considerably. We
studied changes in hours worked across 17 OECD countries between the mid-1950s and 2004. We found that there
are enormous differences in changes in hours worked and in taxes across countries, and that there is a very distinct
and systematic pattern between these changes. For example, between the 1960s and the 1980s, hours worked
declined on average by around 30% in Western and Northern Europe countries, including a 40% decline in
Germany, whereas hours worked in the U.S. and Canada changed very little. And in Europe, tax rates rose
substantially between the 1960s and the 1980s, whereas taxes were relatively unchanged in the U.S. and Canada.
Moreover, once tax rates stabilized at high levels in Europe after the 1980s, hours worked in these countries
stabilized as well at a relatively low level. There was one exception, the Netherlands, which reduced tax rates
somewhat around 20 years ago and has witnessed an increase in hours worked. The punchline of our study is that
the tax changes are important for understanding changes in economic activity and that raising taxes today will likely
damage our economic growth. But whether the president's plan is adopted or not, a much better idea is to eliminate
the non-taxation of employer-provided health benefits. Many economists believe that this tax subsidy for health
care, which was largely adopted during World War II in order to get around wage controls, distorts incentives
significantly and should be eliminated.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
221
Health care kills economy – jobs
Health care kills jobs
Talk Radio News Service 7-21-9 (Laura Woodhead, staff writer http://talkradionews.com/2009/07/energyhealth-care-bills-will-kill-jobs-hurt-economy-say-house-gopers/)
The energy and health care proposals currently being debated in Congress will be disastrous for the economy, House
Republicans said at a press conference Tuesday. Speaking following the weekly House Republican conference, Rep.
Mike Pence (R – Ind.) said that the Democrats seem determined to try and pass their bills despite the negative
impact they’ll have on an already challenged economy. If it were to pass, the American Clean Energy Act and the
Democrats’ health care plan would be a “disaster for this economy and a disaster for working Americans” he said.
“House Republicans are determined to step forward and demand that this Congress focus on putting this country
back on its feet,” Pence added. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that there is a strong bi-partisan
coalition opposing the current health care proposals. “Either this bill fails or it changes dramatically,” Cantor said.
“If the bill fails it will be because of disagreement among the Democrats as to the proper direction to head as far as
health care reform is concerned.” “This administration, this President has no one else to blame,” he added. “What
they ought to be doing is coming to work with us in order to reflect a much more reasoned approach to try and
accomplish health care for the American people.” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio.) said that the
“President is going to begin his barnstorming” on bills that will kill jobs. “The stimulus bill isn’t working, they
bring along this health care bill that will cost 5 million jobs, and they bring this cap and trade bill up last month that
will cost us 2.5 million jobs each year for the next ten years. This is not what the American people want.” Boehner
called on President Obama to abandon current health care proposals and negotiate with Republicans in order to
achieve economically feasible health care reform. “Mr President, it’s time to scrap this bill. It’s time to start
working in a bi-partisan way,” he said
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
222
Health care kills competitiveness
Obama’s plan will hurt competitiveness – the status quo is sustainable
WSJ 6-17 (Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124520327436821723.html)
Messrs. Obama and Schmidt need to brush up on their economics. Employers may write the checks to the
insurance companies, but workers still pay for the coverage they get from those employers. The total cost of an
employee is what matters to businesses, and fringe benefits are as much a part of compensation as cash wages.
When health costs rise, firms don't become less competitive, as if insurance were lopped out of profits. Instead,
nonhealth compensation drops. Or wages rise more slowly than they otherwise would. A recent study from none other than the White
House Council of Economic Advisers notes exactly this point: If medical spending continues to accelerate, it expects take-home pay to
stagnate. According to the New York Times, White House economic aide Larry Summers pressured CEA chairman Christine Romer to make
the competitiveness argument, "adding that it was among the political advisers' favorite 'talking points.'" Ms. Romer pointedly retorted, "I'm
not going to put schlocky arguments in there." How the schlock gets into Mr. Obama's speeches is a different question. It's certainly true that
the U.S. employer-based insurance system can dampen entrepreneurial spirits. There's the "job lock" phenomenon, in which employees fear
leaving a less productive job because they're afraid to lose their health benefits. Another problem is that insurance costs more for small groups
than the large risk pools that big corporations assemble, meaning that it's harder to form new businesses that can offer policies. But all this is
really an argument for developing the individual health insurance market, where policies would follow workers, not jobs. As for the
competitiveness line, it's nonsense for most companies. The exceptions are heavily unionized businesses like auto makers that
have locked themselves in to gold-plated coverage, especially for retirees. They have a harder time adjusting health costs and wages. Other
companies might get a bit more running room in the short run if government assumed all health costs a la the single-payer systems of Western
Europe. But over time the market would clear -- compensation being determined by the demand for and supply of
labor -- and wages would rise. Or they might not rise at all if health-care costs are merely replaced by the tax
increases necessary to finance Mr. Obama's new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement. This is where the real
competitiveness argument is precisely the opposite of the one pitched by Messrs. Obama and Schmidt. Consider
the European welfare states, where costly entitlements and regulations make it extremely expensive to hire new
workers. The nearby table lays out the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches employees but instead goes straight to
government. In Germany, France and Italy, the tax wedge hovers around 50%, in part to pay for state-provided health care. By contrast, the
U.S. tax wedge was around 30% in 2008, according to the OECD. In other words , the costs of providing insurance would merely
be converted into a larger wedge, which would itself eat into compensation. This is why Europe has tended to
have higher unemployment and slower economic growth over the past 30 years. If Democrats really want to
increase U.S. competitiveness, they could look at the corporate income tax, which is the second highest in the
industrialized world and a major impediment to U.S. job creation when global capital is so fluid. Or drop their proposals to
raise personal income-tax rates, which affect thousands of small- and medium-size businesses that have fled the corporate tax regime as limited
liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. Or cut capital gains rates, which deter risk taking and investment. Or rethink their plans to rig
the rules in favor of organized labor by doing away with secret ballots in union elections . On all these issues and more, Democrats
want to increase, not reduce, the burdens on U.S. business. Their health-care line is, per Ms. Romer, "schlocky"
political spin.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
223
Health care reform increases costs
Obama’s health care reform will increase spending and fail to cut costs
Fred Hiatt, Washington Post, 7-6-09
Obama's response has been to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem -- and make it worse. I'm not talking
about his record-breaking stimulus plan, which was essential (if not ideally shaped) given the recession he also
inherited. Rather, it is Obama's long-term budget that would more than double the projected deficit over the next 10
years, to $9 trillion, by extending most of the Bush tax cuts and limiting the alternative minimum tax while creating
new programs and entitlements (to college tuition scholarships, for example) and refusing to cut back on existing
ones. And that's not to mention his top priority, universal access to health care. Obama has said that reform must be
paid for, and he hopes it will lead to a slowing in the growth of health-care costs. That would hugely improve the
long-term budget outlook. But the prospects of cost control are tenuous, experimental, distant and politically
fraught; by comparison, creating an expensive new entitlement is easy. Obama has proposed to pay for part of
universal access by collecting more income tax from the wealthy, which would make the existing deficit that much
harder to close. The cost of the entitlement could rise more quickly than the revenue paying for it. There is a good
chance, in other words, that whatever emerges from Congress this summer will worsen the budget prognosis.
Health care reform would actually increase costs
Kaiser Health News, 6-30-2009, “Obama's challenge: Selling health reform to the middle
class”
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/063009_selling_healthcare.html
In the current deep recession, these potential benefits are attractive to millions of people, polls show. But many
Americans remain doubtful they'll personally benefit from the changes. Some worry that the huge cost of
guaranteeing insurance for everyone - the 10-year cost of reform legislation might be $1 trillion or more - will come
out of their wallets or harm their coverage.
Nina Hogan, a self-employed Realtor in Mason, Ohio, is one of those
who potentially could be helped by the Democrats' proposals. At age 56, she considers herself to be relatively
healthy. But an intestinal disorder and a mild case of asthma resulted in a stiff $5,000-a-year premium, a $2,500
annual deductible and annual premium increases in the neighborhood of 13 to 14 percent - all for an individual
policy that she doesn't think is very good.
Hogan is among an estimated 25 million Americans whose policies
aren't comprehensive or require substantial deductibles and co-payments. These so-called underinsured people
include workers whose employers have cut back on benefits, and others who buy skimpier individual policies to
save money.
Yet Hogan is skeptical of proposed plans because of the high cost, and she questions how quickly
new legislation would produce results directly helping her. "There are all these great suggestions, but is it realistic
and will it happen in a year? No."
Many experts, including economists at the Congressional Budget Office,
caution that the cost-saving fruits of an overhaul might be a decade or more away. There's also concern that Obama's
proposal to cut more than $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid spending over 10 years might help drive up
private insurance rates. Under this scenario, hospitals and doctors absorbing cuts in these programs might charge
individuals with private coverage more for their health care.
Meanwhile, critics are trying to rip holes in the
Democrats' plans and rhetoric.
"I think (Obama's) using all the buzz words he thinks people want to hear," said
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Finance Committee. "But they don't necessarily string together in any
kind of coherent fashion, nor is there any real evidence to support his conclusion that somehow this proposal is
going to ultimately bend the cost curve on health care."
Many Americans may balk at the idea of taxing the value
of individuals' employer-provided health care benefits, something the Finance Committee is strongly considering.
About one in eight U.S. workers who receive health benefits through their jobs - more than 9 million workers could end up paying higher income taxes on those benefits, according to a five-page finance committee
document.
"There's no question somebody's taxes will go up," said Nichols of the New America Foundation.
"The question for the middle class is whether the net increased security, increased quality, lower administrative
loads are worth the higher tax bill for some that will come. And in many ways that is the crux of the debate we're
about to have."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
224
Health care reform increases costs
Health care reform will add billions of dollars to cost- won’t help economy
The Madison Eagle, 7-3-2009, “Each Obama policy is bad, but in sum, they’ll be ruinous”
http://www.recordernewspapers.com/articles/2009/07/03/madison_eagle/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/doc4a4bcbbf
4d905390525910.txt
But my favorite, that is to say the most frightening, is the proposed health care “reform” that will cost $1.6 trillion
over the next 10 years. That cost is just a government projection, so you can assume it will be considerably greater.
Quite a sum to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Doesn’t exist because the vast majority of Americans are satisfied
with their health care/insurance. People are not dying in the streets because they are denied health care. We do not
have to wait months for procedures to relieve suffering ailments or to get tests that may save our lives. Funny, those
things do seem to happen in places where government runs health care, like the U.K. or Canada. Oh, but you say,
this “reform” will insure all those 47 million people in this country who are currently uninsured. Well, not really.
Even by the Administration’s own admission it will probably only insure one-third of these. And the 47 million
number is off-point to begin with. According to experts, there are 10 million people in this country whose household
incomes are greater than $75,000 who chose not to pay for health insurance. Another 10 million in that 47 million
number are not citizens, and another 15 million are eligible for health coverage under Medicare, Medicaid, the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), veterans’ benefits and other programs and for whatever reason do
not participate. Health care costs are rising in this country but consider these four causes for that: (1.) We are an
aging population; (2.) We have more and better technology to tell us what ails us; (3.) We have and better
pharmaceuticals and procedures to cure what ails us, and (4.) We have what can only be described as a runaway tort
system that adds tens of billions of dollars a year to medical costs. In other words, we get what we’re paying for.
The Administration’s proposed “reforms” will do nothing about the first and fourth, but will almost certainly stifle
any further progress on 2 and 3. Obama looks at us with a straight face and says his plan will cut costs because it
will be more efficient; he says “we can set a public option where they’re collecting premiums just like any private
insurer and doctors can collect rates;” but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs “we can keep
them - private insurance companies - honest.” Lower administrative cost? Is there anyone who actually believes
that? If he’s right, it will be the first government-run social program anywhere in the history of the world that will be
more efficient than a similar private sector activity. If this plan is going to play by the same rules as private
insurance companies, as the Administration insists it will, then why is it needed? There are, I’m told, some 1,300
insurance companies offering medical insurance in this country, but the government can do it better? Come on. In
this monstrous “reform” plan, there is no mention of either tort reform or eliminating government health coverage
mandates. Why not, both are proven cost killers: Could it be they are looking to protect Democrat constituencies?
By the way, Obama’s plan calls for the same Medicare/Medicaid cuts that Republicans Newt Gingrich and President
Bush proposed in 1995 and 2002, and they were pilloried by the Democrat party as heartless. He, however, gets a
pass for being practical. If these cuts are a good idea, make them anyway; why do they have to be part of a “reform”
program? This plan is designed to push people into the government option. Based on the recent expansion of the
SCHIP program, one estimate puts the number at 70 percent of the 172 million people in private insurance plans
who will move or be coerced onto the government option. Do you think your health care will be better when that
happens?
A public option will only increase cost. Expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a recipe
for expensive payments
Larry Kudlow, Economics Editor at The National Review Online, May 13, 2009,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIyMGEwZGM5YTdmOGU0MDEzNGU3ZDk5NjRlNzdmNzA=
Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the
government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least. So let’s be serious when evaluating
President Obama’s goal of universal health care, and the idea that it’s a cost-cutter. Can’t happen. Won’t happen.
Costs are going to explode. Think of it: Can anyone name a federal program that ever cut costs for anything? Let’s
not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole. And does anybody believe Obama’s
new “public” health-insurance plan isn’t really a bridge to single-payer government-run health care? And does
anyone think this plan won’t produce a government gatekeeper that will allocate health services and control prices
and therefore crowd-out the private-insurance doctor/hospital system?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
225
Health care reform increases costs
Costs are a function of third party involvement. Expanding the bureaucracy will only
increase them
Larry Kudlow, Economics Editor at The National Review Online, 6-23-09,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTYxYTFhYzNmNjIwODdiYmE0NWMzZDczYjUwZTVmNzQ=
Columnist Peter Robinson, writing for Forbes.com, relates an interview with the late free-market Nobelist
Milton Friedman about the inefficiencies of the health-care system. Friedman stated simply and clearly that
the cost problems in our system can be traced to the fact that most payments for medical care are made not by
the patients who receive the care, but by third parties — typically employers or the government. “Nobody
spends somebody else’s money as wisely as he spends his own,” said Friedman. He also fingered the tax
code, which allows for an exemption from the income tax only if health care is employer-provided. This is a
free-lunch syndrome, one that removes incentives for competition and cost-control because we’re all playing
with somebody else’s money. And in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, caregivers have become employees
of insurance companies and the government. A new government-backed insurance system will intensify this
free-lunch syndrome. It also will surely lead to a government takeover of what’s left of our private-enterprise
system.
Healthcare reform will be ridiculously expensive
Richard Berner, Managing Director, Co-Head of Global Economics and Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley.
He co-directs the Firm's forecasting and analysis of the global economy and financial markets and co-heads the
Firm's Strategy Forum, 7/6/2009 (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/296964-living4dividends/11929-america-sfiscal-train-wreck-july-06-2009 //ZE)
Meanwhile, the current healthcare reform effort aims at the apparently conflicting goals of curbing costs and
increasing access and quality. In the long run, those goals may turn out to be complementary. But in the near term,
politics likely dictate that increasing access will take priority over cutting costs. And increasing access to today's
health options will be expensive. For example, preliminary CBO estimates of Subtitles A through D of Title I of the
proposed "Affordable Health Choices Act" indicate that expanding access to health insurance for 39 million
Americans by granting subsidies will cost US$1 trillion over the next decade. Proposals to cut costs may yet emerge
to fulfill the president's requirement that any healthcare reform be deficit-neutral. But political agreement will be
hard to come by; witness the storm of opposition to a "public insurance plan" when the outline for any such plan is
still vague. Thus, in the short-to-intermediate term, increasing access first means bigger deficits are likely. Pundits
are describing the president's ability to deliver a healthcare reform package that improves Americans' lives and
contains costs as a defining moment for his leadership. As I see it, it is also a bellwether for our willingness to
tackle our fiscal challenges.
Costs a trillion dollars – CBO estimate
Ezra Klein, Economic policy expert, Washington Post, 6/15/2009 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein/2009/06/the_congressional_budget_offic.html //ZE)
The Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis of Sen. Ted Kennedy's Affordable Health Choices Act is
out. This is, remember, the liberal alternative to the Finance Committee's coming health reform bill. And it is, of
course, still somewhat incomplete. But the basic stats aren't terribly encouraging: It'll cost $1 trillion over 10 years,
which is less than some feared, but increase insurance coverage by only about 16 million people, which is a lot less
than some hoped. The key bit of analysis comes here:
“The proposal is assumed to require most legal residents to
have insurance (though the draft language is not explicit in this regard). In general, the government would collect a
payment from uninsured people, but individuals with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)
would be exempt and the payment would be waived in certain other cases. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) assumed that the annual payment amount, which would be
set administratively, would be relatively small (about $100 per person).”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
226
Health care reform increases costs
Costs a lot and doesn’t treat millions
Kansas City Star, 7/1/2009 (http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2009/07/questions-abouthealthcare-reform.html //ZE)
1. The Congressional Budget Office has said the proposed government takeover of health care could cost $1.6
trillion. Other estimates put the cost much higher. Various officials have proposed raising taxes on soda and alcohol,
a higher payroll tax, taxing current employer-provided health plans and even a new national sales tax to fund this
massive government program. Do you support any of these middle-class tax hikes to fund government-run health
care? If not, how would you pay for it? 2. Under President Obama’s plan, can you guarantee that I would get to
keep my current health-care plan and doctor? 3. Provisions in the Obama plan call for “comparative effectiveness
research” to be used to decrease costs. “Savings” are achieved by denying treatments based on criteria such as cost,
a patient’s health or a patient’s age. Treatment would be decided by a national health-care board appointed by the
president. Can you guarantee that a new government plan will not deny care to individuals in order to control costs?
Expensive
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau, San Francisco Chronicle, 6/14/2009
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/13/MNLK185INU.DTL //ZE)
One thing is clear: There will be no free lunch. For all the promise of universal coverage, for all the "billion-dollar
bills just lying on the sidewalk" that Obama economic adviser Christina Romer described last week as the
monumental waste waiting to be saved, health care reform will be expensive. It will mean higher taxes and,
potentially, lower benefits for many people. It will mean putting the brakes on how doctors and hospitals practice
medicine. It may require employers to provide health insurance and individuals to buy it. None of these things will
be popular. Cost containment, identified by the White House as a key objective, never is.
Bad for the economy
Hans Bader, Counsel at Competitive Enterprise Institute, 6/19/2009 (http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DCSCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m6d19-The-60000-Obama-HealthCare-Plan-Its-EyePoppingly-Expensive-on-aPerPerson-Basis //ZE)
Obama’s health-care proposals will cost well over a trillion dollars, without providing universal coverage. They are
so “eye-poppingly” expensive that even Congressional Democrats have been forced to scale them back. But the
Congressional Budget Office has concluded that their bill “would cover just 16 million additional people at a cost of
$1 trillion,” reports the Washington Post. That’s more than $60,000 for each additional person covered! Other
estimates peg the cost at $1.6 trillion. The Examiner notes that Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers
estimated that “as much as 30 percent of Medicare spending is unnecessary,” due to poor government oversight, yet
Obama wants to expand government control over the “entire” health-care “system.” The Examiner also worries that
his plan will close badly-needed cancer clinics and “lead straight to rationing health care.” Health-care expert (and
former New York Lieutenant Governor) Betsy McCaughey says that contrary to Obama’s promise, you won’t
necessarily be able to keep your doctor, or your insurance if you like it, under his proposed government takeover of the
health-care sector. Recently, Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered millions of dollars of waste and
fraud in the AmeriCorps program, including by a prominent Obama supporter. (That endangered the Obama supporter’s ability
to administer federal stimulus spending in Sacramento). I wonder how long it will be before the President or liberal
Congressional leaders similarly retaliate against the Congressional Budget Office for telling inconvenient truths about their
disastrous economic policies. Not only has the CBO estimated the enormous cost of ObamaCare, it earlier pointed out that
Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package will actually shrink the economy “in the long run.” (The CBO predicted that in the shortrun, by the 2010 election, the stimulus would temporarily create jobs. But it hasn’t. Indeed, it has actually destroyed thousands of
jobs in America’s export sector.) The stimulus package also repealed welfare-reform, and wastes taxpayers’ money. Obama
has done nothing to make health-insurance cheaper, like letting consumers buy cheaper health-care policies across state
lines (few countries have a more geographically fragmented and balkanized health-care market than we do. Private piggy-back
health insurance is cheaper and less regulated even in supposedly socialist countries like France than it is here. When my Marxist
French father-in-law left the grim public hospital where he had his quadruple bypass, he was able to stay cheaply and
comfortably in a convalescent home using private health insurance that was much cheaper and less regulated than what he could
buy in America, where 50 different states apply a bewildering patchwork of complicated rules to health-insurance, and a federal
statute, strongly backed by Joe Biden, allows states to block purchase of health insurance across state lines).
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
227
Health care reform increases costs
Health care reform will raise costs and fail to fix the system
Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D., American Thinker, 7-7-2009, “The Failed Promises of
Government Funded Health Care”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/the_failed_promises_of_governm.html
It is naïve to believe that increased government intervention will lower the cost of medicine. All past
evidence indicates that the reverse is true. In 1965, the government promised that Medicare part A would
cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost was more than $66 billion -- over seven times projected costs. There
has never been a single large federal social program that has come in at budget or has performed as predicted.
Democrats have tried to pin the rising cost of medical care on the private sector. It is, however, government
interference and government regulations that have caused the high cost of medical care in the past and that
will continue to increase the costs of medical care in the future. Medicare increases the cost of medical care
by shifting federal administrative overhead to the private sector and through oppressive regulation.[i] These
practices will undoubtedly accelerate under "Obamacare" as the following chart, using data from the
Congressional Budget Office, indicates: The estimated $1.6 trillion for Obama's proposed legislation will
cover only about one third of his claimed 45 million uninsured. If historical precedents and evidence are any
indication, the actual costs of the plan could be seven times higher than this estimate. Adding to the fiscal
nightmare, Mr. Obama is planning on cutting benefits for Medicare and Medicaid in order to transfer funding
to his new health plan. This is another example that government does not contain costs, but shift costs from
one program to another.The effect of Obama's program will be to increase taxes on small businesses and
further worsen unemployment. This loss of jobs will result in driving people into the government-funded
plan. Increasing the costs of the plan would create a vicious cycle of unemployment, increasing costs, rising
taxes, and unending dependence on government.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
228
Health care kills biotech
Healthcare will collapse Biotech
Owcharenko, Senior Policy Analyst for The Heritage Foundation, ’09
(Nina, “The Stimulus Bill: Why the Senate Must Fix the Health Care Provisions,” The Heritage Foundation
WebMemo #2267, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2267.cfm)
Liberals in Congress, under the guise of emergency economic stimulus legislation, are attempting to push forward
their radical health care agenda. These provisions would fuel fiscal irresponsibility in state Medicaid programs,
expand dependence on the already-unsound Medicaid entitlement program, distort health care choices for
unemployed workers, and set up a federal infrastructure that could be used as a tool for government rationing of
medical treatments, procedures, and services. If Members of Congress insist on these provisions, they should at the
very least require a review of Medicaid spending by the states, prioritize Medicaid spending on a state-by-state
basis, empower families who want to secure alternative private coverage options, and prevent government
interference in the doctor-patient relationship. Fast-Tracking Government Control of Health Care Congressional
efforts to fast-track passage of an economic stimulus package and expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP), which recently passed both chambers of Congress, would guarantee greater government control
over Americans' health care. House of Representatives Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) has stated as
much.[1] Without broader debate, America is rushing toward the financial tipping point in health care--the point
where the federal government controls more health care spending than will the private sector. Today, the
government controls 46 percent of all health care spending, and its share is expected to reach 49 percent by 2017.[2]
The sundry health provisions in the proposed economic stimulus, in combination with the expansion of SCHIP, will
only move the country faster toward more government control over the health benefits, medical treatments, and
procedures that Americans receive. Lasting Impact of the Health Care Provisions Buried deep in the House
economic stimulus bill are health-related provisions that would have far-reaching consequences for the way
Americans finance and obtain health care. These provisions would also have a long-lasting impact on the future of
the American health care system. Bailing Out State Medicaid Programs. The House and Senate bills would give
every state a temporary, across-the-board increase in their federal match for the nation's largest health care welfare
program, Medicaid. Unfortunately, neither bill holds state officials accountable with regard to their past
management of their Medicaid programs. For example, there is no assessment of whether a state has expanded the
program beyond the traditional federal income thresholds and/or adopted policies that place the program's fiscal
solvency at risk. Health Care for the Unemployed. The House and Senate bills would give subsidies for
unemployed workers on COBRA coverage. Even with a subsidy, COBRA coverage is a prohibitively costly option
for the unemployed as well as taxpayers funding the subsidy. The House bill goes even further, opening the
Medicaid program to those unemployed workers without health care coverage. The proposed expansion of the
Medicaid entitlement program to new categories, regardless of income, further destabilizes the already troubled and
poor-performing program. An Infrastructure for Rationing. The House and Senate bills would establish a
framework and funding for comparative effectiveness research and health information technology. While the
Senate's language is broad and vague, the House language provides further clarity. The House committee report
states that "those [items] that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be
prescribed."[3] This type of alarming language is similar to what exists today in the British National Health
Service.[4] In addition, billions of dollars would be spent on a health IT information "architecture" for exchanging
information and training health care professionals. Combining the comparative effective research with the health IT
portal opens the door to direct government intervention in the clinical decisions by physicians and other health care
providers.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
229
Health care kills biotech
Expanding generics kills biotech
Steven Silver, analyst for Standard & Poor's Equity Research, et al., Business Week, December 1, 2008,
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2008/pi20081130_956832_page_2.htm
We have a generally favorable outlook for the biotech sector under the Obama presidency. We see increased
funding for the Food & Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health, which should help the FDA
stay current on science-related research and approve new drugs on schedule, and allow the NIH to conduct
clinical studies and promote innovative research through new grants. In addition, we expect an Obama
Administration to support the advancement of embryonic stem-cell research, which may open new avenues
to treat serious diseases. On the negative side, we think Obama will be a staunch supporter of implementing a
new regulatory pathway for generic drugs. Competition from generic biotech drugs would put pressure on
drug pricing, and lower returns that we believe are necessary for firms to recoup investments and to support
pharmaceutical and biotechnology innovation.
