Neg Politics DA
Novice
Politics Disadvantage
POLITICS DISADVANTAGE ...................................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................................3
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................................4
POLITICS 1NC [1/3]...................................................................................................................................................5
POLITICS 1NC [2/3]...................................................................................................................................................6
POLITICS 1NC [3/3]...................................................................................................................................................7
**UNIQUENESS** .....................................................................................................................................................8
WILL PASS – GENERAL ..........................................................................................................................................9
WILL PASS – OBAMA PUSHING ......................................................................................................................... 10
WILL PASS – KOREA ............................................................................................................................................. 11
WILL PASS – YES CAPITAL ................................................................................................................................. 12
WILL PASS – A2 TAA BATTLES .......................................................................................................................... 13
WILL PASS – A2 BUNDLING ................................................................................................................................ 14
**LINKS** ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
SPACE – TEA PARTY ............................................................................................................................................. 16
SPACE – PUBLIC ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
SPACE – REPUBLICANS........................................................................................................................................ 18
SPACE – SPENDING ............................................................................................................................................... 19
CONSTELLATION – SPENDING .......................................................................................................................... 20
MOON MINING – CAPITAL .................................................................................................................................. 21
MOON MINING – SPENDING ............................................................................................................................... 22
SPS – POLITICAL CAPITAL ................................................................................................................................. 23
SPS – PUBLIC ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
SPS – REPUBLICANS .............................................................................................................................................. 25
SPS – ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ........................................................................................................................... 26
SPS – SPENDING ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
SPS – A2 DOD SUPPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 28
SPS – A2 LOBBIES ................................................................................................................................................... 29
**INTERNAL LINKS** ........................................................................................................................................... 30
PC KEY SKFTA ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
A2 PUBLIC POPULARITY ..................................................................................................................................... 32
A2 WINNERS WIN ................................................................................................................................................... 33
A2 NO SPILLOVER [1/2]......................................................................................................................................... 34
A2 NO SPILLOVER [2/2]......................................................................................................................................... 35
**IMPACTS** ........................................................................................................................................................... 36
2NC DA OUTWEIGHS ............................................................................................................................................ 37
1
Neg Politics DA
Novice
NK – SKFTA SOLVES KOREA WAR ................................................................................................................... 38
NK – CHINA ESCALATION................................................................................................................................... 39
NK – CBW IMPACT ................................................................................................................................................ 40
NK- TENSIONS NOW .............................................................................................................................................. 41
2NC ASIAN LEADERSHIP ..................................................................................................................................... 42
SKFTA TURNS CASE – HEGEMONY .................................................................................................................. 43
SKFTA TURNS CASE – COMPETITIVENESS ................................................................................................... 44
SKFTA TURNS CASE – ECON .............................................................................................................................. 45
SKFTA TURNS CASE – INNOVATION................................................................................................................ 46
SKFTA TURNS CASE – WARMING ..................................................................................................................... 47
2
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Summary
This disadvantage argues that there is a bill in Congress called the South Korea Free Trade
Agreement. This bill would open up free and fast trade between the U.S. and South Korea.
Many of the people in Congress, however, really are not sure they like the bill. The file
argues that it will pass the House and Senate now (which is a requirement for it to go to the
president for signing) but that if Obama does something unpopular (like the affirmative
plan) it will not pass anymore.
That would be bad because SKFTA is necessary to build the friendship between the US and
South Korea. This friendship is necessary to deter (scare off) North Korea from making
any moves that would start a nuclear war on the peninsula, potentially ending the world.
3
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Glossary
Bilateral –Between 2 countries.
Bundling – Making the passage of one bill dependent on the passage of another – political
negotiation tactic.
CBW – Chemical and Biological Weapons.
DOD – Department of Defense.
Lobbies – Groups that use money and power to influence the president and Congress.
Political Capital – The power and influence that the president has to spend to get what he/she
wants. Political capital can be thought of much like money.
SKFTA – South Korea Free Trade Agreement, a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and south
Korea to make both markets more open to trade with the other.
TAA – This is a government program used to help businesses and employees that have been
negatively impacted by adjustment of Trade. This bill is often tied to other trade bills and may
impact SKFTA’s passage.
Tea Party – A political movement devoted to decreasing taxes and government spending.
Winners Win –This is a political theory that political capital is gained, rather than lost, when a
president does something controversial. Essentially, the argument is that controversial policies
make the president look powerful and people side with him/her because they want to be on the
winning team.
4
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Politics 1NC [1/3]
SKFTA will pass – Obama support critical to compromise
Barkley and Williamson 6/15
[Tom Barkley and Elizabeth Williamson, NASDAQ,http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-newsstory.aspx?storyid=201106151757dowjonesdjonline000646&title=progress-in-worker-benefits-talks-in-congress-lifts-hopes-for-trade-pacts]
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)-
Renewed progress in talks between the White House and Republican lawmakers over
restoring benefits for trade-related job losses has raised the prospect that Congress could soon approve free-trade
agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. "We have a very clear indication that progress is being made on the TradeAdjustment Assistance front," Donohue said during an event announcing a lobbying campaign to help win a long-sought passage for the three trade pacts.
"We might expect the potential loss of jobs and opportunity for American companies might be arrested because of the quick action in Congress." But
administration officials have signaled in recent days that they are willing to compromise on some features in order to
reduce the program's costs and ease a renewal through a Congress dominated by budget hawks. Congressional aides and
lobbyists say negotiators have yet to agree on a deal, but express optimism that they can do so in time for all three
agreements to pass before the August congressional recess, which begins Aug. 5. "Trade agreements have to move with TAA--it's the way to
get the Democratic votes needed to get the whole package through," said a congressional aide involved in the talks. " Once you get past the posturing,
the general consensus is that all three trade agreements and TAA get done--the votes are there.
Plan spends political capital --- Congress opposed to space spending
Powell 2009
(Stewart M., Washington Bureau – Houston Chronicle, “Potential Uphill Battle for NASA”, Houston Chronicle, 9-13,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6615751.html)
NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious
than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs an infusion of
about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in a
fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to
finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. “The congressional agenda over the next
year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them,” said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the Center for American Progress.
Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to make
those trades. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land,
the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over
NASA, said wrangling the additional $3 billion a year would be “an enormous challenge — but one I am prepared to win.” Added
Olson, whose district includes Johnson Space Center: “NASA doesn't require bailout funds — it needs the promised level of investment that previous Congresses have
endorsed.” The 10-member panel of space experts led by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine suggested extending U.S. participation in the $100 billion
space station for five years, extending budgeting for the retiring shuttle fleet by six months, delaying plans for a 2020 return to the moon and extending the timeline
for the next generation of manned spacecraft by two years at least until 2017. But the experts warned in their 12-page preliminary report to Obama on Tuesday that
“meaningful human exploration” would be possible only under “a less constrained budget ramping (up) to approximately $3
billion per year” in additional spending by 2014. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the committee, forecast $27.1 billion in additional funds would be needed
over the next decade — a 27 percent increase over the $99.1 billion currently planned. Even before Obama publicly reacts to Augustine's report to map the next steps
in the nation's manned space exploration, members of Congress are scrambling. “The immediate challenge goes beyond money to just getting NASA on the radar
screen when everyone is focused on health care reform,” said a key congressional staffer involved in NASA issues. Finding support NASA supporters initially are
targeting the Democratic leadership of appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate with jurisdiction over NASA. Space advocates have an ally in Sen.
in the House, pro-NASA
lawmakers expect a fight with Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that cut next year's NASA spending
Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that handles space agency spending. But
nearly $500 million below what Obama requested. Lawmakers are looking for a House-Senate conference committee to restore the funds that Mollohan cut before the
Augustine panel completed its work. Aides to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chairman of a Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA, said they have already identified six
potential sources of additional NASA funding within the federal budget, including some of the $8 billion promised over the next decade to private energy firms to
research fossil fuels and deep drilling for oil and gas. Lawmakers also are exploring the possibility of redirecting some of the two-year, $787 billion economic
stimulus package from shovel-ready transportation construction projects and other federally subsidized programs into the NASA budget. The administration so far has
only paid out $160 billion of the total, according to Vice President Joe Biden. “A lot of stimulus money has not been spent,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio.
“We should redirect some of those stimulus funds to pay for enhancements to the NASA budget because I believe human space flight is so important.” Aerospace
executives and veteran space experts are hoping for reliable year-to-year funding. “These are challenging economic times, but this is not the moment to turn away
from leading a global space exploration effort,” said Dean Acosta, head of the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. President's influence Presidential
leadership will be essential to gaining an increase, emphasized John Logsdon, a space policy expert who served on the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation
Board. “The
president has to use some portion of his political capital to put forward an Obama space program.”
5
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Politics 1NC [2/3]
Political capital is key
Matthews and Holtz-Eakin 2-9
[Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation. Douglas Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum and served as a
member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49150.html#ixzz1QK3Wdlwn]
Obama has set a national goal of doubling exports, expressed his support for expanding trade as a way to create U.S. jobs and forged a new free
trade agreement with South Korea. These are steps in the right direction, but progress is not likely to come easily. While Republicans tend
to be more supportive of free trade agreements than Democrats, there are vociferous naysayers in both parties . Doubts
about trade have also escalated during a long and deep recession. Obama, like Clinton, must be willing to commit the time, effort and political
capital to get the job done. To be successful, Obama will first have to make the case that free trade agreements are good
for the U.S. and U.S. workers. Ninety-five percent of consumers are in other countries. If we want more people buying U.S. products, we will have to tap
foreign markets. So we have to ensure that U.S. products are available at the lowest possible price — which means little or no tariffs on U.S. goods and services. The
best way to achieve that goal is with a free trade agreement.
