ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
1
Ptx Starter Pack
Politics – Starter Pack
Politics – Starter Pack .......................................... 1
1NC ...................................................................... 2
1NC ...................................................................... 3
Yes Pass ............................................................... 4
Yes Pass ............................................................... 5
Yes Pass ............................................................... 6
Spending Link XT ............................................... 7
PC Key................................................................. 8
Yes PC ................................................................. 9
AT: Thumpers – Demo Assistance .................... 10
AT: Thumpers – Egypt Demo Assistance ......... 11
Republicans Link/IL .......................................... 12
Egypt Unpopular – General ............................... 13
Egypt Unpopular – Spending ............................ 14
Assistance Unpopular – Regime Change
Conflation .......................................................... 15
AT: Plan Popular – Entropy .............................. 16
AT – LT: Winners Win ..................................... 17
PC K Agenda ..................................................... 18
AT – No Default ................................................ 19
AT – Default Short .............................................20
Debt Ceiling K Econ ..........................................21
Debt Ceiling K Econ ..........................................22
Econ MPX ..........................................................23
Econ MPX ..........................................................24
***AFF..................................................................24
No Pass ...............................................................25
No Pass ...............................................................26
No Pass ...............................................................27
Thumpers ............................................................28
No PC .................................................................29
No Link – No Conservative Backlash ................30
Egyptian Election Assistance Popular ................31
Egyptian Election Assistance Popular ................32
Winners Win.......................................................33
PC =/= Key .........................................................34
MPX D – No Default..........................................35
MPX D – Econ =/= War .....................................36
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
2
Ptx Starter Pack
1NC
--Debt ceiling will pass – Obama’s capital is key
James A. Barnes and Peter Bell, “Insiders Split on Debt Ceiling Winners and Losers”, 7/21/11,
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/07/insiders-split-5.php, CMR
Democratic Insiders have a fairly uniform explanation for why they think the
President has been helped politically during
the debt ceiling talks and jockeying: he's been willing to compromise. "He stepped up to the plate and
looked like a leader when he pushed for a 'big deal,'" said one Democratic Insider. "He appears patient,
persistent, willing to collaborate, maybe not as strong as some would like, but committed to getting the job
done," echoed another.
He also has a few advantages. "The President has used his bully pulpit to put the GOP on the
defensive," noted one Democratic Insider. "Obama has been helped, but mostly because the Republican
leadership looks so beholden to the tea party fanatics," said another.
<insert specific link>
--New Spending will get the GOP off board—prevents debt ceiling increase
Hill 6/22
House Republican: Include spending caps in debt-ceiling deal, http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/167923-house-republican-includespending-caps-in-debt-ceiling-deal
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said Wednesday that he
would not sign off on any deal to raise the debt
ceiling unless measures are included to keep spending down over time. Brady, a senior member of the House
Ways and Means Committee, also said he wanted to see a debt-ceiling deal to contain steps toward reforming entitlement programs including
Medicare and Medicaid. “Among House Republicans,
there is a strong sense there has to be meaningful,
achievable, real cuts and reforms before there will be any increase in the debt ceiling,” Brady said
in an appearance at the American Enterprise Institute. “ If Washington were a manufacturing plant, it would
manufacture spending,” he added.
--Debt Ceiling freeze collapses the global economy
Min 10-- Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy at the Center for American
Progress
David, The Big Freeze, October, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_freeze.pdf
In short, the
economic consequences of such a large and precipitous drop in spending would be
crushing, and almost certainly result in a severe drop in economic growth and employment at a time when we can least afford it.
Moreover, such a move could lead to a panic in the international financial markets. Following the 2008
financial crisis, we have seen debt crises hit Ireland, Greece, and Italy, with fears that this could
spread further and cause a global economic downturn. The financial markets are on edge
today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling
would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially
cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This
could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of
the rest of the world. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would also exacerbate the problems with our longterm budget outlook. The budget deficit right now is the result
of two distinct sets of changes since 2001, when we last had a budget surplus. First, a series of long-term policies enacted by the Bush administration—most notably the Bush tax cuts of
2001 and 2003, the decision to fight two major wars without raising taxes, and the passage of an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program—created permanent structural budget
deficits that will remain with us over the long term unless they are addressed. Second, the poor economy caused a drop in tax receipts alongside higher “countercyclical” spending, such as
Implementing a debt ceiling freeze ignores the first set of issues and makes the second
forcing a massive multitrillion dollar hit to an already struggling economy and
threatening to take us into a second Great Depression. This is hardly responsible policymaking. So let’s delve a
for unemployment insurance and food stamps.
set of issues worse by
little deeper into the consequences of such conservative folly. As we will demonstrate, the results of a replay of 1995 in 2011 would be the
height of recklessness for our economy and global financial markets.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
3
Ptx Starter Pack
1NC
--Economic Decline results in global conflict, withdrawal of global power projection, and
escalation of hotspots
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
Aaron, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, Gabriel, Visiting Scholar @
Witherspoon Institute, The Dangers of a Diminished America, WSJ, 10/21, Proquest
Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to
mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of
the electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions.
Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger
as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current
woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans.
In a prolonged
recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow.
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of
the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide
use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on
foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional
foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist
affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths,
while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new
militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries
to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing
effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as
defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk.
In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to
a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the
remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions . Today
we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just
at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal
strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a
China is perhaps even
more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be
constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy
state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown.
rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention
from internal travails with external adventures.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
4
Ptx Starter Pack
Yes Pass
--It’ll pass but barely – delay is fatal to the economy
Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a weekly columnist at Roll Call, “Worst. Congress. Ever”,
7/19/11, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever?page=full, CMR
But Boehner's maneuvering had consequences all the same, setting the stage for the impasse we have today
over the debt ceiling. The politics here have unfolded over several weeks, with outrageous statements, confrontation, and an
unwillingness -- especially on the part of House Republicans -- to yield any ground to Obama, with a potential "grand plan" compromise
discussed by the president and the speaker undercut by the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his angry conservative colleagues. It
has
resulted in a dangerous flirtation with the first breach in the debt limit in the nearly 100 years
since the process was first applied, carrying with it the very real threat of economic
catastrophe. It is possible, even likely, that there will be a rescue at the 11th hour or beyond to
avert disaster. But it is also quite possible that there will be no agreement until it is too late, or an
agreement that passes the Senate but fails in the House. Rating agencies, watching the farcical maneuvering, have warned that
even if there is a late rescue, they may still downgrade America's credit rating, making a lastminute deal a Pyrrhic victory.
--Will pass – Obama’s push is key
Matt Viser, “President pushes wide deal on debt”, 7/21,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/21/president_obama_pushes_wide_deal_on_debt/, CMR
WASHINGTON - President Obama
and some leaders in Congress said yesterday they planned to forge ahead
with the challenging task of striking a broad, bipartisan deal to raise the national debt ceiling,
despite an almost impossibly tight deadline and strong objections - from liberal Democrats who object to trillions in budget cuts and also from
conservative Republicans who are balking at tax increases. The
president is hoping he and lawmakers can forge a
centrist coalition to pass such a complex and historic deal, with provisions that include a reduction in cost-of-living hikes for
Social Security recipients. To buy more time, Obama’s spokesman said, the White House is willing to support
some kind of temporary debt-limit increase as long as it is tied to an agreement on a more ambitious plan. The president
huddled at the White House in separate meetings with Democrats, then Republicans, with time running out. Every scenario being debated now is
also accompanied by questions of how a package could be pushed through Congress before Aug. 2, when the government will run out of money,
have its creditworthiness downgraded, and begin to default on its obligations. “There
is still time to do something
significant if all parties are willing to compromise, because the parameters of what that might
look like are well known, especially to the participants in the negotiations the president oversaw last week,’’ White House press
secretary Jay Carney said during a briefing yesterday.
--Will pass
Emily Miller, “MILLER: Debt sealing America’s future”, 7/20/11, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/20/debt-sealingamericas-future/
A long summer of wrangling over the debt may result in President Obama getting everything he
wants. Some senators are terrified of losing political face if additional borrowing authority is
denied and a partial government shutdown results. They’ve been mulling two options - a White House-inspired shortterm debt-ceiling extension to postpone tough decisions and a “backup plan” about which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat,
said on Wednesday, “We have a plan to move forward over here, but until we hear from the House of Representatives, really all our work here
would be for naught.”
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
5
Ptx Starter Pack
Yes Pass
--It’ll pass but not without a fight
David Jackson, “Obama-GOP battle boils down to one thing: debt ceiling”, 7/20/11,
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-gop-budget-battle-grows-from-debt-ceiling/1
While Obama, the Republican-run, the Democratic-run Senate struggle to find a deal that can get
through Congress, the leaders at least agree that, somehow, the debt ceiling has to be raised. "It
will be hard," Obama said. "It will be tough. There are still going to be a lot of difficult negotiations
that have to take place in order for us to actually get something done."