Budget priorities mean health care reform will hurt biotech
Michael McCaughan, 2-26-09, http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-down-payment-on-healthcare.html
Third, the discussion of health care reform was framed clearly in the context of addressing the long-term
economic health of the country rather than as a response to the short-term economic crisis. Translation:
reform proposals will be judged on their ability to reduce spending and shrink deficits--there will be no
stimulus-style spending to expand coverage with promises to restore balance in the future. All in all,
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America CEO Billy Tauzin and Biotechnology Industry
Organization CEO Jim Greenwood did a pretty good job of predicting how the address would go. (See our
post here.) In particular, the address lends credence to Tauzin's suggestion that the departure of Tom Daschle
from his expected position as the Obama Administration's health care general means incremental change
driven by the the economic team rather than comprehensive, policy-first reform. Therein lies the danger for
the biopharma industry: in the context of budgetary priorities, measures to restrain pharmaceutical prices are
tempting offsets with little political downside compared to say, slashing physician payments or forcing
hospitals to close. We've already noted some rhetorical parallels between Obama's first remarks to Congress
on health care and President Clinton's in 1993. That reform was supposed to be budget neutral, to avoid
undoing Clinton's first legislative victory, a tough fought balanced budget (remember those days?). With that
mandate, Clinton's working groups quickly moved into aggressive proposals for restraining spending,
especially on drugs and biologics before the whole initiative collapsed in the face of opposition from across
the spectrum of health care sectors. In 2009, there is no doubt that the budget comes first, quite literally.
Obama's next "down payment" on health care reform will be unveiled Thursday; a bipartisan summit on
health care reform kicks off on Monday. Just don't call it the Health Care Reform Task Force ...
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
230
Health care kills pharma
Healthcare reform collapses the pharmaceutical industry
The Economist, ’08
(December 13, 2008, Winds of change; Pharmaceuticals, lexis)
Perhaps surprisingly, PhRMA now supports most aspects of health-care reform being mooted, from universal
coverage to restructuring the insurance market. However, this acceptance of change goes only so far. Push
Merck officials on the prospects for drug-price controls, and their unflinching answer is that they are
"completely opposed" to such European-style "rationing" of care. The industry makes much of its profit in
the unfettered American market, and price controls threaten that flow of cash. It argues that if limits are
imposed on drug prices in America, there will be less to invest in innovation and everyone will suffer, since
the rest of the world free-rides on American spending. That argument is correct, in that businesses need the
prospect of profit in order to invest. In practice, though, America is unlikely to impose draconian price
controls. The more likely outcome is that government health schemes will start demanding discounts from
drugs firms, and will buy more generics. Dr Anderson has crunched the numbers, and he reckons this need
not lead to disaster. He reckons that a 20% cut in drugs prices paid by Medicare, America's health-care
system for the old and disabled, will shave profits at the biggest drugs firms by a mere 5%.
Health care reform hurts pharmaceuticals
Steven Silver, analyst for Standard & Poor's Equity Research, et al., Business Week, December 1, 2008,
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2008/pi20081130_956832_page_2.htm
The new coverage, funded to a large extent by the federal government (which most experts estimate will cost
between $120 billion and $150 billion, depending upon the scope of the package), would likely expand
access to health care and increase revenues for providers of medical products and services, including
pharmaceutical companies. However, the Obama program also calls for significant cost reductions, which we
believe would adversely affect the branded pharmaceutical industry in terms of both discounted pricing and
contracted use of branded drugs.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
231
Biotech bad – famine
Biotech causes mass starvation
Kimbrell, Director of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation, 5-12
(Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and Executive
Director of the Center for Food Safety, senior attorney and policy director of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation,
senior consultant with the Environmental Law Institute in their International Environmental Law Project , “Myth
Seven – Biotechnology Will Solve the Problems of Industrial Agriculture” excerpted from “Fatal Harvest: The
Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture”, 5-12-09 http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/myth-seven%E2%80%93-biotechnology-will-solve-the-problems-of-industrial-agriculture/)
Far from being an answer to world hunger, genetic engineering could be a major contributor to starvation.
There are currently more than a dozen patents on genetically engineered “terminator” technology. These
seeds are genetically engineered by biotech companies to produce a sterile seed after a single growing
season, insuring that the world’s farmers cannot save their seed and instead will have to buy from
corporations every season. Does anyone believe that the solution to world hunger is to make the crops of the
world sterile? With more than half of the world’s farmers relying on saved seeds for their harvest, imagine
the mass starvation that would result should the sterility genes escape from the engineered crops and
contaminate non-genetically engineered local crops, unintentionally sterilizing them. According to a study by
Martha Crouch of Indiana University, such a chilling scenario is a very real possibility.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
232
Health care reform undermines health
Any cost savings will come at the expense of effective treatment
Eric Schansberg, Ph.D., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is a professor of economics
at Indiana University Southeast, News and Tribune, 7-6-09, http://www.newstribune.net/opinion/local_story_187154405.html
The current mix of government and markets in health care certainly has an amazing amount of inefficiency.
But will bureaucracy and red tape be reduced or enhanced with more government? It’s difficult to imagine
much if any gain. Thus, extending health-care availability will probably involve higher costs or reduced
access in other contexts (rationing). Higher costs are possible, but congress and the president are limited by
the recent, stunning increases in spending and debt by George Bush, Barack Obama and their congresses.
Considerable rationing is quite likely. It may be necessitated by cost constraints. And we’ve seen rationing
with Medicare and in countries whose governments are heavily involved in health care. The first major uses
of rationing would most likely be to restrict expensive “end-of-life” treatments and health care attached to
unhealthy “lifestyle choices.” Let’s get more specific now: One current proposal would outlaw all private
health-care spending and cap public health-care spending and growth. But it’s difficult to imagine people
giving up so much of their freedom. Although the explicit rationing is amazingly bold, it is politically
difficult. In 1994, the effort to regulate health care was centered on a mandate that businesses would provide
health coverage for their workers. But this would make it more expensive for firms to hire workers, resulting
in lower wages or fewer jobs. Another option is the U.S. House proposal to mandate that individuals get
health insurance, subsidizing those with lower incomes. (The current proposal would subsidize those who
earn less than four times the “poverty” level — $43,200 for an individual and $88,200 for family of four.)
This would resemble our current approach to auto insurance mandates. But given the subsidies, it would be
quite expensive. Barack Obama’s proposal is to subsidize public insurance that would “compete” with
private insurance. By definition, subsidized insurance would undermine private insurance to some extent —
somewhere between attracting people at the margin and entirely destroying the industry. It would depend on
the extent of the subsidy. Consider two examples. Public education is highly subsidized, so its private
competition is marginal. The U.S. Post Office has been granted a monopoly and often receives direct
subsidies, but it still faces rigorous competition because of technological advance. Beyond the short-term
policy decision, a public-private insurance market could be altered in the future through changes in the
subsidy or regulations impacting private insurers. We have reason for concern here, since such subsidies and
regulations can be quite subtle. Economists are fond of the phrase “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
Well, there’s no such thing as free health care either. All of these proposals are likely to increase costs,
decrease overall access or both. In all of this, perhaps we should also keep a medical phrase in mind — from
the Hippocratic Oath: “Above all, do no harm.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
233
SQ health coverage is excellent
Current health coverage is excellent. No risk of crisis
Liz Peek, 7-1-09, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/01/obamas-health-care-myths/
If you're trying to follow the health care debate, you know there are some "truths" which have been repeated
so frequently, and with such vehemence, that they have become gospel. How often have you heard "the costs
are skyrocketing" or "our system is broken" or "Americans overwhelmingly support reform"? Here's a headsup: Some of these are simply baloney. For instance, those pushing reform have described our healthcare
system as "broken," thus in desperate need of overhaul. The primary evidence for this claim is a report issued
by the World Health Organization in 2000 which ranked the U.S. 37th in overall "health performance"
despite being number one in spending. (It is noteworthy that the WHO no longer publishes such a ranking -deeming the process "too difficult.") Betsy McCaughey, in a recent talk before the Manhattan Institute, noted
that the rankings were heavily weighted towards social goals, and less towards the effectiveness of medical
care. In other words, the WHO studied the distribution of medical attention, and the fairness in financial
contribution, placing as much weight on such issues as on actual performance. Further, according to
Princeton professors Uwe Reinhardt and Tsung-mei Chung, the rankings "are not based on the actual values
achieved by the nation, but on the ratio of the achieved values to the values that ought to have been achieved,
given the country's educational attainment and spending." They point out that the rankings, in effect, were
determined by the opinions of those surveyed. In short, this is hardly a scientific assessment. Even against
this bias, the U.S. ranked number one in "responsiveness" -- that is in actually delivering care, but got
hammered on "fairness of financial contribution." The country that scored highest on that metric -- Colombia
-- ranked 82nd on responsiveness. Would you rather be treated in Colombia or in the U.S.?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
234
Poverty turns health care
Poverty makes all the health care impacts inevitable
(Sabriya Rice, September 4th, 2006, “Poverty and poor health are intertwined, experts say”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/29/poverty.health/index.html)
Poverty in the United States increased 20 percent between 2000 and 2004, census numbers show.
And although the trend stalled in 2005, researchers worry poverty will have profound effects on
public health in this country.Poverty and its effects are a chief issue for former President Bill
Clinton's Global Initiative. Clinton is bringing together a non-partisan group of world leaders on
September 20 in New York to try to match innovative problem-solving with resources."More
possibility for growth and more possibility for prosperity for Americans is a very inexpensive
thing to do, if you do it well," the former president said. Risk all around New research indicates
that it's not just the poor who are getting poorer. An analysis of poverty rates and health
published in the September issue of The American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that
people living in extreme poverty tend to have more chronic illnesses, more frequent and severe
disease complications and make greater demands on the health care system."When we talk about
poverty, there is the tendency to feel it affects a small percentage of the population and the rest
of us are doing better," said Steven Woolf, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University
and author of the study. But in this situation, he said, "we're all doing a little bit worse."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
235
***CTBT NEG
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
236
Yes CTBT
CTBT will pass.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
And finally, the political prospects for CTBT ratification have drastically improved. In 1999, a president
who favored CTBT ratification confronted a Senate controlled by the opposition party, many of whose
members mistrusted the administration’s positions on national security issues and questioned the
commander in chief’s fitness for office, particularly in the wake of impeachment proceedings. For the
past eight years, while the Senate has at times been controlled by the Democrats, it has always worked
with an administration opposed to CTBTratification. For the first time since former president Bill Clinton
signed the CTBT in 1996, 2009 marks a significant departure: the United States has a president and a
significant Senate majority that can be expected to strongly favor ratification. It is instructive to look back
at the 1999 Senate vote rejecting CTBT ratification. Every Senate Democrat voted in favor of the CTBT,
with the exception of Senator Robert Byrd, who voted ‘‘present’’ only to register his procedural anger
that such an important treaty was voted upon following a mere three days of debate on the Senate floor.
Four moderate Republicans broke from their party to vote in favor of CTBT ratification. Of those four,
only Senator Arlen Specter remains in the Senate today. The circumstances leading up to the Senate’s
rejection of the CTBT have been exhaustively detailed elsewhere. 11 Nonetheless, any fair analysis of the
opposition of Senate Republicans to the CTBT will acknowledge the role played by raw politics. Put
simply, Senate Republicans were angry at Clinton, in part for his success in evading an impeachment
conviction earlier in 1999 stemming from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. That anger poisoned relations
between the administration and congressional Republican leadership. Some Republicans refused to accept
Clinton as a legitimate commander in chief, owing to his decision to sit out the Vietnam War and actions
early in his presidency relating to gays in the military and the peacekeeping mission in Somalia.
CTBT will be ratified – Democratic control.
Mohan Balaji, “Indians problems start with NPT” 7-11-2009 http://internationalreporter.com/News5016/india%E2%80%99s-problems-start-with-npt.html
The NPT member’s conference is scheduled in 2010 and there is an increase pressure on India to sign up
the
treaty.
On the other hand, pressure is on India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). For the past
eight years under the Bush administration in the White House, India was warded off any unnecessary
pressure from the U.S. Before that under the Bill Clinton’s administration, India was under increased
pressure to sign the CTBT. However, the treaty was not ratified in the Republican majority Senate then.
But right now the Democrats occupy both the Senate and the White House, which means CTBT will be
ratified in the U.S and the pressure will be on countries such as India and Pakistan to sign the treaty. The
U.S president, Barack Obama has promised to get the treaty ratified from the Senate. So the pressure is
now India to sign both the NPT and the CTBT. How India will evade from signing both the treaties just
like it did last time with efficient driving of diplomacy from India side is to be watched?
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
237
Yes CTBT – Obama
CTBT will pass – democratic majority and Lugar, but Obama’s influence key.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
What are the likely prospects if the Senate was to hold another vote on CTBT ratification during the
Obama administration? We can start from the proposition that all 59 Senate Democrats will vote to ratify
the CTBT because 1) they believe in the merits of a global nuclear test ban, and 2) they will want to
support their president.14 As a result, nine Republican yes votes would be needed to ensure the 67 votes
necessary to secure ratification under the constitution. The key player on the Republican side will be the
ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard B. Lugar (R-IN). In 1999,
he voted against CTBT ratification. Given the close relationship, however, that he has forged with both
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and the strong legacy he has sought to build on internationalist
leadership on U.S. foreign policy, Lugar can be expected to give a fair hearing to administration
arguments in favor of CTBT ratification. Should he choose to reverse his previous vote on CTBT
ratification, he may provide political cover to bring along other Republican votes to secure ratification.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
238
Yes CTBT – North Korea test
CTBT will pass – fears of NK nuclear test.
Debora
MacKenzie 5-27-2009 “North Korea’s
test
could
have
positive
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17190-north-koreas-nuke-test-could-have-positive-outcome.html
outcome”
The nuclear explosion set off by North Korea this week is bad news for would-be nuclear nations. The
network of blast detectors intended for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has not yet come into
force, seems to have perfectly identified the explosion as a nuclear test, despite its small size. The timing
is critical. President Obama wants the US Senate to ratify the 1996 treaty, which bans all explosive
nuclear tests, to demonstrate US commitment to nuclear non-proliferation ahead of crucial international
meetings next year. However, in 1998, the Senate rejected the CTBT partly over fears that countries
could cheat, by claiming small covert weapons tests were earthquakes. The detection of the North Korean
test raises hopes that the Senate will no longer be able to object. North Korea's test was no secret –
Pyongyang announced it shortly afterwards. But it demonstrated that the CTBT's only partly built
monitoring system could alert member states to a test within 90 minutes, says Tibor Tóth, head of the
CTBT secretariat in Vienna. The last time North Korea set off a nuclear explosion, in 2006, 22 CTBT
seismographs tracked it. This time 39 pinpointed the blast to "a couple of kilometres away from the 2006
test site," Tóth says.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
239
Capital key to CTBT
Political capital key to CTBT passage.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
As the historic first 100 days of President Barack Obama’s administration fly by, he faces a tsunami of
advice on the key priorities he should pursue over the next four years. Ranging from energy independence
and national health care reform to improving America’s image with the Islamic world and revamping our
foreign assistance structure, the president must decide where to focus his scarce time, resources, and
political capital. One initiative he should strongly consider this year is calling upon the U.S. Senate to
once again take up the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to outlaw nuclear
testing around the world, even though the initiative failed in October 1999 by a 51—48 vote.
Political capital key for a major push.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
If Obama concludes that a major push on ratification of the CTBT is a wise use of his political capital
during his first term in office, he needs to prepare the ground for 67 yes votes in the Senate, including
some Republican crossover votes. By the end of this year, Obama should deliver a major address on his
nuclear nonproliferation agenda as president. He should expound on the vision he articulated as a
candidate of a world free of nuclear weapons and how the United States can work with others in moving
toward that objective. He should also outline the direction, if not final results, of his administration’s
internal deliberations on the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, required to be completed by early next year,
and make any resulting announcement on measures to take U.S. nuclear weapons off high-alert status and
implement strategic force reductions, possibly in conjunction with the Russian Federation. Finally, he
ought to call upon the Senate to initiate legislative proceedings to take up the CTBTwith the aim of
scheduling a floor vote by the end of his first term in office. To start that process, Obama must call upon
the relevant Senate Committees (e.g., Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence) to launch a
comprehensive series of hearings on the CTBT and the implications of ratification for U.S. national
security interests. A key reason for the CTBT’s rejection in 1999 was the cursory review it received in the
weeks leading up to the vote. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Foreign
Relations Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC), effectively blocked the CTBT for two years after it was
submitted by Clinton in 1997. Coming under increased pressure from some Democratic Senators and
outside groups to schedule a vote, the Senate Republican leadership effectively called their bluff and
scheduled a final vote with only twelve days notice, allowing only for three Armed Services hearings, one
Foreign Relations hearing, and fourteen hours of floor debate. A similar scenario cannot unfold again this
time. Any Senate vote on the CTBT must be preceded by extensive hearings that assess every potential
concern regarding U.S. ratification.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
240
Capital key to CTBT
Political capital key.
Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director ACA, August 22, 2008 “The Enduring Value of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty and Prospects for Its Entry Into Force “http://www.armscontrol.org/print/3300
Translating pro-CTBT statements into winning over skeptical Senators and amassing a two-thirds majority in favor
of ratification will take strong leadership and the commitment of significant political capital. One factor working in
favor of a successful second CTBT ratification campaign is the fact that the current and future U.S. Senate is
somewhat different from the one that rejected the CTBT in 1999. The number of new Senators is significant because
it means that many who voted against the CTBT are no longer in office. Nevertheless, Senators will need to be
briefed on the issue and their questions and concerns addressed thoroughly, respectfully, and consistently. If the new
U.S. president is fully committed to the CTBT, he should consider appoint a special, senior CTBT coordinator,
backed with substantial interagency support and resources, who is solely focused on winning necessary support in
the Senate. The administration will have to map out a step-by-step process for laying out the case for why the treaty
is in U.S. national security interests through public speeches, expert reports, and hearings on Capitol Hill. An
administration seeking Senate support for the CTBT will likely find it necessary at some point to offer or consider
understandings and/or conditions that help address the concerns of some senators who might not otherwise support
the CTBT. Conditions that contradict the definitions and requirements of the Treaty or that undermine support for
the CTBT by other states should be avoided. Under no circumstances should such end-game bargaining be initiated
early in the process of winning the Senate’s support.
Political capital key to senate ratification.
NYT 5-24-2009 “Editorial – The Test Ban Treaty”, New York Times
The bad news is that the test ban treaty, which would go beyond the voluntary moratorium and legally bind states to
not test, has never come into force. That is because the United States and eight other nuclear-capable states whose
participation is required — China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and Egypt — have not
ratified it. A formal ban on testing would make it harder for nuclear-armed states to build new weapons, and place
another hurdle in the way of any country — Iran comes immediately to mind — thinking of starting an arsenal.
North Korea’s announcement that it had tested a nuclear device on Monday is a stark reminder of the many dangers
out there. In September 1996, President Bill Clinton was the first leader to sign the treaty. But the drive to bring it
into force hit a wall three years later when the Senate voted 51 to 48 against ratification, with most Republicans
opposed. President George W. Bush buried the pact even deeper during eight destructive years in which he
disparaged arms control and weakened the international rules that for decades helped curb the spread of nuclear
weapons. So it is important that President Obama has vowed to “immediately and aggressively” pursue ratification
of the test ban treaty. He has asked Vice President Joseph Biden to shepherd the treaty in the Senate. The campaign
got an important boost from two Republican former secretaries of state, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, who
have urged ratification. Mr. Shultz was right when he said in Rome last month that the old arguments against the
treaty — cheaters might not be detected and the safety and viability of American weapons could not be guaranteed
without testing — have been put to rest by advances in technology. A task force led by former Defense Secretary
William Perry, a Democrat, and Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, also concluded that
the treaty is in America’s national security interests. Still, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden will have to invest
considerable effort and political capital to win ratification. Senate sources say no more than 63 senators would now
vote for the treaty, four less than the two-thirds majority needed. Two key Republican senators who need to be won
over are John McCain, who said in the 2008 presidential campaign that the treaty deserved another look, and
Richard Lugar, former Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has said he would “study it thoroughly.” We
hope they, and any others who are skeptical or undecided, will withhold final judgment until the administration
completes a review that aims to answer their doubts with updated data. Another Senate defeat would probably doom
the treaty forever. One can shrug and say that such treaties are leftovers from the cold war. That is wrong,
especially in a world where nuclear appetites are growing. A test ban will make it technologically much harder for
other countries to press ahead with weapons development. And if Washington has any hope of rallying diplomatic
pressure and economic sanctions for constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions or North Korea’s program, it has to show
that it, too, is willing to play by the international rules. For both of those reasons, the Senate needs to ratify the test
ban treaty.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
241
CTBT key to non-prolif
CTBT ratification is necessary to prevent NPT collapse
Joseph, senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, 09
(Jofi Joseph, senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, 4/09,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf)
Obama has assumed office at a time when the nuclear nonproliferation regime is seriously tattered. Iran is
making significant progress on an ostensibly civilian uranium enrichment program that can be quickly
converted into a weapons program. North Korea has quadrupled the size of its fissile material stockpile
since 2002 and joined the nuclear club in 2006 with a nuclear weapons test. The Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), the lynchpin of global efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, is under
heavy strain. Revitalizing the nonproliferation regime, and reducing the odds that a terrorist group can
seize a nuclear weapon for use in a terrorist attack, must be at the top of any president’s to-do list. During
his presidential campaign, Obama often spoke of changing the U.S. approach to national security
challenges by not being aggressively unilateral or overly reliant on the use of military force as the first
option, calling upon the United States ‘‘to rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary
to meet common challenges and confront common threats.’’1 He described the prospect of a terrorist
group detonating a nuclear weapon in a U.S. city as ‘‘the gravest danger we face.’’2 For that reason,
following in the footsteps of such statesmen like Sam Nunn and Henry Kissinger, Obama explicitly
endorsed the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, achieved in a comprehensive and verifiable
manner.3 A concrete means to that goal, as well as the opportunity to repair the image of the United States
around the world, is for Obama to call upon the Senate this year to make another effort to ratify the CTBT
by the end of his first term in office.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
242
CTBT key to non-prolif
CTBT key to NPT.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
Senate ratification of the CTBT matters because it would be hailed as a renewed U.S. commitment to the
essential pact at the heart of the NPT. Much of the international community, especially leading
nonnuclear weapons states like Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and Sweden, believe that the United States
has backtracked on the NPT’s basic bargain contained in Article VI: in exchange for the pledge by
nonnuclear weapons states to not acquire nuclear weapons, the United States and the four other
recognized nuclear weapons powers_China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom_would pursue
measures ‘‘in good faith’’ to cease the nuclear arms race and achieve eventual nuclear disarmament.
Under the Clinton administration, the United States explicitly reaffirmed its commitment to eventual
nuclear disarmament at the 1995 NPT Review Conference in exchange for the agreement of other States
Parties to indefinitely extend the NPT. Without this compromise, the NPT could have been allowed to
expire or, more likely, extended only for a fixed period. The 2000 NPT Review Conference followed up
with the adoption by all States Parties of a thirteen-step plan to pave the path for eventual general nuclear
disarmament, with the first step calling for the CTBT’s early entry into force. 4
Ratification key to U.S. lead anti-proliferation coalition building.
Jofi Joseph, a senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, Washington Quarterly, CSIS,
April, 2009
“Renew the drive for CTBT Ratification” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf
In light of this recent discouraging history, an unmistakable commitment from Obama that he will seek
Senate ratification of the CTBT during his first term in office may do more than any other single measure
to indicate to the world that the United States is not only listening to, but also respects, the views of the
international community. While it will do little to directly convince rogue states like Iran or North Korea
to halt their nuclear weapons programs, it will strengthen the hand of the United States as it seeks to build
international coalitions to squeeze those hostile states. Indeed, a recent survey of sixteen key nonnuclear
weapons states reached the conclusion that ratification of the CTBT ‘‘would send a very strong signal’’ to
demonstrate the U.S. commitment to disarmament.6 The commitment will also position the United States
particularly well for the NPT Review Conference scheduled for 2010. These review conferences, held
every five years, offer an opportunity for NPTsignatories to gather and assess the overall health of the
nuclear nonproliferation regime. In the 2000 conference, the United States agreed to seek early entry into
force of the CTBT and committed to twelve other specific steps to promote nonproliferation and
disarmament. Upon taking office the next year, the Bush administration swiftly renounced these
commitments, setting the stage for a 2005 conference viewed by all parties involved as an unmitigated
disaster. A concrete pledge by the United States to seek CTBTratification will therefore energize the 2010
conference, and offer Washington greater leverage to push through potential reforms it may seek
regarding the export of reprocessing and enrichment technology or automatic sanctions against states that
violate their IAEA obligations.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
243
US ratification key
Ratification brings the rest of the world on board
Angelique Kuchta, Dickinson School of Law, Dickinson Journal of International Law, Winter, 2001, 19
Dick. J. Int'l L. 333
An extremely substantial reason to support the CTBT is if the U.S. leads, other nations will follow. This most
certainly concerns India and Pakistan, the newest members of the nuclear club. India and Pakistan made great
strides when they promised to sign the CTBT by September 1999. Pakistan is waiting for India to sign and
India was waiting for the U.S. to lead by example. Undoubtedly, all eyes were on the U.S. Senate to see what
kind of pressure would be put on holdout countries who had not yet signed or ratified the CTBT. U.S.
ratification of the CTBT is the equivalent of saying "Gentlemen, start your engines." Every other parliament
in the world that is considering the treaty will race to get their ratification in on time and to be able to join the
international body that is set up to enforce this treaty. As in the case of the Chemical Weapons Convention, if
the U.S. ratifies, China and Russia would surely ratify very soon after and the union would create enormous
pressures on the international community, especially rogue states such as India, Pakistan and North Korea.
The U.S. is the first country to specifically reject the CTBT. The vote was the first time since the Treaty of
Versailles that the U.S. Senate has rejected a major international agreement. President Clinton called the
partisan vote a "new isolationism", referring to the Treaty of Versailles vote that arguably sparked the advent
of World War II. President Clinton's Special Assistant for Nation Security Affairs stated that "Our
intelligence community is going to have to put priority over monitoring the nuclear test activities or the
nuclear programs activities of proliferate state or rogue states whether or not there is a CTB [sic]. So,
defeating the CTB [sic] might make some opponents feel better the next day, but in the long run we pay a
price."