Skfta is key to alliance and asian stability – failure results in alliance collapse
Hwang and Kim 2005
[Balbina Y. (Policy Analyst for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center) Anthony B (Research Associate in the Center for International Trade and Economics, at The Heritage Foundation)
“Beyond the U.S.–South Korea Alliance: Reinvigorating Economic Relations”, Backgrounder #1853, May 18, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg1853.cfm
Recently, increasing
anxiety about the future of the U.S.–Republic of Korea alliance has raised concerns in both
Washington and Seoul. Yet the two allies have more in common today than ever before in a relationship that has endured for more than 50 years. This
includes shared values of open markets, free trade, respect for the rule of law, and demo­cratic principles. With South Korea’s development into one of East Asia’s
most vibrant market-oriented democracies, its economic relationship with the United States has steadily grown stronger, becoming one of the most important pillars
supporting the alliance. One of today’s most prominent issues is the possibility of reaching a free trade agreement (FTA). Although
the ongoing FTA review process will not automatically result in FTA negotiations, it will pro-vide insights into the obstacles to bilateral trade and lay the foundation
for a future trade agreement.[1] Washington and Seoul should seize this opportunity to examine thoroughly the range of trade issues that exist between the two
countries and to develop solutions. Regardless of whether or not an FTA is determined to be feasible at this time, mutual acceptance and resolution of challenges in
the trading relationship will lead to a more positive and productive future for the United States and Repub-lic of Korea (ROK); therefore, the possibility of launching
formal FTA negotiations should be vig-orously pursued. The Current Status of U.S.–ROK Economic Relations Since the inception of a mutual security treaty in 1953,
the United States and South Korea have enjoyed a strong alliance that is considered one of the pillars of stability and
security in Northeast Asia. While the alliance has provided the basis of a broad and mutually beneficial economic partner-ship for the past half-century, many
Americans might be surprised to learn that Korea actually entered into the Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation with the United States in 1882. This
was Korea’s first treaty with a Western power, and during this long and sometimes rocky relation-ship, the two allies have come together in coopera-tion when
strategic interests have converged.[2] The United States has played a critical role in the South Korean economy since the Korean War, but the bilateral economic
relationship has steadily equalized in recent years, with bilateral trade expanding dramatically in the past 20 years. In 2004, total trade between the two countries
exceeded $70 billion, a 120 percent increase from 1990.[3]South Korea has the world’s 11th largest econ-omy, and the United States is its second largest export
market, accounting for nearly 20 percent of its total exports in 2004 (more than 6 percent of South Korea’s GDP).[4] Major exports to the United States include
electrical and general machinery, cel-lular phones, textiles, and steel. In turn, South Korea is America’s seventh largest export market, importing such goods as
semiconductors, machin­ery, aircraft, agricultural products, and beef. In 2003, South Korea was the United States’ fifth larg-est market for agricultural products and
third larg-est beef market.[5]Bilateral trade in services has grown robustly as well. The United States is a major supplier of pri-vate services to the South Korean
economy and ran a $4 billion surplus in 2003.[6] American companies have established a substantial presence in South Korea, with marked increases in foreign direct
investment (FDI) in recent years. Over the past decade, American investments totaled nearly $30 billion, with FDI from the U.S. reaching a new record of $4.7 billion
in 2004 alone—an astound-ing 280 percent increase from 2003. Today, more than 3,000 U.S. companies operate in South Korea. Why an FTA with the ROK?
Enthusiasm for a U.S.–ROK FTA has grown steadily in recent years, particularly in South Korea, while American interest has been more cau-tious. In principle, the
Bush Administration has been a strong proponent of bilateral trade agree-ments because they are an integral part of U.S. trade strategy to promote competitive
liberaliza-tion, both at home and abroad.[7]Comprehensive agreements benefit both partners by injecting new competition into their domestic economies, lowering
consumer prices, and shifting factors of production to more efficient uses, leveling the playing field for exporters. While free trade is certainly best pursued globally to
minimize barriers and distortions in trade, the slow pace of negotia-tions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has led many nations to pursue free trade through
bilat-eral and regional agreements, allowing countries to customize agreements that meet the needs and con-cerns of individual countries.For the United States, an
FTA with South Korea makes immense sense considering the existing areas of economic convergence and complementa-rities and the potential for even greater future
gains. As one of America’s top trading partners, with bilat­eral trade exceeding $70 billion in 2004, South Korea currently enjoys relatively free access to the U.S.
market while American exporters still face hurdles in South Korea.One of the greatest benefits of an FTA for the United States would be increased opportunity to
export to South Korea. A 2001 U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) report predicted that a U.S.–ROK FTA would increase annual American exports to South
Korea by nearly $20 billon, while South Korean exports to the United States would rise by $10 billion.[8]The ITC study concluded that the largest gains in American
exports would be in agricultural products such as dairy and meat prod-ucts. South Korea, which imports over $2 billion in U.S. farm products annually, is America’s
fifth larg-est export market for agricultural goods. An FTA would provide greater access to agricultural goods by eliminating many of the strict non-tariff
barriers.Official and private studies on the likely economic impact of an FTA conclude that it would benefit pro-ducers and consumers in both countries. For South
Korea, increasing participation in trade agreements is not just beneficial, but may be necessary in order to achieve its stated goal of raising annual per capita income to
$20,000 by 2010. Partially due to its scar­city of natural resources and the economy’s heavy reliance on external trade, which accounts for nearly 70 percent of GDP,
South Korea will not realize this goal unless exports grow by 12 percent annually.[9] Significantly,
the benefits of a U.S.–ROK FTA would
go beyond promoting free trade, increasing economic benefits, and bolstering the broader bilateral relationship.
Agreement and cooperation on economic issues provide a strong basis from which to reinforce
collaboration in the political and security arenas . An FTA would undoubtedly reinvigorate
and strengthen the dynamic and comprehensive U.S.–ROK alliance, which has been the cornerstone of peace and
stability in Northeast Asia for more than 50 years. Although a broad consensus on the benefits of a U.S.–ROK FTA has existed since the idea was first floated
in the mid-1980s, daunting obstacles have impeded implementation. While some of these challenges are structural, lack of political will and lack of support on both
sides of the Pacific have hampered any real progress toward initiating seri-ous negotiations. The American and South Korean business communities are enthusiastic
about an FTA, but official support in Washington has been muted, due not only to specific markets such as agriculture, which is likely to be a highly contentious issue,
but also to the view that South Korea needs to do more with existing agreements and regulations. Seoul’s diffi­culty in passing the ROK–Chile FTA, which took
almost a year to ratify, does not bode well for future South Korean trade agreements. In particular, growing popular nationalism in response to the opening of South
Continued…
6
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Politics 1NC [3/3]
Continues..
Korean markets has caused concern in Washington. While national-ism itself is not necessarily a negative trend, in South Korea the tone is worrisomely tied to antiforeign sentiment, including a popular backlash against for-eign investments. One trade area in which popular nationalism has overtaken the debate is the South
Korean movie industry, which maintains a screen quota limiting the screening of foreign movies on the basis that South Korean culture must be protected in order to
thrive. Tensions over this quota remain a primary stumbling block for the conclusion of the bilateral investment treaty.[11] While the Bush Administration is skeptical
about the near-term possibility of an FTA, support is stron-ger in the U.S. Congress. In May 2001, Senator Max Baucus (D–MT) introduced a bill (S. 944)
authoriz-ing FTA negotiations with the ROK, marking the second time that he sponsored such legislation.[12] Regrettably, because of the lack of broader support in
Congress and in the Administration, it did not lead to the launching of formal negotiations. Nevertheless, the United States should consider negotiating a free trade
agreement with South Korea in the near future, although several areas of concern must be addressed before formal negotia-tions can begin. As the 2001 ITC report
identified, the South Korean regulatory regime is still a signif-icant barrier to U.S. exports, along with other non-tariff measures such as product and safety stan-dards
and pharmaceutical testing requirements. Seoul needs to address such issues before any future agreement is even considered. To create and build positive momentum
for an FTA with South Korea, the United States should consider: Urging the South Korean government to dem-onstrate its political will by tackling issues such as
U.S. beef imports and the screen quota. Initiating action on these two issues in particular would establish that South Korea is serious about seeking an FTA with the
United States. Expeditiously lifting the ban on U.S. beef imports ahead of Japan would generate many supporters for the FTA among U.S. poli-cymakers, given that
the issue is being watched carefully at the highest levels of the Bush Administration and Congress. Ending the screen quota would also send a strong signal that the
political leadership in Seoul is strong enough to stand against special-interest groups seeking specialized protection.[13] Working to elicit stronger and more
con-certed support from policymakers and the business communities in both countries. The American and South Korean business communi-ties have been moving
gradually to organize a more effective campaign to promote an agree-ment and inform the general public about the potential benefits of an FTA. More important,
growing numbers in Congress also understand the critical importance of the bilateral economic relationship. However, it would be equally important to have an
influential advocate in the Bush Administration. Such orchestrated support to build positive momentum for a U.S.–ROK FTA would increase prospects for formal
negotiations. Encouraging the ongoing process of reform in South Korea. The American pursuit of an FTA with South Korea should incorporate the broader goal of
upgrading South Korea’s eco­nomic system. While a bold sense of entrepre­neurship has indisputably played a key role in South Korea’s tremendous economic
success, the economic system remains shackled by bar-riers that still limit entrepreneurial opportuni-ties. The 2005 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom, an
annual study by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, lists South Korea as the 45th freest economy out of 155 economies surveyed.[14] As Asia’s
third larg­est economy, South Korea’s economy has the fundamentals—such as its large supplies of capital, highly educated labor forces, modern infrastructure, and
stable legal system—all in place. What is missing is strong political leader-ship to address more difficult issues that keep South Korea from being a truly free
economy. Conclusion Given the challenges posed by several conten-tious trade issues, a U.S.–ROK FTA in the near future may be an overly ambitious goal.
Neverthe-less, it is undoubtedly in the interests of both coun-tries to work toward a trade agreement. The American National Association of Manufacturers has
identified South Korea as a one of the “top five candidate countries” for a future trade agree­ment.[15] If an agreement is to be reached, however, this positive
Both the United States and South Korea have much to gain
from reinvigorating their economic relations. Seeking an FTA will reinforce the alliance by establishing a positive
venue for dialogue and ultimately serve the national interests of both countries.
assessment must be accompanied by concerted efforts in Washington and Seoul.
Korean conflict causes every impact
Hayes and Green, 10
*Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean
Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5,
http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic issues,
are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack1, whether by
intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are
The
well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million,
Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented
limited nuclear war in the region
would rearrange our global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited
proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a
nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in
the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced
would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear
darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more
than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain
production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke
injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be
targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee
ecological and food insecurity, could make the
financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in
particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes.
There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical
turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction affects
the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via
present global
involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration
from the international community.
7
Neg Politics DA
Novice
**Uniqueness**
8
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Will Pass – General
SKFTA will pass—Obama and congress support.
Green 6/25
(Michael Green, senior advisor and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., 6/20/11, “Is Korus FTA in trouble in D.C.?,”
6/25/11, http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2937745, MLK)
To the enormous relief of these same advisors, President Obama
became a strong supporter of the free trade agreement after visiting
Korea in November 2009 and being profoundly moved by President Lee Myung-bak’s passionate exposition on the importance of U.S.-Korea ties, not to
mention exhortations from virtually every other ally in the region for the United States to return to its traditional free trade agenda. While the subsequent
negotiations were tough, they were substantive and there was a strong sense in the administration that the White
House really wanted and needed the agreement for the strategic, economic and political reasons everyone understood. All of a sudden the
debate on the agreement in Washington seems to have shifted. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives
has asked Obama to submit the Korus FTA together with the Panama and Columbia free trade agreements. While
some pundits worried that the new Tea Party Republicans who came to office in 2011 might be protectionist because
they are populist, this turns out not to be the case.
Trade agreements will pass congress- bipartisan efforts on TAA
Wolf 6/15
(Richard Wolf 2011) Jun 15, 2011, USA TODAY, “Obama trade deals get big push from business lobby”,
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/obama-trade-deals-get-big-push-from-business-lobby--/1, 6/25/11, CF
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce unveiled a lobbying effort today designed to win the votes for three foreign trade
deals -- one House district at a time. The chamber, which has long supported free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and
Panama even while President Obama was reworking them, displayed a new website showing the impact of the deals by state and district. The site,
www.TradeSupportsJob.com, lists data on companies, their exports, where the products go and how many jobs they produce. While manufactured goods are included
for most companies, services are not. "It will be great to go in and sit down with a member of the Senate or the House ... and pull out a computer and say, 'Look here,'"
said Chamber CEO Thomas Donohue. Localized information derived from the database has been welcomed by lawmakers "as if manna from heaven," he said. It's the
latest example of how the White House and the Chamber, which fought each other on issues such as health care and energy during Obama's first two years, are seeing
eye to eye more often lately. The White House threw a monkey wrench into the drive to pass the three trade deals recently by insisting that money be included for the
negotiations between the White House
and congressional Republicans on renewing TAA have been productive, and the Chamber is likely to support a deal considered to be
imminent. He credited new White House chief of staff William Daley and Trade Rep. Ron Kirk for their assistance. "I think they're very committed to
this," Donohue said of the White House, while acknowledging that they are "under a lot of pressure." Then it will be all about winning the votes in
Congress -- not an easy thing when lawmakers face pressure back home to stop companies from sending jobs
overseas. The effort focuses on convincing those lawmakers that there are more jobs to be gained through increased
exports than lost. "We want to send a message that says, 'This is where the jobs are,'" Donohue said.
Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps workers who lose jobs as a result of trade. Donohue said
Will pass – public support
Yonhap News Agency 6/2
(Yonhap News Agency, 6/2/11, “New AMCHAM chief rosy about Korea-U.S. FTA ratification,” 6/25/11,
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2011/06/22/36/0503000000AEN20110622007200320F.HTML, MLK)
The new head of the U.S. business community in South Korea said Wednesday that he is "optimistic" about the early
ratification of a bilateral free trade deal and is doing his best to achieve it. Th e free trade agreement, known as the KORUS FTA,
was signed in June 2007, but the two countries re-negotiated to revise controversial terms on auto tariffs and pork late last year. The bill has been awaiting
approval from the legislatures of both countries. "In recent public remarks, U.S. President Obama cited 'unprecedented support'
for the KORUS FTA in the United States," said Pat Gaines, the newly elected chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea
(AMCHAM). "AMCHAM remains very optimistic that this historic agreement will be ratified in both countries in the
near future. AMCHAM is doing everything possible to make this happen."
Republicans will get FTA through congress
Korean Times 5/16
(5/16/11, Korean Times, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/06/305_87089.html, SH)
The room was in turmoil for a while, and eventually it was agreed that the bill was not passed, with three votes in favor, two against, and one abstention. Reading this
news, I was afraid for the future of the Korea-U.S. FTA. The U.S. has already announced that President Barack
Obama will discuss the FTA with
Congress and request its ratification. Once this has happened, Congress will decide on the matter within 90 days. It’s almost certain that
Congress will pass the FTA, since the Republican majority has always favored free trade . The problem, then, is not the U.S., but
the National Assembly of South Korea. The FTA is so important to Korea, which greatly depends on foreign trade. Furthermore,
since this FTA includes the service industry, Korea (whose industrial structure is moving into an advanced stage) would undoubtedly
benefit from an agreement with the U.S., the more advanced country, as an opportunity to develop and secure its own service industry. This is a great opportunity
for Korea to become the hub of service industry in East Asia.
9
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Will Pass – Obama Pushing
Obama pushing – TAA debate proves
Belgum 6/23
[Deborah Belgum Senior Editor June 23, 2011 South Korea, Colombia, Panama Free-Trade Agreements in Doubt]
Even though most
of these concerns have been resolved, one major hurdle is passage of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program,
administration is
pushing hard to reinstate this retraining program, which expired in February, before the free-trade agreements move forward. But Republicans
a $1 billion retraining program for U.S. workers who may lose their jobs because of these new free-trade agreements. The Obama
have shied away from the retraining program’s expensive price tag, especially during a time of pinched budgets and debate over the nation’s debt ceiling.
10
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Will Pass – Korea
SKFTA will pass in Korea—it’s popular with the Korean government
Yonhap News Agency 6/3
(Yonhap News Agency, 6/3/11, “Cabinet approves new version of KORUS FTA ratification bill,” 6/25/11,
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/06/03/82/0301000000AEN20110603001400315F.HTML, MLK)
The deal, known as the KORUS
FTA, has yet to be ratified by parliaments of both countries . Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik urged
to do their best to win an early parliamentary passage of the deal. "The KORUS FTA is an inevitable
choice for our country's economic growth and reform, and is a win-win strategy designed to boost cooperative ties between the two countries,"
Cabinet ministers
Kim said during a special Cabinet meeting called to approve the new ratification bill. "The government should do its best to fully explain economic and security
benefits of the deal to the people and persuade some opponents, including opposition parties, so the bill can pass the National Assembly quickly," he said.
South Korea Will pass SKFTA after the US does
Malcolm 6/18
(Andrew Malcolm, political blogger for the L.A. Times, June 18, 2011, “ Weekly remarks: GOP's John Hoeven says trade pacts would spur new jobs; Obama salutes
Father's Day”, LA Times Blog, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/john-hoeven-trade-treaties-would-spur-new-jobs-obama-hails-fathers-.html]
President Lee said he believes
Korean lawmakers will approve the free trade agreement, but they’re waiting for America
to lead the way. They want and expect us to lead the way because –- to South Korea and nations around the world –
America has always been a beacon of liberty and opportunity. Nearly everyone we spoke with in Korea -- on the street or the
meeting room –- expressed their deep appreciation to the United States, and especially to our military and our veterans. They’re keenly aware
that U.S. service members sacrificed so much to give them a free society and a free-market economy where they could pursue their dreams.
11
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Will Pass – Yes Capital
Bin Laden’s Death gives PC to Obama
Bowman 5/2
(Quinn, “Political Checklist: Bin Laden Death Yields Political Capital for Obama,” PBS, 2011, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/political-checklistbiden-laden-death-yields-political-capital-for-obama.html]
A day after the dramatic announcement
that U.S. forces had killed Osama bin Laden, the world's most-wanted terrorist, David Chalian, Gwen
the news could impact President Obama's political standing. The team agrees that while it is unclear
how this will affect the 2012 race, the moment stands to unite even President Obama's political opponents in praising his
administration's successful pursuit of the man who was the driving force behind al-Qaida
Ifill and Judy Woodruff assess how
Yes capital – Osama death and birth certificate
Boulie 5/5
[Jamelle Bouie, BA, Political & Social Thought, Writing Fellow of The American Prospect,” The Purpose of Political Capital: Three Agenda Items for Obama”,
5/5/11, 6/24/11]
That action, in addition to providing whatever comfort it might to those who lost family and friends on September 11, has entirely reset the political board .
Both
substantively and politically, killing Bin Laden releases Obama from Bush’s violence-driven approach to security.
Republicans and their surrogates can no longer claim with any real credibility that Obama “pals around with
terrorists.” And in any case, the past week’s events—Obama’s release of his long-form birth certificate and his thrashing of Donald Trump,
at a point when he clearly knew the Bin Laden operation was in process—shows that our president is fully capable of masterful political
strategy.
12
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Will Pass – A2 TAA Battles
TAA debate overstated – only 11 Republicans oppose
Washington Post 6/15
[June 15 2011, Deal near on trade agreements, worker aid, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/deal-near-on-trade-agreements-workeraid/2011/06/15/AGHg3XWH_story.html, 6/25/11, AS]
None of those involved would provide details of a possible deal. But support
among congressional Democrats and the White House for
the trade assistance program has been widespread, and Don¬o¬hue suggested that Republican opposition to the program was
narrower than suspected. He said that a recent Republican Study Committee letter opposing Trade Adjustment
Assistance drew only 11 signatures and that dozens in the class of GOP freshmen had endorsed approval of the free
trade pacts.
13
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Will Pass – A2 Bundling
South Korea will pass
Rueters 4/20
(Rueters, April 20th, 2011, http://www.bestgrowthstock.com/stock-market-news/2011/04/20/update-1-uss-kirk-confident-congress-will-pass-trade-deals/, SH)
will approve free trade agreements with
South Korea, Panama and Colombia in separate bills but wants them to be part of a broader effort to pass other trade measure. “ It is highly
unlikely to zero that they would be (submitted) in one bill,” Kirk said of the three free trade deals at a breakfast meeting hosted by Third Way,
a Washington think tank. “We know of no legislative template for an omnibus trade bill .” But the Obama administration’s top trade
ambassador said that the agreements were essentially ready for Congressional consideration and technical talks with
lawmakers were underway. Kirk said the process for Colombia also would be started soon, aiming for a vote after mid-June.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Wednesday said he is confident Congress
14
Neg Politics DA
Novice
**Links**
15
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Space – Tea Party
Tea Party hates the plan – spending and free market intrusion
Nelson 2011
[Steven, The Daily Caller, “Tea Party group launches into space policy debate”, 6/24, http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/24/tea-party-group-launches-into-space-policydebate/]
Some members of the Tea
Party movement have zeroed in on a multi-billion dollar area of government spending. This time, it isn’t health care or the
Party in Space (TPIS) unveiled its “TEA Party Space Platform.” The group, which is
affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots, hopes NASA will return “to its roots as [a research and development] agency instead of
serving as a slush fund for a few influential members of Congress,” TPIS President Andrew Gasser said in a Thursday press release. Just like a political
party’s platform, this agenda is made up of specific issues. Among the fourteen calls to action is for Congress to pass legislation to cap
liability for commercial human spaceflight. Another of the tenets calls for a “Zero-G means Zero-Tax” arrangement, which would establish
tax exemptions for business activities related to human spaceflight. Additionally, the group wants for Congress to allow NASA to cancel
all existing Shuttle, Ares and Space Launch System contracts in order to force the termination of an $11 billion
earmark included in the 2010 NASA Authorization Law and for NASA to “competitively bid the development of
human exploration transportation capabilities.”
public debt -– but outer space. On Thursday, TEA
16
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Space – Public
Public hates the plan --- they’re strongly against space exploration
Rasmussen 2010
(Rasmussen Reports – National Polling, “59% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration”, 1-15,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration)
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the United States should cut back on space exploration given the current state of
the economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 31% disagree with cutting the space program, and 19% more are not sure. The
new findings mark a six-point increase in support - from 44% last July - for cutting back on space exploration. Still,
Americans are almost evenly
divided when asked if the space program should be funded by the government or by the private sector . Thirty-five percent
(35%) believe the government should pay for space research, while 38% think private interests should pick up the tab. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure which is
best. (Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. Sixty-four percent
(64%) of adults have at least a somewhat favorable view of NASA, including 18% with a very favorable opinion of the government’s chief space agency. Just 20%
have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2008. But that
marks a sizable drop in support for NASA from a survey last May. At that time, 81% had a favorable view of NASA, including 24% with
a very favorable opinion. The May findings, however, were a 23-point rebound for the space agency from July 2007 when just 58% had a favorable opinion. But, at
that time, NASA was suffering some bad publicity, including reports about drunken astronauts. In the budget President Obama proposes in early February, NASA is
hoping for $22 billion for the coming fiscal year, up $3 billion over the current year. This funding, according to news reports, will keep the agency on track for
projects including landing on one of Mars’ moons in the next 15 years and further exploring the Earth’s moon. Women and Americans ages 18 to 29 are more strongly
in support of cutting back on space exploration than are men and older adults. Democrats are more likely to agree than are Republicans and adults not affiliated with
either party. Women also feel more strongly that the space program should be funded by the private sector. But unaffiliated adults and those in both political parties
are narrowly divided over whether the space program is a government or private business responsibility. Investors are evenly divided on the question, while noninvestors lean slightly more toward private sector financing. Only 27% of Americans believe the current goals of the space program should include sending someone
to Mars. Fifty percent (50%) oppose such a mission, with 24% undecided. The findings on this question are unchanged from last July. The feelings are virtually
identical about sending someone to the moon. Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea, but twice as many (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one
of the current goals of the space program.