--Temporary bargain ensures passage
Zeke Miller, “'Grand Bargain' Still On The Table In Debt Ceiling Talks”, 7/21/11, http://www.businessinsider.com/grand-bargain-back-onthe-table-in-debt-ceiling-talks-2011-7#ixzz1SkslhFxU, CMR
As enthusiasm for the Senate "Gang of Six" deficit reduction plan fades, President Barack Obama
and House Republicans
resurrecting a "grand bargain," The New York Times reports. The return to a $4 trillion
deal is the latest twist in the negotiations, which have sputtered forward and back over the past several weeks. Speaker of the
yesterday discussed
House John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) met with Obama at the White House Wednesday afternoon, where
they once again considered including entitlement cuts and tax reform in a deficit reduction package. Indeed, as deep as the divide between House
Democrats and Republicans has become, the House GOP leadership is even more unwilling to give a "win" to either Senate plan under
consideration. As the legendary Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill said, “House Republicans are not the enemy, they're the
opposition. The Senate is the enemy." Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is still open to a deal that includes new revenues, as the
President demands, if it also lowered tax rates. This semantic cover would allow him to wrangle moderate Republicans to support a deal. House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is concerned by the level of revenue increases in the "Gang of Six" proposal — as much as $1 trillion — but
he has shown some openness to smaller amounts. The White House said President Barack Obama
is open to a temporary debt
limit increase of a few days to allow lawmakers time to iron out a "big deal."
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
6
Ptx Starter Pack
Yes Pass
--Debt Ceiling will pass now but will be a political fight
Channel NewsAsia 7/18
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/1141461/1/.html
The White House expressed confidence Sunday that a damaging debt default would be averted,
but warring US lawmakers appeared no closer to a deal to rein in America's budget deficit. President
Barack Obama has urged rival Democrats and Republicans to strike a "grand bargain" to reduce the yawning deficit by some $4 trillion over 10
years, in tandem with allowing the crucial increase to the borrowing limit. But with
power in Washington divided between
the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat-run Senate, Obama is
struggling to straddle a sharp ideological divide over taxation and the size of government. Obama's
plan includes new taxes on the wealthy -- anathema to Republicans, who argue they would kill jobs -- as well as cuts to programs beloved of
Frantic deliberations are
also under way on smaller deals that would see fewer tax hikes and explore other possible
solutions, as both sides try to save face and avert economic catastrophe -- all while kicking the
thorniest budget decisions down the road.
Democrats like Medicare and Social Security, which provide health insurance and pensions for the elderly.
--Will Pass
WSJ 7/17
The Wall Street Journal, JULY 17, 2011, 12:21 P.M. ET, Few Signs of Progress in Debt Talks, DAMIAN PALETTA And KRISTINA
PETERSON, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576451970114549588.html?mod=googlenews_wsj,
Mr. Kyl, meanwhile, said
the White House had to abandon its "absolute obsession with [raising]
taxes," but he said Senate Republicans wouldn't let the country default. "The country will not
default," Mr. Kyl said on ABC's "This Week." "Whether or not there are savings achieved in the process remains an open question." Both
said that if all other efforts failed, lawmakers could end up embracing a plan being developed by Sens. Mitch
McConnell (R., Ky.) and Harry Reid (D., Nev.), that would allow Mr. Obama to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5
trillion in three increments through the end of next year. It would also set up a powerful
congressional panel that would design deficit reductions that lawmakers would have to consider
on the House and Senate floor. Whether or not this scenario ended up being the "grand bargain" the White House and Republicans had sought
several weeks ago is unclear. Both sides have separately proposed reducing the deficit by close to $4 trillion over 10 years, but the ultimate
savings from the McConnell/Reid plan would likely take close to a year to determine because lawmakers would have to design and vote on
spending cuts or other changes in the future.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
7
Ptx Starter Pack
Spending Link XT
Deal is coming but the tiniest road block could crowd out the debt ceiling debate
Marty 6/11
http://www.care2.com/causes/are-we-anywhere-near-a-compromise-ondebt.html#ixzz1QVuNcvDg
The White House is pushing to have a deal on the debt ceiling put in place by the fourth of
July, but is anything really workable on the horizon? Based on the new timeline, the administration should have just
enough time to push the deal through Congress and get it in place before the August 2nd
default deadline, but all it would take is one component throwing up a roadblock to put the
country back on route to disaster. One large holdup? Republicans really don’t have any public interest in making a
deal. A potential new recession and continuing stagnation in the job market would benefit many in the party who want to run against
Obama’s economic record, so how do you negotiate with a party who actually benefits from a failure?
New spending will stop the debt ceiling
The Hill 6/27
Bush rates are kept safe in debt-limit talks, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/168711-bushrates-are-kept-safe-in-debt-talks
McConnell asked Obama for proposals to cut the deficit that would not raise taxes and told the
president that Republicans will insist on steep budget cuts, caps on future spending and
entitlement reform. That left the president no closer to reaching a deal to increase the debt ceiling.
“At some point, the president needs to realize that the reason our debt has skyrocketed 35 percent over the past two years and that our
annual deficit is now three times greater than the highest deficit the previous administration ever ran is that spending
has
spiraled completely out of control,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Monday afternoon.
Spending is the key issue—failure to keep it in check will prevent the debt ceiling from
being increased
Stiles 6/28
Andrew, National Review Online, Debt Talks Get Urgent,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270595/debt-talks-get-urgent-andrew-stiles
Republicans, meanwhile, have warned that the Democrats’ refusal to accept the political reality
on taxes could jeopardize the prospects for a deal. “The president has to make a decision,” Senator Kyl said on Fox
News Sunday. “Which is more important to him, solving this problem and reducing spending somewhat, or making sure that we raise
taxes on the American economy? If that’s his ideological bent here and under all circumstances that’s what he is going to insist on,
we’ve got a big problem.” “It
looks like the president remains committed to higher spending and higher
taxes,” Sessions says. “If that’s so, even after this past shellacking in the election, I think there’s a
danger of no agreement getting reached. If they believe what they are saying [about the risk of default], the burden
now is clearly on President Obama to make this work.” A senior Republican aide describes the situation this way: “ Our fiscal
house is on fire. We need lots of water to put it out. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is
historically and ideologically opposed to water.”
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
8
Ptx Starter Pack
PC Key
--Political Capital is key to ensure passage
Holtz-Eakin 6/28
Douglas, staff writer, national review, Obama and the Debt Deal,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270612/obama-and-debt-deal-douglas-holtz-eakin
News reports indicate that President Obama has “engaged” on reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling.
Let’s hope so, and about time! The president is the key to getting a deal in the first place, and if he
chooses, it can be substantively good, but it will only happen when he chooses to make it happen. Let’s
start with the substance. It is clear that just raising the debt ceiling will provide no real comfort to markets. Recklessly raising the debt
ceiling would prove that we are on track to sail directly into the teeth of a sovereign debt crisis. So any real deal has to both raise the
debt ceiling and deal with the substance of the problem. Namely, that the projected explosion in spending outstrips any reasonable
expectation that the U.S. can grow its way out from underneath an already dangerous federal debt overhang. So, a real deal would
include near-term (“discretionary”) spending cuts, caps to control medium-term discretionary spending, and real changes to actual
entitlement programs that would signal a commitment to controlling the spending explosion. There is nothing in the research literature
that supports the notion that raising taxes is a good way to deal with a simultaneous challenge in the pace of economic growth and the
budget. And the Obama administration agreed in December that near-term tax increases were economically dangerous. Nothing has
changed materially since that time. So it has been perplexing that for months President Obama has fiddled with fundraisers, golf, and
rediscovering his Irish roots while precious time burned and his team “negotiated” about raising taxes. Democrats did not raise taxes for
the two full years that they controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Democrats could not raise taxes in the lame-duck session of
2010 when they had 59 votes in the Senate and control of the House. It is completely politically vacuous to somehow believe that a taxraising deal can go through the Congress. President
Obama needs to explain this to his Democratic allies
as the first step toward a deal. Only the president can make that case and make is stick (see
December 2010). It has been baffling to await this moment, because the president needs a deal. He can neither afford a serious market
disruption and economic crisis — that would be the death knell of his presidency — nor continual reminders between now and
November 2012 of his fiscal fecklessness. He needs a real deal, fast, that pushes the next debt-limit debate past the election.
Congressional Democrats need this deal too. If the president fails, 2012 will be an electoral disaster. In short, the political incentives
align for Democrats to throw overboard their class-warfare death wish, get a real deal for spending reductions, and move the debate to
2013. Time
is short, so the president better get serious about settling the details and
beginning retail sales to the House and Senate Democrats necessary to pass the increase.