US failure to ratify the CTBT undermines existing arms control efforts, increases the
likelihood of proliferation, and furthers our unilateral agenda in such a way that it makes
war more probable
Kimball 1-Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (Daryl G, “CTBT Rogue State?” December 2001
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_12/ctbtanalysisdec01)
The U.S. boycott of the November 11-13 UN conference to encourage support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) fits a pattern of unilateralist nonengagement that is becoming the hallmark of the Bush administration’s arms
control policy. Washington’s lack of support was not surprising to the diplomats at the conference, given that Secretary
of State Colin Powell had said in January that President George W. Bush would not ask the Senate to reconsider
approving ratification. But the United States’ absence at the high-level CTBT meeting should be recognized as more
than a minor slight. It is merely the latest in a series of new and harder-line U.S. actions on the test ban. First, on August 21
the United States announced that it would not provide technical or financial support for certain test ban treaty monitoring activities, most notably onsite inspections. (See ACT, September 2001.) Then, on November 5 the United States voted against a Japanese resolution on nuclear disarmament,
which it has supported in years past, specifically because the resolution stressed the importance of taking practical steps to implement Article VI of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including “continuation of the moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions…pending the early entry into
force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.” U.S. opposition was unexpected because the resolution’s language mirrors that in a
communiqué that Powell approved at a G-8 meeting earlier this year. On the same day, adding insult to injury, the United States called for a vote on—
and then voted against—a procedural decision to place the CTBT on the agenda of the UN General Assembly. The U.S. representative to the UN
explained that the United States had asked for the vote, which resulted in a 140-1 outcome in favor of placing the test ban on the agenda, because “the
United States does not support the CTBT.” However, he asserted that “as a nuclear-weapon state, the United States understands its special
responsibility under Article VI of the NPT.” The U.S. boycott of the CTBT conference and its votes on the Japanese resolution
and the procedural decision have crossed leaders in Tokyo and Western capitals, who recognize the importance of
strengthening, not weakening, multilateral non-proliferation efforts in the aftermath of September 11. The U.S. decisions
also imply that the Bush administration supports selective compliance with the NPT, which clearly calls for action by the
nuclear-weapon states on the test ban treaty and other disarmament measures. To be effective, the NPT must serve the
interests of all treaty partners, not just a few.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
244
A2: CTBT not effective
CTBT solves-effective mechanisms for enforcement and regulatory machinery
Nuclear Threat initiative 3-(“CTBT,” 2/21/2003 http://www.nti.org/db/china/ctbtorg.htm)
Members of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) agree not to conduct nuclear weapons tests or other
nuclear explosions. The treaty would therefore halt the development of advanced new types of nuclear
weapons and constrain the qualitative improvement of existing types of nuclear weapons. The treaty's
verification regime includes international monitoring; consultation and clarification; on-site inspections
(OSI); and confidence building measures (CBMs). The use of national technical means (NTM) of verification
is explicitly provided for. Requests for on-site inspections must be approved by at least 30 affirmative votes
of members of the treaty's 51-member Executive Council. The CTBT also provides for enforcement,
including sanctions, and for dispute resolution mechanisms. If the Executive Council determines that a case
is particularly serious, it can bring the issue to the attention of the United Nations. The CTBT is of unlimited
duration. Each member has the right to withdraw if it decides that extraordinary events related to the treaty's
subject matter have jeopardized supreme national interests.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
245
CTBT key to heg
CTBT is key to continued US leadership and key to prevent all major threats from
obtaining nuclear weapons
Rauf 4- Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies (Tariq, “Ratification of CTBT in the U.S. National Security Interest,” 10/14/2004,
http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm)
A CTBT will guarantee the US' clear superiority in nuclear weapon designs and technologies. This Treaty
would help reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international security and bring additional pressure on NPT
hold-outs to refrain from weapon development and to join the regime. A CTBT would prevent countries such
as India, Israel, and Pakistan from validating theoretical designs and calculations for nuclear warheads, and
raise the political costs for so-called "rogue" states in violating global non-proliferation norms. It would also
prevent Russia from modernizing its nuclear warhead designs. And a CTBT would stand in the way of China
validating or proving reverse engineered warhead designs or technologies that it may have illegally acquired
from the US.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
246
CTBT  intl cooperation
CTBT leads to international cooperation and multilateralism
Joseph, senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, 09
(Jofi Joseph, senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, 4/09,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf)
First, a pledge to work toward CTBT ratification would help demonstrate the administration’s
commitment to multilateral cooperation. The election of Obama as the United States’ forty-fourth
president ignited celebrations around the world in part because it was expected to end the era of U.S.
unilateralism and ‘‘cowboy diplomacy.’’ To his credit, Bush pursued a largely diplomatic course during
his second term, especially toward the nonproliferation challenges posed by Iran and North Korea, but it
was too late to repair the image of U.S. unilateralism. Obama offers the United States a fresh start on
redefining its international image. Even though the international community is extending a friendly hand
toward Obama and his team, the new administration may well find that budgetary constraints or differing
conceptions of shared interests will limit other avenues of multilateral cooperation on issues like global
warming or a renewed focus on Afghanistan. It is for that reason that a concrete pledge to work with the
Senate on CTBT ratification carries so much promise. Senate ratification of the CTBT matters because it
would be hailed as a renewed U.S. commitment to the essential pact at the heart of the NPT. Much of the
international community, especially leading nonnuclear weapons states like Brazil, Japan, South Africa,
and Sweden, believe that the United States has backtracked on the NPT’s basic bargain contained in
Article VI: in exchange for the pledge by nonnuclear weapons states to not acquire nuclear weapons, the
United States and the four other recognized nuclear weapons powers_China, France, Russia, and the
United Kingdom_would pursue measures ‘‘in good faith’’ to cease the nuclear arms race and achieve
eventual nuclear disarmament. Under the Clinton administration, the United States explicitly reaffirmed
its commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament at the 1995 NPT Review Conference in exchange for the
agreement of other States Parties to indefinitely extend the NPT. Without this compromise, the NPT
could have been allowed to expire or, more likely, extended only for a fixed period. The 2000 NPT
Review Conference followed up with the adoption by all States Parties of a thirteen-step plan to pave the
path for eventual general nuclear disarmament, with the first step calling for the CTBT’s early entry into
force.
Commitment to CTBT with strengthen international relations
Joseph, senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, 09
(Jofi Joseph, senior Democratic foreign policy staffer in the United States Senate, 4/09,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf)
In light of this recent discouraging history, an unmistakable commitment from Obama that he will seek
Senate ratification of the CTBT during his first term in office may do more than any other single measure
to indicate to the world that the United States is not only listening to, but also respects, the views of the
international community. While it will do little to directly convince rogue states like Iran or North Korea
to halt their nuclear weapons programs, it will strengthen the hand of the United States as it seeks to build
international coalitions to squeeze those hostile states. Indeed, a recent survey of sixteen key nonnuclear
weapons states reached the conclusion that ratification of the CTBT ‘‘would send a very strong signal’’ to
demonstrate the U.S. commitment to disarmament.6 The commitment will also position the United States
particularly well for the NPT Review Conference scheduled for 2010. These review conferences, held
every five years, offer an opportunity for NPTsignatories to gather and assess the overall health of the
nuclear nonproliferation regime. In the 2000 conference, the United States agreed to seek early entry into
force of the CTBT and committed to twelve other specific steps to promote nonproliferation and
disarmament. Upon taking office the next year, the Bush administration swiftly renounced these
commitments, setting the stage for a 2005 conference viewed by all parties involved as an unmitigated
disaster. A concrete pledge by the United States to seek CTBTratification will therefore energize the 2010
conference, and offer Washington greater leverage to push through potential reforms it may seek
regarding the export of reprocessing and enrichment technology or automatic sanctions against states that
violate their IAEA obligations
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
247
CTBT  intl cooperation
Support for CTBT builds bipartisanship and international cooperation
Berger, national security advisor from 1997-2000, 09
(Samuel R. Berger, national security advisor from 1997-2000, 6/09,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23191.html)
Let's be clear: we are not saying that if we set a shining example by ratifying the CTBT that Iran and
North Korea will suddenly see the light and immediately abandon their nuclear programs. That is not our
point. We do believe, however, that if the U.S. can move forward on CTBT it would help build and
sustain the international cooperation required to apply pressure on nations like North Korea and Iran still
seeking the nuclear option, enhance America's standing to argue that all nations should abide by global
nonproliferation norms and rally the world to take other essential steps in preventing nuclear dangers.
Moreover, by outlawing testing, the CTBT would make it harder for aspiring nuclear weapons states to
gain confidence that their weapon designs would work. In addition, it would limit the ability of current
nuclear powers to develop new types of nuclear warheads. Finally, the Treaty also would bolster
international monitoring of nuclear activities, clarifying the nature of suspicious (or benign) activities
which might otherwise exacerbate regional tensions from South Asia to the Middle East.
That is why there have been bipartisan calls in the U.S. for adopting a process to finally bring the CTBT
into effect. Last month, President Obama announced that his Administration would pursue U.S.
ratification of the Treaty on a priority basis. A few days later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
said he disagreed with the President's rush to ratify the Treaty. While both leaders spoke with great
civility and respect, observers worry the stage is being set for another calamitous showdown - one that
will set back not only America's national security but our leadership in a dangerous world. We have to
build a bipartisan path forward on CTBT
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
248
No need to test
CTBT doesn’t hurt the US – most components don’t require explosive testing
Richard L. Garwin, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations,
New York, and IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM Research Division, 10-7-99, “In Support of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty,” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/in-support-of-the-ctbt.html
The US does not need tests banned by the CTBT to maintain full confidence in its
weapons stockpile. The vast majority of components in a nuclear weapon can be
examined and tested and upgraded without nuclear explosions. The nuclear (or physics)
package itself can be remanufactured to original specifications should surveillance reveal deterioration. The
stockpile stewardship program will further enhance our high confidence in our
stockpile, which is now certified each year by the weapon builders, together with the military who will have to use the
weapons.
CTBT doesn’t affect the US – no weapons need to be tested anyway
Richard L. Garwin, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations,
New York, and IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM Research Division, 10-7-99, “In Support of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty,” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/in-support-of-the-ctbt.html
Our review of the US nuclear tests and of defects discovered in stockpile weapons revealed many
defects that were detected in the routine surveillance process -- i.e., not by nuclear
explosion tests. Defects observed by nuclear explosion tests were associated with weapons
that had been put into the stockpile without the normal development testing and a
production verification test. Today we have no such weapons; and we will have none in the
future. All weapons in the enduring stockpile have been fully tested.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
249
No need to test
On balance, the SSP maintains a credible deterrent
Christopher Paine, Senior Researcher, NRDC Nuclear Program, February 19 99,
http://www.clw.org/coalition/nrdc299b.htm
Some additional observations by Hecker, not cited in the Cato Policy Analysis, are pertinent to the subject at
hand: "I believe that the SSMP as currently configured and fully funded provides the best approach to
keeping the confidence level in our nuclear stockpile as high as possible for the foreseeable future. We
recognize that there is no substitute for full-systems testing in any complex technological enterprise. This is
certainly true for nuclear weapons. A robust nuclear testing program would undoubtedly increase our
confidence. However, our long-term confidence in the stockpile would suffer if we substituted a program
consisting of an occasional nuclear test for a robust stewardship program because it would lock us into an
empirical approach tied to limited testing data without the benefit of the flexibility and resiliency provided by
better scientific understanding (emphasis added."(4) Hecker certainly realizes, even if Dr. Bailey does not,
that in the post-Cold War era "a robust nuclear testing program" cannot be justified by DOD's current or
reasonably foreseeable nuclear weapon requirements, and could not be justified politically to the American
public and the international community, which overwhelmingly support an end to nuclear explosive testing.
In his responses to Kyl, Director Hecker returns twice more to the theme of the tradeoff between continuation
of a modest nuclear test program without the CTBT, and a robust stewardship program with the CTBT, and
he repeatedly chooses the latter: "Again, I would like to add the caution that conducting an occasional
nuclear test in lieu of a fully-funded SSMP will jeopardize our long-term confidence in the stockpile. The
SSMP is designed to predict and correct problems in the stockpile, whereas an occasional nuclear test would
focus primarily on existing problems. It is critical at this time that we focus the attention of our people on
being able to do the best possible job without nuclear testing."(5) "I should also add that in August 1995,
when the President made his [zero yield CTBT]decision, we had already not conducted a nuclear test for
almost three years. Our budgets had decreased precipitously over the previous six years. Our people were
looking to get out of the nuclear weapons program. The production complex appeared hopelessly broken.
The prospects of doing an occasional nuclear test was proving to be a barrier to adopt[tion of] a new
approach to nuclear stewardship. This situation has turned around dramatically in the past two years with the
emphasis on science-based stockpile stewardship. Our people have a renewed commitment to stockpile
stewardship and an enthusiasm for the development of a new methodology, based on rigorous science and
engineering, to ensure the safety and reliability of the stockpile."
A preponderance of experts agree ratification wouldn’t hurt U.S. stockpiles
Tom Collina, director of the Arms Control and International Security Program, and Christopher Paine, senior
research associate in the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
July/August 1999, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/ja99/ja99collina.html, accessed 8/8/02
While tacitly acknowledging the lack of any current requirements for nuclear test explosions, test ban
opponents raise worst-case "what if" scenarios to suggest that a "prudent" approach to maintaining nuclear
deterrence requires an ever present option to test, and thus the avoidance of any binding treaty commitment.
In reality, America's deterrent can be sustained without nuclear explosive tests. This conclusion is supported
by the three nuclear weapons laboratories; by numerous independent weapons experts; by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and four former chairmen (Colin Powell, John Shalikashvili, David Jones, and William Crowe); and by
the Defense Department. And if the United States ever chose to exercise the "option" to resume underground
nuclear test explosions, it would pay a very high political cost.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
250
***CTBT AFF
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
251
No CTBT – general
CTBT won’t be ratified – large opposition in the Senate to internationalism
Weiger, 7/1/09 (David, The Michigan Messenger, http://michiganmessenger.com/22039/gop-‘sovereigntycaucus’-battles-obama-on-treaties)
Those hopes are likely to be tested at least twice this year. According to staffers for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty — a 1982 treaty that governs the right of
countries to use the oceans — could be reintroduced next month. And President Obama is in Russia this week in part to move
forward the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the 1996 agreement on weapons testing that was rejected by the
Senate in 1999, when the upper chamber contained 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Of the 16 treaties that the State
Department included on its priority list in a May 11 letter to the committee, both sides agree that these two will be the first
to face full votes. And both sides agree that the Koh vote provided a good idea of the support these treaties might
command from a very skeptical Senate Republican conference. “The vote against Harold Koh is probably the minimum
vote against both of those treaties,” said John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under George W.
Bush, and who has been a forceful critic of both treaties. “I think that a lot of Republicans, whether they agreed or disagreed with
Koh’s views, basically agreed that president had the right to appoint his own team. Whether they would also support these
treaties, given their concerns about national sovereignty, is another question.” The power to approve treaties rests entirely with
the Senate; on the surface, that would seem to make the House Sovereignty Caucus and its supporters less relevant. But
both supporters and opponents of the treaties said that skeptics of international law and international agreements will have
an outsized influence in this debate. Senate staffers from both parties, experts from liberal groups, and experts from
conservative groups all cited the same handful of people as the ones able to turn opinion on treaties: Bolton, Frank
Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and fellows at the Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI). For an example of their influence, one supporter of the treaties pointed out what happens when someone does a basic
Google search for “Law of the Sea.” The first links include the Heritage Foundation’s page on the treaty, CEI’s page, and the
site UNLawoftheSeaTreaty.org, owned by another think tank that opposes the treaty. Myron Ebell, director of energy and global
warming policy at CEI, said that there was some truth to this characterization. “At the one end, the American people are very
suspicious of more United Nations involvement in their lives,” said Ebell. “When you’re saying that you’ll put the UN in charge
of the oceans, that’s pretty strongly opposed by the American people. But at the other end, most Washington insiders, a lot of
experts who work on this, a lot of admirals, say we ought to do that and say that the problems have been fixed since President
Reagan opposed it. So we’re not a very broad coalition.” Treaty supporters, who had hoped that a Democratic president and
heavily Democratic Senate could get past this standoff, are frustrated by the conservatives’ success. “The fight over the Law of
the Sea has been a textbook example of the politics of intensity trumping the politics of common sense,” said Don Kraus, the
CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, a group that supports both treaties. “The treaty’s narrow group of opponents have whipped
up conspiracy theories to feed political temper tantrums in swing states.” While negotiations that could lead to progress on the
CTBT are taking center stage this week, treaty opponents are focusing on the Law of the Sea Treaty because it will come up
first, and because its fate in the last Congress provided a roadmap for both sides. A tough campaign against the treaty, which
included TV ads from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and pressure on conservative senators like U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (RS.C.), whittled down its support. U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had long supported the treaty, backed down and said that
it needed “changes” shortly before the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primary.
CTBT will be an uphill battle
Irish Times, 7-7-09
In his speech in Prague on April 5th, Obama vowed to strive for “a world without nuclear weapons”. He promised to
“aggressively pursue” US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was agreed in 1996 and
which the US Senate rejected (at the urging of the Bush administration) in 1999. As if responding to the US president, the
Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament on May 29th agreed to negotiate a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).
The conference was founded under UN auspices in 1979 and now has 65 members. The history of the FMCT is a lesson in
how easily this new initiative could bog down. Former US president Bill Clinton proposed an FMCT in 1993, and for 16
years the conference has been discussing whether to discuss it. Chinese insistence on Paros (Preventing an Arms Race in
Outer Space – a response to Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative) blocked progress until now. Nor will the CTBT
be brought into force easily. Obama will have an uphill battle getting it ratified by the Senate. And unlike the FMCT, it
would have to be ratified by all 44 states with significant nuclear activity. Obama speaks of a diplomatic offensive. China
might follow the US example, but Iran, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan are unlikely to adhere to the CTBT.
Success would nonetheless be significant. “If we achieve the FMCT and the CTBT, it means a dual freeze on nuclear
arsenals,” explains Col Michel Fritsch, of the technology and proliferation department at the French defence ministry.
There is optimism over the Russian-American agreement, moves on the FMCT and CTBT, and for consensus on next
May’s five-year review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
252
No CTBT – GOP
CTBT won’t be ratified – GOP and Defense Department opposition
Action, Goldschmidt, and Perkovich, Associate Director, Director, Senior Associate, 7/7/09
(James, Pierre, George, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Defending U.S. Leadership on
Disarmament,”
http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23354)
If verification really is the key issue for Senator Kyl and Mr. Perle then they should clearly lay out why the
vast majority of independent expert opinion is wrong. If, however, they once again “don’t particularly care”
about the technical details of verification then they should honestly explain their real opposition to the treaty.
It is remarkable that in June 2009, Indonesia, a key non-aligned country and one of the nine states (with
China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and the US) that must ratify the CTBT for it to come
into force, pledged to ratify the treaty as soon as the US does. For any party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) to delay or obstruct the entry into force of the CTBT is incompatible not only with the spirit of
the original nonproliferation bargain, but also with the explicit conditions by which the NPT was indefinitely
extended in 1995. Senator Kyl and Mr. Perle paint a picture of a nuclear-weapons infrastructure in crisis.
While we—and, more importantly, President Obama—share their aim of maintaining a safe, secure, and
reliable nuclear arsenal for as long as nuclear weapons exist, there is room for disagreement about whether an
urgent modernization program is required. Science-based "stockpile stewardship" has been effective to date
at ensuring the viability of existing US nuclear weapons. What is needed is an unhurried and sober analysis
of exactly what is required to ensure that the US nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable—exactly what the
Obama administration is doing. This analysis must take into account the effects on other states of a decision
by the US to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Too many people, especially those connected with the American
defense establishment, seem to ignore the vast majority of states that are neither close allies nor sworn
adversaries of the US. These states vehemently reject the discriminatory nature of the nonproliferation
regime and are urging the US and other nuclear-armed states to live up to their commitments to work towards
disarmament. Even when it comes to US adversaries, Senator Kyl and Mr. Perle overstate their case. They
state that “a robust American nuclear force is an essential discouragement to nuclear proliferators.” Yet, the
United States’ huge nuclear arsenal failed to deter North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs and has done
nothing to help it resolve these crises.
Votes aren’t there from the GOP
Grotto, Staff Writer, ’09 (Andrew, RealClearPolitics, “Nuclear Arms in the developing world,” April 8,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/nuclear_arms_in_the_developing.html)
Obama's speech on Sunday should begin the process of clearing the air. He announced support for Senate
ratification of the CTBT and a verifiable FMCT. Earlier in the week, he laid out an ambitious arms control
agenda with Russia for achieving substantial nuclear reductions. These steps toward nuclear disarmament are
worthwhile in their own right. But the Obama administration also hopes that by addressing developing
country concerns about disarmament, these countries will be much more inclined to support an ambitious
nonproliferation agenda that includes a more intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency Inspections
regime, tighter global export controls, and a new framework for civilian nuclear energy development that
precludes development of national uranium enrichment facilities. Of course, the Obama administration must
now follow through on its pledges, which won't be easy. Arms control negotiations with the Russians will be
challenging enough, but the Obama administration must also successfully negotiate with Capitol Hill.
Treaties require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which means that the majority Democrats will still need
to attract the support of more than a half-dozen Republicans for CTBT and FMCT ratification.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
253
No CTBT – verification
CTBT won’t be ratified – it’s not verifiable
Kyl and Perle, Senator and Fellow, 6/30/09 (Jon and Richard, Arizona, American Enterprise Institute,
The
Wall
Street
Journal,
“Our
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623202363966157.html)
Decaying
Nuclear
Deterrent,”
Thus, in his Prague speech, Mr. Obama announced that the U.S. would "immediately and aggressively"
pursue ratification of the comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. The administration
believes, without evidence, that ratification of the test-ban treaty will discourage other countries from
developing nuclear weapons. Which countries does it have in mind? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Countries
alarmed by the nuclear ambitions of their enemies? Allies who may one day lose confidence in our
nuclear umbrella? There are good reasons why the test-ban treaty has not been ratified. The attempt to do
so in 1999 failed in the Senate, mostly out of concerns about verification -- it simply is not verifiable. It
also failed because of an understandable reluctance on the part of the U.S. Senate to forgo forever a test
program that could in the future be of critical importance for our defense and the defense of our allies.
Robert Gates, who is now Mr. Obama's own secretary of defense, warned in a speech last October that in
the absence of a nuclear modernization program, even the most modest of which Congress has repeatedly
declined to fund, "[a]t a certain point, it will become impossible to keep extending the life of our arsenal,
especially in light of our testing moratorium." Suppose future problems in our nuclear arsenal emerge that
cannot be solved without testing? Would our predicament discourage nuclear proliferation -- or stimulate
it?
Republicans are skeptical about verification
The Economist 6/4/09 (“Making a Start,”
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13799251)
At home, Mr Obama will have a fight to persuade the necessary two-thirds of the Senate to ratify the
other treaty deemed essential for progress in disarmament: the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
It was rejected in 1999, on a partisan vote. Mr Obama’s Democrats have more seats this time, but still not
enough. Debate will once again revolve around whether a test ban can be properly verified, and whether
America can afford to do without testing indefinitely (it stopped in 1992) as its own nuclear warheads
age. But some things have changed in ten years. At home, powerful computers for modelling test
explosions have managed to solve problems that had once had even the testers stumped, and America’s
warheads have been shown to be more robust than first thought. The global system of monitoring stations
being built to back up the CTBT was just a plan in 1999 but is now nearing completion (with some in
America). North Korea’s second nuclear test, in May, was also a test of the system’s capabilities which it
passed easily. A concern has resurfaced that Russia, which has ratified, might be cheating by conducting
very small nuclear tests, although America formally withdrew this complaint some years ago. Where such
doubts arise (some also suspect China), there is provision for on-site inspection. But as things stand, such
inspections can be invoked only with the treaty in force. Several required ratifications are still
outstanding. America’s could prompt China, and a couple of others, to follow suit. But India will not even
sign the CTBT, let alone ratify it. Pakistan will not if India does not. And North Korea clearly is not in
the mood.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
254
No prolif
States won’t proliferate. Economic cooperation blocks the incentive
Peter Beckman, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, et al, The Nuclear Predicament: Nuclear Weapons in the
Twenty-First Century, 3rd edition, 2000, p. 209-210
In contrast, liberals assume that the Cold War world has been replaced by an entirely new environment in
which the mutual threat has disappeared, not only between the two superpowers, but also between the two
blocs. The potential for greater political cooperation has reemerged along with a renewed interest in mutual
security arrangements that protect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all parties. Perhaps most
important, anti-Communism and anti-Westernism can no longer be used effectively to mobilize voters or
significant groups in the two societies. With the downfall of both authoritarian governments and communist
economic systems, the main source of conflict is being removed and we are therefore justified in being
optimistic about the world’s future. Furthermore, the increased importance of social welfare and the satisfaction
of consumer demands in the capitalist world render war increasingly counterproductive to nations’ long-term
interests, as does increasing economic interdependence and the internationalization of corporations. Thus the
democratization of Eastern Europe and of Russia reduces the threat of war and should usher in an age of peace
and mutual cooperation not unlike the relations that exist between the United States, Canada, and Great Britain.
There will be a growing realization of the expanding economic benefits of cooperation, as free trade increases.
Military power will no longer be seen as the most important measure of power in world politics. Where military
power remains important, conventional military force will be seen as more useful than nuclear force, in part because military challenges will more often be internal threats to national unity rather than external threats to
national security. As a result, a liberal would likely argue that the realist fear of increased proliferation is based
on an outmoded view of world politics. We are moving, the liberal might say, away from Cold War behavior,
perhaps even away from the traditional behavior of nation-states, as the growing integration of the European
Union attests. There is no reason to assume that nations will blindly follow the practices of the past, especially
as the nuclear weapons states have made some movement toward the elimination of their own nuclear arsenals.