17
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Space – Republicans
Republicans want to decrease space funding – 2011 appropriations prove debate insights partisanship
Klamper 2010
(Amy Klamper, Space News Staff WriterDate: 03 November 2010 After Elections, Critics of Obama's NASA Plan Likely to Take Over 2 Key Committees
http://www.space.com/9462-elections-critics-obama-nasa-plan-2-key-committees.html)
Although lawmakers are expected to reconvene for a lame-duck session Nov. 15, it remains unclear whether new spending legislation will be approved before a
stopgap measure intended to keep the government running into the current budget year expires Dec. 3. That stopgap measure, called a continuing resolution, funds the
with incoming Republican leaders threatening to dial back discretionary
spending across the federal government next year, the $19 billion Congress authorized for NASA in 2011 could be
in jeopardy. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is expected to become speaker of the House in January, voted against the
recently enacted NASA legislation and more broadly has pledged to roll back spending in an effort to reduce the
federal deficit. In a weekly Republican address Oct. 30, Boehner criticized spending under Democratic leadership and
outlined reforms in the governing agenda Republicans expect to implement in the 112th Congress. " We're ready to cut spending to pre-'stimulus,'
pre-bailout levels, saving taxpayers $100 billion almost immediately," Boehner said. "And we're ready to put in place strict
budget caps that limit spending from here on out, to ensure that Washington is no longer on this spending binge ."
federal government at 2010 levels. In the meantime,
18
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Space – Spending
NASA funding unpopular
Timmer 2011
( John Timmer Science Editor et Observatory moderator John got a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell
Biology from the University of California, Berkeley, 4/25/11, “Bill introduced directing NASA to establish a moon base” accessed 5/31/11
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/bill-introduced-directing-nasa-to-establish-a-moon-base.ars)
Overall, the bill is roughly in keeping with Obama's priorities , which involve developing the ability to construct and fuel a long-distance
mission in orbit; those abilities could apply equally to sending construction materials to the Moon. It would also avoid one of the problems with the lack of an obvious
focus in Obama's plan, which could be viewed as "maybe an asteroid, some day." Even
assuming that the bill could clear the full House and
Senate (and survive an Obama veto), the impact may be much less than its supporters hope. As its text notes, a return to the
Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been there ." And,
more significantly, it clearly didn't ensure that the NASA budget was sufficient to actually accomplish that goal. Simply stating that NASA's budget
will be "consistent" with achieving it by 2020 leaves open a lot of room for different definitions of consistent, and
allows the current Congress to shift the burden of finding money onto future ones, which may not be inclined to do
so. Thus, on its own, the bill would accomplish nearly nothing and is sufficiently vague that it probably won't even be viewed as providing direction to NASA, at
least within NASA. And, given how contentious budget issues have been in the current Congress, any attempt to turn it into
something concrete would probably make it a non-starter.
Budget concerns means partisanship
CSM 2011
(By Pete Spotts, Staff writer / May 16, 2011 After the space shuttle, astronaut corps awaits a new mission NASA's once-iconic astronaut corps will shrink but still
play a vital role as the space shuttle era comes to an end. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0516/After-the-space-shuttle-astronaut-corps-awaits-a-newmission)
The current debates in Washington over the future of NASA's human-spaceflight enterprise and the increasingly
loud cries for deep budget cuts from deficit hawks in Congress have left NASA and the corps "without a clear
definition of what we should be doing," says Whitson. "We're an action-oriented group. We like to take something and pound the details out to make
it work. The times when we don't have a clear direction are the most difficult times. And it's an unclear time right now ."
NASA has been preparing for the end of the shuttle program and a downsized astronaut corps since January 2004,
nearly a year after the Columbia disaster, when the orbiter broke up on reentr y, killing its seven-member crew. At the time, President
George W. Bush unveiled his vision for space exploration. It called for terminating the shuttle program in 2010, an end
to US involvement in the ISS in 2015, and the development of two rockets, one of which could deliver a crew of
four to low-Earth orbit by 2014.
19
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Constellation – Spending
Even if congress wants it, they can’t have it- Constellation to unpopular with the public
Zimbio 2010
(Zimbio, 6/26/10, “Tiny hope for Constellation”, http://www.zimbio.com/NASA/articles/r0mhzciaawM/Tiny+hope+for+Constellation, SH)
Houston Congressman Culberson, other, still trying to save Constellation. A Houston Congressman. John Culberson, warns that NASA’s manned flight
program will be going on “indefinite hiatus” if the moon/Mars program, Constellation, is canceled–as the president wants. Congress, which has doubts about the new
plan for research and (eventual) return to manned flight, is trying to save the current program. I don’t believe Congress can pull lthis off, although I applaud the effort.
In any case, with our astronauts spending the last few decades in earth orbit, the public is bored with it. There’s
no popular groundswell for manned
spaceflight. Because of this, even assuming NASA truly expects to send astronauts to an asteroid, nobody’s going to
provide the money.
Moon funding contentious in congress
Powell 2010
(Stewart M. Powell, NYT, Monday, October 11, 201 Obama signs new space law
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/10/obama_signs_new_space_law.html)
The Obama administration faces uncertainty over whether Congress will provide NASA the full $19 billion for the
current fiscal year called for in the law signed by Obama on Monday. Congress is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill
after the Nov. 2 mid-term congressional elections to approve spending for federal agencies through next Sept. 30 .
Obama and NASA policy makers in the House and Senate have approved the policy framework contained in the legislation signed by Obama but it remains up
to congressional appropriators in November to actually vote the money. "The 600 pound gorilla here is the U.S.
economy and the need for fiscal responsibility across all the agencies," explained former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the White
House panel that concluded NASA's Bush-era back-to-the-moon Constellation program was behind schedule, over budget
and unachievable without $3 billion more a year. "The realities are very clear."
Travel to moon requires horse trading – mars exploration proves
Powell 2010
( House OKs new course for manned spaceflight With Obama's signature, moon missions will give way to Mars By STEWART M. POWELL WASHINGTON
BUREAU Sept. 29, 2010 Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7224649.html#ixzz1NyXU2SWB )
The United States on Wednesday officially abandoned nearly 50 years of pursuing manned moon missions — the galvanizing
symbol of space exploration - to lay down a new roadmap calling for NASA to catapult astronauts to distant asteroids and
Mars. The course correction came in a 304-118 House vote at 10:35 p.m. Wednesday adopting a 108-page White House-Senate compromise
that officially scrapped the last vestiges of Bush-era plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. The deal authorized $1.3 billion over the next
three years for commercial spacecraft companies to begin ferrying cargo and astronauts to the orbiting space station,
freeing NASA to pour billions of dollars into developing heavy lift rockets and crew capsules suitable for deep
space exploration. The compromise, in the making for months, was crafted by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Dallas, and Bill Nelson, DFla., and now heads to President Barack Obama's desk for signature into law. Read more:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7224649.html#ixzz1NyXBAd52
Constellation program unpopular with Congress
Moskowitz 2011
[Clara Moskowitz, Clara has a bachelor's degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University
of California, Santa Cruz. She writes for both SPACE.com and LiveScience, NASA Stuck in Limbo as New Congress Takes Over, 1/7/11, 6/25/11, AR]
Lawmakers in October passed – and President Obama
signed – a NASA authorization bill that gave America's space agency the
go-ahead to abandon its previous moon-oriented human spaceflight program and take aim at new targets: visiting an asteroid and
Mars. That bill called for NASA to receive $19 billion in 2011 – a boost from the 2010 NASA budget of $18.3 billion. But that promised funding was not
appropriated, since the outgoing lawmakers, along with the president, could not agree on a federal budget. Instead they enacted a continuing resolution – a kind of
placeholder law until a full budget can be agreed upon – that froze the federal government, including NASA, at 2010 spending levels through March 4. "Clearly the
big issue with NASA in this Congress is money," said Henry Hertzfeld, a professor of space policy and international affairs at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C. "The
details of the budget really hadn't been fully resolved with the old Congress, which left us with a
continuing resolution and nothing more. The question is what happens when they begin to start debating NASA."
Based on claims by new House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), who said his party will aim to cut non-military discretionary
spending back to 2008 levels, the space agency could be in for some serious budget cutbacks. "There's going to be a lot of hard
negotiations," said space policy expert Roger Handberg, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida. " NASA's problem is it's not a priority.
When they start slicing and dicing, NASA may be the one that gets to ‘contribute to the cause.’ I think it could be a
disaster for the government part of the program."
20
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Moon Mining – Capital
Moon mining unpopular – expensive and fusion isn’t proven
Whittington 2011
[Mark, author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The
Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times and The Weekly, “Harrison Schmitt's Plan to Solve the Energy Problem by Mining the Moon”,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110504/us_ac/8419965_harrison_schmitts_plan_to_solve_the_energy_problem_by_mining_the_moon]
A return to the moon was ruled out over a year ago by President Barack Obama when he canceled the Constellation
space exploration program. However, there has recently been a resurgence in interest in sending astronauts back to
the moon, especially in the Congress. Schmitt's scheme has the virtue of connecting the desire to go back to the
Moon with solving the long term energy needs of planet Earth. While there are abundant fossil fuels, the supply is
finite and in any case using oil and coal causes various forms of pollution. Solar and wind have thus far proven
inadequate as a means of replacing fossil fuels. Helium 3 fueled hydrogen provides a potential of providing clean,
virtually limitless energy for the foreseeable future. Of course, there are obstacles in the path of a helium 3 fusion future, both technical and
political. Developing a reactor that will create more energy than it consumes to create a helium 3 fusion reaction will be daunting. Then there are the problems of
The political problem is almost as
acute. The Fusion Technology Institute is funded with private money, as the Energy Department thinks that space
based helium 3 is a NASA problem and NASA thinks fusion energy is an Energy Department problem. It will take a
leader of vision to sort out the turf battles and get Schmitt's plan rolling.
developing of lunar mining techniques and a cost effective transportation infrastructure between Earth and the moon.
21
Neg Politics DA
Novice
Moon Mining – Spending
Current technology for colonization makes it unpopular
Roland and Brownback 2004
[Dr. K. Roland, and SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK , NASA Ames Research Center, U.S. Senator, April 2, 2004, U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
HOLDS HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF NASA, 6/25/11 JB]
BROWNBACK: Dr. Roland, give me your perspective on why we should or shouldn't go back to the moon or to Mars? ROLAND: If
the moon were paved
in diamonds, it'd cost more to go get them than they're worth here on Earth. It's one of the reasons we haven't gone
back to the moon is we discovered there is nothing there worth going back for . It is proved that you could do some science fair and
you could do some experiments, but nothing where the payoff is anywhere near the cost. And I think the same thing is true within Mars. This notion that humans in C2 do better research than machines I think is simply not true. And I don't know of any particular activity that a human is going to do on Mars that a machine can't do.