And make no mistake about it, Democrats will have to vote to raise the debt limit — it’s their spending spree that is coming home to
roost. Some have speculated that instead the president will play chicken, remain missing-in-action, and use a late-August crisis to push
through a clean increase in the debt limit. That logic hinges on believing that the Congress will panic and simply pass a debt limit
increase. That is unlikely, as a reckless increase has already failed and the public is dead-set against it. Instead, the
temptation
will be to put together faux spending cuts. But a faux deal runs the serious risk that credit
markets jump to the conclusion that the debt jig is up and financial conditions go south. It
is precisely this risk that President Obama can’t afford. Instead, he has the right incentives
to reach the real deal.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
9
Ptx Starter Pack
Yes PC
Political Capital is high now—gives Obama room to pass debt ceiling
The Hill 7/1
Obama’s fighting tone could buy room with left for a deal with right, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/169337-obamas-fighting-tonecould-buy-room-with-left-to-make-a-deal-with-right
With Republicans howling about partisanship, President Obama might have bought himself
some wiggle room with Democrats to make a deal with the GOP. The president’s
aggressive and at times mocking tone during Wednesday’s press conference was met, predictably, with
jeers from Republicans and cheers from Democrats, who have been pleading with Obama
to fight harder for party principles. Democratic strategists suggest there’s a method behind Obama’s
tough talk, which left outraged Senate Republicans blocking the chamber’s business and left talks over raising the nation’s $14.3
trillion debt ceiling mired in partisan squabbling. By comparing Republicans to his children and challenging them
to “get it done,” Obama might have mollified Democrats to the point that he can negotiate more
with Republicans on taxes, these political strategists say. “If the president is in a veritable fight with
the Republicans, the left will give him a lot more room to make a deal,” said one Democrat. “To be
sure, the left likes this President Obama a lot more than the post-partisan brand.”
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
10
Ptx Starter Pack
AT: Thumpers – Demo Assistance
No thumpers – Obama downplaying demo assistance now – *positive tradeoff* with
elections.
McKelvey ‘9
(Tara, The American Prospect, “Is Democracy a Dirty Word?”, accessed online
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_democracy_a_dirty_word)
The Obama administration is focusing on international efforts such as agricultural programs, women’s rights, and
economic development rather than on elections. It has also taken a more holistic approach to foreign policy, choosing to
engage with nondemocratic regimes abroad in the hopes of finding some common ground. Democracy-promoting
organizations such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the Eurasia Foundation, and Freedom
House are listening carefully—“Kremlin style,” as one expert puts it—to the statements of Obama and his Cabinet members for signs
that the administration considers democracy a priority. Most aren’t liking what they’ve heard so far. When asked about Obama’s
approach to democracy promotion, many activists in the field sound like hurt and angry ex-boyfriends. “It’s too early to talk about
important changes in the Obama administration,” one analyst says defensively. “There is concern among activists that perhaps
the administration sends the wrong signals to authoritarian regimes when it downplays democracy so much that it
may be seen as neglected,” Allen says. In April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed members of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, saying, “The foreign policy of the United States is built on the three D’s: defense, diplomacy, and
development.” To the dismay of democracy promoters, that other “D”—democracy—was not included. And when Obama referenced
American foreign policy in his Inaugural Address, he said, “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the
silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your
fist.”
Money appropriations will inevitably go down – Democracy isn’t on the agenda.
McKelvey ‘9
(Tara, The American Prospect, “Is Democracy a Dirty Word?”, accessed online
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_democracy_a_dirty_word)
From a monetary perspective, at least, democracy-promoting NGOs have nothing to complain about. The
Obama administration requested a 9 percent increase in funding for democracy-related projects, asking for a total of $2.81 billion in
the State and Foreign Operations budget for fiscal year 2010. Yet advocates worry that specific democracy issues—such as
freedom of the press and freedom of assembly—may wither for lack of attention, and funding could drop in the years to
come. “I just think Obama’s too smart to put democracy at the top of the foreign-policy agenda,” Simon says. “It’s
too demanding. In the Arab world, it’s been rendered toxic by the Bush administration.”
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
11
Ptx Starter Pack
AT: Thumpers – Egypt Demo Assistance
Egypt aid package is rhetoric – no formulations yet.
Calabresi ‘11
(Massimo, Feb. 11, Time Magazine, “Post-Mubarak: How the US Plans to Aid Democracy in Egypt”, accessed online p.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2048622,00.html)
Now that Hosni Mubarak is getting accustomed to life as an ex-dictator, Barack Obama and his foreign-policy aides have a new task.
Washington has publicly called for an Egyptian transition to democracy, which Egypt has never known. To avoid a continuation of
dictatorial rule under a new strongman — or a dangerous power vacuum as weaker players try to seize control — Egypt will need
to see the lightning-fast development of long-suppressed political parties. So the U.S. is preparing a new package
of assistance to Egyptian opposition groups, designed to help with constitutional reform, democratic development and election
organizing, State Department officials tell TIME. The package is still being formulated, and the officials decline to
say how much it would be worth or to which groups it would be directed . White House officials declined to
say whether any of the new money would be directed to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most prominent Islamist party.
Even if there’s aid – Obama won’t push – he’s historically cut Egyptian demo assistance.
Calabresi ‘11
(Massimo, Feb. 11, Time Magazine, “Post-Mubarak: How the US Plans to Aid Democracy in Egypt”, accessed online p.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2048622,00.html)
The Obama Administration cut democracy-and-governance aid to Egyptian opposition groups in its first two
years in office, from $45 million in George W. Bush's last budget to $25 million for the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years. The Obama
Administration also stopped providing aid to groups that had not registered with the Egyptian government ,
drawing criticism from human-rights organizations. The Administration has had conversations with Egyptian government officials,
including the Egyptian envoy to the U.S., Ambassador Sameh Shoukry, about the provision of new aid, sources tell TIME.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
12
Ptx Starter Pack
Republicans Link/IL
Republicans are the key to the debt ceiling debate and would oppose the plan—can’t look
weak on spending
Thiessen 6/27
No defense cuts or tax increases in debt deal, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/make-no-defense-cuts-or-tax-increases-in-debtdeal/2011/06/27/AG5buWnH_story.html
President Obama
will meet with congressional leaders today in an attempt to revive the debtlimit talks that broke down last week over the Democrats’ insistence that any deal must include tax increases. The president
knows full well that Republicans are not backing down on taxes — but he is using the issue to extract other
concessions, such as getting the GOP to back his plan for massive and irresponsible reductions in defense spending. Will Republicans
walk right into his trap? Critics say Republicans are being unreasonable in rejecting any tax hikes. In an editorial last week,The Post
called GOP leaders “childish and irresponsible” and pointed out that Democrats have agreed to accept $2 trillion in spending cuts while
Republicans are refusing to accept any tax increases in exchange. “Where is the Republican flexibility?” the paper asked. Let’s be clear:
Compromise here isn’t spending cuts for a tax increase;
compromise is spending cuts for a debt-limit
increase. Republicans elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010 campaigned on a promise to reduce the
national debt. They are now being asked to turn around a half a year later and vote to raise the national debt. The vast majority of
Republican voters don’t want them to raise the debt limit at all. The only way these Republican legislators can
vote for a debt-ceiling increase without getting thrown out of office is to show their
constituents that they secured unprecedented cuts in current spending — and ironclad constraints on
future spending — in exchange. Tax increases? They are not even part of the equation. Yet Republicans are letting the Democrats use
the tax issue to extract concessions. GOP leaders need to realize that they are the ones with the leverage in these negotiations. What are
Democrats going to say if GOP leaders simply refuse to go along with their demand for tax hikes or give them defense cuts in exchange?
“Sorry, Mr. Speaker, no deal — let the country default”? Of course not. President Obama
does not have the luxury of
letting the debt-limit talks fail and then blaming the GOP for a government default. If the dire
predictions of his treasury secretary are to be believed, the consequences of a default would be so calamitous that Obama cannot allow it
to happen. He
must sign whatever debt-limit increase Republicans give him. This means
Republicans hold all the cards. So why on earth are they even thinking about giving Obama deep cuts in national defense
in exchange for dropping his demand for tax increases that he knows he will never get? In November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
warned that even a 10 percent cut from the Pentagon budget, roughly $55 billion, would be “catastrophic” to the U.S. military. Obama
has already cut more than $400 billion in defense programs since taking office, and he has proposed an additional $400 billion in
defense cuts over the next 10 years.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
13
Ptx Starter Pack
Egypt Unpopular – General
Egypt aid will face congressional opposition.
Hyde ‘11
(Almasryalyoum, Online Enlish Edition, “Report: US seeks to give less money to Egypt military”, p.