Democratic governments, freed from a fear of external threat, may find it more difficult to persuade themselves
and their citizens to undertake costly nuclear weapons programs, especially where popular antinuclear
movements are strong, as they are in Germany and Japan. Indeed, democratic governments may be more
willing to erect internal barriers to proliferation. As we saw earlier, the trend toward democracy worked against
proliferation in the cases of Brazil and Argentina.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
255
Norms can’t solve prolif
Ratification doesn’t create a norm – states perceive it as an attempt to enshrine US
superiority
Major Balan Ayyar, USAF, Air Command and Staff College Air University, “The Impact of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and American Security,” April, 1999,
http://papers.maxwell.af.mil/projects/ay1999/acsc/99-007.pdf, accessed 8/25/02
The case against the CTBT is based in part on the weaknesses of the treaty itself; it does not save the failing
NPT regime. Elimination of testing is not a step towards nuclear disarmament (in support of the NPT) as many
believe. Scholars like Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey argue that for the foreseeable future nuclear deterrence will
remain the backbone of national defense and lack of testing will not change that paradigm; it will just increase
the danger associated with it: “NPT parties are discovering that the CTBT does not constitute a step towards
disarmament as they thought it was. This is because the nuclear weapon states are by no means abandoning
nuclear deterrence but are instead taking steps to assure their stockpiles will remain safe and reliable and,
therefore, usable despite the testing ban.” Dr Victor W Sidel, a member of the Conference on Disarmament and
long time supporter of a comprehensive test ban, reluctantly agrees: “Without a real move by the Nuclear
Weapon States (NWS) towards the abolition of nuclear weapons, the CTBT in its current form permits
continued “vertical” proliferation by the NWS, helps maintain the NWS monopoly, is provocative to the
nuclear have nots, and may actually intensify the nuclear arms race.”
States will just invent different pretexts for proliferation
Ronald Lehman, Former Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, October 7, 1999,
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/text/100799lehman.htm, accessed 8/28/02
In some other cases, states appeared to be exploiting American reluctance to finalize a CTB as pretext to justify
their own lack of restraint, and one frequently hears the argument that a CTBT will call their bluff.
Unfortunately, I fear these states can create pretexts faster than we can negotiate them away or buy them off.
Still others do see American technological advances as the source of most arms races. I should note that all of
the arguments against the American nuclear deterrent that one has heard over the years are now being made
about American advanced conventional capability and even so-called non-lethal weapons.
Norms don’t deter proliferation
Kathleen Bailey, senior fellow of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, March 18, 1998,
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/0318bail.htm, accessed 8/25/02
Goal number three, establishing an international norm, I will also gloss over fairly briefly, because I view it as
pretty inconsequential. History is replete with examples when norms and even legally binding treaties which
are much stronger than, are a much stronger constraint, have failed to inhibit nations. For example, the
biological weapons convention set up in international norm against biological weapons production, possession,
use. But we have two examples today of nations that we know are pursuing and have in their hands biological
weapons. One is Iraq, the other is Russia. And we don't know how many others.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
256
Norms can’t solve prolif
Norms against proliferation fail – states develop weapons for security interests
Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, The Houston Chronicle, September 13,
1999
The argument for the test ban is that it will prevent nuclear proliferation. If countries cannot test nukes, they will not
build them because they won't know if they work. Ratifying the CTBT is supposed to close the testing option for
would-be nuclear powers. We sign. They desist. How exactly does this work? As a Washington Post editorial
explains, one of the ways to "induce would-be proliferators to get off the nuclear track" is "if the nuclear powers
showed themselves ready to accept some increasing part of the discipline they are calling on non-nuclear others to
accept." The power of example of the greatest nuclear country is expected to induce other countries to follow suit.
History has not been kind to this argument. The most dramatic counterexamples, of course, are rogue states like
North Korea, Iraq and Iran. They don't sign treaties and, even when they do, they set out to break them clandestinely
from the first day. Moral suasion does not sway them. More interesting is the case of friendly countries like India
and Pakistan. They are exactly the kind of countries whose nuclear ambitions the American example of restraint is
supposed to mollify. Well, then. The United States has not exploded a nuclear bomb either above or below ground
since 1992. In 1993, President Clinton made it official by declaring a total moratorium on U.S. testing. Then last
year, India and Pakistan went ahead and exploded a series of nuclear bombs. So much for moral suasion. Why did
they do it? Because of this obvious, if inconvenient, truth: Nuclear weapons are the supreme military asset. Not that
they necessarily will be used in warfare. But their very possession transforms the geopolitical status of the possessor.
The possessor acquires not just aggressive power but, even more importantly, a deterrent capacity as well. This truth
is easy for Americans to forget because we have so much conventional strength that our nuclear forces appear
superfluous, even vestigial. Lesser countries, however, recognize the political and diplomatic power conveyed by
nuclear weapons. They want the nuclear option. For good reason. And they will not forgo it because they are moved
by the moral example of the United States. Nations follow their interests, not norms.
The international norm is a myth
Kathleen Bailey, Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Policy “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The
Costs Outweigh the Benefits,” CATO Policy Analysis, No. 330, January 15, 1999,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa330.pdf, accessed 8/8/02
CTBT proponents contend that the test ban will constrain even those who are not party to the agreement from
conducting nuclear tests because the treaty will create an international norm against testing. While law-abiding
nations may hesitate to break a norm, history demonstates that some nations readily dismiss treaty norms. The NPT
norm against the pursuit of nuclear weapons has been broken repeatedly, both by the treaty's parties and by
nonparties. The norm was established when the treaty went into effect in 1970. The list of states that have broken or
are thought to have broken the norm includes Argentina, Brazil, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan,
South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. North Korea, for example, produced plutonium in direct violation of the
NPT and continues to be in noncompliance with treaty requirements. Another example of the failure of an
international norm is provided by the history of nonadherence of some parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention (BTWC) of 1972, which outlawed the possession of biological weapons. Iraq had signed but not
acceded to the BTWC; then it proceeded secretly to produce massive quantities of biological agents. The Soviet
Union, and later Russia, violated not only the norm but the treaty--a fact admitted publicly by President Yeltsin.
The CTBT will not reduce nations' motivations to proliferate
Kathleen Bailey, Former Assistant Director, Nuclear Weapons Control, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
Prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the CTBT, October 7, 1999,
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/ctbt-deb-sas-100799(bailey).htm, accessed 8/8/02
CTBT proponents have argued that the treaty will lessen the motivations of other nations to acquire nuclear
weapons. The assumption is that the United States will show "moral leadership" and others will follow suit. In
reality, the opposite may be true. Nations seek weapons based on their own perceptions of their security needs. If a
nation feels threatened, or if it seeks to dominate its neighbors or its region, nuclear weapons may be appealing. A
nation whose leadership believes nuclear weapons are needed for security is not going to abandon the idea simply
because the US conducts or does not conduct nuclear tests.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
257
NPT breakdown inevitable
Ratification isn’t enough to salvage the NPT
Kathleen Bailey, Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Policy “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The
Costs Outweigh the Benefits,” CATO Policy Analysis, No. 330, January 15, 1999,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa330.pdf, accessed 8/8/02
The Clinton administration argues that U.S. ratification of the CTBT is essential to ensure extension of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)--a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons--when the NPT is
next reviewed by its parties in 2000. In reality, NPT parties will not be satisfied with CTBT ratification. The
NPT conference in 2000 will be highly contentious, regardless of CTBT ratification, because the CTBT has
been falsely represented as a commitment to nuclear disarmament. Some background on the NPT-CTBT
linkage is necessary to understand why. There has long been a conflict between two sets of nations that are
party to the NPT--those that have nuclear weapons and those that do not. The latter group has contended that
the nuclear weapons states are not fulfilling their treaty obligation, contained in article VI of the NPT, to work
in good faith toward total nuclear disarmament. Increasingly, the nonnuclear states have demanded concrete
steps toward zero nuclear weapons, as well as a timetable according to which disarmament will be achieved.
The nuclear weapons states, however, have refused to give up nuclear weapons and have argued that
disarmament is a long-term rather than a near-term goal. By advocating a CTBT, the United States has sought
to satisfy the demands for disarmament while continuing to rely on nuclear deterrence. During negotiations at
the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, U.S. representatives portrayed the CTBT as a step toward
disarmament, saying that it would halt vertical proliferation--the improvement of nuclear arsenals by those
states that possess them. Most NPT parties have been led to believe that the United States and other nuclear
weapons states would be unable to test under a CTBT. This prohibition would erode confidence in the
reliability of the nuclear stockpile and, ultimately, make the use of such weapons less likely. The Geneva
negotiating record makes it clear that other nations have been convinced that the CTBT is a step in the process
by which the United States and other nations will abandon nuclear deterrence and reduce nuclear stockpiles to
zero. The truth, however, is that the United States has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons and has the
stated policy of retaining them for as long as it is in U.S. security interests to do so. The United States and other
nuclear weapons states are establishing programs designed to ensure that their stockpiles will remain safe and
reliable--and therefore usable--despite the testing ban. Thus, "nuclear erosion," the goal set for a CTBT by
many nations around the world, is effectively undermined by a successful SSP. As a result, many nations and
nongovernmental groups have already declared that the CTBT does little or nothing to fulfill the NPT article VI
obligation to abandon nuclear deterrence and reduce nuclear stockpiles to zero. Because non-nuclear-weapons
states are likely to perceive that the CTBT is not the disarmament measure they anticipated, they probably will
try to use the threat of unraveling the NPT as leverage to terminate the SSP and equivalent programs in Russia,
China, France, and the United Kingdom. Already, for example, Japan has called for new discussions to focus
on terminating zeroyield experiments--the type of experiments that is integral to the SSP. The willingness of
some NPT parties to use that treaty as an expendable tool is influenced by the decline in relevance of the NPT
to nations' sense of security. The decline has nothing to do with the presence or absence of nuclear testing by
the first five nuclear weapons states. Rather, the NPT's diminished significance stems from a host of other
phenomena such as the violations of the NPT by North Korea and Iraq, the spread of chemical and biological
weapons, growth in missile proliferation, and the nuclear weapons capabilities of nations not party to the NPT-Israel, India, and Pakistan. Those factors will continue to erode the relevance of the NPT, regardless of whether
there is a CTBT.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
258
Sub-critical testing kills non-prolif
Sub-critical superiority forces other nations to bail out to regain force symmetry
William Potter, Director of the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies, and Nikolai Sokov,
former Russian arms control negotiator and senior research associate at the CNS, “The End of Arms Control?”
October 11, 1999, http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/potsok.htm, accessed 8/8/02
In the wake of unilateral NATO action in Kosovo, tough talk in Washington about abrogation of the ABM
Treaty, and a large boost in defense expenditures, U.S. military policy is, at best, viewed with suspicion. For
both Russia and China, nuclear weapons are increasingly perceived as the principal guarantor of their
countries’ claims to great power status. Arms control treaties which inhibit the development, maintenance, and
deployment of nuclear arms, may no longer be regarded as sustainable if, thanks to U.S. technological
superiority, they have an asymmetrical impact. If the U.S. Senate is concerned about the ability of the 4.5
billion dollar/year stockpile stewardship program to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal
without nuclear testing, what confidence should the cash-strapped Russian and Chinese governments have in
their weapons? The arms control dilemma is particularly acute in Russia, where tactical nuclear weapons have
acquired the central role as a counter-weight to NATO’s vastly superior conventional forces. According to the
latest Russian doctrinal innovation, tactical nuclear arms--of which Russia has an enormous but very aged
stockpile--will have to be used early on in a number of regional conflict scenarios if Moscow is to avoid defeat.
Last April the Russian Security Council debated both the need for nuclear testing and the wisdom of continuing
to abide by the parallel, unilateral declarations on tactical nuclear weapons reductions made by Presidents Bush
and Gorbachev in the fall of 1991. These declarations, which were not legally binding, called for the
dismantlement and destruction of many U.S. and Russian sub-strategic nuclear weapons and the relocation of
many others to central storage facilities. This informal regime is now viewed in Moscow as excessively
restrictive. Specifically, many advocate a return of nuclear warheads to land-based missiles, a step prohibited
by the 1991 declarations. The new tactical missile, Iskander, is a likely delivery system for the next generation
of tactical warheads. Development of such a low yield weapon might necessitate resumption of nuclear testing.
Sub-critical tests crush non-proliferation – states will use them as an excuse to test
Union of Concerned Scientists, “Frequently Asked Questions about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,”
2000, http://www.ucsusa.org/security/ctbt.faqs.html, accessed 8/25/02
On April 4, 1996, the Department of Energy announced plans to conduct subcritical experiments during 1997
and thereafter. The first was conducted on July 2. Originally, these experiments were planned for the summer
of 1996, but they were delayed to avoid complicating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations in
Geneva. Now that the treaty has been signed, the subcritical experiments are back. These experiments involve
high explosives and fissile materials (in this case plutonium) and are conducted underground at the Nevada
Test Site. Technically, they are not a breach of the test ban treaty as long as they are subcritical, that is, as long
as they do not produce an uncontrolled chain reaction. However, underground experiments at the test site are
difficult to distinguish from nuclear tests there. If the United States sets the precedent of conducting
underground experiments with high explosives and plutonium, then other weapon states can be expected to do
so as well. This will raise verification issues. Moreover, these tests create the impression that the United States
is skirting the limits of the test ban, which undermines the treaty. India is likely to cite subcritical experiments
as evidence that the test ban treaty is discriminatory and that the United States is pursuing new weapons
designs. This could hurt the treaty's prospects for ratification by other nations and thus for its entry into force.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
259
CTBT kills deterrence
The CTBT locks in disarmament and kills the deterrent
Baker Spring, Research Fellow in National Security Policy at Heritage, “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and
U.S. Nuclear Disarmament,” October 6, 1999, http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1330.html,
accessed 8/8/02
There are at least nine reasons why the CTBT will lead inevitably to U.S. nuclear disarmament. REASON No.
1: Tests are necessary to discover safety and reliability problems with nuclear weapons in the present stockpile.
Absent such tests, a serious problem with a particular type of weapon may be completely overlooked. As of
1987, one-third of all nuclear weapons that had entered the stockpile underwent post-deployment testing to
resolve problems. In three-quarters of these cases, the problems were discovered because of testing. Periodic
testing of weapons in the stockpile tell the scientists, engineers, and technicians at the nuclear laboratories
things they may not know and reveal problems that they would otherwise have no reason to believe are present.
REASON No. 2: The CTBT will constrain modernization in ways that will make it very difficult to meet new
military requirements. Although the SBSS program is designed to address the question of how to maintain a
stockpile of safe and reliable nuclear weapons, it does not directly address the question of how to maintain a
stockpile of militarily effective weapons when the ways of meeting existing military requirements can change
and altogether new military requirements can emerge. This can only be addressed through modernizing the
nuclear force. The Administration plans to use SBSS to refurbish existing weapons, in lieu of building new
ones, which may alter the capability of the weapons. But this process will introduce new variables into the
workings of the weapons through the addition of new and different components. The CTBT itself will bar
explosive testing of the refurbished weapons to determine whether their new components will work as expected
and prove able to meet military requirements. REASON No. 3: The CTBT will constrain modernization in
ways that will make replacing aging delivery systems more difficult. In the past, new nuclear weapons were
designed and built for specific kinds of missiles. Some of these missiles are getting old. The Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), for example, was first deployed in the early 1970s. Although
programs are underway to extend the service lives of missiles like the Minuteman III, they cannot remain in the
arsenal forever. Replacing them will require designing, building, and deploying entirely new missiles. Under
the CTBT, the missiles would have to be designed and built to the requirements of the warheads, as opposed to
the combined fashion used earlier. This engineering process could lead to deployed weapons systems that are
less capable of fulfilling the missions for which they are intended. REASON No. 4: The CTBT will exacerbate
problems associated with an aging nuclear stockpile. The effects of aging on nuclear weapons were not a
serious concern when the United States was still conducting explosive tests and producing new weapons that
could replace existing ones before serious aging concerns arose. Under the CTBT, the United States will not be
able to produce new nuclear weapons and the process of replacement will stop. The SBSS program would
attempt to address this problem only through refurbishment.
Testing is necessary to ensure reliability as warheads age
Kathleen Bailey, Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Policy “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: An
Update on the Debate,” March, 2001, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa330.pdf, accessed 8/8/02
Many things can and have gone wrong with deployed U.S. nuclear weapons. Some defects have been design
flaws; some have been introduced during the weapons’ manufacture; others developed as a result of aging.
Despite the fact that weapons designs in the stockpile have been extensively tested, problems continue to arise.
John C. Browne, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified in 1999 that We also continue to find
problems that were introduced during the original manufacturing of some specific weapons. We have identified
several issues that, if they had occurred when testing was active, most likely would have been resolved by
nuclear testing. In the future, warhead problems associated with manufacturing may be even more prevalent.
This is due to the fact that older weapons will need to be remanufactured. Many materials and components used
in original manufacture are no longer available and substitutes must be used; older processes and procedures
may have to be changed (e.g. they are outdated or unsafe by today’s standards). These changes could severely
impact weapons reliability. Nuclear testing is the only way to validate, with certainty, that the new materials,
components, processes, and procedures used in weapons remanufacture do not affect weapons performance.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
260
CTBT kills deterrence
The CTBT decreases stockpile diversity
Baker Spring, Research Fellow in National Security Policy at Heritage, “The Shalikashvili Report on the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” May 25, 2001, http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1444.html,
accessed 8/8/02
Reason # 6: The report offers no detailed assessment of the risks associated with decreasing diversity in the
nuclear weapons stockpile. In 1985, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile contained 30 kinds of warheads; today,
it contains nine. The discovery of an unexpected problem in one kind of warhead could result in the temporary
withdrawal of a large portion of the total warheads from the useable inventory. One way to address that
shortcoming would be to develop and manufacture new warheads to diversify the stockpile, but the CTBT
permanently bars the development and manufacturing of new warhead designs. The test ban increases the risk
of catastrophic failure in the overall nuclear posture by decreasing the stockpile's diversity. The Shalikashvili
report does not address the diversity question. Indeed, it acknowledges that moving forward with the
construction of a facility for remanufacturing existing nuclear weapons designs must await the determination of
the composition of the long-term stockpile. The report should have included a specific recommendation for
diversifying the stockpile by adding new types of warheads.
Alternatives to testing are unsustainable
Kathleen Bailey, Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Policy “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: An
Update on the Debate,” March, 2001, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa330.pdf, accessed 8/8/02
There is growing concern among some nuclear weapons designers participating in SSP that the project will not
achieve its objectives. Carol Alonso, a nuclear weapons designer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
wrote on December 17, 2000, At the rate SSP is progressing, we will never get to a point where we can
confidently predict from simulations alone how a nuclear weapon is going to perform. Our designers know that.
If you ask them, young and old, whether they would rather have regular testing or largescale ASCI [computer]
simulations, their voice would be strongly in favor of testing—with, of course, continued emphasis on trying to
understand this complex science. …[M]y integrated assessment is that the slope of true SSP progress is almost
zero on the day-to-day design level. The science of nuclear weapon design is becoming dormant. The only way
to revitalize it is to shock people out of it with unexpected results from nuclear tests. This [the need for testing]
has been true for every field of science in which humans ever engaged, and to expect it will be different for
nuclear weapon design is folly. Paul Robinson summed up the dangers that SSP will fail, “The difficulty that
we face is that we cannot today guarantee that Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship will be ultimately
successful; nor can we guarantee that it will be possible to prove that it is successful.” There is danger that SSP
will fail and we won’t know that it has. There is no event and there are no metrics that will signal the success or
failure of the program.
Remanufacturing weapons fails. Only testing can certify the new line works
Dr. Robert Barker, Former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Federal News Service, October 27, 1997
At this point, in the limited debate that has occurred to date, somebody (not anybody who has actually been
responsible for producing hardware) says "You don't need to do to nuclear tests; just rebuild the weapons to
their original specifications and the rebuilt weapons will last as long as the first production." Wrong!
Rebuilding weapons in trouble as closely as possible to the way they were built originally may be the lowest
risk approach to solving stockpile problems, but it is not trivial and far from risk free. In the future we will find
establishing confidence in a rebuilt weapon to be as challenging as a new weapon requirement. Difficulty in
recreating a piece of hardware with the same performance as the original is not unique to the nuclear weapon
complex. When production was interrupted on the rocket motor of the Navy's Polaris sea-launched ballistic
missile and then restarted, even with the same design specifications, it could not be reproduced. The fix
required redesign and recalling retired people to provide data on how the original motors were made. Missile
motor testing was available to the Navy to help them understand their problem and to be confident that they had
found a solution. Nuclear testing needs to play the same vital role when nuclear weapons must be rebuilt.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
261
CTBT kills deterrence
Testing is key to training new scientists and keeping them interested
USA Today, March 18, 2002
The Bush administration's push to rebuild the nation's nuclear weapons research and production program is
about more than developing new weapons to confront a new enemy. It's also about training a new generation of
scientists to replace an aging cadre of Cold Warriors who are heading toward retirement and taking the USA's
nuclear weapons knowledge with them. Administration officials and nuclear weapons scientists say a decade of
neglect at the nation's three nuclear weapons labs has hurt morale, encouraged weapons experts to leave and
crippled efforts to recruit a new generation of nuclear scientists. "Nobody wants to work here," complains Tom
Thomson, a senior weapons designer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. "There's no
sense of mission," he says. Only by challenging scientists to design and build new nuclear weapons will the
labs regain their intellectual edge, they say. Next month, nuclear weapons design teams will work on a weapon
that could explode deep underground and cause minimal damage at the surface. Targets could include bunkers
built to make nuclear or chemical weapons.
The right to test is essential to credible deterrence
Barbara Conry, associate policy analyst at Cato, “Danger or Deterrent?” 1999,
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/TakingSides/takingsides1.html, accessed 8/14/02
Relinquishing the right to conduct tests — thereby gambling the U.S. nuclear deterrent on the technologically
risky SSP — poses an unacceptable security risk. Moreover, even if the SSP functions as it is supposed to, it is
not clear that future adversaries will be convinced that the American nuclear arsenal is, indeed, militarily
effective. When it comes to deterrence, the perception of a potential adversary is critical. The Senate has a
responsibility to ensure that no future Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic has any reason to doubt the
effectiveness of the American nuclear arsenal.
The CTBT is a green light to proliferators
Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense, October 7, 1999,
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/conghearings/ctbtsenate.htm, accessed 8/25/02
The treaty does not purport to do that, and even when it purports to do that, as Ms. Kirkpatrick points out, and I
agree fully with her, we are not going to be able to rely on many of the rogue countries that will do whatever is
necessary to acquire this capability. Nothing will encourage proliferation more than to tell these countries that
the big stockpiles in the United States have not been tested, or that stockpiles of other countries have not been
tested effectively, and if they think that is the case, they will be encouraged to believe that the deterrent is not
as effective as it should be, and that they will be encouraged to try to acquire the kinds of weapons which,
through the testing that they can do, whether they promise to or not, will make them effective.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
262
Right to test is key to deterrence
The right to test is necessary for deterrence, even if not exercised
Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, “A "Grand Deal" on the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty: A Faustian Bargain,” September 16, 1999, http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-16-99.html, accessed 8/8/02.
As the number of nuclear weapons is reduced and fewer types of warheads are in the U.S. arsenal, nuclear
testing is likely to become even more important for ensuring that the weapons will work. At the present time,
there is no need for the United States to rescind its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing; but nor should it
be constrained by a treaty from explosive testing if the threat changes in the future. It is vital to U.S. security
that the reduced number of warheads that the United States is allowed under any future agreement be modern,
safe and in working order.
An open options posture is key to deterrence
Gannett News Service, March 12, 2002,
Suggestions that the United States is closer to using nuclear weapons in a preventive strike against rogue nations are
simply wrong, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday, but those states should be conscious of the might the
president has at his disposal. "It does not seem to us to be a bad thing for them to look out from their little countries,
their little capitals, to see a United States with a full range of options or an American president with a full range of
options to deter" an attack, Powell told a Senate appropriations subcommittee. But Powell was adamant that a
Pentagon report detailing U.S. policy on nuclear weapons did not suggest "that somehow we are thinking of
preventively going after somebody or that we have lowered the nuclear threshold. We have done no such thing."
"There is no way you can read that document and come to the conclusion that the United States will be more likely
or will more quickly go to the use of nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary," he said in response to a question by Sen.
Jack Reed, D-R.I. The question of whether the United States has changed its policy erupted over the weekend when
the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that a "Nuclear Posture Review" by the Pentagon called for drawing up
contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and developing a new generation of
smaller nuclear weapons that could be used in some battlefield situations. While the United States has long had such
plans for dealing with a conflict with Russia and China, the report added the countries of Iraq, North Korea, Iran,
Libya and Syria -- all believed to be either in possession of weapons of mass destruction or trying to obtain them. It
was the first time other countries had been mentioned publicly as possible targets. The Washington Post reported
Tuesday that the policy of selecting targets beyond Russia and China began five years ago under then-President
Clinton and that the Bush administration's posture review updated that policy. The report set off global fears that the
United States was taking risky, destabilizing steps and unnecessarily rattling its nuclear saber at the same time that it
and its allies are trying to prevent other countries from developing or expanding their own nuclear programs. Powell
sought to soothe any remaining international jitters by pledging that "we remain committed to a moratorium on (
nuclear) testing. ... There is no new escalation in kinds or types of nuclear weapons. There is no change in the
threshold" of possible use. However, Powell said that as long as the nuclear threat exists, "The security of our
nation, the security of our friends requires us to think the unthinkable."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
263
Deterrence solves nuclear war
Deterrence is critical to credibility and preventing nuclear war by design or miscalculation
Robert Spulak, senior analyst at the Strategic Studies Center, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Opposing
Viewpoints, 1999, p. 53-54
The need for nuclear deterrence will not disappear. There are still powerful nations in the world which are potential
adversaries, both immediate and future. The interests of these other nations will, at times, be in conflict with the
interests of the United States. It is inevitable that another great power or a coalition of powers will arise to oppose
the hegemony of the United States. Although the Cold War is over, Russia still has the capability to destroy the
United States; the strong showing of the nationalists and communists in the Russian elections, the obvious failure of
reforms, the desire of Russia to be recognized as a great power, and replacement of the reformers in the Russian
government with officials from the communist era have refocused our concerns on this point. In a few years Japan, a
Western European state, or China could pose a strategic threat to our broad security interests; China is rapidly
modernizing its arsenal and could soon be a strategic nuclear threat. Since we will be cautious about attacking any
nuclear power with conventional forces, it will be difficult to deter even smaller nuclear powers such as North
Korea, Iran, or Iraq if our nuclear threat to them is not credible. Credibility is important for deterrence because the conditions under which the United States would actually use nuclear weapons, and therefore the conditions under which nuclear deterrence even exists, depend on limitations we place on ourselves. Credibility has been one of the most important aspects of
nuclear policy from the beginning. For example, the lack of credibility of the U.S. policy of massive retaliation led to the more
limited U.S. doctrines that were then developed. The development of warfighting capabilities as a contribution to deterrence was
based on the need to demonstrate that there was a likelihood that nuclear weapons would actually be used. Minimizing and
stigmatizing our nuclear weapons can create a self-imposed taboo with respect to even nuclear adversaries, thereby
delegitimizing deterrence and inviting threats to our interests. This self-injury to our nuclear deterrence is not the delegitimization
of all nuclear weapons that the proponents of nuclear stigma hope for. It is neither reciprocal with our potential enemies nor
permanent, even for ourselves. Credible nuclear deterrence is robust, not delicate. Policies and actions that establish credibility
couple with our nuclear arsenal to create the possibility that in a war with the United States an enemy may face a risk of
annihilation. A potential enemy need not even be very rational to be deterred from actions that ensure his own destruction. (This
is not to argue for belligerence; we can keep the threshold for nuclear use high without undermining credibility.) This creates
extreme caution in the behavior of other states if they wish to threaten vital U.S. security interests, and it
substantially reduces the likelihood of miscalculation.