Remember, our machines are controlled from earth. We send them out and we tell them what to do. We don't have to pre-program. We direct them around. We have
the get samples. 25 years ago, NASA could have sent an automated probe to Mars to take soil samples and bring it back. We could have it down in the Air and Space
Museum now. And we haven't done those automated missions that we ought to be doing. I have no doubt that someday, humans will go to Mars. And we'll probably
go back to the moon. And we'll probably colonize the moon or Mars or some other place in space, but not with the technology that we have now. What
we have
now is the technology that allows us to do an enormous amount of scientific exploration. And that's being cut off
while we float astronauts around in near earth orbit. It's just an imbalance of our priorities. I agree that the space
program has to have some balance of priorities, but throughout NASA's history, it's been spending two- thirds of its
money on manned space flight. And we get very little payoff from that.
Helium 3 mining is unpopular: is not a budgetary priority
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal ’95
Eric M. Jones , 1995, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Date of
Access 6/25/11, JK)
The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the
beginning. The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public
funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we
have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts
and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to
If, for example, people began to think that there was a real
possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might well become available. The space
community talks hopefully about asteroid mining, about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3 mining on the Moon but,
unfortunately, they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and
the potential payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money.
change, of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards.
Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same
time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great
importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them,
we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs.
22
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – Political Capital
Pushing SPS would cost Obama political capital
David 2008
[Leonard, Pentagon, May 15, 2008, Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=69, 6/23/11 JB]
Overall, pushing
forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing
solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of
science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar
power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the
Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a
way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of
situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for
the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the
create a new agency ... who knows? It's
scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could
going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this ," Teets said.
23
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – Public
Public opposes SPS – they’re scared about the health effects
Linda
Shiner, Air and Space Magazine, 7-1-2008, “Where The Sun Does Shine,” http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html
Perhaps the
biggest hurdle facing space solar power is public concern about how low-level microwave beams will affect
animals and humans. Never mind that the fear remains unfounded. Because of the widespread use of microwaves for communication, the
Federal Communications Commission has established a safety standard for human exposure. In all proposed space power systems, the expected power density at the
edges of the receiving antenna, where people are most likely to be affected, meets the standard. But
explaining this to the public, which hears
“microwave” and thinks “oven,” might require a large and costly education campaign. Another worry, that microwave beams could scramble a
passing airliner’s avionics or harm passengers, could be addressed by restricting the airspace around the beams, just as the Federal Aviation Administration restricts
the airspace over nuclear power plants. Space
power advocates may find it instructive to study the political struggles of the
nuclear power industry.
24
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – Republicans
Solar power is unpopular with republicans – growing partisanship
Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (“Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated”, June 14, http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html)
WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen. John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar
power lobbying campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of
"personally alienating" him and other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the
national membership of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later gave it to reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a
strategy that included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It
is rare to have
such overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar industry had it and your
association's leadership squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening since last
year as Congress tries but fails to extend investment and production tax credits for solar , wind, geothermal and other
renewable sources that expire this year. Nevada solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing
the tax credits along with other expiring tax breaks. Ensign said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the
oil and gas industry and other business interests. He argued the trade-off would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an
alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that called for new renewable energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 88-8, but is stuck in the
House. On Tuesday, the latest effort to move a tax bill was blocked by Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week.
In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada or continuing a
veto threat that protects the off-shore tax havens of billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying plan targeting
Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard
of Colorado. "Following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this
opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it." Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign
but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax provisions. If they expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.
25
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – Alternative Energy
Building SSP would be a massive political battle and anger fossil fuel lobbies
Darel
Preble, President of Space Solar Power Institute, 12-15-2006, “Introduction,” http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf
Changing our nation and our world’s baseload energy generation sources to introduce SSP is a massive battle. The current oil, coal, and
gas energy providers, nuclear as well, are not eager to see their baseload investments face competition from SSP ,
which has zero fuel costs and zero emissions and a billion years of steady supply projected. This is why SSP has been unfunded since it was
invented in 1968. Carter pushed through the SSP reference study in 1979-1980, but space transportation costs were far too high, and they were forced to plan to
use astronauts to bolt it together. This is too dangerous for astronauts outside the protection of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (The Space Station is inside the Van
Allen Belts) People are also too expensive to use for SSP construction. Telerobotics, the real way to assemble SSP, did not exist in 1979. Now it is used in heart
surgery every day worldwide and for a thousand other uses. (The fossil fuel industry has battled environmentalists every inch during our
struggle to understand climate change effects. That is their right. Perhaps half the studies are wrong. But half are right.) Most crucially, space transportation costs have
stayed too high because there is no market large enough to support a Reusable Launch Vehicle fleet. SSP IS just such a massive market. Robert Zubrin mentions this
battle and perspective in “Entering Space”, page 51. He quit space transportation and decided to work on Mars, which has no possibility of commercialization this
century. This is detailed in the Space Transportation chapter on the SSPW website also. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Fossil fuel lobbies oppose SPS
Glaser
2008
Peter
, PhD, inventor of SPS idea, Spring
, “An Energy Pioneer,” Ad Astra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
No, because people can still get gas for their cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science and government know what is coming, but the average man on the street
will not care unless it impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. The basic approach is unchanged from my initial concept. We could have built this system 30
years ago. The technology just keeps getting better. The design
and implementation is a small problem compared to the much larger
obstacle of getting people to understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide cheap and limitless power for the entire
planet, yet instead of trying to find a way to make it work, most people shrug it off as being too expensive or too
difficult. Of course existing energy providers will fight, too. It only makes sense that coal and oil lobbies will continue
to find plenty of reasons for our representatives in Congress to reject limitless energy from the sun.
26
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – Spending
SPS is very controversial – pragmatics and economics
URSI, 2008, International Union of Radio Science, “White Paper,” http://www.ursi.org/WP/WP-SPS%20final.htm
There are SPS-related issues that are
highly controversial. Although several space agencies have pursued SPS studies and research (see the next section),
very critical papers have been published that concluded that an SPS is impractical and will never go into operation
(e.g., [2]). A more pro-SPS reply to this criticism [3] was based on the economic issues raised in [2]. Among the controversial issues is the question of
the space engineering and technology that are necessary for the launch, and the assembly and the maintenance of an SPS system, all of which to a
great extent are not yet possible. Other heavily debated issues are related to economic justifications (in comparison with
other power sources), are related to the question of whether an SPS can provide a base-load “clean” power system on a global scale, are related to military
applications, and are related to public acceptance. All of these issues are beyond URSI’s scientific domain and will therefore not be discussed in this white
paper. Social issues of an SPS may perhaps be addressed by the International Council for Science (ICSU).
Solar Powered Satellites is unpopular: is not a budgetary priority
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal 1995
Eric M. Jones , 1995, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Date of
Access 6/25/11, JK)
The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the
beginning. The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public
funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we
have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts
and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to
change, of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards. If, for example, people
began to think that there was a real
possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might well become available. The space
community talks hopefully about asteroid mining, about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3 mining on the Moon but, unfortunately,
they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and the potential
payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money. Alternatively, the
development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same time, would make a
broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great importance is the ability
to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them, we will probably have to
rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs.
27
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – A2 DOD Supports
DOD won’t fight for SPS
Day 2008
(Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, “Knights in Shining Armor”, The Space Review, 6-9,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)
If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for
space solar power is abysmal.
The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even
relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly
change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the
immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly
“falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor the Department Of Energy wants responsibility .
If the military takes on the SSP challenge,
the mission will finally have a home. But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have
little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have
come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many
cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major
problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns,
the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and Military space has a bad reputation in congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new
program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an
impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is
nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim
that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an
organization that has no clout.
28
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SPS – A2 Lobbies
The link only goes one way – no lobbies support the plan
Rouge 2007
Joseph D., Acting director of National Security Space Office, 10-9, “Space-Based Solar Power,” http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
made little progress because it “falls between the
cracks” of currently‐defined responsibilities of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US
Government. The current bureaucratic lanes are drawn in such a way to exclude the likelihood of SBSP development.
NASA’s charter and focus is clearly on robotic and human exploration to execute - 25 - the Moon‐Mars Vision for Space Exploration,
and is cognizant that it is not America’s Department of Energy (DOE). DOE rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to SBSP all lie in
spacefaring activities such as space access, and space‐to‐Earth power‐beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would make it dependent upon
a space‐capable agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this mission, and no
dedicated Space Development Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary development expertise in‐house, and clearly has a
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development over the past 30 years has
responsibility to look to the long term security of the United States, but it is also not the country’s Department of Energy, and must focus itself on war prevention and
warfighting concerns. A
similar problem exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small launch markets with the
government as a primary customer and advocate, and do not have a developed business model or speak in a common language with the
energy companies. The energy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the aerospace sector. One requires a demonstrated
market, while the other requires a demonstrated technical capability. Without
supportive policy, progress
a trusted agent to mediate the collaboration and serve as an advocate for
is likely to be slow.
Despite minor interest, the plan is unpopular – no advocates for SPS
[Frank, Jr, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, 8-9, “Space solar power,” ln]
Economically viable technology for space solar power exists today and could be developed in fairly short order
if only it could find advocates in
Congress and the federal bureaucracy, some experts say.
Earth's climate, the world economy and U.S. energy security could benefit from putting
photovoltaic cells or other solar-energy converters into space and beaming the carbon-free renewable power they produce to the surface as microwaves or lasers, two
experts in the field told a Washington roundtable sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute Aug. 8. But unlike nuclear fusion - the only other untapped energy
source with the potential to meet the projected energy needs of human civilization - space solar power (SSP) has "fallen through the cracks," according
to John C. Mankins, who led NASA's "Fresh Look" SSP study in 1995-2001 and is now chief operating officer of Managed Energy Technologies LLC. Early days
Mankins and Martin Hoffert, an emeritus physics professor at New York University who was chair of the Department of Applied Science there, traced the SSP
concept from its early days in the late 1970s, when a reference design developed by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy would have cost $100 billion to
generate the first watt of electricity and pushed the state of the art in aerospace and electrical engineering to the limits and beyond. Since then, advances in
photovoltaic cell efficiencies, solid-state electronics, robotics and other technologies have drastically cut startup costs, to the point that a profitable SSP system could
be operating in the 2020s without a huge up-front government expenditure, Mankins and Hoffert say. But the
problem of gaining the necessary
backing remains. Both experts said the concept enjoys "uncoordinated" support on Capitol Hill, with individual members
of Congress intrigued by the idea but without the broad support it would need to get under way . Within the federal agencies
with potential SSP roles, the Energy Department "culture" isn't conducive to large aerospace projects, Hoffert said, while NASA killed the SSP research effort
"Unless you have a champion within a government agency who can
push something, which certainly fusion, for example, has, it's not going to happen," Hoffert said.
Mankins was heading because "we don't do energy at NASA."
29
Neg Politics DA
Novice
**Internal Links**
30
Neg Politics DA
Novice
PC Key SKFTA
Political capital key to passage
Foreign Policy 2/11
(“Obama’s Bets on free trade: inside the deals behind the deals”,
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/11/obamas_bets_on_free_trade_what_are_the_deals_behind_the_deals, SH)
that the Obama administration is serious about
progress on the South Korea, Panama, and Colombia free trade agreements. He wouldn't commit to a timeline, but we think Congress will
pass all three deals this year -- though not without a round of serious political deal making. Obama campaigned on the need to
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the House Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 9
extract additional concessions from South Korea, Colombia and Panama before any of these deals, all of which were negotiated and signed by President George W.