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/479297)
The US Federal Budget and Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012, a not-yet finalized version of the coming year’s budget,
asks the American government provide a total of US$1.55 billion to Egypt . The US has long been Egypt’s largest
foreign assistance donor. Since the 1980s, the United States has given US$1.3 billion yearly to the Egyptian military, and since 2009,
the US has also provided US$250 million in economic assistance yearly. It appears the US will be bumped from this position as top
donor, though, after Egypt’s decision to accept large grants of money from Gulf States to help Egypt cover its budget deficit during
the transition. Egypt still ranked second among the recipients of US money in the region for military and security
purposes, and fourth in overall aid, after Israel, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Aid to Iraq saw the largest overall cut in allocated money.
The new budget allocations to Egypt, however, could face opposition from within the US government.
Republicans posturing against Egypt aid now – House Foreign Affairs Committee vote
proves.
Dagoni ‘11
(Ran, Writer for Globes – Israeli Newspaper, “US House C’ttee saves Israeli aid in foreign aid cut”, July 21, p.
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000666327)
The US House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday cut the Obama administration's $51 billion 2012 budget request for
the State Department and foreign aid by $6.4 billion, but kept unchanged the $3 billion in military aid for Israel. Commentators say
that the committee vote is a direct challenge to President Barack Obama. The Republican majority in the
House of Representatives is trying to limit Obama's freedom of action in handling foreign policy and to
minimize US contributions to international organizations - especially the UN. An Israeli source told "Globes" that the
Foreign Affairs Committee slashed foreign aid for the Palestinians, Egypt, Lebanon, and Yemen, until the President certifies
that these governments are "not directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign terrorist organization", and eliminated military and
civilian aid altogether for Pakistan, until the Secretary of State certifies Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror and the
effectiveness of civilian programs. The Republican majority in the House means that the bill will be easily passed. However, the
Democratic majority in the Senate has its own version of the foreign aid and State Department budget bill. The Senate version gives
Obama the freedom of action that the House is trying to take away. The joint Senate-House committee will have to reconcile the two
versions, and the final version will undoubtedly remove the House clauses limiting the administration. Bipartisan support for Israel
keeps US military aid intact a year after Congress ratified the US-Israeli agreement that formalizes US aid for Israel through 2018.
Under this agreement, US aid will increase by $150 million to $3 billion in fiscal year 2012, which begins on October 1, 2011. Aid
will increase by another $150 million in fiscal year 2013, and stay at this level until 2018. The bill explicitly includes aid for specific
programs, such as anti-missile programs. The statement by House Committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican Florida) says, “The U.S.-Israel alliance is vital to the safety and security of both nations, and this bill continues Congress’s bipartisan
commitment of fully funding security assistance for Israel." The House bill is strongly pro-Israel, in both operational measures, which
stipulate funding levels for Israel, in measures against Arab states, and in declarations. The statement says, "The bill reaffirms support
for Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital by requiring that Jerusalem be identified as Israel’s capital on relevant US Government
documents, and requires the Executive Branch to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem by the start of 2014. It also expresses
Congress’s opposition to the Arab League Boycott of Israel. The bill states that it shall be US policy to uphold the reassurances
provided by the President of the United States in an April 2004 letter to the Prime Minister of Israel, which reassured US support for
secure, defensible borders for Israel and for Israel’s qualitative military edge, and stated that it is unrealistic to expect negotiated final
borders to parallel the pre-1967 lines." Other clauses stipulate as follows: Prohibits further security assistance to Egypt
until the President certifies that the Government of Egypt is not directly or indirectly controlled by a Foreign
Terrorist Organization; is fully implementing its peace treaty with Israel; and is actively destroying tunnels used to
smuggle materials into Gaza. Prohibits further security assistance to Lebanon until the President certifies that no members of
Hezbollah hold policy positions in any ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the government. Prohibits further security assistance to
the Palestinian Authority (PA) until the President certifies that no members of Hamas hold policy positions in any ministry, agency, or
instrumentality of the government; that the PA is dismantling the extremist infrastructure in Gaza and West Bank; that the PA is
actively halting anti-Israel incitement; and that the PA recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
14
Ptx Starter Pack
Egypt Unpopular – Spending
Egypt aid is already caught up in budget fights – increasing money would be a fight.
Derby ‘11
(Kevin, Sunshine News, “Florida Republicans Take Aim at Middle East and Latin American Nations Through Foreign Aid”, accessed online p.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-republicans-take-aim-middle-east-and-latin-american-nations-through-foreign-aid)
Two Florida Republicans -- U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and U.S. Rep. Connie Mack -- seek to make major cuts and
changes to American international policy with the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, which they pushed
through the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the committee, introduced the bill
which authorizes almost $6.5 billion less than what President Barack Obama originally proposed. “This bill authorizes
responsible spending levels based on those contained in the bipartisan, carefully negotiated fiscal year 2011 continuing
resolution that was signed into law earlier this year,” Ros-Lehtinen said on Wednesday. “I hear the demands of the
American people to stop the spending spree, and that is why I am unwilling to agree to the huge overall
spending increase that the president wanted in this bill. My legislation protects and advances our national security interests and
priorities while rejecting the notion that it takes more government and more spending to do so. The bill implements numerous
common-sense reforms to save money and increase the effectiveness of our programs.” The proposal, backed by RosLehtinen and congressional Republicans, cuts security assistance to Middle Eastern governments until they can prove
they are free from the influence of organizations with ties to radical groups or terrorist organizations. “We must require
specific certifications from the administration prior to the distribution of any further security assistance to Pakistan, Lebanon,
the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Yemen to ensure that such assistance is halted if it jeopardizes U.S. security interests or is
benefiting or being manipulated by extremist groups,” Ros-Lehtinen said, who added that her proposal would help continue American
support for Israel. “The U.S.-Israel alliance is vital to the safety and security of both nations, and this bill continues Congress’s
bipartisan commitment of fully funding security assistance for Israel.” Mack, chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee,
looked to amend the bill to cut funding to five Latin American nations: Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia. Also
to cut American funding to the Organization of American States (OAS), pull the plug on the Global Climate Change Initiative
Activities and list Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. "Let's engage our allies and friends, but let's not continue to support
organizations and countries that perpetuate destruction of freedom and democracy,” Mack said. “With our financial
house in disarray in our homeland, the least the Congress and the president can do is streamline our foreign dollars
to our allies and engage in efforts to improve our economy at home -- such as the immediate passage of the pending free-trade
agreements with Colombia and Panama. Additionally, with American businesses saddled with environmental protections already,
other countries should do their part to improve the global climate, not just the U.S.
Increased spending independently scuttles a debt ceiling agreement.
Hill 6/22
House Republican: Include spending caps in debt-ceiling deal, http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/167923-house-republican-includespending-caps-in-debt-ceiling-deal
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said Wednesday that he would not sign off on any deal to raise the debt ceiling unless
measures are included to keep spending down over time. Brady, a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee,
also said he wanted to see a debt-ceiling deal to contain steps toward reforming entitlement programs including Medicare and Medicaid.
“Among House Republicans, there is a strong sense there has to be meaningful , achievable, real cuts and reforms
before there will be any increase in the debt ceiling,” Brady said in an appearance at the American Enterprise Institute. “If
Washington were a manufacturing plant, it would manufacture spending,” he added.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
15
Ptx Starter Pack
Assistance Unpopular – Regime Change Conflation
Democracy assistance is conflated with regime change – guarantees it will always lack
political support.
Mitchell and Phillips ‘8
(Lincoln [Arnold Saltzman Asst. Prof in Practice of Int’l Politics @ Columbia], David [Project Director @ Nt’l Committee on American Foreign
Policy and visiting scholar @ Columbia U.], “Enhancing Democracy Assistance”, National Committee on American Foreign Policy, January,
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/Enhancing%20Democracy%20Assistance.pdf)
Internationally, there is a wide range of views about US-led democracy assistance. Organizations that receive US financing face a
credibility problem, especially in countries with negative views of the United States. This problem can be addressed by reducing the
extent to which democracy assistance programs are formally associated with the USG. The goal of democracy assistance should not
be for programs to propagandize on behalf of the United States. Reports, business cards and public events should not always be
branded with the logo of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). In the US, democracy assistance has
become too closely associated with regime change and getting rid of unfriendly dictators. In reality, most democracy
assistance is less dramatic and controversial. Helping Americans understand that democracy assistance often
consists of technical tasks like providing support to legislatures and training to journalists would develop domestic support
for democracy assistance. Further reframing democracy assistance will also require a fundamental shift in US
foreign policy, but such recommendations are beyond the scope of this report.
Bush changed everything – neocons politicized assistance by linking it to Iraq.