Nuclear deterrence is key to preventing prolif and use
Charles Allan, Air Force National Defense Fellow at the CSIS, “Extended Conventional Deterrence: In from the
Cold and Out of the Nuclear Fire?” Washington Quarterly, Summer, 1994
To many analysts, the post-cold war retrenchment of U.S. forces makes nuclear weapons essential to maintaining
extended deterrence and discouraging WMD proliferation among potential adversaries and friends. George Quester
and Victor Utgoff (1993) argue that (1) the extreme concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons demonstrated
by the world community is itself a strong incentive for regional aggressors to proliferate; and (2) instead of letting
the U.S. theater nuclear arsenal atrophy, the United States should maintain the quality of its theater nuclear forces to
allow the United States to reverse the advantages of any aggressor's initial WMD use with finely tuned escalation
designed to cause "minimum damage to innocent civilians" (p. 133). For Quester and Utgoff, maintaining a
qualitatively superior U.S. theater nuclear capability in conjunction with highly capable conventional forces would
reduce the significance of the rudimentary nuclear stockpiles acquired by rogue states and make proliferation
unattractive.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
264
Deterrence solves nuclear war
Strong deterrence prevents war
Senator Jon Kyl, member of the Senate Judiciary, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees, Harvard Journal on
Legislation, Summer, 2000, 37 Harv. J. on Legis. 325
The Gulf War is a good example of the continuing importance of nuclear deterrence in the post-Cold War
world. In that conflict, America's nuclear capability--coupled with the understanding that it might draw on
that capability if allied troops were attacked with other weapons of mass destruction--saved lives. Saddam
Hussein had a large arsenal of chemical weapons at his disposal. The 1925 Geneva Protocol outlaws the use
of these weapons, but Saddam had violated this international protocol before, unleashing chemical agents
against Iraq's Kurdish population and against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. In 1991,
President Bush told the Iraqi leader: "The United States will not tolerate the use of chemical or biological
weapons. . . . You and your country will pay a terrible price if you order unconscionable acts of this sort."
Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz acknowledged in 1995 that Iraq did not attack the forces of the United
States-led coalition with chemical weapons during the Gulf War because Washington's threats of devastating
retaliation were interpreted as meaning nuclear retaliation. The credibility of the United States nuclear
stockpile is a precious, if intangible, commodity. Our actions on the international stage, and the obligations
we take on, must be assessed in terms of their effect on the credibility of our deterrent. This is especially
important given the failure of the United States thus far to deploy a defense against missile-delivered
weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, it will remain critical because no missiledefense system currently
contemplated could defend against (and, thus, deter) an attack of the kind that could be launched by countries
like Russia and China.
Nuclear weapons prevent war
Sir Michael Quinlan; director of the Ditchley Foundation, “The Future of Nuclear Weapons in World Affairs,”
Washington Quarterly, Summer, 1997
In a global system lacking an ultimate arbiter that can combine legitimacy and power, there can never again
be a major war between advanced states without nuclear risk. But -- third point -- precisely because nuclear
weapons reduce all-out warfare to madness, and because any general war risks escalation to that, advanced
states realize that they must not fall into armed conflict with one another. That is of immense value.
Propositions about war prevention are unprovable, because they rest upon conjectures about alternative
history. But it is remarkable that, across nearly half a century, East and West never came to blows; and that
success surely owed something to a deep-rooted mindset instilled by nuclear risk. The absence of war
between advanced states is a key success. We must seek to perpetuate it. Weapons are instrumental and
secondary; the basic aim is to avoid war. Better a world with nuclear weapons but no major war than one
with major war but no nuclear weapons (even if the latter were, as it is not, reliably feasible). We have to ask
whether that "no-war" mindset is so entrenched that we could always count on it even if actual nuclear
weapons were removed.
Strong deterrence is key to peace
Edward Warner, Assistant Secretary Of Defense Federal News Service, March 31, 1998
For the foreseeable, future, we will continue to need a reliable and flexible nuclear deterrent - survivable
against the most aggressive attack, under highly confident, constitutional command and control, safeguarded
against both accidental and unauthorized use, and capable of inflicting a devastating retaliatory response
should deterrence fail. We will need such a force because nuclear deterrence remains an essential element to
deal with the gravest threats. As stated in the Secretary's 1998 Report to Congress, the United States must
retain sufficient strategic nuclear forces and theater nuclear systems to help deter any hostile foreign
leadership with access to nuclear weapons from acting against U.S. vital interests, and to convince such a
leadership that seeking a nuclear advantage would be futile.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
265
***CAP AND TRADE UNIQUENESS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
266
No cap and trade – general
The votes aren’t there for cap and trade on either side of the aisle
New York Times, 6-29-09
Starting fresh may mean making concessions to moderate Republicans on the cap-and-trade plan, though that
could mean upsetting environmental groups and liberal Democrats. Consider Murkowski, who two years ago
co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) that curbed greenhouse gas emissions, but with a
ceiling on how much carbon allowances would cost. "I keep going to some of the reasons I supported it,"
Murkowski, the ranking member of Bingaman's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in an
interview earlier this month. "There was a safety valve, an escape hatch, if you will. There was a level of
certainty to industry that you knew how bad bad was going to be. I've not seen that in what's coming out of
the House." There are other obstacles, too. Economic conditions and demands on the United States from
China, heading into U.N. climate talks this December, make the Senate debate even more complicated, said
Wheeler, who works now for B&D Consulting. "I see the climate bill in the Senate to be in worse shape than
it was a year ago," Wheeler said. "The number of issues and problems have expanded, not decreased." Reid
can expect pushback from many Democratic moderates as they slog through an agenda this summer and fall
that is jammed with health care reform, fiscal 2010 appropriations bills and Supreme Court nominee Sonia
Sotomayor's confirmation. "I'm just saying. I don't see, personally -- and again, this is above my pay grade -I don't see how it all fits together this year," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-S.D.). "Just go
through the list." Inhofe insists that Democrats have no more than 35 supporters for cap-and-trade
legislation. And he predicts that Obama does not want to risk an unsuccessful Senate floor fight ahead of the
December U.N. climate negotiations in Denmark, where international pressure on the United States will be
enormous.
Cap and trade won’t pass
Globe and Mail, 6-29-09, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/obamas-willing-to-spend-politicalcapital-on-climate-change-why-isnt-harper/article1201317/
The President had called in reporters to discuss the American Clean Energy and Security Act that squeaked
through the House, 219 to 212, last week, with 44 Democrats ominously bolting their party. Prospects for
similar legislation in the Senate are cloudy, at best, since Republicans want to do nothing serious about
climate change and Democrats from coal-producing and Rust Belt states are worried politically.
No cap and trade – too many giveaways
La Crosse Tribune, 7-3-09, http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3330346
That the Clean Energy and Security Act received little public inspection before its House passage is no
wonder: Its breath-taking scope would have given even the most credulous supporters of reducing green
house gas emissions pause. Even with a putative filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, a capand-trade scheme with as many add-ons as the House bill contains won't make it through the Senate.
Can’t get cap and trade – too many divergent interests to please enough people
New York Times, 6-29-09
Graham said he would support climate legislation so long as it includes less aggressive emission targets and
greater incentives for nuclear power and offshore oil and natural gas development. "The bottom line, if you
want to get 60 votes, you're going to have to broaden this beyond cap and trade," Graham said. Obama will
also need to watch his left flank, which includes Boxer, Vermont's Bernie Sanders (I), and New Jersey
Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg. Consider nuclear power, an issue that McCain amped
up in his 2005 climate bill to the point that it ultimately drove Boxer and three other senators to vote against
the plan. "If the president moves toward McCain, then he loses people like Barbara Boxer," said Andrew
Wheeler, a former staff director for the Environment and Public Works Committee's ranking Republican,
Inhofe.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
267
No cap and trade – general
No passage in the Senate
Jennifer A. Dlouhy 6- 26-09
“Pelosi tested as congress ponders climate bill” http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/26/MNLV18E3AH.DTL
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces the biggest test yet of her leadership when Congress takes up the
landmark climate change bill today. The sweeping energy and climate change bill is a top priority for the
Obama administration and Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who has spent months making
concessions to wary Democrats whose votes are critical for the bill to pass. Almost all House Republicans
are expected to vote against the measure, which they say represents a "national energy tax" that could
cripple the U.S. economy, encourage businesses to move operations overseas, and lead to higher gas
prices. On Thursday, backers of the bill were anticipating a close victory, although the outcome was
uncertain in part because the House has never voted on climate change legislation. Even tougher odds
await the legislation in the Senate later this year.
Cap and Trade faces opposition
Fred Barnes 7-21-9
“The Obama Age Bogs Down” < http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804492049963557.html>
It usually doesn't happen this quickly in Washington. But President Barack Obama and congressional
Democrats are finding that the old maxim that what goes around, comes around applies to them, too. Less
than six months into his term, Mr. Obama's top initiatives -- health-care reform and "cap and trade"
energy legislation -- are in serious jeopardy and he has himself and his congressional allies to blame.Their
high-pressure tactics in promoting and passing legislation, most notably the economic "stimulus" enacted
in February, have backfired.Mr. Obama's health-care and energy initiatives, the core of his far-reaching
agenda, were bound to face serious opposition in Congress in any case. Hardball tactics and false
promises have only made the hill he has to climb steeper. Now he may lose on both. The president and
his congressional allies should have known better.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
268
No cap and trade – overstretch
Cap and Trade won’t pass – Republican opposition and overstretched agenda.
Samuelsohn, Staff Writer, 7/22/09 (Darren, New York Times, “Battle over health care leaves ‘blood in the
water’ for climate bill,” http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/22/22climatewire-battle-over-health-care-leavesblood-in-the-61585.html)
President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have spent the better part of this year juggling legislation on
health care and climate change. The two monster initiatives would be significant accomplishments if
either one could pass, let alone both. But for now, each remains a long way from the finish line as
Republicans and some Democrats push back against bills that have big price tags and questionable public
support. Obama will try to reclaim control over the story line tonight with his fourth prime time press
conference since taking office in January, part of a media campaign to keep momentum going on the top
pieces of his legislative agenda. It won't be easy. Advocates for the two bills wonder if the combined
pitch has zapped away each item's own strength. And there is also the Republican Party, which is working
to score political points by packaging the entire Obama agenda as a grab for big government.
Cap and Trade won’t pass – healthcare is the priority.
Johnson, Staff Writer, 7/20/09 (Keith, Wall Street Journal,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/20/no-bill-left-behind-here-comes-the-clean-energy-push/)
Is the battle over health care taking the steam out of the administration’s energy push? Since the Senate
decided to delay work on the big energy and climate package, the fight over health care legislation has
dominated the Hill. That might explain why today the heavy artillery came out: A spate of reminders
about how good clean energy is and why the Waxman-Markey bill, which the House already passed,
should be the template for future congressional action.
Cap and Trade won’t pass – it’s too boring.
Fehrenbacher, Political Analyst, 7/22/09 (Katie, Earth2Tech, “Jon Stewart on The Real Problem with
Cap-And-Trade: Confusing, Boring,” http://earth2tech.com/2009/07/22/jon-stewart-on-the-real-problem-with-capand-trade-confusing-boring/)
Hilarious. Please watch. Last night Jon Stewart pointed out (in that way that only he can pull off: half
ridiculous, half totally true) the very real marketing problem with cap-and-trade legislation: it’s confusing
and boring. Many of us in the industry, covering this stuff on a daily basis, tend to forget how esoteric it
is, and a better understanding — and marketing — of the importance of the legislation could lead to a lot
more support. Also watch Stewart’s interview with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (second clip, below
the jump), who is a rock star (I just Facebook fanned) and gives Stewart a Nerds of America Society Tshirt.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
269
No cap and trade – Obama pushing
Obama will push for cap and trade but it won’t pass
Globe and Mail, 6-29-09, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/obamas-willing-to-spend-politicalcapital-on-climate-change-why-isnt-harper/article1201317/
Who knows what will emerge from Congress? The Obama administration is already fighting for health-care
changes and a new system of financial regulation. The U.S. system might be suffering from legislative
overload. Getting something signed and sealed before the Copenhagen negotiations in December might not
be possible. But at least Mr. Obama speaks of the imperative of reducing greenhouse gases. He's prepared to
talk directly to his fellow citizens, and he's assigned the issue a high priority. He evokes visions of a better
future, as in the Gretzky analogy. And he's prepared to spend some political capital.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
270
No cap and trade – Dems
Cap and Trade won’t pass – Democratic opposition
Inforum 7/22/09 (The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, “Cap and trade bill loses Democrats,”
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/247423/)
The cap and trade provision of climate change legislation making its way through Congress is a deal breaker.
Prominent Democrats, most notably Midwest and farm-state Democrats, will not support the bill in its current form.
Most Republicans are against it. It’s been rolled out by at least one House committee, but its ultimate fate in the
House and Senate is anything but certain. There are good reasons for derailing the bill. As a product of mostly East
and West Coast lawmakers, it seems to reward states in those areas at the expense of the rest of the nation, including
energy-producing states like North Dakota. The California cabal led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Energy and
Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman appears all too eager to punish states where traditional forms
of energy generation provide the lion’s share of the nation’s electricity. It’s no wonder members of Congress from
energy states, regardless of political party, are balking. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., is among them. A member of
the House Ways and Means Committee, Pomeroy said he can’t support the bill because the cap and trade title could
cost individual North Dakotans hundred of dollars annually in higher electricity costs. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.,
also is concerned about costs foisted on his state, but also said he won’t support a bill that creates a cap and trade
market that would be subject to the same sort of manipulation he says occurs with other commodity markets. He
said the climate bill would do little to reduce carbon dioxide levels but would be a windfall for Wall Street traders.
He also noted that North Dakota would get no credit for its world-leading carbon sequestration efforts. Rep. Collin
Peterson, D-Minn., supported the House bill after he wrested guarantees from its sponsors that the legislation would
recognize and reward agriculture’s role in carbon capture. Peterson is chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee. He’s still not sold on the whole package, however, and emphasized his initial vote was the first step in a
long process. The legislation is in trouble for good reasons. It would identify winners and losers based not on
science or fairness but on regional differences. A state where power is generated, say by coal, would be
economically disadvantaged, whereas a state where that coal-generated power might be sold and consumed would
get a pass. Unacceptable. The bill’s support in the House is soft. The bill’s chances of clearing the Senate without
major changes are slim to none.
Climate change will be a fight over moderate Democrats
Coral Davenport, CQ Staff, 7/1/2009 (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news000003157587 //ZE)
Senate Democratic leaders are preparing for what is expected to be a tough fight over climate change legislation,
even tougher than it was in the House. The House passed by a slender six-vote margin sweeping legislation (HR
2454) on June 26 capping emissions of greenhouse gases and mandating a boost in electricity from renewable
sources. Click here to learn more! Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer , D-Calif., is
expected to kick off hearings on climate change legislation on July 7, with testimony from Energy Secretary Steven
Chu , EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Agriculture Department Secretary Tom Vilsack . Boxer aims to mark up
legislation modeled on the House bill in her committee before the August recess. Underscoring the ambitious
timetable, Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., has given other committees that may have jurisdiction — including
the Agriculture, Finance and Foreign Relations panels — a Sept. 18 deadline to complete their own markups. Even
before a Senate bill has been drafted, Boxer has been holding regular Tuesday meetings with a core group of 25
Democrats for whom pushing climate legislation is a top priority. That group is building a legislative strategy
focused on reaching out to the key moderates whose votes are essential to building the 60-vote filibuster-proof
majority needed to pass the bill through the Senate. Senators got a stark lesson in how essential those votes will be
—– and how tough they’ll be to win — during the frenzied lead-up to the House vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi , DCalif., and her whips cajoled reluctant groups of Democrats, who feared that a vote for the climate bill could harm
their home districts and their chances of re-election. The same set of dynamics looks set to play out in the Senate,
where the spotlight is turning to a group of about 15 Democratic moderates who could determine the success or
failure of a Senate effort to tackle global warming.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
271
No cap and trade – Dems
No energy bill – Democratic senate too diverse
Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz, Staff Writers, Washington Post, 6/30/2009
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062904175_pf.html //ZE)
After a series of early and relatively easy victories on Capitol Hill, the White House appears certain to face a more
difficult road when Congress returns to work next week. Not content to task lawmakers with passing an ambitious
agenda of record new spending, sweeping health-care reform and other major initiatives, President Obama yesterday
nudged the Senate to move ahead with its version of a landmark energy bill the House passed on Friday. In recent
weeks, he has also revived the idea of pursuing broad changes in immigration law. Obama and his aides have
proved adept at navigating the politics and eccentricities of the legislative branch. But as lawmakers attempt to
navigate much trickier and more contentious issues in the second half of the year, the narrow margin of Friday's
energy vote served as a warning: The higher the stakes, the tougher the challenge in finding consensus within what
has become a diverse Democratic majority. The legislation represented the first big test for one of Obama's biggest
and most controversial domestic priorities, stemming climate change. Democrats who voted against the bill came
from all over the map, from coal country to Midwestern factory towns to rural swaths of the Great Plains. Each of
the regions helped swell the party's ranks in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and Democrats think they represent the
linchpin to an enduring congressional majority. But an energy bill that to a California Democrat represents a
historic first step in slowing climate change appears to a Rust Belt colleague to be a redux of the 1993 energyconsumption tax that the House approved by a nearly identical 219 to 213 vote -- only to be brushed off by the
Senate and resurrected by Republican candidates on the 1994 campaign trail. "It's like you have a big umbrella and
you're trying to fit 10 people under it, but if you move it in one direction, you're going to leave some people out,"
said Rep. Dan Maffei, a member of the class of '08 and the first Democrat to represent his Upstate New York district
in nearly 30 years. The energy bill will face an even stiffer challenge in the Senate, where the Democratic caucus is
an array of conservatives, liberals, and just about everything in between, and these lawmakers are making very
different calculations about the big items on Obama's legislative wish list.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
272
No cap and trade – GOP
Cap and Trade won’t pass – key GOP senators oppose
Foote, Political Analyst, 7/23/09 (Learned, Talk Radio News Service, “Great Plains GOP Senators say no to
cap and trade,”
http://talkradionews.com/2009/07/great-plains-gop-senators-say-no-to-cap-and-trade/)
Three GOP senators from Great Plains states criticized the cap-and-trade bill that recently passed in the
House of Representatives, and is currently being reviewed in the Senate. According to Sen. Pat Roberts
(R-Ky.), the bill is a “wet dog that is not welcome in the farmhouse or the ranch.” Sen. Mike Johanns (RNeb.) firmly said that “this bill is not going to work in the Senate,” and claimed that it lacks “even a 5%
chance of being successful.” Sen. Johanns, formerly the Secretary of Agriculture under President George
W. Bush, said that the legislation would hurt the economy, especially in agricultural communities. “The
average farmer will never buy into the idea that maybe, just maybe, if they pay higher production costs
and go through this regimen that is going to be established, that they might do better,” he said. The
Senators dismissed testimony given by the United States Department of Agriculture to the Agriculture
Committee on Wednesday. “The USDA analysis…has holes enough to drive a grain truck through,” said
Sen. Roberts. He said it was based on assumptions of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], which
he argued is “driven by their agenda. I don’t think it is driven by accurate assessment…as to the effect on
farmers and ranchers in rural, small-town America.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
273
No cap and trade – North Dakota
Cap and Trade won’t pass – North Dakota
Marshall, Staff Writer, 7/23/09 (Christa, New York Times, “N.D. could be the badlands for cap and trade,”
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/23/23climatewire-nd-could-be-the-badlands-for-cap-and-trade-77187.html)
The fate of major climate legislation in Congress could rest with North Dakota. The sparsely populated
state in the upper Midwest, noted for its badlands and bone-chilling winters, wields as much clout as
regions three times its size in the global warming debate. Its two Democratic senators possess crucial
swing votes on Capitol Hill. Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad also sit on several of the committees
that are holding court on the just-passed climate bill from the House. "In the march to 60 [votes], losing
the two North Dakotans could be what tips the balance on negative side," said Chelsea Maxwell, an
analyst at the Clark Group and a former climate adviser to now-retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). "They
have a state that is not only uniquely situated but represents what everyone seems to need on climate. You
have coal and you have agriculture." Yet gaining the support of either one is turning out to be a
challenging quest for Democrats searching for the magical 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to stop a filibuster.
Meanwhile, advocates for capping greenhouse gases are swinging back at the two North Dakotans in
blogs and newspaper editorials. In a just-published op-ed in the Bismarck Tribune, Dorgan says "cap-andtrade is the wrong solution and I don't support it." He expresses concerns about the potential for wild
speculation on Wall Street if such a trading system is established and lays out the energy needs of his
state, which contains a unique mix of coal, oil and gas reserves and wind resources. Those comments
followed a lengthy floor speech on July 16 criticizing the House legislation co-sponsored by Reps. Henry
Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). He urged the Senate to take up a bill passed by the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee as an alternative, since it would spur renewable energy
development without the complications of a new carbon trading market.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
274
No cap and trade – economic fears
Cap and Trade won’t pass – legislative oversight and Carbon Market differences
Ling and Geman, Staff Writers, 7/24/09 (Katherine and Ben, New York Times, “Senate Dems wrestle
over carbon market regs, oversight in climate bill,” http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/24/24climatewiresenate-dems-wrestle-over-carbon-market-regs-91367.html)
Diverging views about how to regulate trillion-dollar carbon trading markets that would grow under a
cap-and-trade law have emerged as a major hurdle for Democrats trying to pass a climate bill this year.
Some prominent senators on energy issues say the House-passed climate bill would not prevent a repeat
of alleged speculation or manipulation in oil markets in recent years. At the same time, some banks and
energy companies are warning against excessive market controls that could crimp companies' ability to
hedge risks and control costs under a carbon regime. The discussions about how to regulate carbon
allowance and derivative markets are unfolding at a time when lawmakers want to show they are not
enabling Wall Street banks to launch another complex financial trading system that could spin out of
control. "The last kind of headline that members of Congress will want is billions in bonuses for Wall
Street because of the way they have manipulated the cap-and-trade market," said Norm Ornstein, a
congressional expert with the American Enterprise Institute. "That is not something they can tolerate."
Ornstein predicts that lawmakers will ultimately put "fairly stiff regulatory requirements in place" rather
than leaving the parameters of the market to Wall Street. But just how tough the controls should be is a
measure of intense debate, especially in an arena as complex as financial regulation. Another
complicating factor: decisions about carbon market oversight are bound up in larger efforts involving
multiple committees to overhaul regulation of oil, natural gas and other commodity markets.
Cap and trade will die in the Senate – fear over costs and conflicting interests of moderates
and Republicans
Baltimore Sun, 7-5-09
Looming over all of the provisions is cost, a focal point of Republican attacks. "The public is especially
wary of passing this during a major recession," said Marc Morano, a former Republican on the Senate
environment committee. Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate
seats. But more than a dozen of those senators, including Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and
Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana, have expressed concerns over costs. Only a few
Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine - Sens. Susan M. Collins
and Olympia J. Snowe - and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his
presidential campaign last year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said last
week on Fox News Sunday: "I don't think putting clamps on our economy when you know the Chinese and
the Indians are not going to do it is a good idea." Legislative logistics and turf battles could also muddy the
Senate process. The Senate bill will emerge piece by piece from several committees with drastically different
memberships and priorities, including the Finance, Foreign Relations, Commerce and Agriculture
committees.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
275
Obama pushing cap and trade
Obama pushing cap and trade
The Telegraph, 7/1/2009, “Al Franken wins Senate seat paving way for Obama's Democratic agenda.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5703557/Al-Franken-wins-Senateseat-paving-way-for-Obamas-Democratic-agenda.html.
With a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, Mr Obama moves closer to
winning difficult debates over climate change and health care.
Within the next nine months, the president wants the Senate to follow the House and support an energy bill
that would introduce a "cap and trade" system for carbon emissions and push a raft of new green
requirements for industry.
A bill on health care reform is already being drafted, with the White House and the entire Democratic Party
aware that voters expect dramatic improvements in a system that has seen medical insurance costs spiral and
allowed up to 47 million people to go uninsured.
Obama and allies are ramping up efforts for cap and trade
The Boston Globe, Political Intelligence, 7/1/09, “Obama allies push energy bill.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/obama_allies_pu.html.
After lots of arm-twisting by President Obama and his aides, and quite a bit of horse-trading, the House on
Friday narrowly passed the bill on a 219-212 vote. It is designed to lower how much carbon is pumped into
the atmosphere through a "cap-and-trade" system in which carbon emissions are capped and permits to
pollute are given away or sold by the government.
But the bill faces tough sledding in the Senate, and some observers don't believe it will pass this year, though
Obama wants final passage before he attends an international global warming conference in Copenhagen.
Obama and his allies are ramping up their grassroots efforts to put pressure on senators.