Bush, deserved ratification. For example, automakers and the United Auto Workers complained that the South Korea deal opened the U.S. auto market to Korean
imports without securing reciprocal liberalization. The United States took two years to tell South Korea exactly what it wanted changed, but the two sides have finally
With the new agreement providing political cover, Obama now
officially endorses the deal and will send it to Capitol Hill for ratification soon.
negotiated a side deal in which the Koreans made additional concessions.
Political capital key
Shifter 1/2
[Michael, Inter-American Dialogue, “Has the FTA's Time Come?”, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=2540]
But Washington is on the verge of change. On January 5th a new US Congress will be installed. With Republicans in control in the House of Representatives and
having stronger representation in the Senate, how do prospects for the accord look today? And what other changes might be expected in US policy towards Colombia
and its neighbors? For
the agreement’s supporters, there are hopeful signs but also some concerns. That John Boehner will
replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House on January 5th opens up an opportunity. Pelosi, responding to her Democratic constituency, had resisted
bringing the measure to a vote. Boehner, in contrast, is more committed to the agreement and has consistently supported
free trade legislation. He will have little difficulty mobilizing many Republican colleagues, though how much support he will be able to muster from the Tea
Party is an open question. He should also be able to count on support from the small number of pro free-trade Democrats. Getting the agreement through
the Senate shouldn’t be a problem. The question, however, is whether the White House is prepared to push for the
measure and submit- the bill for Congressional consideration. President Obama, who has been indifferent on trade in his first two years in
office, has consistently said he backs it. But it has not been a priority for him. So far he has not been willing to spend
political capital on it. In some sense, trade would be a natural issue for Obama. It fits with his recent move to the center
and offers a chance to find common ground with Republicans. But at the same time Obama is nervous about alienating his Democratic base
(most importantly the powerful unions like the AFL-CIO) that are worried about free trade deals in the context of high unemployment (nearly 10 percent). On
December 17th, Obama’s chief spokesman Robert Gibbs was not too encouraging. He said the White House did not plan to submit the Colombia agreement to
Congress “because it doesn’t have the votes.” Gibbs also
expressed the greater urgency seen in the impending trade agreement
with South Korea which, because of the rising concerns in Washington about North Korea, has broad ramifications.
31
Neg Politics DA
Novice
A2 Public Popularity
Popularity irrelevant – capital key to leverage
Boulie 5/5
[Jamelle Bouie, BA, Political & Social Thought, Writing Fellow of The American Prospect,” Political Capital”, 5/5/11, 6/24/11]
Unfortunately, political
capital isn’t that straightforward. As we saw at the beginning of Obama’s presidency, the mere
fact of popularity (or a large congressional majority) doesn’t guarantee support from key members of Congress. For Obama to
actually sign legislation to reform the immigration system, provide money for jobs, or reform corporate taxes, he needs unified support from
his party and support from a non-trivial number of Republicans. Unfortunately, Republicans (and plenty of Democrats) aren’t interested in better
immigration laws, fiscal stimulus, or liberal tax reform. Absent substantive leverage—and not just high approval ratings—there isn’t
much Obama can do to pressure these members (Democrats and Republicans) into supporting his agenda.
32
Neg Politics DA
Novice
A2 Winners Win
Can’t get a win – resources are more important than popularity
Boulie ‘11
[Jamelle Bouie, BA, Political & Social Thought, Writing Fellow of The American Prospect,” Political Capital”, 5/5/11, 6/24/11]
Indeed, for
liberals who want to see Obama use his political capital, it’s worth noting that approval-spikes aren’t
necessarily related to policy success. George H.W. Bush’s major domestic initiatives came before his massive post-Gulf War approval bump, and his
final year in office saw little policy success. George W. Bush was able to secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use
Military Force in the year following 9/11, but the former two either came with pre-9/11 Democratic support or were Democratic initiatives to begin with. To repeat an
oft-made point, when
it comes to domestic policy, the presidency is a limited office with limited resources. Popularity
with the public is a necessary part of presidential success in Congress, but it’s far from sufficient.
Political capital is drained long before it is renewed
Lashof 2010 (Dan Lashof “Lessons from Senate climate fail” 28 JUL 2010 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-28-lessons-from-senate-climate-fail/)
Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resource Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama
administration made early on was to move healthcare reform before energy and climate legislation . I'm sure this seemed like a
good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was popular, was seen as an issue that the public cared about on a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats from
all regions. White
House officials and Congressional leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that success
breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would renew Obama's political capital, some of which had to be spent early on to push the economic
stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was eventually enacted, but only after an exhausting
battle that eroded public support, drained political capital, and created the Tea Party movement . Public support for
healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the forecasted Armageddon is not happening.
But this is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obama's political capital in time to help push climate legislation across
the finish line.
Political capital finite.
Feehery 2009 (July 21, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/)
A president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever get (barring a war or some other calamity that brings the
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
country together), which
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.
Here’s our political theory card – winners-lose.
Andres et al, '2k (Dutko Group, Griffin -- Griffin, Johnson, Dover and Stewart, and Thurber -- American University, Presidential Studies Quarterly,
30:3)
Designing a legislative road map to success would be much less daunting if powerful presidents only had to build
winning coalitions. Unfortunately, most presidential actions cause reactions in peculiar places, in the world of trade-offs.
Winning in one arena may cause a major loss in another. Presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, faced divided party government
conditions during most—or in the case of Bush, throughout—their administrations. Each could have offered legislation aimed at the median legislators’ policy
position and bargained or offered other inducements to win a simple majority. Yet, that model was unrealistic because of the trade-offs facing both presidents. The
most obvious example of this is the trade-off between forging majority coalitions and party building and winning elections. This was a constant struggle for President
Bush and his team. Throughout his administration, legislation such as the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Savings and Loan Recapitalization Act, and “fast-track”
trade legislation required bipartisan support from Democratic Party committee chairs and rank-and-file members to generate majority support for his policies. Bush’s
own party members often met discussions with the Democratic Party leadership with apprehension and suspicion. The White House’s task during these exercises was
to balance the needs of the president’s party members for consultation and attention with the demands of the majority to compromise and move legislation forward.
Although President Bush could have negotiated with Democratic Party members in furthering his legislative agenda, the
need to build and promote his
own party’s particular policies and preferences were limiting factors. President Clinton faced similar trade-offs during the
last six years of his administration, confronting a Republican majority in Congress. Trade-off problems for a president are not isolated to his
own party, however. The trade-off issue faced the Bush administration when he advocated legislation that was more ideologically conservative and attempted to
build coalitions with the more moderate Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. The White House targeted many U.S. House districts represented by
conservative Democrats as the best places to pick up additional seats. On several occasions during the height of a White House lobbying push on legislation,
conservative Democrats routinely noted to presidential aides as represented in the following quote from one House member: I’ll consider voting with you on this bill,
but you need to talk to (an administration political representative) and tell him that he can’t come down to my district and campaign against me this weekend. You
guys have got to understand that you can’t ask me for my vote today and then try to beat my brains in politically tomorrow.
33
Neg Politics DA
Novice
A2 No Spillover [1/2]
Obama thinks our link is true even if it is false.
O'Neill 2009
(President -- O'Neill Associates, http://www.mytwocensus.com/tag/michael-j-oneil/)
I think this says something very revealing, but far more about the Obama administration than about Bob Groves. I have no doubt whatsoever what Bob’s private
counsel would be if asked about whether applying estimation principles to the Census would increase its accuracy. Indeed, his scientific judgment on this matter is
already a matter of public record. But what is interesting here is how this
new position mirrors the Obama administration’s approach to
dealing with many controversial matters. There is a pattern: President Obama does not want the political distraction of
Republicans screaming that the Democrats have “fixed” the Census to produce a partisan result. It would not matter that as a
matter of scientific certainty, such claims would be wrong; they could score political points in making the charge. (This is the type of technical issue that is difficult to
explain to a statistically lay audience; many intelligent people simply won’t understand it.) Obama looks willing to forgo the congressional seats, perhaps a dozen or
so, Democrats would gain in order to avoid this political distraction and pursue higher priorities. He has bigger fish to fry. This
strategic retreat resembles
the back-burnering of issues such as gun control and gays in the military. Each has been delayed out of a fear that it
could be divisive and derail his core agenda, especially the economy and health care reform. To pursue key objectives, he has been
willing to delay action on other issues that could distract or dilute his mandate . While he has pursued many
initiatives, he has carefully avoided those with the explosive potential to blow up the broader agenda. And an
attempt to use estimation for reapportionment has that potential . While the scientific merits are indisputable, getting the public to
understand such arcane statistical principles is a lost cause. The Obama administration has concluded that it is simply not worth the
political capital to try.
Political capital key to agenda and spills-over – 107th Congress proves.
Lee 2005
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://as.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.
Issues are zero-sum -- Press ensures it.
Fitts 1996
(Law Prof -- Penn, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827)
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. 128 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 nondecisions of others - the buck stops [*866] with the president. 129 In this environment, "no politician can endure opposition from a wide range of opponents in
numerous contests without alienating a significant proportion of voters." 130 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. 131 Presidents Bush and Reagan tried a similar technique of giving control over different agencies to different political constituencies. 132 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. 133 Reagan's widely publicized verbal "incoherence" and detachment from government affairs
probably served a similar function. 134 Unfortunately, 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. 135 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. 136 Thus, in contrast to Congress, the modern president's attempt to
avoid or mediate issues can often undermine him personally and politically.
34
Neg Politics DA
Novice
A2 No Spillover [2/2]
Vote switching is real – ideology is minimal.
Bond & Fleisher 1996
Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham (Jon R. and Richard The President in Legislation) pg 54
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.
35
Neg Politics DA
Novice
**Impacts**
36
Neg Politics DA
Novice
2NC DA Outweighs
SKFTA will pass because Obama is using political capital to gain concessions from both Democrats and
Republicans. Space policy alienates both groups by shifting the debate to spending. Failure to pass the
agreement collapses the alliance and causes Korea war.
Disad outweighs the case. Only Korea Escalates to Nuclear war—US deterrence key
Gray 2005
[Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies, and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies, at the University of Reading (Spring 2005, Colin S.,
Parameters, “How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?” http://www.carlisle.army. mil/usawc/parameters/05spring/gray.htm)
6. Interstate war, down but far from out. Logically, the reverse side of the coin which proclaims a trend favoring political violence internal to states, is the claim that
interstate warfare is becoming, or has become, an historical curiosity. Steven Metz and Raymond Millen assure us that “ most armed
conflicts in coming decades are likely to be internal ones”.21 That is probably a safe prediction, though we might choose to be
troubled by their prudent hedging with the qualifier, “most.” Their plausible claim would look a little different in hindsight were it to prove strictly true, but with
the exceptions of one or two interstate nuclear conflicts, say between India and Pakistan, and North Korea and the United States
and its allies. The same authors also offer the comforting judgment that “[d]ecisive war between major states is rapidly moving
toward history’s dustbin.”22 It is an attractive claim; it is a shame that it is wrong. War, let alone “decisive war,” between major states currently is enjoying
an off season for one main reason. So extreme is the imbalance of military power in favor of the United States that potential rivals rule out policies that might lead to
hostilities with the superpower. It is fashionable to argue that major interstate war is yesterday’s problem—recall that the yesterday in question is barely fifteen years
in the past--because now there is nothing to fight about and nothing to be gained by armed conflict. Would that those points were true; unfortunately they are not.