Mitchell and Phillips ‘8
(Lincoln [Arnold Saltzman Asst. Prof in Practice of Int’l Politics @ Columbia], David [Project Director @ Nt’l Committee on American Foreign
Policy and visiting scholar @ Columbia U.], “Enhancing Democracy Assistance”, National Committee on American Foreign Policy, January,
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/Enhancing%20Democracy%20Assistance.pdf)
Most Americans have been unaware of the nature and scope of democracy assistance programs supported by the
United States. Until the current administration, those who were informed generally believed that smoothing the transition from
authoritarianism to democracy was benign and non-controversial. Assisting the democratic aspirations of people
around the world seeking to gain control of their political destinies and live in freedom also enjoyed broad bipartisan political
support. During the administration of George W. Bush, some Republicans and particularly so-called neo-conservatives
tried to make democracy promotion a partisan issue by linking it to the war in Iraq. To move forward, a successful
democracy assistance policy depends on recognizing that democracy assistance is in the best interest of the United States,
rebuilding bipartisanship, and making a deeper commitment through legislative support.
Even if the substance of plan is popular – the political benefits are delayed by *years* budget fights inevitable due to demand for quick results.
Mitchell and Phillips ‘8
(Lincoln [Arnold Saltzman Asst. Prof in Practice of Int’l Politics @ Columbia], David [Project Director @ Nt’l Committee on American Foreign
Policy and visiting scholar @ Columbia U.], “Enhancing Democracy Assistance”, National Committee on American Foreign Policy, January,
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/Enhancing%20Democracy%20Assistance.pdf)
Democracy assistance requires a commitment to work in-country for years and, in many cases, decades. The
annual nature of the US budget cycle, however, puts pressure on democracy assistance programs to show
quick results. Successful democracy assistance requires long-term planning. Particularly in countries where the authoritarian
regime has recently collapsed or is just beginning to weaken, ten-year plans are a more realistic time frame for transition. This
long-term approach must be balanced against the need to retain flexibility. When regimes fall or democratic breakthroughs occur,
events are fluid, fast-moving and unpredictable.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
16
Ptx Starter Pack
AT: Plan Popular – Entropy
Capital can only go down – no capital losses by not pushing assistance.
McKelvey ‘9
(Tara, The American Prospect, “Is Democracy a Dirty Word?”, accessed online
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_democracy_a_dirty_word)
Obama’s scaled-back approach to democracy promotion has cost him little or no political capital among
Democrats, who feel burned by Bush’s disastrous approach and are significantly less likely than Republicans to
support democracy promotion. A 2007 Pew survey shows that 54 percent of Democrats believe it should be featured in U.S.
foreign policy, compared to 74 percent of Republicans. Opinion polls show that across the board conservatives are more likely than
liberals to say that the United States should help establish democracies in other countries.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
17
Ptx Starter Pack
AT – LT: Winners Win
Takes a long time to rebuild capital
Schaller 9
Tom, five thirty eight, 8/18/09, Is Obama Spending his Political Capital, Wasting It ... or Wuz
He Robbed? http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/is-obama-spending-his-politicalcapital.html
Obama is investing now with an eye toward medium- and long-range returns. Call this the "you've got to
spend political capital to make political capital" theory, in which Obama knows that the first
summer is a good time to make a big investment, with sufficient time to recover his losses and
maybe even come out ahead by the 2010 midterms, or at least by the time his own 2012 re-election campaign rolls around. If you
have to do health care at some point in the first term, it's now or never...and so, after taking
an initial hit, his capital reserves will slowly rise back to pre-Summer '09 levels.
Capital is finite
Francis 9
Theo Francis, writer for Business Week, 3-19- 2009, “Team Obama Runs the Offense”
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090313_686911.htm?chan
=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis
Economics aside, Obama's political strategy is becoming clear: Seize the opportunity that the crisis,
and his high popularity, offers him, and tackle multiple fronts both to accomplish as much as possible as quickly as
possible, and to keep opponents off balance. "Their theory is that popularity is a very perishable
commodity, and indeed it is," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's
Center for Politics. "That is especially true for Presidential popularity in crisis mode—use it or lose it. … It can't
be conserved."
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
18
Ptx Starter Pack
PC K Agenda
Political capital key to the agenda
Hill 10 (Dell [http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/05/obama-political-capital-tank-running-onempty/] Obama’s Political Capital Tank Running On Empty/May 2)
Basically, political capital is the currency of politics. It’s what one politician uses to convince another politician to
support a particular piece of legislation. Some would call it “one hand washing the other” and that’s a
fair analogy. For the President to advance a political agenda, political capital is his fuel tank
to get things done. He wheels and deals – all the while using that political fuel tank to get
what he ultimately wants, and some agendas consume incredible amounts of that fuel.
ObamaCare, for instance, required an enormous amount of political capital to get enacted. It has
become the centerpiece of the Obama administration and is, quite frankly, about the only real victory the President can claim, but it
came at a tremendous cost, literally and figuratively.
Presidential leadership shapes the agenda
Kuttner 11—Senior Fellow @ Demos, Editor of American Prospect
Robert, “Barack Obama's Theory of Power,” The American Prospect, 5/16,
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power
As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential
Power, a book that had great influence on President John F. Kennedy, the essence of a
president's power is "the power to persuade." Because our divided constitutional system
does not allow the president to lead by commanding, presidents amass power by making
strategic choices about when to use the latent authority of the presidency to move public
and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to move Congress. In one of
Neustadt's classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely considered a lame duck,
nonetheless persuaded the broad public and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the
Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an
American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a president possesses several
points of leverage. He can play an effective outside game, motivating and shaping public
sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and
using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction. He can
complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative
party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take
awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to
pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this
signals leadership that often moves the public agenda.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
19
Ptx Starter Pack
AT – No Default
Absent defaulting, failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause massive spending cuts that will
collapse the economy
Krugman 6/30—Nobel Prize in Economics
Paul, To the Limit, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1
Now, Mr. Obama was right about the dangers of failing to raise the debt limit. In fact, he understated the case, by focusing
only on financial confidence. Not that the confidence issue is trivial. Failure to raise the debt limit — which would, among
other things, disrupt payments on existing debt — could convince investors that the United States is no
longer a serious, responsible country, with nasty consequences. Furthermore, nobody knows
what a U.S. default would do to the world financial system, which is built on the
presumption that U.S. government debt is the ultimate safe asset. But confidence isn’t the only thing at
stake. Failure to raise the debt limit would also force the U.S. government to make drastic,
immediate spending cuts, on a scale that would dwarf the austerity currently being
imposed on Greece. And don’t believe the nonsense about the benefits of spending cuts that
has taken over much of our public discourse: slashing spending at a time when the economy is deeply
depressed would destroy hundreds of thousands and quite possibly millions of jobs. So failure to reach a debt deal
would have very bad consequences. But here’s the thing: Mr. Obama must be prepared to face those consequences if he wants his
presidency to survive.
Even if we don’t default—failure to raise the debt limit will cause the economy to crash
CNBC 6/27
Ken Duberstein: Pelosi Undermining President on Debt, http://www.cnbc.com/id/43547197
LL: Sovereign debt is the biggest concern right now in the global markets. If this drama does go on for too long many fear this could
spark a market meltdown because of the fear of default. Are you concerned of this? GV: There are two "worst case" scenarios. The most
obvious—default —is extremely unlikely. Tim Geithner is not going to preside over default; he'll simply pay interest on the national
debt in August if he has two. The
other "worst case" scenario cannot be ruled out—Geithner avoids
default but has no money to pay for anything else—Social Security, military pay, all
government programs. That would be disastrous for the economy and the stock market, but probably a
positive for the bond market. A total meltdown like this in August cannot be ruled out, but default is very, very unlikely.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
20
Ptx Starter Pack
AT – Default Short
--Even if the government doesn’t default investors will still be scared off—kills the
economy
Sydney Morning Herald 7/1
2k11, Time to press panic button on debt limit, http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-to-presspanic-button-on-debt-limit-20110630-1gt35.html
That gets to the second reason for alarm: the US need not default on its debt in order to incur costly and
potentially lasting damage. A February report by the Government Accountability Office examining the recent history of
''debt-ceiling events'' - none nearly so serious as the current one - showed that government borrowing costs began to
rise well in advance of default. Call it a taxpayer premium for congressional squabbling: the disruption of
Treasury auctions and the threatened loss of liquidity among Treasury notes and bills
caused billions in additional borrowing costs in the form of higher interest rates. One reason why
the debt showdown isn't causing more alarm is that interest rates have been falling. But that's due mostly to declining economic forecasts
in the United States and fear of a Greek default - currently more powerful influences, but also ones that would mask worries about a US
default. At some point, perhaps as soon as in a few weeks, the fight in Congress could eclipse those factors and drive interest rates
higher. That's been the pattern, and it is already causing worry about what might trigger such a rise.