“Thanks to the extraordinary leadership in Congress, America has taken a giant leap towards becoming the
global standard for clean energy while creating millions of new jobs in the process," Tom McMahon, acting
executive director of Americans United for Change, said in a statement. "This historic legislation will help
build a solid foundation for long-term economic prosperity by meeting President Obama’s challenge to
reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and curbing pollution that causes global warming. This ad is
designed to encourage Congress to continue standing up to the forces of ‘status quo’ and move this historic
clean energy jobs bill to the President’s desk as quickly as possible.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
276
***CAP AND TRADE INTERNALS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
277
Capital key to cap and trade
Political capital key to Cap and Trade
Samuelsohn, Staff Writer, 7/22/09 (Darren, New York Times, “Battle over health care leaves ‘blood in the
water’ for climate bill,” http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/22/22climatewire-battle-over-health-care-leavesblood-in-the-61585.html)
Going forward, some senators say the White House will be instrumental in deciding which bill should
have the top billing. "I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and
spending their political capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive
push on health care. Will they split their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and
some folks on climate change? I don't think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose."
Passage requires political capital
Tankersley 6-29-09
“Climate Bill shaped by compromise”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy28-2009jun28,0,7474723.story?page=1
Reporting from Washington -- In mid-spring, when the prospect of a global warming bill passing Congress
seemed like an Al Gore pipe dream, President Obama invited Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills)
down to the Oval Office. "He realized that this was a very tough bill to get through," Waxman remembers. At
a time when some still saw Obama as too inexperienced to adapt to Washington's backroom ways, Waxman
found the president perfectly ready to accept the only strategy that offered hope of success: Sitting down with
each group affected by the bill and trading concessions for support.That strategy yielded a narrow victory in
the House on Friday. The question was, did Obama, Waxman and other supporters give away so much in the
process that the benefits to the environment ended up being slim to none -- especially since the bill now goes
to the even less sympathetic Senate? The goal of the bill they were drafting, embraced by Obama during the
2008 presidential campaign as one of his top priorities, was to establish government mandates and
regulations that would ratchet down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions quickly and dramatically, through a "cap
and trade" system of buying and selling emissions permits.
Political capital key to pass cap and trade
Eoin O’Carroll 7-10-09 “could cap and trade cause an economic bubble?” <
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/>
A sticking point for the climate bill is the so-called "cap and trade" provision. If you aren't familiar, what this
does is force businesses to purchase environmental credits if they produce more greenhouse gases than
allowed under the new cap. What's interesting is that business groups hate it because it's going to cost them
billions, environmental groups hate it because it doesn't go far enough (nothing ever does, with them,) and
consumers are going to hate it when U.S. goods skyrocket in price, the few remaining manufacturing jobs are
moved overseas, unemployment continues to soar, another Great Depression ensues and the country falls into
chaos unlike anything seen since Mad Max. Estimates have the economic cost of cap and trade between $175
to $1,870 per household each year, which is just one place Obama would break his campaign pledge to not
raise taxes on those making $200,000 a year or less. Because we all really believed him when he said that,
right? Obama is trying to push both of these proposals through while he still has the political capital to get it
done. But there's a message in the Sotomayor hearings Obama should have heeded.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
278
Capital key to cap and trade
Political Capital is key for Obama to pass
Mark Whittingham ‘9
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1682715/gore_and_gingrich_debate_cap_and_trade.html
“Gore and Gin debate cap and trade”
President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have spent the better part of this year juggling legislation on
health care and climate change.
The two monster initiatives would be significant accomplishments if either one could pass, let alone both.
But for now, each remains a long way from the finish line as Republicans and some Democrats push back
against bills that have big price tags and questionable public support.
"I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and spending their political
capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
"What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive push on health care. Will they split
their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and some folks on climate change? I don't
think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose."
Obama’s leverage is key to getting cap and trade
New York Times, 6-29-09
The White House, which played a major role in the closing days of the House debate, is expected to play a
greater role in the Senate debate. After all, Vice President Joe Biden served in the Senate for 36 years and
Obama spent four years there. "Clearly, we saw the president was very engaged in this effort," said Rep.
Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the head of the House Democrats' 2010 campaign operation. "So he's going to be
working with us very hard to get the votes in the Senate. Obviously, having served there, he knows a lot of
the members." The president and his team will face a challenge, since regional interests tend to trump party
loyalties in energy legislation. "I think you have to think what the impact is at home," Sen. Ben Nelson (DNeb.) said earlier this month. "Certainly, I want to support the president when I can. But I can't when I can't.
Capital is key to cap and trade – Obama will push hard
Danny Bradbury and James Murray, 6-29-09, http://www.businessgreen.com/businessgreen/news/2244979/cap-trade-bill-moves-forward
The vote, which was complicated by an extended debate speech from the minority leader, which delayed the
vote for almost an hour, opens the door for a vote in the Senate, where it will face another tough battle to
become law. However, it could well be modified in the interim to grease the political wheels and achieve a
stronger consensus. "Pushing this bill through the Senate is going to be very difficult," warned Mazzacurati.
"It is not impossible, but it will take all the energy of the Senate leaders, and Obama in person, to get it
through." The president has staked considerable political capital on the legislation passing and last week
intervened directly to call on wavering Democrats to back the legislation. The White House has set a target
of passing the legislation before the end of the year to bolster US credibility ahead of the key UN climate
change conference in Copenhagen in December.
Capital is key to cap and trade – it’s empirically proven by the House vote
Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, 6-29-09, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/49383237.html
Democrats have a comfortable House majority. But the climate legislation pitted Democrats who represent
East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Midwest and other places that
rely heavily on coal and industry. They have a longer, more expensive path to meet requirements in the
measure. Senate passage is far from certain, given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off a likely
filibuster. Obama's personal touch — and another dose of his political capital — will be required again.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
279
Capital key to cap and trade
Political capital key to cap-and-trade
James Auger, World Market Research Center, 6/29/2009 (“U.S. House of Representatives Passes Historic
Climate Change Bill.” Lexis. //ZE)
On coming to power Obama set himself a mammoth "to-do" list, ranging from healthcare reform to a revamp of the
United States' foreign relations. Tackling climate change was high on this list, and it is a formidable challenge
indeed given the all-encompassing nature of the required effort, the economic risks, and the numerous entrenched
interests. To Obama's credit he has not flinched from this or his other big goals, and is wisely pushing them through
while he is still in his "honeymoon" period. Congress is strongly controlled by the Democrats--for now--but even so
he is meeting growing resistance from some quarters of his party. Most of this centres on fears that jobs could be
lost in traditional manufacturing and coal-mining centres, where Democrats tend to do well. It was representatives of
these areas who inserted the text into the House bill that would require trade measures against other countries that do
not adopt similar emissions targets. As already noted, Obama's political challenge is greater still in the Senate, which
is much more evenly balanced between the parties. Months of inter-chamber negotiations are consequently in
prospect and concessions could water down the eventual text. The hurdles ahead should not obscure the fact that the
House vote is still a major political victory for Obama--this is after all the first time either chamber of Congress has
approved a mandatory ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions. The president referred yesterday to the vote as a key
"first step", acknowledging that he saw it as paving the way for more ambitious emissions cut targets down the road.
Already, there are various other separate initiatives under way that attempt to reduce carbon emissions. These
include the new automobile mileage standards and the eco-friendly spending as part of the fiscal stimulus package.
So far, Obama's efforts to exploit his political capital are bearing fruit, but he will need all his charisma and
persistence to keep up the momentum as he moves beyond the first heady months of his presidency.
Political capital key to cap and trade
Matt Dernoga, 6/30/2009 (Newstex. “It’s Getting Hot In Here: Navigating a Minefield Part 1.” Lexis //ZE)
The Obama Factor: Barack Obama didnt make his energy legislation a very public issue at all until the day before
the vote in the House. Although his administration did some furious work behind the scenes leading up to the vote,
there was no full court press in the media. No town hall events like there are with healthcare. The media was busy
covering healthcare while the climate bill snuck through like a trojan horse. Although this certainly frustrated
environmental groups, Obama has saved up political capital to use on the Senate side if he intends to use it(and if he
has any left after healthcare). There are some signs already that Obama is looking to take a much more aggressive
approach on the Senate. When the House bill passed Obama changed his Saturday radio address from the subject of
healthcare to the energy bill. This past Monday, he sought to keep the focus on energy by announcing new lightbulb
standards, while recounting what his administration has done so far on energy, and about how important it is the
Senate acts on the climate/energy bill. One big disadvantage we face with the public is theyve had to withstand 8
years worth of climate denial and delay by the Bush Administration. If Obama used his oratory skills and popularity
to highlight the issue of global warming, and more importantly the economic benefits of a strong energy/climate bill,
he could shift some public opinion. For the bill to have any chance of strengthening, Obama needs to go on the
offensive publicly, and trade political favors with swing vote Senators privately.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
280
Moderates key to cap and trade
Moderate Dems key to cap and trade
New York Times, 6-29-09
The consensus on Capitol Hill is that no group will be more important to the success of the next Senate
global warming bill than the collection of moderate Democrats from the Midwest, Rust Belt and West who
say the climate debate so far has not taken their interests into account. "The heart of success resides in
industrial state senators who are both Democratic and Republicans," said James Connaughton, who chaired
CEQ under President George W. Bush. "That's not just success in passage, but the lasting success of the
program."
Moderates key
Capital Journal 7/20/09 (Wall Street Journal, “Moderate Senators Hold Key to High-Stakes legislation,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124778663033354679.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Indeed, in a sign of that leverage, Mr. Obama met privately Thursday with two of the Dozen Deciders,
Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine. Other members of the group
to keep an eye on include Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Kent Conrad of
North Dakota and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio. These
senators matter so much because of the legislative dynamic of the capital, circa 2009, which was established
during the great debate over an economic-stimulus package early in the year, and which now seems locked
in. Provided House leaders can keep enough conservative Democrats there on board for health and climate
legislation -- a task that got a little tougher after the Congressional Budget Office Thursday gave another
gloomy analysis of the cost of health bills -- the House seems likely to push through legislation with almost
exclusively Democratic votes. The result is that House versions of both health and climate-change legislation
almost certainly will be to the left of what the Senate can tolerate -- and perhaps to the left of what the White
House really wants. Then the question will be how far the Senate can pull the bills back toward the center.
Democrats now claim 60 votes in the Senate -- the bare minimum needed to cut off a Republican filibuster -so without moderates' support, climate-change legislation won't pass at all. It's possible, using budget
maneuvering, to pass some version of health legislation with a simple 51-vote majority, but it's hard to find
anybody in the Senate who likes the idea of passing such big legislation that way.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
281
GOP key to cap and trade
Concessions to Republicans key to Cap and Trade
Sheppard, Political analyst, 7/7/09 (Kate, The Grist, “Nuclear + cap-and-trade = bipartisan climate bill?”
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-senate-climate-hearing/)
Getting a climate bill through the Senate with some Republican support might be easier than many
observers think, but only if it comes with provisions providing a big boost for nuclear energy. That was
one takeaway from Tuesday’s Senate committee hearing on climate change legislation, the first of a
series that the Environment and Public Works Committee plans to host this month on climate policy.
Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has said she intends to have her panel finish work on a climate
and energy bill by early August. The first hearing made it clear that most Democrats on the panel want a
bill that’s stronger than the one the House passed last month. And while a few Republicans on the
committee indicated that they are willing to actively participate in drafting climate policy, most of the
minority party’s questions dwelt on tired climate-change-skeptic talking points. But for a handful of
Republican senators on the committee, the role of nuclear power in the bill will be a significant dealmaker (or breaker, perhaps). Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) both indicated that
support for nuclear energy would be major factors. “For the next 20 years if we really want to deal with
global warming, we only have one option ... to double nuclear power plants,” said Alexander. Both
Alexander and Crapo said nuclear should be included in an renewable energy standard, and should play a
significant role in a climate and energy package.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
282
***ECONOMY IMPACTS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
283
Cap and trade kills economy – general
*Cap and trade collapses the US economy – raising prices across the board causes spiraling
depression
Kenn Jacobine, 7-2-09, http://www.nolanchart.com/article6579.html
Hold on one minute. The House this past week passed the president's cap and trade legislation. Now, I know
that cap and trade has nothing to do with trade between countries and protectionism. It is not legislation
intended to protect domestic products against foreign competition like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was intended
to do in 1929. Instead, cap and trade is intended to protect the environment against foreign substances. On the
surface, to compare the two measures is a stretch. However, the consequences of cap and trade if passed by
the Senate will be very similar to those of Smoot Hawley during the Great Depression. In 1929, the SmootHawley Tariff placed duties on thousands of imported products in order to make them less competitive
against domestic U.S. products. Naturally, our trading partners placed equally heavy tariffs on U.S. goods
entering their countries. This had the effect of raising the costs of all good at a time when many were losing
their jobs and couldn't afford to pay more for things. It is acknowledged by many economists that SmootHawley and the wave of international trade protectionism that it brought forth was a major contributor to
worsening an already sharp economic downturn. Similarly, cap and trade will raise costs for consumers on
virtually every product they buy. Because the goal behind the legislation is to artificially hike the price of
electricity and gasoline in order to lessen their use by Americans, higher prices will appear for everything
made in plants that use these resources. This naturally includes everything from food to computers to trucks.
To their credit, Americans are already hoarding their money. A report last week indicated that the household
savings rate in this country has jumped to 7 percent - the highest rate in years and up from 1 percent in 2007.
Higher prices on goods caused by cap and trade are not going to reverse this trend. As a matter of fact,
according to the Heritage Foundation, cap and trade will significantly increase necessary household energy
costs by at least $1500 a year. Cap and trade amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on everyone
including middle class Americans thus another Obama campaign promise broken. The Smoot-Hawley tariff
contributed to the crippling of the American economy during the Great Depression. Cap and trade,
although not a trade protectionist measure, will have similar consequences during this depression. It will raise
the cost of living which will make consumers cut back on spending further. Production will then decrease
further and unemployment will increase more. Perhaps it's already too late, but if our so called leaders would
just read the history books they could save us a lot of economic hardship.
*Cap and trade ensures economic collapse
Eoin O’Carroll 7-10-09 “could cap and trade cause an economic bubble?” <
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/>
A sticking point for the climate bill is the so-called "cap and trade" provision. If you aren't familiar, what this
does is force businesses to purchase environmental credits if they produce more greenhouse gases than
allowed under the new cap. What's interesting is that business groups hate it because it’s going to cost them
billions, environmental groups hate it because it doesn't go far enough (nothing ever does, with them,) and
consumers are going to hate it when U.S. goods skyrocket in price, the few remaining manufacturing jobs are
moved overseas, unemployment continues to soar, another Great Depression ensues and the country falls into
chaos unlike anything seen since Mad Max. Estimates have the economic cost of cap and trade between $175
to $1,870 per household each year, which is just one place Obama would break his campaign pledge to not
raise taxes on those making $200,000 a year or less. Because we all really believed him when he said that,
right? Obama is trying to push both of these proposals through while he still has the political capital to get it
done. But there's a message in the Sotomayor hearings Obama should have heeded.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
284
Cap and trade kills economy – general
Cap and trade weakens economy draining taxpayer dollars
Mark Whittingham ‘9
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1682715/gore_and_gingrich_debate_cap_and_trade.html
“Gore and Gin debate cap and trade”
Washington has little reason to expect different results here. Emission trading has the potential to be the next
sub-prime housing market, the next Enron, the next blow to our already weakened economy. The U.S.
unemployment rate is verging on double digits. Taxpayers are being forced to shoulder the burden of a $1
trillion-plus stimulus bill. Yet, the administration and some in Congress are still pushing a high-risk carbon
trading strategy—a flawed approach likely to put even more Americans out of work. Environmentally or
economically, it just doesn't make sense.
Cap and Trade offsets economy
Tankersley 6-29-09
“Climate Bill shaped by compromise”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy28-2009jun28,0,7474723.story?page=1
The goal of the bill they were drafting, embraced by Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign as one of
his top priorities, was to establish government mandates and regulations that would ratchet down U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions quickly and dramatically, through a "cap and trade" system of buying and selling
emissions permits. It would set strict energy-efficiency standards and a national requirement for renewable
electricity use. Such sweeping steps would mean potentially costly and unsettling changes throughout the
U.S. economy -- changes that would begin at a time when American business leaders are struggling with a
recession and an increasingly competitive global economy. The key question was the cap-and-trade permits.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were at stake. Coal and manufacturing groups wanted the permits to be free,
at least in the early years. "That was an essential compromise," Waxman said. "It would be very disruptive to
the economy had we not recognized that certain regions of the country were heavily dependent on coal.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
285
Cap and trade kills economy – derivatives bubble
Cap and Trade forms economic bubble
Eoin O’Carroll 7-10-09 “could cap and trade cause an economic bubble?” <
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/>
Sound familiar? Many critics are pointing out that this new market for carbon derivatives could, without
effective oversight, usher in another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated the implosion
of the global economy.Writing in Mother Jones magazine, reporter Rachel Morris explains that this new
market — which is expected to become the world’s largest derivatives market — would be based on two
instruments: carbon allowances, that is, permits granted by the government to companies, allowing them to
emit greenhouses gases; and carbon offsets, which allow companies to emit in excess of their allowance,
provided that they invest in a project that reduces emissions somewhere else, such as a reforestation initiative
in the Amazon.
Carbon policies form a bubble destabilizing markets and companies
Eoin O’Carroll 7-10-09 “could cap and trade cause an economic bubble?” <
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/>
A carbon bubble can also set the stage for the kinds of financial innovation (e.g. complex securitized
products) that can unwittingly spread sub-prime carbon through the broader marketplace. When the bubble
bursts, the collapse in carbon prices can have destabilizing consequences for compliance buyers (companies)
and for the larger financial system.Despite these risks (or perhaps because of them), a carbon derivatives
market has the potential to generate huge profits. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission estimates
that the cap-and-trade market could grow to $2 trillion in five years. A market this size means that Wall
Street has a major stake in the cap-and-trade policy that emerges from Congress. The Center for Public
Integrity noted in February that banks have been sending climate change lobbyists to Washington in earnest:
Writing in AlterNet, Teryn Norris, a Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute warns that this climate
“super-lobby” could act to derail any meaningful emissions cuts. Mr. Norris writes: The policy demands of
these financial firms may vary, but most will push for weaker regulatory standards on carbon markets, larger
volumes of carbon offset authorization, and provisions to increase the volatility of carbon prices, all of which
would hinder progress on reducing U.S. emissions.In particular, Norris warns that financial firms will call for
emissions permits to be traded “over the counter,” that is, without a third party monitoring the risk. Over-thecounter trades came under attention last year when one type of this trade, the credit default swap, helped sink
Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns. Despite these potential pitfalls, many environmentalists are optimistic about
the ability of a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas emissions. After all, it’s worked once before. As
the Environmental Defense Fund points out, such a program was hugely successful in limiting emissions of
sulfur dioxide in the 1990s, at a cost far less than originally projected. As EDF argues, “Markets provide
greater environmental effectiveness than command-and-control regulation because they turn pollution
reductions into marketable assets. In doing so, this system creates tangible financial rewards for
environmental performance.”
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
286
Cap and trade kills economy – derivatives bubble
Cap and trade creates a derivatives market in credits which collapses the economy
Kimberly Dvorak, 7-3-09, http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-BuzzExaminer~y2009m7d3-Capandtrade-madness-heads-to-Senate
This brings us to the crux of the bill- the derivative market or buying and selling of carbon credits. Bilbray
says this is a story of horrors in waiting. “This is the biggest scam that has no auditing provisions in place,”
according to Bilbray. “The American people are expected to trust the environmental Jimmy Swaggart’s; they
are pocketing money in the name of the environment.” It took the government giving away 85 percent of the
tax revenue the first decade to drag this clunker of a bill across the finish line, according to Chris Horner,
author of Red Hot Lies. It is estimated that the legislation will create $300 billion in revenue per year. On
top of that revenue or taxation, the government can lower the cap at any time to generate more money, says
Horner. The result of these over-reaching government policies and regulation is a slow domino effect on the
economy-starting with the fragile real-estate market. The current bill has language in place to force
homeowners to replace everything that is not environmentally friendly, like windows, water heaters, shower
Nazi’s and the list goes on.
Cap and trade produces a huge derivatives market
Rachel Morris, articles editor in Mother Jones' Washington bureau, 6-8-09,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/could-cap-and-trade-cause-another-market-meltdown
You've heard of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. Are carbon default swaps and subprime
offsets next? If the Waxman-Markey climate bill is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an
afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly
difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn't get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and
manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown. Cap and trade would create
what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton anticipates as a $2 trillion market, "the biggest
of any [commodities] derivatives product in the next five years." That derivatives market will be based on
two main instruments. First, there are the carbon allowance permits that form the nuts and bolts of any capand-trade scheme. Under cap and trade, the government would issue permits that allow companies to emit a
certain amount of greenhouse gases. Companies that emit too much can buy allowances from companies that
produce less than their limit. Then there are carbon offsets, which allow companies to emit greenhouse gases
in excess of a federally mandated cap if they invest in a project that cuts emissions somewhere else—usually
in developing countries. Polluters can pay Brazilian villagers to not cut down trees, for instance, or Filipino
farmers to trap methane in pig manure. In addition to trading the allowances and offsets themselves,
participants in carbon markets can also deal in their derivatives—such as futures contracts to deliver a certain
number of allowances at an agreed price and time. These instruments will be traded not only by polluters that
need to buy credits to comply with environmental regulations, but also by financial services firms. In fact, a
study (PDF) by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions anticipates that if
the United States passes a cap-and-trade law, the derivatives trade will probably exceed the market for the
allowances themselves. "We are on the verge of creating a new trillion-dollar market in financial assets that
will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market,"
says Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and a cofounder of
the US Climate Task Force.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
287
Cap and trade kills economy – energy prices
Cap and Trade increases household spending and expenses
Mark Whittingham ‘9
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1682715/gore_and_gingrich_debate_cap_and_trade.html
“Gore and Gin debate cap and trade”
The cap-and-trade system being touted on Capitol Hill would create a multibillion-dollar playground that
would, once again, create a group of wealthy traders benefiting at the expense of millions of average
families—middle to low-income households that would end up paying more for food, energy, and almost
everything else they buy. Enron executives—before their well-deserved fall—did little to conceal their lust
for cap-and-trade. In 2002, the Washington Post reported that "an internal Enron memo said the Kyoto
agreement, if implemented, would do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory
initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."
Cap and trade increases energy rates within the economy- empirics prove
Mark Whittingham ‘9
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1682715/gore_and_gingrich_debate_cap_and_trade.html
“Gore and Gin debate cap and trade
European governments and industries, in an attempt to stave off the economic impact of cap-and-trade, have
found plenty of ways to game the system. Governments have freely handed out emissions allowances.
Meanwhile, European consumers have suffered as energy rates have increased. Homeowners in Germany are
paying 25 percent more for electricity now than they did before the implementation of cap-and-trade. In
contrast to the burdens borne by European households, traders have been reaping the benefits of emissions
trading with little regard for the environmental concerns cap-and-trade is supposed to address. The emissions
permit market has constantly fluctuated. With the price of carbon up or down by an average of 17.5 percent
per month and with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent, European companies have been left to simply
guess at how much their environmental compliance costs might be each month. Consequently, investors have
been reluctant to invest in these businesses and there is little incentive to invest in new technologies.
Cap and trade forces consumers to switch forms of energy causes an unstable economy
Paul ‘09 “Cap and trade: another nail in the economy’s coffin” http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-29/cap-andtrade-another-nail-in-the-economys-coffin/
Restricting carbon emissions by cap and trade is probably not a good idea even in a booming economy.
Many studies assessing the costs of mitigation of climate change (either through some cap-and-trade
system or by means of a carbon tax) indicate that the losses in consumer welfare are likely to be
enormous. At the same time the costs of climate change itself are not very well estimated to justify swift
mitigation efforts; different studies produce different recommendations. Thus, there is no clear consensus
among the scholars whether and when such a scheme should be implemented in the first place.In the case
of a recession, additional negative shock to the economy in a form of cap-and-trade system seems like
even a worse idea. If cap and trade were created now, it would lead to higher energy prices for American
consumers and businesses, as energy producers would be forced to switch from cheaper and "dirty" fuels
such as coal to "cleaner" and more expensive sources of energy.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
288
Cap and trade kills economy – jobs
Cap and trade loses jobs, exacerbates economic situation
Paul ‘09 “Cap and trade: another nail in the economy’s coffin” http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-29/cap-andtrade-another-nail-in-the-economys-coffin/
The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the
environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a
national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church
used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide
variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by
providing more of your tax money to auto companies.
The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy.
Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental
projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However,
under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now
approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost
around $800,000 each!
The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and
bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do
business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes
capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy it is easy enough for businesses
to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government
continues to kick the economy while it is down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs
are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.
C&T worsens the economic downturn to job losses, decline in production, and
competiveness
Johnson ‘9 “Cap and trade’s economic impact”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18738/cap_and_trades_economic_impact.html
Thus, it is likely to hit American households through the following channels. On the one hand, consumers
are going to suffer directly from the increased prices of the energy and energy-intensive goods they buy.
On the other hand, higher energy prices will increase the production costs of American producers, making
American-produced goods less competitive in the world market. This would tend to make the current
recession even more severe, as businesses, which cannot compete against foreign producers, would close.
Facing increased energy costs and competition from abroad, some American companies would have an
incentive to shift their production overseas where no cap-and-trade system is operating. These adverse
effects on producers are likely to lead to additional job losses in the United States, further increasing the
costs of the recession for the American households.
Cap-and-trade leads to job loss and inflation.
James Pethokoukis, U.S. News Business reporter, 3-3-2009. [U.S. News: Money and Business, “What Obama’s
Cap-And-Trade Plan Will Cost You” http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/03/what-obamascap-and-trade-plan-will-cost-you.html]
A study from the George C. Marshall Institute tries to quantify the costs of a cap-and-trade plan to reduce
carbon emissions. They're not small, to say the least: And although this study uses 2008 as a baseline, the
Obama plan would hit in 2012 and could come in combo with a hike in investment and incomes taxes for
wealthier Americans and the creation of a special healthcare tax: Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley
and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of
thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed
electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of
the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per
gallon).