The menace of major, if not necessarily decisive, interstate war will return to frighten us when great power rivals
feel able to challenge American hegemony. If you read your Thucydides, and Donald Kagan, you will be reminded of the deadly and eternal influence of
the deadly triad of motives for war, “fear, honor, and interest.”23
We control probability - Tensions increasing
Stephenson 1/9
(Toronto Sun http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/mercedes_stephenson/2011/01/07/16805271.html)
All eyes will remain on the sabre rattling between the two Koreas . Interesting fact: The Korean war isn’t over. Literally.
There’s an armistice, which means they’re not supposed to shoot at each other (North Korea, I am looking at you), but technically it’s still on. No one really thinks the
The presence of nuclear weapons drastically changes the
calculus for both sides because the stakes are literally survival and neither side has a death wish. This has not diminished the
international community’s concern, however, that in the heat of the moment, a can’t-take-it-back move could be made and things
could rapidly devolve. Not surprising considering Seoul is well within range of a North Korean conventional artillery strike — let alone any need for longrange missiles or nuclear-tipped weapons. Great Leader Kim Jong-il — the leader previously known as Intelligent Leader and Dear Leader and one can see why,
what with the starving of people to build nukes — will transfer power to his son Kim Jong-un. Expect the aggressive moves and
rhetoric to pick up as the family dynasty demonstrates its power and solidarity inside and outside the regime. Last
year saw the North build a new and surprisingly sophisticated uranium enrichment plant to fuel the nuclear weapons
program. Kim Jong-il torpedoed and sunk a South Korean warship, killing sailors. Later in the year, he killed South Korean soldiers with a conventional artillery
strike. Expect 2011 to bring increasing tension and global attention to the Korean peninsula.
Koreas are about to break into trench warfare resembling 1951 again at any moment.
37
Neg Politics DA
Novice
NK – SKFTA Solves Korea War
Strong US-ROK relations deters North Korean aggression – and KORUS is key
Snyder et al 2010
[adjunct senior fellow for Korea studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at the Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum at
CSIS (Scott A, June. With Charles L. Pritchard, John H. Tilelli, and the CFR Independent Task Force. “U.S. Policy Toward the Korean Peninsula.” Council on
Foreign Relations Independent Task Force Report No. 64. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Korean_PeninsulaTFR64.pdf)
Strong alliance coordination with South Korea has ensured peninsular stability for more than five decades, initially in
response to North Korea’s conventional threat and now in promoting a coordinated response to North Korea’s efforts to
develop nuclear weapons. While successfully deterring North Korea, the alliance also provided the political stability necessary for South Korea’s economic and
political trans- formation into a leading market economy with a vibrant democratic political system. South Korea’s democratic transformation has allowed a more
robust and enduring partnership with the United States that also applies to a growing list of regional and global security, economic, and political issues beyond North
Korea. Presidents Obama
and Lee recognized the potential for such cooperation through the adoption of a Joint Vision
Statement at their White House meeting in June 2009.43 Citing shared values between the two countries, the statement outlines an agenda for broadened global
cooperation on peacekeeping, post conflict stabilization, and development assistance, as well as for addressing a wide range of common challenges to human security,
including “terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, organized crime and narcotics, climate change, poverty, infringement on human rights,
energy security, and epidemic disease.”44 The
Joint Vision Statement also underscores U.S. commitments to defend South Korea
from North Korea’s nuclear challenge by providing extended deterrence to protect South Korea—that is, a pledge to use its nuclear arsenal in
response to any nuclear attack on South Korea—and to transition the role of U.S. forces in South Korea from a leading to a supporting role. It also pledges to
strengthen bilateral economic, trade, and investment ties through ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA).
38
Neg Politics DA
Novice
NK – China Escalation
China gets pulled in on North Korea’s side
ISN 1/27
(International Relations and Security Network http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISNInsights/Detail?lng=en&id=126468&contextid734=126468&contextid735=126467&tabid=126467)
Similar political realities have undermined another Washington attempt at a concert of powers, the Six Party Talks concerning the North Korean nuclear program. The
Korean Peninsula is the strategic key to Manchuria and to China's coastal security. The 1894 Sino-Japanese War was a contest between the two powers for influence
in Korea. China's loss led to a weakened Qing position in Manchuria and along the coast that invited further aggression from Japan, Russia and the European powers.
In the Korean War in the 1950s, China spent, by some estimates, over a million lives to keep North Korea in existence and in the Sino-Soviet sphere. Beijing is
unlikely to take any action to undermine a regime that acts as a buffer against the United States, South Korea and Japan. Recent
events show the
opposite. China has boosted its economic aid and investment programs in North Korea, and Beijing has been
particularly reluctant to use its considerable leverage over Pyongyang to force concessions on its nuclear weapons
program. Indeed, Kim Jong Il's recent visit to China, just as he is working to effect a smooth leadership transition,
indicates that Beijing will remain deeply invested in the present North Korean regime.
39
Neg Politics DA
Novice
NK – CBW Impact
North Korean conflict will involve Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons
The Telegraph 2/2
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8298427/WikiLeaks-tension-in-the-Middle-East-and-Asia-has-direct-potential-to-lead-to-nuclear-war.html
Spencer)
security briefing at an international non-proliferation summit in 2008 stated that “a nuclear and missile arms race
[in South Asia] has the direct potential to lead to nuclear war in the world's most densely populated area and a
region of increasing global economic significance”. The same briefing gave warning that development of cruise and
ballistic missiles in the Middle East and Asia could enable rogue states to fire weapons of mass destruction into
neighbouring regions. The leaked documents also disclose alarming details of the chemical and biological weapons
programmes being pursued by rogue states such as Syria and North Korea. Syria - which backs the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah – is
Secret records of a US
believed to be developing chemical weapons using the lethal nerve agents sarin and VX, which shut down the nervous system in under a minute if inhaled or absorbed
through the skin. In December 2008, a company connected to the Syrian WMD programme attempted to buy a shipment of glass-lined reactors, heat exchangers and
pumps used in weapons manufacturing from two Indian firms, prompting an intervention by the US. Condoleezza Rice, then US Secretary of State, sent a stronglyworded cable classified “secret” to the US embassy in New Delhi instructing diplomats to order the Indian government to block the sale. Threatening sanctions against
the firms if they did not comply, Miss Rice urged embassy officials to remind the Indian government of its obligation “to never, under any circumstances, assist
anyone in the development of chemical weapons”. The US has made similar interventions to block the sale of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons materials to
North Korea. In March 2008, US
diplomats in Beijing urged the government to investigate a Chinese company which had
agreed to sell a deadly chemical to North Korea. The US has also been advised to make flattering overtures to North
Korea to prevent the regime from feeling the need to flex its muscles by advancing its nuclear capabilities. South Korean
politicians told US diplomats last year that the North had made a show of testing nuclear missiles in the early months of Barack Obama’s presidency because it was
“feeling ignored and lonely” and was “trying to draw America’s attention”.
40
Neg Politics DA
Novice
NK- Tensions Now
High Tensions now – biggest danger of war.
English News 1/24
(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/24/c_13705031.htm)
According to an article published by the DPRK's official newspaper, the
Korean Peninsula has turned into "a region fraught with highest
tension and biggest danger of war worldwide," which badly affected peace in Northeast Asia.
Tensions are at their worst since the Korean war
ABC Online 9/22
(9/22/10, " Russia warns of conflict between North, South Korea ", http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/23/3019418.htm?section=justin)
Russia warned on Wednesday that "conflict"
could break out any day between North and South Korea , saying tension between
the two countries was at its worst in a decade. The unusually stark words by Russian deputy foreign minister Alexei Borodavkin come two months
after the North said it would wage a "sacred war" against the United States and its ally, South Korea. Washington replied that it
would not enter a "war of words" with the North. "The political tension on the Korean Peninsula has reached an extreme level, after
which there can be only conflict," the state-run ITAR-TASS news agency quoted Mr Borodavkin as saying.
High Tension—US escalates to war
Foley 1/9
(Albany Times Union http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Pay-attention-to-growing-tensions-946125.php)
The growing crisis on the Korean peninsula is the biggest threat to world peace. South Korea is one of America's
most important allies. If tension between the North and South continues, and war breaks out, then the United States
will go to war as well. Not a war where we fight jihadists using predator drones and long-range missiles, but a legitimate war where we may have to invade
North Korea. Let us also not forget that North Korea has nuclear weapons and that its leader, Kim Jong-il, may not be afraid to use
them. He has proven to be quite unstable in his behavior. It's about time that Americans wake up and begin to realize the dangers in this world
that truly exist.
Korean Peninsula tension high now.
English News 1/17
(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/17/c_13694872.htm)
PYONGYANG, Jan. 17 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) expressed Monday its
anger over South Korea's recent
military exercises, repeating calls for Seoul to resume dialogue with Pyongyang. In an editorial, DPRK's official newspaper Rodong Sinmun said South
Korea's military exercises since the beginning of the new year had dampened confidence to resume dialogue, calling them "a very
dangerous act". The article said South Korea not only conducted military exercises on its own but also collaborated with the United States to launch joint
exercises, threatening and pressuring DPRK through military means. It is an act that "cannot be passed over without
taking action," the article said, adding that such move not only posed challenge to the domestic and international hope for dialogue and peace, but also would
exacerbate the already straining relations on the Korean Peninsula.
41
Neg Politics DA
Novice
2NC Asian Leadership
SKFTA is a critical signal of the alliance and US commitments in Asia.
Manyin & Cooper 2009
Congressional Research Service, 2009, CAN THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA SING WITHOUT KORUS? THE ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC
EFFECTS OF THE KORUS FTA, [Mark; William], p. http://www.keia.org/Publications/JointAcademicStudies/2009/Cooper.pdf
U.S.–South Korea relations magnifies the KORUS FTA’s importance, primarily because the fate of
the FTA will be seen as an indicator of broader U.S. policy: it would be harder for the United States to take concrete
steps regionally to minimize the negative effects in the event the KORUS FTA is rejected or indefinitely delayed. Additionally, the
KORUS FTA has become something of a symbol of the depth of the U.S. commitment to the U.S.–South Korea alliance
and to the U.S. forward presence in East Asia. Right or wrong, many Asians believe that the United States is
disengaging from the region. If the South Korean National Assembly approves the pact and the FTA is either rejected or not introduced in the
United States, many Koreans and Asians may regard this as an additional sign of U.S. disengagement at a time when
other great powers like Japan and China are increasing their economic diplomacy.
Looking beyond
US dominance in East Asia is key to prevent Chinese invasion of Taiwan and ensure regional stability
Brookes 2008
[sr. fellow, National Security Affairs, Heritage, 11/24/ (Brookes, Peter, "Why the World Still Needs America's Military
Might,"http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl1102.cfm)
Further to the south, what about stability across the Taiwan Strait? We know that China
is undergoing a major military buildup, especially
involving its power projection forces--i.e., air force, navy, and ballistic missile forces, all aimed at Taiwan. Indeed, today Beijing has the world's third
largest defense budget and the world's fastest growing peacetime defense budget, growing at over 10 percent per year for over a decade. It increased its defense budget
military tensions across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait between Taiwan and China
would be much greater today if not for an implied commitment on the part of the United States to prevent a change in the political
status quo via military means. China hasn't renounced the use of force against its neighbor and rival, Taiwan, a vibrant, free-market democracy. It is
believed by many analysts that absent American military might, China would quickly unite Taiwan with the mainland under
force of arms. In general, the system of military alliances in Asia that the United States maintains provides the
basis for stability in the Pacific, since the region has failed to develop an overarching security architecture such as that found in Europe in NATO.
nearly 18 percent annually over the past two years. I would daresay that
US China conflict causes Extinction
Straits Times (Singapore), 2K
(“Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan,” June 25, Lexis)
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China.