''The nervousness on our
end is that the markets will misperceive what's going on,'' an aide to a conservative House Republican told
me. ''If something fails on the House floor, people might react as if all life is about to end just like they did when the TARP vote failed.'' That could cost taxpayers dearly, even if a
default is ultimately avoided. One reason why US borrowing costs are so low is the universal belief that the government
will always make good on its debts in a timely manner. But if that faith is shaken - and a good scare could do
the trick - investors might decide that government debt is a riskier investment than they
had imagined and demand a better return. That will hurt. The Office of Management and Budget determined
that a mere 1 per cent rise in interest rates would cost taxpayers $US973 billion over the
next decade. So a fight about cutting the deficit could actually cause it to grow much larger. That's worth worrying about now especially as Republicans threaten a default and claim there's no cause for alarm.
--A quick lift in the debt ceiling wouldn’t solve—only have to miss 1 payment to shock
investors
Economist 6/23
The mother of all tail risks, http://www.economist.com/node/18866851?story_id=18866851
Even if Congress were to tackle turmoil by quickly lifting the debt ceiling, the stain would
linger. “In the past our assumption was interest would always be paid on time,” says
Steven Hess of Moody’s, a ratings agency which has cautioned that even a brief default
would cost America its coveted Aaa status. “If an actual payment were missed once, might
that happen again? If you thought it could, that is clearly not compatible with Aaa.” Such
warnings are having an effect. On June 19th Mitch McConnell, the Republicans’ leader in the Senate, opened the way to a short-term
increase in the debt ceiling, even though his counterparts in the House demurred. They may not show it but Republicans, like
Democrats, are scared of default, too.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
21
Ptx Starter Pack
Debt Ceiling K Econ
--Debt Ceiling freeze erodes investor confidence and collapses the economy
Min 10-- Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy at the Center for American
Progress
David, The Big Freeze, October,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_freeze.pdf
A freeze on the debt ceiling could erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds in a number of ways,
creating further and wider panic in financial markets. First, by causing a disruption in the issuance of Treasury
debt, as happened in 1995-96, a freeze would cause investors to seek alternative financial
investments, even perhaps causing a run on Treasurys. Such a run would cause the cost of
U.S. debt to soar, putting even more stress on our budget, and the resulting enormous
capital flows would likely be highly destabilizing to global financial markets, potentially
creating more asset bubbles and busts throughout the world.
--Sends shockwaves to the global economy
Politico 6/29
2k11, IMF warns U.S. about debt ceiling,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58021.html
Failure to raise the nation’s debt ceiling would deal a “severe shock” to world financial
markets still struggling to recover from a worldwide recession, the International Monetary
Fund said Wednesday. “The federal debt ceiling should be raised expeditiously to avoid a severe shock to the economy and world
financial markets,” the IMF statement read. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the nation will reach its
$14.3 trillion legal limit of debt on Aug. 2. Geithner on Wednesday wrote senior GOP senators to say “prioritizing”
debt payments will not work and only raising the limit will avoid default, Reuters reported. “The notion of ‘prioritizing’ payments is
futile because the debt limit must be increased regardless of which spending path is adopted,” Geithner wrote. “There is no credible
budget plan under which a debt limit increase can be avoided.” Prioritizing payments without a debt limit increase, Geithner said, would
require a 40 percent cut in government spending. As others have predicted, the
IMF — which on Tuesday announced Christine
a failure of President Barack Obama and
congressional leaders to reach an agreement before the August deadline could lead to a
downgrade of the nation’s credit rating and interest rate hikes. The IMF also urged the U.S. to stabilize
the nation’s debt ratio, which it deemed unsustainable. “These risks,” the IMF said, “would also have significant
global repercussions, given the central role of U.S. Treasury bonds in world financial
markets.”
Lagarde of France as its next managing director — said
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
22
Ptx Starter Pack
Debt Ceiling K Econ
--Defaulting collapses the economy—imposes high interest rates and causes investor
freakout
Woodward 6/27
Calvin, staff writer, AP, http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/31141--ap-gfk-poll-now-whatprospect-of-us-debt-default-finds-people-in-state-of-doomsday-fatigue
It might be time for another midnight ride by Paul Revere, this time warning "the creditors
are coming." Americans seem not to have awakened to the fast-looming debt crisis that could summon a new recession, imperil
their stock market investments and shatter faith in the world's most powerful economy. Those are among the implications, both sudden
and long-lasting, expected to unfold if the U.S. defaults on debt payments for the first time in history. Facing an August deadline for
raising the country's borrowing limit or setting loose the consequences, politicians and economists are plenty alarmed. The people?
Apparently not so much. They're divided on whether to raise the limit, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that found 41 per cent
opposed to the idea and 38 per cent in favour. People aren't exactly blase. A narrow majority in the poll expects an economic crisis to
ensue if the U.S., maxed out on its borrowing capacity, starts missing interest payments to creditors. But even among that group, 37 per
There are warnings of
"credit markets in a state of panic," as the House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., put it, causing
a sudden drop-off in the country's ability to borrow and pushing the government off a "credit cliff." He was characterizing a report
by the government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that warns of a "sudden fiscal crisis"
in which investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay steep
interest rates and impose spending cuts and tax increases far more Draconian than if
default were avoided.
cent say no dice to raising the limit. In Washington's humid air, talk of a financial apocalypse is thick.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
23
Ptx Starter Pack
Econ MPX
Economic collapse causes extinction
Kerpen 8-- vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity
Phil, National Review Online, October 29, , Don't Turn Panic Into Depression,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/opinion/main4555821.shtml
It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors - not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our
survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the
planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that
breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk
armed conflicts on an even greater scale. To be sure, Washington already has stoked the flames of the financial
panic. The president and the Treasury secretary did the policy equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater when they insisted that
Congress immediately pass a bad bailout bill or face financial Armageddon. Members of Congress splintered and voted against the bill
before voting for it several days later, showing a lack of conviction that did nothing to reassure markets. Even Alan Greenspan is
questioning free markets today, placing our policy fundamentals in even greater jeopardy. But after
the elections, all eyes
will turn to the new president and Congress in search of reassurance that the fundamentals
of our free economy will be supported. That will require the shelving of any talk of trade
protectionism, higher taxes, and more restrictive labor markets. The stakes couldn’t be any higher.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
24
Ptx Starter Pack
Econ MPX
Economic decline causes war – studies prove
Royal 10
Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010,
Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics
of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p.
213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external
conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security
and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels.
Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on
leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall
of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the
next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of
relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing
the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of
power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to
challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined
with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the
causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level.
Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding
economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade
so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if
the expectations of future trade
decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood
for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those
resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers
protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The
linkage, between internal and external
conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to
spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to
amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic
decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the
capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of
a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity
arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate
external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and
Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti)
correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc
greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being
removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In
summary, rcccni economic
scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an
increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between
integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
***AFF
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
25
Ptx Starter Pack
No Pass
--Won’t pass – multiple failures prove Obama can’t deliver
James Oliphant, “Does debt-ceiling mess prove Congress is broken?”, 7/21/11, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-congressbroken-20110721,0,5279815.story, CMR
There are now fewer than two weeks to go until the government runs out of money to pay its bills,
and while there remains some real hope that a deal will be reached to avert a catastrophic default, the process hasn’t
exactly inspired confidence. It’s been more like a Rubik’s Cube where the colors never line
up. First, President Obama convened a commission tasked to reduce the deficit, then he seemed to ignore
its recommendations. Then a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six, took up the charge.