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
289
Cap and  trade war
Cap and trade ushers in a new wave of protectionism – risking world economic collapse
George Will, Washington Post, 6-11-09
The world economy's condition is so weak that this year, global consumption of electricity is set to decline
for the first time since 1945. Using a defibrillator as large as the sum of money being thrown at the U.S.
economy will somewhat quicken its pulse. But a patient cannot become healthy attached to a defibrillator. If
the economy relapses, three causes might be: protectionism, refusal to allow creative destruction and rising
long-term interest rates. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 ignited reciprocal protectionism that suffocated
global trade and deepened the Depression. The cap-and-trade legislation passed recently by a House
committee is Smoot-Hawley in drag: It contains provisions for tariffs on imports designated "carbonintensive" -- goods manufactured under less carbon-restrictive rules than those of the proposed U.S. cap-andtrade regime. Eco-protectionism is a recipe for reciprocity.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
290
Cap and  trade war
Cap and trade  Protectionism
Baker, Harvard Econ. Prof, 6-27
(Baker, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, and the president and CEO of the National Bureau of
Economic Research, from 1982 to 1984, Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and as chief
economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan, “Cap-and-trade = protectionism?”, June 27th 2009,
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/martin-feldstein-cap-and-trade-=-protectionism/362252/ [Abhik])
The cap-and-trade system imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax, raising the possibility
of serious risks to international trade. There is a serious danger that the international adoption of cap-and-trade
legislation to limit carbon-dioxide emissions will trigger a new round of protectionist measures. While aimed at
reducing long-term environmental damage, cap-and-trade policies could produce significant harmful economic
effects in the near term that would continue into the future. Scientific evidence appears to indicate that the
accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal, oil, and natural gas) —
mainly in electricity production, transportation, and various industrial processes — contributes to gradual global
warming, with long-term adverse effects on living conditions around the world. It is with this in mind that
representatives of more than 150 countries are scheduled to meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss ways to
reduce CO2 emissions. A common suggestion is to impose a tax on all CO2 emissions, which would be levied on
companies that emit CO2 in production, or that sell products like gasoline that cause CO2 emissions when used.
Such a tax would cause electricity companies and industrial firms to adopt techniques that reduce their CO2
emissions, as long as the cost of doing so is less than the tax that they would otherwise have to pay. The higher cost
of production incurred to reduce emissions — and of any emissions tax still due — would, of course, be included in
the price charged to consumers. Consumers would respond to the tax-induced increase in the cost of the emissionsintensive products by reducing their consumption of those goods and services in favour of goods and services that
create smaller amounts of CO2 emissions. A carbon tax causes each firm and household to respond to the same cost
of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That uniform individual cost incentive allows total CO2 to be reduced at a lower
total cost than would be achieved by a variety of administrative requirements, such as automobile mileage standards,
production technology standards (eg, minimum renewable fuel inputs in electricity generation), etc. Yet we do not
see carbon taxes being adopted. Although governments levy taxes on gasoline, they are reluctant to impose a general
carbon tax because of public opposition to any form of taxation. Governments have therefore focused on a cap-andtrade system as a way of increasing the cost of CO2-intensive products without explicitly imposing a tax. In a capand-trade system, the government sets total allowable national emissions of CO2 per year and requires any firm that
causes CO2 emissions to have a permit per tonne of CO2 emitted. If the government sells these permits in an
auction, the price of the permit would be a cost to the firm in the same way as a carbon tax — and with the same
resulting increases in consumer prices. The cap-and-trade system thus imposes a carbon tax without having to admit
that it is really a tax. A cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. Even if every country has
a cap-and-trade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions, the resulting permit
prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics.
Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products, the cap-and-trade system
affects its international competitiveness. When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on
CO2 emissions, there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries
with low permit prices. Such offsetting tariffs would have to differ among products (being higher on more CO2intensive products) and among countries (being higher for countries with low permit prices). Such a system of
complex differential tariffs is just the kind of protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since
the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago. Worse still, cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely
solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. The plan working its way through the United States Congress
(the Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits, impose a complex set of regulatory
policies, and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg, by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their
emissions or buying permits. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among
countries, which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
291
Cap and trade  trade war with China
Cap and trade sparks a US/China trade war
Mark Whittington, 6-24-09,
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1875339/will_cap_and_trade_start_a_trade_war.html?cat=3
And it gets even better. Not content to tempt political fate by imposing huge carbon taxes on the American
middle class, Democrats have added a provision which imposes stiff tariffs on our trading partners if they
don’t adopt aggressive carbon restrictions of their own. You heard correctly: progressives have authored a
bill that earns the mortal enmity of domestic energy consumers and our most crucial trading partners at the
same time. Economy-killing climate policies and a trade war — together at last! What happened is this: An
early draft of Waxman-Markey already contained triggers that gave the president the choice to introduce
carbon tariffs if jobs and industry “leak” overseas to countries that don’t constrain emissions so dramatically.
(China and India come to mind.) The original version empowered the president to impose the carbon-linked
tariffs beginning in 2025. But though the language is not public yet, the House Ways and Means Committee
is reportedly considering provisions that will give extra comfort to protectionists. Leaks from Hill offices
indicate that the president would now be forced to impose the carbon tariffs — and could only opt out of
doing so with permission from both chambers of Congress. Carbon-intensive imports would be subject to
penalties at the border unless the country of origin requires emission reduction measures at least 80 percent
as costly as ours. (The original Waxman-Markey bill had a threshold of 60 percent.) Unfortunately for the
amendment’s authors, World Trade Organization rules make fairly clear that trade-limiting measures
imposed to protect the environment should have the purpose of protecting the environment, and not to
address any adverse competitiveness effects on domestic industry. Break that connection between measure
and purpose, and you’ve got yourself a problem. The result could be litigation, retaliatory tariffs, or both.
Does anyone really expect China to stand idly by in 2025 as their trade is embargoed?
Cap and trade provokes a trade war
Alan Steinberg, 7-1-09, http://www.politickernj.com/alan-steinberg/31105/cap-and-trade-disaster-and-newjersey-gop
Second, there is a provision in ACESA that would impose tariffs on goods imported from countries that do
not match American greenhouse gas restrictions. In a time of global economic recession, it is unbelievable
that the legislation would contain a clause with such a high likelihood of provoking a trade war with China
and India. Even President Obama has expressed reservations about this provision. Indeed, this tariff clause
is most deleterious to the economy and is highly similar to the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 that intensified
the Great Depression. It is most disappointing that three New Jersey Republican Representatives, members
of the party of free trade, would vote for a bill containing this provision
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
292
Cap and trade will have tariffs
Any cap and trade bill that passes will have protective tariffs
Ross Korves, 7-3-09, http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/14265/lang,en/
While this program was set up to reduce carbon leakage, its political purpose is to prevent manufacturing
jobs from moving to other countries as the cost of emissions allowances escalates. That is why the tariff is to
be the same as the price of emission allowances in the U.S. The cap and trade program would have no chance
of approval in the U.S. without some type of border barrier unless an international agreement on carbon
limits is in place including developing countries as well as developed ones. The program would be run by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the overall carbon cap and trade program.
Any cap and trade bill must include the tariffs to pass
Fox News, 6-30-09, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/obama-warns-dems-tariff-provision-climate/
Obama told energy reporters that, while he is "very mindful" of wanting to ensure a "level playing field
internationally," Congress should consider alternatives to tariffs. "At a time when the economy worldwide is
still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful
about sending any protectionist signals out there," Obama said, according to a transcript of the Sunday
session with reporters. "I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the
prospects of tariffs are necessary." With the White House predicting that the Senate version will ultimately
look different than the House version, the disagreement over the trade measure raises questions about
whether the package can pass Congress without it. "It's very clear it was put in there to get it over the finish
line" by attracting Rust Belt Democrats, said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky. "If you take it out, you're shy of some members."
The tariffs are necessary to get the bill passed
Josh Bivens, economist at the Economic Policy Institute, 6-30-09, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein/2009/06/what_should_cap_and_traders_do.html
First, I may be wrong on this, but given the closeness of the vote, is anybody sure that Waxman-Markey
would've passed without the border adjustments? I'm not, and, I'm also pretty sure that nothing passes the
Senate without them (maybe not even with them), so this surely deserves much larger weight on the 'pro' side
of the ledger than people seem to be granting. Second, the potential scale of losses from leakage don't sound
trivial to me. A report by RFF says that the benefits of unilateral US carbon pricing are reduced by 25% if
nothing is done to stop leakage. And, comparing border adjustments to other ways to curb this leakage while
we wait on an international agreement make them look pretty good to me. I am not very sanguine about the
politics of losing a quarter of the benefits of an incredibly hard-fought legislative win every year while we
wait on an international agreement - how durable do people think the WM win will be if opponents can come
back every year with (not totally in-credible) estimates of how many jobs we've lost to trading partners
because of it? The border adjustment in WM buys more than a decade to reach an agreement before it kicks
in. This seems entirely reasonable to me.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
293
Protectionism impact
Extinction
Miller and Elwood, President and VP of ISIL, ’88
(International Society for Individual Liberty, http://www.free-market.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html)
TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against
the goods of Country "B", the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers
against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. But all too often a
depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . . . WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS
BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot
shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when
restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their
empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and
later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports - a major
factor leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade
(which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting
trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a
mild recession, US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and
signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25
other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt,
and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in
turn led to World War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest economic
growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we
again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end
up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to
happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes,
trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a
philosophy of war." Ludwig von Mises A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic
Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial," he said, "for a nation to specialize
in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to
produce them at home." In the 20th century, journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society
thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible, and specialization increases output, and
increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. That being so, the market place is a
most humane institution." Silence gives consent, and there should be no consent to the current waves of
restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. If you agree that free trade is an essential
ingredient in maintaining world peace, and that it is important to your future, we suggest that you inform the
political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. Send them a
copy of this pamphlet. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to
them. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends.
Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. Widespread public understanding of this issue,
followed by citizen action, is the only solution. Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of
politicians. "For thousands of years, the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying
to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade.
"Over the same span of history, the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect
barriers in order to prohibit competition - thus, effectively moving communities farther apart. When trade is
cut off entirely, the real producers may as well be on different planets. The protectionist represents the worst
in humanity: fear of change, fear of challenge, and the jealous envy of genius. The protectionist is not against
the use of every kind of force, even warfare, to crush his rival. If mankind is to survive, then these primeval
fears must be defeated."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
294
Cap and trade kills chemical industry
Cap and Trade will collapse the Chemical Industry
Stavins, Harvard Prof. of Business, ’07
(Albert N. Stavins, Professor of Business and Government at Harvard and Director of the Harvard Environmental
Economics Program, October 2007, “A U.S. Cap and Trade System to Address Global Climate Change,” online:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/10climate_stavins/10_climate_stavins.pdf, [Abhik])
Of course, the impacts on coal producers and other industries depend on the stringency of the emissions
cap—the more stringent the cap, the higher the market price of allowances, and the greater the impact on
affected industries. Rather than creating abrupt and significant impacts, policies that gradually increase a
cap’s stringency may only slow the expansion of even the most affected industries, lessening transition
costs as workers, communities, and regions adjust.59 Among firms that consume fossil fuels and
electricity, energy- and emissions-intensive industries will likely suffer the severest impacts (Bovenberg
and Goulder 2003; Smith, Ross, and Montgomery 2002; U.S. Energy Information Administration 2003;
Jorgensen et al. 2000). Some of the hardest hit industries will be petroleum refiners and manufacturers of
chemicals, primary metals, and paper.60 Among industries experiencing similar increases in costs, the
impacts will be greatest in those globally competitive industries that are least able to pass through higher
costs. Also, some of the most economically affected industries may be relatively small, even with respect
to their contribution to aggregate CO2 emissions.61 Finally, average industry level impacts may obscure
significant variation in firm-level impacts within an industry. The electric power sector is an important
example.
Cap and Trade will hurt the Chemical Industry
Kamalick, Chief correspondent for ICIS, 3-18
(Joe Kamalick, ICIS news, 3-18-09, “US
chemicals,
other
manufacturers slam
[Abhik])
climate
bill”,
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2009/03/18/9201418/us-chemicals-other-manufacturers-slam-climate-bill.html
chemical makers and a broad range of other manufacturers on Wednesday
warned Congress against climate control legislation, saying a cap-and-trade emissions mandate will drive
investment and jobs offshore. Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America
(IECA), told a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel that a mandatory cap-and-trade program
would unfairly target US manufacturers, and that a similar plan already in place in the EU has damaged
European industry. The some 40 member firms of IECA are manufacturers that consume large amounts
of energy. About one-third of them are chemical producers, and the others include metals, paper, and
glass and equipment makers. Cicio told the committee’s panel on energy and environment that “capping
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the industrial sector will drive investment and jobs offshore and
increase imports”. The committee hearing was part of general congressional consideration of climate
control proposals by the administration of President Barack Obama. The Obama plan - contained in his
fiscal year 2010 budget proposal - would put an immediate limit or cap on GHG production and auction
emissions permits to the broad industrial sector. Manufacturers whose facilities emit fewer emissions than
permitted could sell their excess credits to companies whose operations exceed allowed limits - the trade
part of cap-and-trade. The president's plan aims to cut US GHG emissions to 14% below 2005 levels by
2020 and then to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.Cicio argued, however, that a cap-and-trade mandate
would unfairly penalize US industry.“The US industrial sector is not the problem,” Cicio said, referring
to GHG emissions. “In the US, the industrial sector’s GHG emissions have risen only 2.6% above 1990
levels while emissions from the residential sector are up 29%, commercial up 39%, transportation up 27%
and electricity generation up 29%,” Cicio said. He argued that “under cap-and-trade, the industrial sector
pays twice ... through the additional cost of carbon embedded in energy purchases and through the higher
cost of natural gas and electricity”. The US chemicals sector is heavily dependent on natural gas as a
feedstock and energy fuel.
WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--US
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
295
Chemical industry impact
The Chemical industry is key to preventing extinction
Baum, Editor of the American Chemical Society News, ’99
(Editor-in-chief of the American Chemical Society's Chemical and Engineering NewsRudy M. Baum, C&E News,
“Millennium Special Report,” 12-6-99, http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html)
Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must be fed and clothed and
housed and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of
industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our
consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us, we must learn to
carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the
history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a
"carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological
advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the
1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s
have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed
blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological optimists either. There are
environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fear may overcome us and our Earth before
technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and
oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are
not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology
have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic
thinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical
industry—what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise—will play central roles in addressing these challenges.
The first section of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of
representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The
five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will
successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a
whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry to
tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists,
engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by
Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable
production. Although it is not well known to the general public, the chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate
efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero. Industry giants DuPont and Dow Chemical are taking major
strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the environmental "footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic
that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and Chief Executive Officer William S.
Stavropolous: "We must integrate elements that historically have been seen as at odds with one another: the triple bottom line of
sustainability—economic and social and environmental needs." DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles (Chad) O. Holliday
envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable resources as feedstocks, use solar energy to drive growth, absorb
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less toxic." But
sustainability is more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont
initiatives that are making sustainability a reality at Dow facilities in Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site
near Richmond, Va. Another manifestation of the chemical industry's evolution is its embrace of life sciences. Genetic
engineering is a revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of DNA. While
it had always been clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other
chemicals—clipped precisely, altered, stitched back together again into a functioning molecule. Recombinant DNA techniques
began the transformation of DNA into just such a chemical, and the reverberations of that change are likely to be felt well into the
next century. Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and technology. It is one of the basic tools chemists
and biologists use to understand life at the molecular level. It provides new avenues to pharmaceuticals and new
approaches to treat disease. It expands enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability
seized on by numerous chemical companies. There is no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in feeding
the world's population in the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second essay, Editor-atLarge Michael Heylin examines how the promise of agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of
genetic manipulation and corporate control over food.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
296
Cap and trade kills the steel industry
Cap and Trade Leads to the collapse of the steel industry and trade wars
Chu, Chartered Economist, 6-28
(Dian L. Chu, Chartered Economist with extensive professional experience in financial analysis and supply chain
management. Previous companies include Enron, Clear Channel, and Time Warner, “Cap and Trade will severely
harm the steel industry”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/145786-cap-and-trade-will-severely-harm-the-steelindustry)
Landmark legislation to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions was approved by the House of Representatives in a
close vote late Friday, June 26, 2009. Obama and other Democratic leaders insisted it will spur job-creating
investments in "green" technologies, while lessening U.S. reliance on foreign oil. The numbers are staggering.
Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from government-run emissions
auctions over eight years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ((CBO)) projected the bill to have an annual
economy-wide cost in 2020 of $22 billion, or about $175 per household. However, the CBO study failed to consider
the broader effect of the legislation on employment or GDP. The hit on the U.S. GDP is the real threat of the bill. A
cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and
consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions/energy tax, since almost all economic production
activities are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases.
Once a scarce new commodity, i.e., the right to emit carbon, is created, and businesses are mandated to buy it, the
costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Everyone would feel the pinch.
These higher prices on electricity and gas will show up in the manufacturing sector from food to cars, all the way
down to electricity bills and at the gas station. The hardest hit would be on the working families, which is about 95%
of the U.S. population. As higher prices are passed along to the consumer, consumers will cut back on spending,
which in turn will reduce production resulting in fewer jobs or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead
move their operations overseas creating further loss of jobs. One may also take a look at similar policies already
implemented elsewhere. For example, in Europe, cap-and-trade has failed to deliver on climate change. It yielded
windfall profits for utilities, but few reductions in emissions or investments in clean technology. Britain's Taxpayer
Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting
programs in effect only a few years. Spain has been touted as a global example in promoting renewable energy to
create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one
million euros required to create each new job in the wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the
destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created. Business groups in
the U.S. are split on the measure. Utilities that stand to benefit from the free-permit program support it. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against it. The oil-refining sector that
will receive 2% of the free permits, denounced the measure as "an abject policy failure." Steel companies also
opposed the measure. The domestic steel industry would be one of the hardest hit sectors and could be severely
impacted under the cap-and-trade system. The integrated mills such as U.S. Steel Corp. (X), AK Steel (AKS),
ArcelorMittal (MT) and OAO Severstal would be among the biggest losers because they produce steel using iron ore
and coke. The main input material, coke is made of carbon. If steel companies are mandated to reduce carbondioxide output or pay more for their emissions, they would be forced to raise prices or cut production. Under the
worst case scenario, the integrated steel operations would move to developing nations without carbon restrictions,
such as Brazil. In this case, the carbon emissions wouldn't be reduced, but U.S. jobs would be lost. On the other
hand, minimills, like Nucor Corp (NUE), and Commercial Metals Company (CMC) make new steel by melting
down scraps. Re-melting steel emits nearly 66% less carbon dioxide in the production process. Nucor Corp. is now
the largest producer of domestically made steel, having supplanted U.S. Steel. However, it is not feasible to switch
domestic steel operations entirely over to the minimill process, because some types of the more rust resistant steel,
such as cans for food, still have to be made through the integrated steel process. While minimills wouldn't be
affected as much as integrated mills by the legislation, they still oppose the current plan. Both camps are concerned
the bill could give a competitive advantage to firms in countries that don't operate under emissions caps. Another
potential problem area: the House bill has a provision that would impose tariffs on goods imported from countries
that don't match U.S. carbon dioxide restrictions, like China and India. Naturally, these countries would retaliate by
putting tariffs on U.S. exports, which could provoke a global trade war. Protectionism deepened the Great
Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
297
Steel industry impact
Collapse of the Steel Industry  U.S. Collapse
Buyer, House of Representatives Member for Indiana, ’07
(Steve, Before the International Trade Commission, Regarding the five-year sunset review on Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Romania, South
Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine , 7-31-07 (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-404-408 and 731-TA-898-908))
A robust steel industry is fundamental to the security and economic viability of this nation. If you were to
contemplate the ten resources considered essential to the successful establishment of a nation, steel would
be high on that list. A fruitful domestic steel industry maintains its viability by being adaptive,
technologically savvy, and flexible so that it can maintain its competitive edge in the world market. That
competitive edge lends itself to economic security and stability here at home. Both of those elements are
vital ingredients to a nation's ability to develop and maintain an adequate defense. I believe we must
remain vigilant to protect ourselves from a future without a steelmaking infrastructure sufficient to meet
our national defense needs. In the years that have followed the tragic events of September 11, 2001,
national defense has dominated public attention. When contemplating the tumultuous nature of this global
war against terror in which we are immersed, I think it is apparent that we cannot accept a situation in
which we are reliant on the kindness of strangers to meet our security-related steel needs. Depending on
trusted friends and allies may not be wise, since they have requirements of their own for steel. Simply
put, the defense of our nation depends on steel. Our aircraft carriers, cruisers, tanks, HUMMVEES, are all
made of steel. We cannot become dependent on foreign sources for this material so vital to our national
defense. The United States is the only superpower in the world. We cannot project our force around the
globe, which from time to time is necessary, without the ability to move people and equipment quickly. It
is in our national interest to maintain a vigorous steel industry. The economic stability of the steel
industry here at home, and our ability to remain competitive abroad, directly impacts our national
security. The efficient low-cost producers that comprise the membership of our domestic steel market can
compete effectively against any foreign producer in the global economy. To ensure their stature, the steel
industry has invested billions of dollars in modernizing itself while simultaneously improving
environmental compliance. It has learned the hard way the benefit of cutting-edge technology. These
producers are heavily concentrated in northwest Indiana and at the end of 2006 they employed
over19,000 Americans in that region. Companies like Nucor of Crawfordsville and Steel Dynamics of
Pittsboro contribute substantially to the ensuring a healthy local economy and thereby contribute to a
stable and healthy national economy. The nation's annual production of over 100 million tons of steel, of
which Indiana is the second-largest producer among the states, keeps this country at the top of the
worldwide steel industry. However, if the competitive nature of this market is unfairly influenced by
steel dumping or by illegal subsidies given to foreign producers by their governments or other entities, the
integrity of the domestic and global market is jeopardized. In those instances, the domestic market loses
its ability to effectively compete with its global rivals. When that occurs, it negatively impacts the
economic stability of our domestic steel industry which in turn threatens our national security. We need to
ensure that companies like Nucor and Steel Dynamics have the opportunity to modernize and grow to
adequately meet the demands of the global market without the fear of sustaining financial damage from
unfair or illegal trade practices. To ensure that our nation's defense remains adequate and capable, we
must continue to enable mechanisms that will influence other countries to play by the rules
Simultaneously, we must be cognizant, and take appropriate action, to recognize those instances in which
anti-dumping and countervailing duties are no longer required to safeguard our economic and security
interests. In either instance, we cannot allow to go unchallenged the continuous violations of international
and U.S. trade laws that lend to a skewed market and undercut the ability for fair competition to flourish
in the global economy. The preservation of the economic integrity of our domestic steel industry is
fundamental to our ability to protect our very existence as a nation.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
298
Cap and trade kills ag sector
Cap and Trade collapses the food market
Dawn House ‘9 < http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12863039> “Farmers call for a defeat of cap and trade bill”
Provo » The cap-and-trade bill before the U.S. Senate will put an even greater burden on the backs of farmers
who already are strapped with staggering debts, Utah agricultural leaders said on Friday. The nation's
financial meltdown has weakened the beef, swine and poultry industries and pushed U.S. dairies to the brink,
said Utah Farm Bureau President Leland Hogan on Friday during the midyear conference of the state's
largest agricultural organization. The U.S. agricultural industry will fare even worse under the WaxmanMarkey bill that would establish a cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases to address climate change, farm
leaders say. Although there are some provisions designed to soften the blow to agriculture, such as an
exemption from the emissions cap, the concessions are not enough to offset costs in an industry that relies
heavily on energy to produce food for America's dining tables, farm leaders say. The cap-and-trade bill
would not only drive up the cost of fuel, but natural gas and coal prices also would go up, Parker said. The
end result would make the current hike in food prices "pale by comparison."
RECENT POSTS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
299
Cap and trade kills manufacturing
Cap and Trade will destroy the Manufacturing Industry
Cover, Staff Writer for CNS News, 5-25
(Matt Cover, “EPA: Cap-and-Trade Bill Could Hurt U.S. Manufacturing, Send Factory Jobs Overseas”, CNS News,
May 25th 2009, http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48552)
According to an analysis of climate legislation performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the capand-trade system favored by President Barack Obama and many congressional Democrats could potentially damage
the U.S. manufacturing sector and force jobs to move overseas. The policy, under certain scenarios, for example,
“can cause domestic production … to shift abroad,” reads the EPA analysis, and result in greater greenhouse gas
emissions in countries that do not have similar cap-and-trade rules. Further, the EPA’s Apr. 20 preliminary analysis
of the bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), shows that the plan would
reduce U.S. manufacturing capacity 0.3 percent by 2020 and by nearly 1.5 percent by 2050. Had the bill not been
revised late last week after negotiations between industrial state Democrats and Waxman and Markey, U.S.
manufacturing reportedly would have shrunk 0.9 percent by 2020. Under cap-and-trade, in general, the amount of
carbon that U.S. companies can produce is “capped.”
Manufacturing Industry is key to heg
Manzullo, U.S. Congressman, ’05
(Donald Manzullo, US Congressman, “The erosion of the U.S. defense industrial base,”ASM International March 1,
2005)
In 2003, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger told a crowd of technology professionals that "if outsourcing
continues to strip the U.S. of its industrial base and the ability to develop its own technology, then we require careful
thought on national policy." He went on to say: "The question is whether America can remain a great or a dominant
power if it becomes a service economy. I doubt it very much. I think that a country has to have an industrial base in
order to play a significant role in the world." If the United States loses its manufacturing capability, the country will
still survive, but will we still be able to lead and, as Kissinger puts it, "play a significant role in the world"? The goal
of this presentation is to get everyone to think more strategically--more long-term--about U.S. national strength.
What does it mean if America loses its edge in innovative technologies, especially those in manufacturing? At-risk
industries and technologies Manufacturing is, indeed, the core of our nation's strength. With a strong manufacturing
base comes engineering, R&D, and innovation. If we look only at the costs and determine that another country can
do all those things cheaper, then we limit our strength and the speed of our innovation cycles to that of low-cost
nations. Do we really want to race to the bottom? At what point has so much technology and manufacturing skill
left the United States that we become too reliant on foreign suppliers for the core components of our defense
manufacturing capabilities? Here's a short list of "at-risk" industries and technologies to which we must begin to pay
much more attention.