If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war
becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics
support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser
extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east
Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as
opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may
seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the
likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could
enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US
Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from
military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy,
Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had
to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later,
Beijing also seems
prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle
short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities.
regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson
International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He
said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said
that should that come to pass, we
would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While
the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for
China puts sovereignty above everything else.
42
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SKFTA Turns Case – Hegemony
SKFTA is critical to US leadership and stopping balancing.
Korea Times 2010
[2/1/ -- " US Loses Clout on Korean Economy ", http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/02/123_60075.html]
But its influence in what is now Asia's fourth-largest economy has been diminishing rapidly over the last 10 years, with Korea expanding trade relations with China,
Russia and other emerging economies. Analysts here say that the
U.S. could lose more of its economic clout in Korea if the
administration of President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress continue to delay the ratification of the KoreaU.S. free trade agreement (FTA). They say the European Union and China, which compete with the U.S. for global
hegemony, will establish closer economic ties with Korea if the U.S. heads toward protectionism and places greater
priority on domestic populism than trade. According to the Korea Customs Services (KCS) Monday, Korea's trade dependence on the U.S. stood at
9.7 percent in 2009, down from 24.4 percent in 1991. Korea shipped about 10.36 percent of its total outbound shipments to the world's largest economy, down from
25.8 percent over the same period, while taking 9 percent of its total imports from the U.S., down from 23.18 percent. On the other hand, Korea's trade dependence on
China has increased at an explosive pace since the two countries began diplomatic relations in 1992. South Korea's exchange of agricultural and industrial goods with
the world's fastest-growing economy reached 20.5 percent last year, up from 2.9 percent in 1991. Korea exported 23.9 percent of its outbound shipments to the
neighboring country in 2009, up from 1.4 percent, with 16.8 percent of its imports coming from China, up from 4.2 percent. The U.S. has become less important to
Korea economically over the years, with the latter increasingly relying on China, the European Union and other economies for growth. "Korea
is the sixthlargest trading partner of the U.S. and a key Asian economy strategically located in Northeast Asia. American
policymakers and businesses should be alert over their diminishing economic influence over Korea," LG Economic
Research Institute managing director Oh Moon-suk said. Oh said if the U.S. continues to remain reluctant to sign the free trade pact with Korea, the Asian nation will
continue to move closer toward China and the European Union, adding the EU will likely sign a free trade accord with Korea before the U.S. does.
43
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SKFTA Turns Case – Competitiveness
SKFTA solves Competitiveness and Econ
WSJ 2010
(Guest Contributor http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/16/guest-contribution-5-reasons-america-needs-korea-free-trade-deal/?mod=WSJ_article_related)
Must Compete for Trade Deals — or Fall Behind. America can get back in the game by implementing the
Korea FTA. While we have been on the sidelines, competitors like China, the European Union, India and Japan have
aggressively pursued new trade deals to win fairer treatment for their exports. Asia-Pacific countries have been
particularly active, and are now considering or negotiating over 75 new trade deals. The EU-Korea FTA should take
effect next year and would ultimately provide EU products with a price advantage in Korea averaging 9% over nonFTA products. America must secure similar benefits to assure that our companies can gain new business and keep
current sales to Korea. For example, without an FTA, U.S. pork would be priced out of South Korea within a decade, and American pork producers would
4. America
lose their sixth largest export market and sales of $215 million. 5. China is Not a Fan. The Korea FTA would solidify America’s strategic relationship with South
Korea, a key ally. It would bolster stepped-up U.S. efforts to respond to an increasingly assertive China and a belligerent North Korea by building strong trade,
The Agreement would also help America compete and win in
The FTA’s advantages would
help U.S. companies and workers win back business from China and others in this vital Asian market.
diplomatic and security relationships with South Korea and other Pacific allies.
Korea’s $1.3 trillion economy. In recent years, China has muscled aside the United States, and is Korea’s #1 supplier.
44
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SKFTA Turns Case – Econ
SKFTA is a huge boost to the economy – double exports and jobs.
EWIRE Informer 2011
http://ewireinformer.com/president-obama-to-send-us-korea-trade-agreement-to-congress-341320.html
Bipartisanship is the current name of the game when it comes to the passage of a US trade agreement with Korea, called KORUS or the Korea-US Free Trade
Agreement. President Obama’s pledge to send this trade agreement to Congress early this year is both applauded and supported by congressional officials. It is
The agenda
associated with KORUS will potentially double US exports within 5 years, subsequently saving approximately
340,000 US jobs and creating more than 70,000 new ones. This agreement will help American companies to sell
their services and goods to Korea, the 12th largest world economy, by doing away with import taxes to Korea.
believed that this agreement will help to revitalize the US economy, create jobs and reassert America’s leadership within the global market.
SKFTA is a new stimulus bill – critical to economic recovery.
Bandow 2010
[sr. fellow, CATO, (Bandow, Doug, "South Korea Free Trade agreement Key to Prosperiy and Security" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12488)
Washington should be expanding American investment and trade opportunities throughout East Asia . The starting point
should be ratifying the FTA with the Republic of Korea (ROK). South Korea possesses one of the world's largest economies — number 13 at
last count — and is among the top dozen trading nations. Total bilateral trade between the U.S. and the ROK ran about $85 billion in 2008. The seventh largest
merchandise trading partner of the U.S., the ROK is a major importer of aircraft, cereals, chemicals, machinery, and plastics. Even
a small expansion of
U.S.-ROK trade would offer a significant benefit for America's economy. Despite its stunning economic success due in large part
to exports, the South has never welcomed international competition. Korean business professor Moon Hwy-chang admits: "Korea has not been a very open economy."
The FTA helps change that. Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics reported: "The
U.S.-Korea pact covers more trade
than any other U.S. trade agreement except the North American Free Trade Agreement" and "opens up substantial
new opportunities for bilateral trade and investment in goods and services." Roughly 95 percent of trade would become duty free
within three years and most of the other tariffs would be lifted within a decade. The accord would provide particularly significant benefits for U.S. agriculture,
financial services companies, and American firms seeking access to ROK government procurement.
45
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SKFTA Turns Case – Innovation
SKFTA turns the competitiveness – trade more important to innovation because export markets are critical
to business investment and knowledge cross-pollination.
Colvin and Stubbs 2011
Jake Colvin is the vice president for the National Foreign Trade Council. John Stubbs is the executive director of the Global Innovation Forum. The Hill
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/139659-a-policy-wish-list-from-americas-innovation-leaders
Innovators identified a series of problems that uniquely affect small businesses. Smaller companies and entrepreneurs continue to face a real credit
crunch that began with the global financial crisis. Even successful companies are finding it difficult to access sufficient capital to
grow their businesses, which is limiting overall economic growth. Smaller businesses also find it more difficult to access global markets,
overcome barriers to entry into new countries, and address counterfeiting and piracy abroad. Many companies, big and small, worry about the
ability of U.S. companies and workers to compete globally on an uneven playing field . Foreign governments
continue to take aim at American jobs through a range of protectionist practices that block American sales to their
markets, such as non-transparent standards, price controls, censorship of American content and massive subsidies for local
firms. How Washington Can Encourage U.S. Innovation Happily, these are all issues that can be addressed through smart public
policy. Based on the feedback from our conference, Congress should focus on five critical areas to create an enabling environment for America’s innovative
businesses and workers in the global marketplace: 1. Create a more open, rules-based, competitive trading environment through the
conclusion and passage of new and innovative trade agreements. These binding commitments with our trading partners create win-win
opportunities for economic growth and development of new innovations to address common global challenges . The pending U.S. trade agreements
with Korea, Panama and Colombia would be excellent places to start. 2. Ensure that value is being delivered back home for U.S. innovation. In
particular, lack of protection in foreign markets for U.S. innovation chills investment, reduces opportunities for
transnational technology and knowledge collaboration and removes opportunities for exports of American products
and services.
46
Neg Politics DA
Novice
SKFTA Turns Case – Warming
SKFTA key to clean energy deployment to stop warming
Kim 2010
[policy analyst, heritage foundation, ("Time to Build a Clean Energy Future through the KORUS FTA" http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Time-to-Builda-Clean-Energy-Future-through-the-KORUS-FTA)
The pending Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, known as the KORUS FTA, is a ready-made vehicle for pioneering a clean
energy future and ensuring greater prosperity in the two nations. If President Obama is genuinely serious about clean energy and successfully expanding
markets for American entrepreneurs, he should submit the KORUS FTA for congressional ratification without further delay, according to the November 2010
timetable he indicated during the recent G-20 summit in Toronto. Freer Trade Is Key to Clean Energy and Protecting the Environment When a country lowers its
barriers to trade, it opens its economy to competitive opportunities for greater efficiency and dynamic economic growth. Competition spurs the movement of labor and
capital from industries that cannot compete to those that can, enabling a nation to both produce more efficiently and attract new investment. The need to adhere to
such a strategy is no less important today than in previous eras. Free
trade expands the base for vibrant innovation and growth. In countries
Clean energy technology is no exception. Indeed,
the most practical improvements in clean energy technology efficiency and environmental protection over the past decades
have not stemmed from government mandates, but by freer trade and economic freedom. The KORUS FTA: Compelling Case for Advancing Green
around the world, trade has been shown to be one of the greatest drivers of technological change.
Growth In 2007, the U.S. and South Korea concluded a free trade pact that in part reflects and in part encourages a virtuous economic relationship between the two
nations. The agreement has been characterized as “strong and balanced” and as “an agreement for the 21st century.” Key features of the agreed trade deal include
reducing tariff rates on 95 percent of all consumer and industrial products, improving transparency and intellectual property rights protection, and addressing standards
and regulations. Indeed, if timely ratified, America firmly stands to gain from the KORUS FTA, particularly given its competitive edge in innovation,
commercialization, and deployment of advanced technologies. South
Korea has been heralded as a leader in crafting green growth
strategies in recent years. Since 2008, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s long-term vision of “Low Carbon, Green Growth” has driven policy to
dramatically expand clean energy usage. Significant components of the plan aim to attract international partners and foreign
technologies. This presents a tremendous market opportunity for American entrepreneurs. According to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, most if not all of the targeted economic sectors under the “green growth vision” are in sectors of U.S.
competitive strength. Key U.S. exports to those sectors include industrial electronic machinery, auto parts, power generation equipment, and scientific
equipment. These exports are all directly or indirectly related to clean energy technology. Time for Action As America has a comparative advantage
over South Korea in commercializing and deploying clean energy technology such as solar, wind, nuclear, and smart grids, the trade pact
would capitalize on an existing strength. The U.S. need not fear clean energy competition from South Korea. Business and workers in both countries
would benefit.
47
Neg Politics DA
Novice
48