The Gang, however, didn’t grow. It shrank. And the White House seemed indifferent. Next, Vice President
Joe Biden took over, hosting a round of talks that mostly seemed to feature shots of congressional leaders coming and going from Blair
House with no reports of progress. After that, Obama decided to get involved, overseeing another round of
negotiations, which fell apart after it became clear that the House wasn’t about to buy into any form
that the president was selling. That prompted the Gang of Six to get the band back together and try again. But while their efforts
sparked a brief fever of optimism earlier in the week, Wednesday seemed to positively clank with a somber sobriety, a recognition that maybe
trying to raise the debt ceiling, slash spending, reform entitlements and re-jigger the tax code on the fly isn’t the best way
of doing things. Still, any plan crafted by such diametric opposites as Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Democrat Dick
Durbin of Illinois would seem to offer the most promise for some kind of accord that almost everyone, House conservatives perhaps excepted,
can live with. It now faces a rocky road, however. The plan, which would cut $3.7 trillion from the budget over 10 years,
aggressively achieves some of the savings through cuts to Social Security and the Pentagon’s budget, which is certain to activate powerful
constituencies to block it. Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Budget chairman, said Wednesday he doesn’t like it because it fails to contain healthcare
costs.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
26
Ptx Starter Pack
No Pass
--Zero chance – Tea-party is key and will fight to the death
Steve, Kornacki, “Debt ceiling stalemate is Tea Party's fault: GOP base refuses to compromise”, 7/20/11,
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/07/20/2011-0720_debt_ceiling_stalemate_is_tea_partys_fault_gop_base_refuses_to_compromise.html#ixzz1SkuP25d2, CMR
The possibility is more real than ever that Aug. 2 will come and go without a deal to extend the
debt ceiling, unleashing potentially catastrophic economic consequences. If this comes to pass, the blame - all of it - will
belong to one group: The rabidly anti-Obama Tea Partyers who make up the base of today's Republican Party. It is
because of this compromise-allergic base that the House spent yesterday debating a radical
deficit reduction plan - "cut, cap and balance," they call it - that has absolutely zero chance of moving
through the Senate, much less earning President Obama's signature. But conservative ideologues love it, so this
is how Congress must spend its time as the default deadline draws nearer. In theory, there's a purpose to this lunacy. GOP leaders in the House
and Senate seem close to a
deal with Obama that would permit the President to raise the ceiling three times in the next year in exchange for
some substantial concessions. Right now, it has no chance of passing muster with the GOP purists in the House.
But maybe they'll be persuaded when they see the futility of "cut, cap and balance" - and when Wall Street sends out a few more frantic pleas to
avoid a default. Or maybe they won't be. It's
impossible to overstate the strength of the Tea Party's grip on
Republicans in Congress, particularly on the House side. The term conjures images of angry rallies and protests, but in truth it's
more of a mind-set - a combination of traditional anti-government conservatism and seething resentment of Obama. Claims that
the Tea Party is bipartisan are a myth. Polls show that those who say they agree with the Tea Party's philosophy
overwhelmingly voted for John McCain in 2008; today, they are the loudest voice in the GOP base. And in last year's midterm elections, that base
registered two important achievements. First, it succeeded in nominating and electing a significant number of like-minded candidates to
Congress. The result, according to one political scientist's analysis, is that the
current group of Republican House
members is the most conservative ever assembled. Second, it got into the heads of the rest of the
Republicans in Washington. Last year's campaign season saw an unusually high number of establishment-backed GOP candidates many of them incumbents - defeated by unseasoned Tea Party-supported challengers in Republican primaries. As a result, every
Republican congressman up for reelection in 2012 must think carefully before every decision: Am I about
to do something that will make me the next Tea Party target? Thus, when House Speaker John Boehner (ROhio) thought recently that he had struck a "grand bargain" with Obama that would radically pare back spending (even on
Social Security and Medicare) in exchange for relatively slight increases in federal revenue and a debt ceiling increase, the response from
rank-and-file congressional Republicans ranged from unenthusiastic to hostile. Even those who might
privately have seen it as a very good deal (which, from a Republican standpoint, it absolutely was) had to account
for their party's taxphobic base. The same is true now. There was talk yesterday that a version of the
"grand bargain" might be revived, with some Republican senators climbing onboard. But the Senate isn't the problem here. The House is.
And the House is dominated by true believers like Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota - and by fellow Republicans who
live in fear of them. The closer we get to Aug. 2, the more urgent the warnings about looming economic chaos will become. It's still hard to
imagine that some kind of deal won't ultimately be reached. Then again, it's also hard
the support of my-way-or-the-highway Tea Partyers.
to imagine a deal that could attract
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
27
Ptx Starter Pack
No Pass
--Won’t pass – insider meetings prove
New Star, 7/21. “Boehner: House will compromise on debt limit”, http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110721/NEWS01/110721011
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner predicted Thursday that a majority of House Republicans will end up supporting some kind of
compromise as the Senate began debating a House-passed effort to tie an increase in the debt ceiling to conservative demands for a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called
up the measure to placate
Republicans demanding a vote. But he said it "doesn't have one chance in a million of passing the
Senate." At a news conference, Boehner told reporters, "Frankly, I think it would be irresponsible on behalf of the Congress and the president
not to be looking at back-up strategies for how to solve this problem." "At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to act," the Ohio
Republican said. Asked whether GOP lawmakers supporting the House's "cut, cap and balance" debt limit measure would be unwilling to
ultimately compromise, Boehner said, "I'm sure we've got some members who believe that, but I do not believe that would be anywhere close to
the majority." Meanwhile, White
House spokesman Jay Carney reported little progress from private
meetings President Barack Obama held Wednesday with Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and separately with
congressional Democratic leaders. "There is no deal, we are not close to a deal," Carney said.
--Debt Ceiling won’t pass—House Dems won’t support
The New Republic 6/27
House Democrats And The Debt Ceiling, http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/90803/house-democrats-and-the-debt-ceiling
Nobody has paid much attention to what House Democrats think about the debt ceiling vote. But, given
that large chunks of
the GOP caucus will not support any debt ceiling increase, Democratic votes will be
needed. And it's not necessarily safe to assume that House Democrats will line up behind
whatever deal President Obama cuts. For one thing, they might not like the deal. For another,
their political incentive structure is very different than Obama's. Pay close attention to a pair of recent comments
by Nancy Pelosi. Here she is saying that the Republicans will bear the brunt of public economic
frustration: It is very hard historically it is –- you can see the charge. When the jobs are –- the unemployment rate is high, it's hard
for the incumbent to win. I remind you, though, we're not the incumbent. The Republicans are the incumbents. And here she is casually
playing the kind of chicken on the debt ceiling that Obama won't play: On Sunday, Pelosi indicated in an appearance on CNN’s “State of
the Union” that Republicans shouldn’t count on support from her caucus for the legislation — which must pass by early August to avoid
a default on the nation’s debt — unless they are willing to consider boosting taxes as well as cutting spending. “We’ve all said we would
vote for the full faith and credit of the United States to be honored by voting for this increase in the debt ceiling,” the Democratic leader
said. “If they don’t want to do taxes, maybe they don’t want to do anything.” Think
through what happens if the
government defaults on its debt. You have an economic crisis. People get mad at House
Republicans, which helps Obama, but the economy also teeters, which ultimately hurts Obama but does not hurt House Democrats
very much. Indeed, a default crisis would seem to increase the chances of the 2012 elections
producing a Republican president and a Democratic House. I suspect Pelosi knows that.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
28
Ptx Starter Pack
Thumpers
--GOP ensures gridlock
Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a weekly columnist at Roll Call, “Worst. Congress. Ever”,
7/19/11, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever?page=full, CMR
That brings us to the 112th Congress. House Republicans are adamant about refusing to compromise with the
president, and are able in most instances to make good on the threat. When they are not able to maintain this
unity, they are simply unwilling to bring up or pass measures that would lose significant GOP votes and require as many or more Democrats in
support. This
is a formula for gridlock, or worse. is the Republicans are simply declining to govern. We have seen
problems emerge on more issues than the fiscal issues now before Congress. For instance, the painful
effort to find broad bipartisan support for three significant trade agreements that are clearly in America's
national interest, including its economic and diplomatic interest (and which first had to overcome substantial Democratic opposition), have
been thwarted of late by Republicans' refusal to negotiate with the president over a much more minor issue of
implementing trade adjustment assistance. Political tactics to provoke confrontation, during a time when the permanent
campaign reigns supreme and the competition for majorities in both houses is fierce, have combined with the rise of partisan
media, one with far more reach and immediacy than the partisan press that thrived in the 19th century. When a phalanx of conservative media
outlets, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to talk radio and blogs, chimes in that breaching America's debt limit would at worst be benign
and at best could actually do the country some good, and are joined by presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty in those
messages, it encourages the confrontationalists to ignore the reality that damaging the full faith and credit of the United States will cause longlasting economic turmoil at home and abroad. Partisan and ideological conflict is inherent in democratic political systems, of course, and
governing is often a messy process. But this
level of dysfunction is not typical. And it is not going away in
the near future. The 2012 elections are sure to bring very close margins in both houses of Congress, and even more ideological
polarization; the redistricting process now underway in the House is targeting some of the last few Blue Dog Democrats in places like North
Carolina and enhancing the role of primary elections on the Republican side, which will pull candidates and representatives even further to the
right.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
29
Ptx Starter Pack
No PC
--Obama already bleeding capital – Health Care, Libya, Syria
Will Inboden, “On Libya, losing time, and listening for divine footsteps”, 7/18/11,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/18/on_libya_losing_time_and_listening_for_divine_footsteps, CMR
Yet somewhere along the way, in the transition from campaigning to governing, the Obama White House forgot
to sync its clock.