Heg is key to prevent global nuclear war
Khalilzad, Counselor at CSIS, ’95
(Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Former U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War.”
The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2. pg. 84 Spring 1995)
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 low-level 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.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
300
***A2: WARMING
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
301
Cap and trade doesn’t solve warming
Cap and trade only produces windfalls without solving climate – it kills our negotiating
credibility to get a meaningful change
The Philadelphia Enquirer, 25 June 2009
We would support legislation in Congress to address climate change if it were capable of accomplishing that
goal. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of its proponents, the bill known as Waxman-Markey would
disable our ability to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for at least a decade, hugely increasing the risk of
irreversible climate calamity. We are speaking as individuals based on our more than 20 years of experience
as public-sector environmental-enforcement attorneys, including extensive experience in California with the
sort of cap-and-trade program now being proposed in Washington. But don't take our word for it; look at the
record. Cap-and-trade programs have often failed. For example, a Los Angeles cap-and-trade program
designed to reduce ground-level ozone ended up issuing permits for more pollution than was actually being
emitted. It took more than five years for the "cap" to be ratcheted below pollution levels, whereupon the price
of permits skyrocketed and utilities threatened rolling blackouts. Cap-and-trade had produced little besides
delay. In Europe, cap-and-trade has failed to deliver on climate change. It yielded windfall profits for
utilities, but few reductions in emissions or investments in clean technology. While U.S. officials vowed to
learn from Europe's mistakes, the bill sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) and Edward Markey
(D., Mass.) has many of the same flaws and adds massive "offsets" that blow away the "cap" in "cap-andtrade." Offsets allow polluters to, for example, pay to preserve an acre of forest so they can continue burning
coal above the cap. The concept's problems are legion and well-documented. First, in our forestry example,
the amount and permanency of the environmental benefit is difficult to measure and enforce, especially if it
occurs outside the United States. Second, it is never clear whether an offset results in an added benefit.
Unless market demand is reduced, logging will merely shift elsewhere. Waxman-Markey would allow
almost 20 years of cheap, essentially fraudulent offsets to meet all required reductions in pollution. They
would be counted as environmental progress on paper while allowing degradation in reality. They would
also create entrenched interests enriched by an expanded carbon-offset industry. They, along with those who
would profit from the bill's permits to pollute, would vigorously fight reform even after the system's flaws
became obvious. Waxman-Markey proponents have cited the success of the Environmental Protection
Agency's acid-rain cap-and-trade program (with no offsets). But they ignore huge differences between the
acid-rain and climate-change challenges. In the acid-rain program, the EPA shepherded a few hundred
existing coal-fired power plants through a relatively manageable switch from high-sulfur coal to readily
available and affordable low-sulfur coal. Some facilities with large reserves of high-sulfur coal added
scrubbers, an existing technology. In the case of climate change, however, we are not simply modifying the
operation of a relatively small number of existing facilities. We need to create strong incentives to increase
energy efficiency throughout the economy and to invest in new clean-energy infrastructure. Cap-and-trade is
an ineffective tool for that, because it does not reliably end fossil fuels' price advantage. The WaxmanMarkey approach would not only guarantee a decades-long failure in the United States; it would also
undermine U.S. credibility in international negotiations on climate change.
Cap and trade gives up leverage to produce international modeling
Andrew P. Morriss, Professor of Law and Business at University of Illinois
CommonDreams.org, 5 July 2009
Cap and Trade System Rewards Special Interests
Worse, by reducing U.S. emissions before we reach an agreement with other source countries, the United
States would give up its most valuable negotiating chip without getting anything in return. Since many major
emitters including China and India have shown no willingness to reduce emissions on their own, a unilateral
move by the United States makes it less likely that we will be able to negotiate an effective worldwide
agreement.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
302
Cap and trade doesn’t solve climate
Even a best case scenario cap and trade can’t solve climate
Wall Street Journal, 7-3-09, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657758880989227.html
The Washington press corps is playing the bill's 219-212 passage as a political triumph, even though one of five
Democrats voted against it. The real story is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House baron Henry Waxman and the President himself
had to concede to secure even that eyelash margin among the House's liberal majority. Not even Tom DeLay would have
imagined the extravaganza of log-rolling, vote-buying, outright corporate bribes, side deals, subsidies and policy loopholes.
Every green goal, even taken on its own terms, was watered down or given up for the sake of political rents. Begin
with the supposed point of the exercise -- i.e., creating an artificial scarcity of carbon in the name of climate change.
The House trimmed Mr. Obama's favored 25% reduction by 2020 to 17% in order to win over Democrats leery of
imposing a huge upfront tax on their constituents; then they raised the reduction to 83% in the out-years to placate
the greens. Even that 17% is not binding, since it would be largely reached with so-called offsets, through which
some businesses subsidize others to make emissions reductions that probably would have happened anyway. Even
if the law works as intended, over the next decade or two real U.S. greenhouse emissions might be reduced by 2%
compared to business as usual. However, consumers would still face higher prices for electric power, transportation
and most goods and services as this inefficient and indirect tax flowed down the energy chain.
Cap and Trade doesn’t solve warming.
Edwards, Founding Executive Director, 7/22/09 (Jay T, The Energy Center at the University of
Oklahoma, “Cap and trade is not the answer,”
http://www.bixbybulletin.com/articles/2009/07/23/opinion/doc4a67691a0e00a880366573.txt)
Concern for global temperature is not new to my generation. In 1970, scientific consensus held that the planet was
cooling and we needed to find more sources of energy or we would freeze to death. The 30-year cooling fear ended
in the late 70's and was replaced by the now ongoing warming trend. Since the planet has warmed only one degree
over the last 100 years, I wonder if Congress isn't overly concerned about our planet's ability to adjust its thermostat.
According to global circulation models, if carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were doubled, it would
only result in about a one-degree increase in average global temperature over the next 100 years. If the planet can
adjust to our intrusions, it brings up the question about the need for carbon emission regulation. Most everything we
do has a carbon footprint. Depending on how the "cap and trade" tax is implemented, the cost of everything will go
up. A low-carbon economy will be a major setback to our standard of living. Congress wants us to reduce our
carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Since fossil fuels constitute the greatest level of carbon emissions,
reductions of this order cannot be achieved until we have viable alternatives for them. Consequently, with "cap and
trade" in place and no alternatives for energy production, the government stands to raise huge sums of revenue from
emissions. This will be useful in reducing the massive federal budget deficit but will devastate the economy. The
solution does not lie in wind and solar energy as alternatives for fossil fuels. To generate comparable electricity to a typical gasfired power plant, a wind farm would require by most estimates about 40,000 acres of land. Solar land requirements are not much
better. Currently, wind and solar satisfy about one sixth of one percent of our energy demand. The President proposed to double
that in the next four years. That means if he can do it, the contribution will grow to one third of one percent. Meanwhile, demand
is projected to grow by 30-plus percent in the next decade.
Carbon offsets trigger distorted markets – impossible to monitor the carbon offsets
Eoin O’Carroll 7-10-09 “could cap and trade cause an economic bubble?” <
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/>
Additionally, carbon emitters and financial services firms would be allowed to trade in carbon derivatives — think
“offset futures” or “allowance swaps” — creating a market that Ms. Morris calls “vast, complicated, and dauntingly
difficult to monitor.”And prone to melting down, Ms. Morris warns. Just as the inability of homeowners to make
good on their subprime mortgages ended up pulling the rug out from under the credit market, carbon offsets that are
based on shaky greenhouse-gas mitigation projects could cause the carbon market to tank, with implications for the
broader economy.As a Friends of the Earth report titled “Subprime Carbon” notes, a lot things can go wrong with a
carbon offset project. In addition to the usual risks faced by any project, independent verifiers could determine that a
project isn’t cutting the amount of carbon it claimed to cut. This is particularly worrisome because the system would
allow sellers to promise to deliver carbon credits before the emissions reductions have been verified. The report
warns:
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
303
No modeling
China will not follow US cap and trade due to self-interest
James Inhofe, US Senator
HumanEvents.com, 30 June 2009
Cap and Trade: What’s Next?
This is a global issue that demands a global solution, yet cap-and-trade advocates argue that aggressive, unilateral
action is necessary to persuade developing countries such as China and India to enact mandatory emissions
reductions. But recent actions by the Obama administration, and by China and other developing countries, continue
to prove just the opposite. They continue to confirm what I have been arguing for the past decade: that even if we do
act, the rest of the world will not follow.
The logic is not difficult to understand. Carbon caps, according to reams of independent analyses, will severely
damage America’s global economic competitiveness, principally by raising the cost of doing business here relative
to other countries that have no mandatory carbon policies. So jobs and businesses will move overseas, most likely to
China. This so-called “leakage effect” would tip the global economic balance in favor of China and other strategic
competitors of the U.S. Clearly, unilateral U.S. action redounds to the benefit of China and to the great detriment of
the U.S.
China and India won’t follow
Kirk Dougal, Times Bulletin Editor
TimesBulletin.com, 27 June 2009
House Barely Passes Cap and Trade Bill
Latta and other opponents of the bill assert that the pace of jobs leaving America for other countries like China and
Mexico with lower energy and manufacturing costs will increase. China and India have both already said they would
not follow any sort of Cap and Trade policies, making them even more attractive to businesses.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
304
No warming
Warming not happening - natural cycles
Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, May 16, 20 08, Global-warming
myth; Politics trumps science, Database: NexisLexis.
The Keenlyside team found that natural variability in the Earth's oceans will "temporarily offset" global warming
from carbon dioxide. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is oceanic; hence, what happens there greatly influences
global temperature. It is now known that both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get "stuck," for a decade or
longer, in relatively warm or cool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold stage for a decade,
which will help put the damper on global warming. Another Pacific temperature pattern is forecast not to push
warming, either.
Consensus says no warming
Joseph Watson, writer of Prison Planet, “No Global warming since 1998 as planet cools off” 4/4/08
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect
on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming
since 1998.
But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow
levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming
advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming! "Global temperatures
will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN
meteorologists have said," reports the BBC.
"The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that
La Nina would continue into the summer." "This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998,
prompting some to question climate change theory." The report admits that La Nina and its counterpart, El
Nino, are "two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
305
No warming
Satellites prove no warming
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University
of Alabama and Alabama's State Climatologist,[C02 science magaszine, 5/28/ 03
Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate models
suggest the answer is yes, real data suggest otherwise. Climate models attempt to describe the ocean/atmospheric
system with equations which approximate the processes of nature. No model is perfect because the natural
system is incredibly complex. One modest goal of model simulations is to describe and predict the evolution of the
ocean/atmospheric system in a way that is useful to discover possible environmental hazards which lie ahead. The
goal is not to achieve a perfect forecast for every type of weather in every unique geographic region, but to provide
information on changes in large-scale features. If in testing models one finds conflict with even the observed
large scale features, this would suggest that at least some fundamental processes, for example heat transfer, are
not adequately described in the models. A common feature of climate model projections with CO2 increases is
a rise in the global surface temperature as well as an even more rapid rise in the layer up to 30,000 feet called the
troposphere. Over the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature indeed show a rise of about 0.7
°F. This is roughly half of the total rise observed since the 19th century. In the lower troposphere, however,
various estimates which include the satellite data Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less
warming, about 0.3 °F - an amount less than half that observed at the surface. The real world shows less
warming in the atmosphere, not more as models predict. Are these data reliable? A new version of the
microwave satellite data has been produced, but not yet published, by Remote Sensing Systems or RSS of
California. Two weeks ago a paper was published in Science magazine' electronic edition which used a curious
means of testing our UAH version against RSS.[1] The paper cited climate model results which agreed more with
RSS, because RSS data showed about 0.4°F more warming than UAH's data for this same layer called the midtroposphere. UAH's total warming for this layer was about 0.05°F. (This layer is higher in the atmosphere than the
lower troposphere mentioned earlier with its 0.3°F warming.) The strong implication of the paper was that since
RSS was more consistent with the model output, it was likely a more accurate dataset than ours. That same week,
with much less fanfare, my latest paper appeared in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology.[2] Unlike
the paper in Science magazine, I performed several rigorous tests to estimate the potential error of our UAH
satellite data. I used real observations from balloon datasets created by independent organizations, some with
data from as many as 400 different balloon stations. Our UAH satellite data and the balloon data
corroborated each other with remarkable consistency, showing only a slow warming of the bulk of the
atmosphere. This evidence indicates that the projected warming of the climate model had little consistency
with the real world. This is important because the quantity examined here, lower tropospheric temperature,
is not a minor aspect of the climate system. This represents most of the bulk mass of the atmosphere, and
hence the climate system. The inability of climate models to achieve consistency on this scale is a serious
shortcoming and suggests projections from such models be viewed with great skepticism. Changes in surface
temperature have also been a topic of controversy. Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown
something else.[4] Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large
temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today's
were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago. These studies suggest that the climate we see today is
not unusual at all.
No warming
Paul ‘09 “Cap and trade: another nail in the economy’s coffin” http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-29/capand-trade-another-nail-in-the-economys-coffin/
And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that
global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently
directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be
directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the
country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air
we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that
there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from our own lungs!
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
306
Warming good – CO2 fertilization
C02 key to plants – water efficiency, stomata enhancement, no erosion, and starvation
Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 37] 9/10/03
In a broad review of the scientific literature, Idso (2001) describes a number of biological consequences of
elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The best known of these important impacts is probably CO2's
aerial fertilization effect, which works its wonders on plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical
pathways of photosynthesis (C3, C4 and CAM). In the case of herbaceous plants, this phenomenon typically
boosts their productivities by about a third in response to a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2 content, while
it enhances the growth of woody plants by 50% or more (see our website's Plant Growth Data section). Next
comes plant water use efficiency, which may be defined as the amount of organic matter produced per
unit of water transpired to the atmosphere. This parameter is directly enhanced by the aerial
fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, as well as by its anti-transpirant effect, which is
produced by CO2-induced decreases in the number density and degree of openness of leaf stomatal
apertures that occur at higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Here, too, CO2-induced percentage
increases as large as, or even larger than, those exhibited by plant productivity are commonplace. One
of the important ramifications of this CO2-induced increase in plant water use efficiency is the fact
that it enables plants to grow and reproduce in areas that were previously too dry for them. With
consequent increases in ground cover in these regions, the adverse effects of wind- and water-induced soil
erosion are also reduced. Hence, there is a tendency for desertification to be reversed and for vast
tracts of previously unproductive land to become supportive of more abundant animal life, both aboveand below-ground, in what could appropriately be called a "greening of the earth." In addition to helping
vegetation overcome the stress of limited water supplies, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 help plants to
better cope with other environmental stresses, such as low soil fertility, low light intensity, high soil and
water salinity, high air temperature, various oxidative stresses and the stress of herbivory. When
confronted with the specter of global warming, for example, many experiments have revealed that
concomitant enrichment of the air with CO2 tends to increase the temperature at which plants function
at their optimum, often making them even better suited to the warmer environment than they were to
the cooler environment to which they were originally adapted. Under the most stressful of such
conditions, in fact, extra CO2 sometimes is the deciding factor in determining whether a plant lives or
dies. These benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment apply to both agricultural and natural ecosystems;
and as Wittwer (1995) has noted, "the rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural
resource that is progressively increasing food production and total biological output in a world of
otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer." This
phenomenon is thus a means, he says, "of inadvertently increasing the productivity of farming systems
and other photosynthetically active ecosystems," and that "the effects know no boundaries and both
developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally."
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
307
Warming good – CO2 sink feedbacks
C02 increases the ability of plants to act as sinks which solves warming
All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 42] 10/15/03
In light of these observations, plus the fact that Saxe et al. (1998) have determined that a doubling of the air's CO2
content leads to more than a doubling of the biomass production of coniferous species, it logically follows that the
ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is increasing carbon sequestration rates in the soils upon which
conifers grow and, hence, is producing a significant negative feedback phenomenon that slows the rate of rise of
the air's CO2 content, which would be assumed by many to be reducing the rate of global warming.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
308
***NUCLEAR POWER
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
309
Cap and trades  nuclear power
Obama’s Cap and Trade will lead to a dramatic increase in the construction of nuclear
plants
Johnson, Writer for the Wall Street Journal, 3-11
(Keith Johnson, Journalist for the Wall Street Journal, “Nuclear Obama: Will Cap-and-Trade Plans Spur Nuclear
Revival?”, 3-11-09 http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/11/nuclear-obama-will-cap-and-trade-plans-spur-nuclear-revival/
[Abhik])
Will President Obama—no huge booster of nuclear power on the campaign trail—become the nuclear
industry’s best friend? Here’s the thinking making the rounds in pro-nuclear circles: The Obama
administration has talked up the need to dramatically curb greenhouse-gas emissions, and even included
revenues from a non-existent cap-and-trade scheme in its 2010-2014 budget. To curb emissions so much
will require an across-the-board development of low-emissions energy, from wind farms to, yes, more
new nuclear plants. Nuclear advocate and author William Tucker makes the optimists’ case in the
American Spectator (tip of the hat). When climate policies run into opposition from Congress, led by coaldependent states, the nuclear lightbulb will turn on: Someone in the administration — probably Energy
Secretary Steven Chu, who knows in his heart that wind and solar can’t cut it — will suggest that that a
carbon tax be coupled with the revival of nuclear power. Suddenly, the dam will break. NRC regulatory
mazes that are still trying to protect us from Three Mile Island will be swept aside. Construction
schedules will be accelerated. (The TVA just built a new reactor at Watts Bar in three years and under
budget, using a license granted in the 1970s.) Tens of thousands of construction jobs will be created
overnight. The French and Japanese will provide the financing. We may even revive the steel industry in
the process. The idea that the climate-change imperative will give fresh legs to nuclear power isn’t
entirely new; that’s what’s pushing once-hostile environmentalists toward the pro-nuclear camp. And a
carbon tax or at least expensive emissions in a cap-and-trade program would go a long way toward
improving nuclear power’s currently grim economics. But even an Obama administration bear hug that
“sweeps aside regulatory mazes” won’t necessarily “accelerate construction schedules”—those depend in
large part on financing and getting a hold of sometimes limited nuclear components. And while a big
nuclear build out would indeed create as many as 20,000 jobs, it would be hard to create them overnight,
given the three-decade atrophy of the U.S. nuclear industry. What’s really missing is any discussion of
nuclear waste. Now that Yucca Mountain’s been given the Old Yeller treatment, there is no long-term
solution for storing nuclear waste that’s remotely close to fruition. For the current fleet of nuclear
reactors, which produce about 2,000 tons of radioactive fuel a year, the death of Yucca Mountain just
means business as usual. But sooner or later, if nuclear power becomes an even bigger part of the
nation’s energy mix, the nuclear waste problem is going to have to become an even bigger part of the
answer.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
310
Nuclear power bad – warming
Nuclear power is the leading source of CFC’s, which are the primary contributor to global
warming
Stein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert In ,’08
(Eric
Joseph
Stein,
c.,
3-29-08, The
[Abhik])
"Brown
Side"
of
Nuclear
Power,”
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/
news/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=501756
Nuclear advocates argue that the problem of greenhouse gases can be solved by nuclear power plants
which do not emit carbon dioxide - at the point of production. What they don¹t tell you is what happens to
the nuclear wonder pill before it is magically transformed into green penicillin. The nuclear-carbon shell
game only works if you ignore the environmental cost on the "front end" of nuclear power production.
From the moment uranium is mined - then milled, enriched, fabricated and transported - it releases large
of airborne pollutants. How much? Glad you asked. The enrichment of uranium at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion plant releases massive amounts of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which are more damaging as a
global warmer than carbon dioxide. Nuclear fuel production in America creates at least 800,000 pounds
of CFCs annually. CFCs remain the primary agent for stratospheric ozone depletion. The industry's
official strategy to reduce CFC emissions was to close its Portsmouth enrichment plant and eliminate
"roughly half as many miles of leaky pipes." The Ohio fuel plant is closed, but is undergoing a massive
site cleanup to recover uranium, treat and isolate contaminated water and sewage, and decontaminate and
remove miles of radioactive tubes, pipes and equipment. The production of fuel for nuclear reactors is
extremely energy intensive. The Paducah plant, which is currently the plant is also undergoing a $191
million cleanup, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt carbon dioxide producing, coal-fired
plants.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
311
Nuclear power bad – terrorism
Terrorists Will Use Nuclear Power Plants as their Next Platform for Attack
The Ecologist, ’99
(The ecologist, By peter Bunyard and Pete Roche, “Nuclear Power: Time to End the Expeiment,”
www.radtexas.org/)
While many focus on the problems associated with stolen weapons-grade nuclear materials, particularly
those originating from the former Soviet Union, the greater threat may actually be an attack against a
nuclear power plant magnitude of a single attack could reach beyond several thousand deaths and the
immediate loss of tens of billions of dollars. Insurance companies won't cover nuclear disasters, and the
properties destroyed would remain useless for decades, a stark monument reminding the world of the
terrorists' ideology. With more than 100 reactors in the United States alone, if one is successfully
destroyed, just threatening additional attacks could instill the sort of high-impact terror which is being
sought by a new breed of terrorists.
Extinction
Caldicott, Physician, nominated for the noble peace prize, ’94
(Australian physician and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing nuclear
technology Helen, Industria Solid, 1994, “Nuclear Madness”, pg. 42)
As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present
trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated
with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity
has ever experienced. Unknowingly exposed to these radioactive poisons, some of us may be developing
cancer right now. Others may be passing damaged genes, the basic chemical units that transmit hereditary
characteristics, to future generations. And more of us will inevitably be affected unless we bring about a
dramatic reversal of the world’s pronuclear policies.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
312
Nuclear power  prolif
Expanding nuclear power causes proliferation
Winfield et al, Director of the Pembina Institute, ’06
(Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior Project Manager, Rich
Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Nuclear Power in Canada: An
Explanation of Risks, Impacts, and Sustainability, December 2006,
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf)
Nuclear energy’s shared origins with nuclear weapons programs raises the potential for -- and
reality of -- links between technologies and materials used for energy production and for
nuclear weapons development. Concerns about these connections have grown in the past few
years as a result of nuclear programs in North Korea, Iran, India and Pakistan. Any large-
scale expansion of reliance on nuclear energy would carry significant risks of the
proliferation of materials and technologies that could be applied to weapons development.
India’s 1974 nuclear bomb test, a project developed in part using Canadian-supplied technology and
uranium, demonstrated this problem clearly.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
313
***AFF ANSWERS
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
314
Yes cap and trade
Cap and Trade will pass – Democratic flexibility
Trende, Staff Writer, 7/7/09 (Sean, RealClearPolitics, “Cap and Trade vote shows promise, peril for both
parties,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/07/cap_and_trade_vote_shows_promise_peril_for_both_parties_9
7316.html)
The problem for Republicans is that the Democrats’ margin is large enough that many of their most
vulnerable members can vote against controversial legislation, and that legislation will still pass.
Republicans would have loved to have seen Democrats like Childers, Davis, Mollohan and Dahlkemper
forced to choose between a signature piece of legislation for the Obama Administration and their seats.
But elections have consequences, and this greater flexibility for the Democrats makes it much more
difficult to pigeonhole Democrats as reflexive supporters of the Administration.
Cap and Trade will pass – Facebook
Johnson, Staff Writer, 7/21/09 (Keith, Wall Street Journal, “Energy Bill in Limbo? Steven Chu turns to
Facebook,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/21/energy-bill-in-limbo-steven-chu-turns-to-facebook/)
The Obama administration really, really doesn’t want the fight over health care to steal attention from
energy and climate legislation. Energy Secretary Steven Chu just launched a Facebook page to keep
climate change front and center. Dr. Chu’s Facebook page has a lot of the usual trappings — he’s a big
fan of “Casablanca” and Yogi Berra quotes — though his photo album includes snapshots with folks a
little more famous (and powerful) than most. From the “About Me” section: “At the Department of
Energy, we are carrying out President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in alternative and renewable
energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create millions of new jobs.” But when it comes to
making the administration’s case on why aggressive action to tackle climate change is necessary now,
there’s not that much new. Dr. Chu includes some video clips and a brief post arguing that the U.S. and
China need to cooperate on global warming. Given that Democrats are still well short of the 60 votes they
need in the Senate to pass energy and climate legislation, Dr. Chu might need to round up some new
friends on Capitol Hill — and we’re not talking about Facebook friends.
Alex Resar, Dana Snay, Will Hardwicke, Trev Aufderheide, Sonali Kalvala, Abhik Pramanik, Adora Parker, Becca
Rothfeld, Drew Hull, Kevin Jiang
DDI 2009
Politics generic
315
Yes cap and trade – compromise
Cap and Trade will pass – compromises will be made
Kane, Staff Writer, 7/7/09 (Paul, Washington Post, “Push and Pull in Senate may recast climate bill,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/06/AR2009070603514.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
As of today, Reid can count on the support of about 40 to 45 senators for that basic premise, according to
aides and outside activists backing the legislation. Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen
lawmakers -- including about 15 of Reid's Democrats -- who will determine the legislation's fate. The battle
ahead differs from many on Capitol Hill in that ideology is considered to be less influential than geography.
Even some of the chamber's most liberal members have resisted signing on as they await the best deal
possible for key industries in their states. Democrats from the Rust Belt states of West Virginia, Ohio,
Indiana and Michigan are pushing for more incentives to help their depressed industries shift to alternative
energy sources. The same senators also will likely want more funding for carbon capture and sequestration, a
controversial and still-evolving technology described by its developers as "clean coal" but derided by many
environmentalists. The technology is already slated for $10 billion in government-funded research in
legislation that passed the House. A trio of Democrats from the Dakotas want more funding for wind
power. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) won approval in the energy committee last month for the inclusion of
new exploration for oil and natural gas as close as 45 miles off of Florida's coast on the Gulf of Mexico. That
measure might help attract moderate Democrats and some Republicans, but it would almost certainly lose the
vote of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who has regularly vowed to help filibuster any bill that brings drilling
within the current limit of 125 miles. Even after making additional compromises to win over wavering
Democrats, Reid could find himself a few votes short and desperately searching for Republican support.
Maine's moderate Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, are the only likely GOP backers
of the legislation at this point, and if Obama needs more Republicans, he may have to authorize Reid to give
in for more funding for the construction of the nation's first new nuclear power plants in a generation. The
environmental lob