This was manifest in domestic and economic policy with the mistaken investment of political
capital in the health care bill rather than a jobs agenda. On foreign policy, the administration's deficiencies
have been most pronounced as miscast timing. In fact, as in the case of Libya, the Administration
often arrives at a sound policy -- yet only when it is too late to be a game-changer. So also with Iran, when the
White House sat passively on the sidelines during the 2009 Green Movement protests, only to belatedly offer public presidential support for the
Iranian reformers two years later and after the regime had squelched the leading dissidents. Or Syria, where the
administration
stuck dogmatically to its public posture of hope that Assad would reform, while his henchman
locked up, tortured, and killed the opposition.
--Losing capital over Libya – failed budget resolutions prove
WSJ, 6/27. “The House at War”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304569504576405912910522554.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, CMR
The House's confusion—failing to authorize the U.S. intervention but failing to shut it down
too—shows that Congress as usual doesn't want to take responsibility for its alleged convictions.
But it also shows that President Obama is managing the Beltway front lines as poorly as those in
Benghazi. Only a last-second, leading-from-behind White House lobbying push prevented Democrats from defecting on the defunding bill.
And only eight Republicans supported the President on the Libya authorization. The press corps is
claiming that all this reflects "war weariness," but the war in Libya will only drag on longer if Gadhafi and his bloodyminded sons have reason to believe that the Americans are divided. These resolutions will encourage our enemies to conclude that if they can
only hold out for a few more weeks or months, the U.S. and NATO will give up and sue for peace. The House is also undermining the morale of
Libya's rebels, not to mention domestic support for the intervention. Mr. Obama
is paying for his refusal to spend
political capital to build support for the war he started, however reluctantly. The public, and even Congress,
will support a President who makes a case for military force grounded in the national interest.
This President isn't making that case, and so Congress as ever heads for the hills.
--No Political Capital Now
Huff Post 6/28
The Obama-Shaped Leadership Void, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-casey/the-obamashaped-leadershi_b_885896.html
It remains more than fair to blame Bush, and we did lay heavy expectations and high hopes on Obama. But he asked for the job, and
all too plainly he's not up to it. For starters he spent
too much time and political capital passing a longoverdue system of universal health-care coverage, and he has dealt badly -- indeed dishonestly -not only with the two wars that Bush left in his lap, but also with the enormous banking bailout,
real estate collapse, and financial scandals that have severely damaged America's national economy and morale.
But his real failure has been a fundamental failure of leadership, even of mere presence. Politics is often an
art of indirection and tactical inaction, but "No Drama Obama" has been culpably passive in an office, and
at a moment, that call for action. Quite possibly he really is not-so-secretly a plutocrat at heart anyway -- otherwise why would he make
a point of being photographed cordially golfing with the very chieftain of the enemy faction that's trying to destroy him, Speaker of the
House John Boehner? What's most galling is that he's so high-minded and self-congratulatory that he considers himself above politics, as
if that were where a president should situate himself. By
trying at every turn to "work with" his domestic
opponents -- who have shown they will stop at nothing to undermine and discredit him, whatever he does or says -- he has left
those of us who voted for him without the advocate in the corridors of power that we
thought we were electing. This state of affairs leaves America today more divided, directionless, and demoralized even than
during the last years of Bush. Like a frightened, wounded elephant, such an America is dangerous to the world as a whole. And here
comes the latest edition of the uniquely interminable American election cycle, with a passel of Republican candidates, ranging from the
insipid (Mitt Romney) to the demagogic (Michele Bachmann), already lining up. Obama might win reelection anyway, but so what?
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
30
Ptx Starter Pack
No Link – No Conservative Backlash
No conservative backlash – they support Obama’s pragmatic approach to Egypt.
Scherer ‘11
(Michael, “As Egypt Sidelines CPAC, Potential 2012 GOP Candidates Don’t Respond”, Februrary 11, Time Magazone, p.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/02/11/as-egypt-sidelines-cpac-potential-2012-gop-candidates-dont-respond/)
Why the silence and confusion? There are two main reasons. First, there is no definitive conservative response to the
turmoil in Egypt. As Joe has noted in Swampland, some foreign policy conservatives have come down hard in favor
of Democracy, others have worried about the effect on Israel, and still others have apparently sided with autocracy in the name of
preventing an Islamic democracy that could be radicalized. The second reason is that many of the speakers seem to support,
more or less, Obama’s pragmatic approach to the crises. (Romney all but said as much in a recent CNN
appearance.) The top line message of Republicans is that Obama has been a disaster for American foreign policy, hastening
the decline of this country’s standing in the world. That message is not easily squared with an apparent support for
Obama’s efforts during the Egyptian crisis.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
31
Ptx Starter Pack
Egyptian Election Assistance Popular
--Plan has broad support from powerful members of Congress
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “U.S. Lawmakers Cheer Mubarak Exit, Urge Secular Rule”, Feb 11, 2011,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-11/u-s-lawmakers-cheer-mubarak-exit-urge-secular-rule.html, CMR
of the U.S. Congress cheered Hosni Mubarak’s resignation as president of Egypt
and called for a peaceful transition to a secular democracy with free and fair elections. After days of
critical statements prodding Mubarak to step aside and threatening to halt U.S. aid if he didn’t, leading members of Congress
said they were focused on ensuring the next steps in Egypt are peaceful and don’t empower
extremists. “Egypt’s army and transitional leaders must heed the call to lift the emergency law and clarify a
timetable to establish a proper foundation for credible elections,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry of
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Members
Massachusetts, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Calling Mubarak’s resignation “an extraordinary moment,” Kerry said in a
statement, “The United States must help Egyptians turn this democratic moment into a process that builds a government responsive to economic
needs as well as demands for freedom.” Senator John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, called
on the Egyptian military to protect people’s rights and maintain stability during the transition of power.
--Bipartisan support for foreign aid to Egypt – Obama has wide latitude for policy changes
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “ U.S. Lawmakers Step Up Pressure on Mubarak, Divide on Urging His Departure”, Feb 1, 20 11,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-01/u-s-lawmakers-step-up-pressure-on-mubarak-divide-on-urging-his-departure.html, CMR
For now, many
lawmakers of both parties are leaving Obama room to maneuver on what is a
tricky and fast-changing situation in Egypt. Republican Representative Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan said calling for
Mubarak’s “precipitous” removal could empower dangerous elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition movement.
an end to U.S. aid could limit Obama’s ability to handle the crisis there, he said.
one has tried to box the administration in, in terms of foreign aid, because they
understand the fluidity of the situation,” McCotter said in an interview yesterday. “Generally, everyone shares
the same concern of what could happen if you have Mubarak leave precipitously.” In a statement yesterday, Representative Howard
Similarly, threatening
“No
Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the U.S. government should be ready to help the Egyptian
government and opposition leaders to “enter a constructive dialogue, if we are asked to do so by the Egyptians, who are entitled to determine their
own fate.”
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
32
Ptx Starter Pack
Egyptian Election Assistance Popular
--Overwhelming, bipartisan support
WaPo, “Congressional leaders back 'one voice' approach to Egypt”, Feb 11, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/congressionalleaders-support-one-voice-approach-to-egypt/2011/01/31/ABwhBbE_story.html
Congress has taken an unusually bipartisan approach toward the mounting crisis in Egypt, with
House and Senate leaders standing behind the Obama administration's message that Egyptians should
make an "orderly transition" to avoid a violent conclusion to the week-long standoff. By Monday evening, only two lawmakers had
called for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to resign, while a collection of leaders from both parties followed a "one voice" approach of
standing behind Sunday's public remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. "We're watching a historic moment. . . . We need to have
an orderly transition to democracy in Egypt," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Monday, using the precise phrase
that Clinton echoed during interviews with five major Sunday news talk shows. "I support the universally recognized rights of the Egyptian
people to freedom of speech, assembly and association." House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), who voiced support for the White House on Sunday, declined to expand upon those remarks on Monday. "I don't have any
criticism of President Obama or Secretary Clinton at this point," McConnell said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I mean, they know full
well that we can't give the Egyptians advice about who their leadership is. That's beyond the reach of the United States. And I think we ought to
speak as one voice during this crisis." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), one of the main voices for human rights on Capitol Hill,
issued a statement of support for the Egyptian protesters who are demanding new and fair elections. But she stopped short of calling for Mubarak
to step aside. "I'm inspired by people of Egypt seeking real democracy and join Secretary Clinton in support of orderly transition to fair
elections," Pelosi wrote late Sunday via Twitter. With the House out of session this week, a pair of Senate hearings on the withdrawal from Iraq
will provide the only platforms for lawmakers such as Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain
(Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, to speak out about the situation. Still, some lawmakers expressed graver
concerns about the unrest, saying that the United States' cautious approach toward stabilizing the region is missing a key moment and that more
pressure should be applied to ensure that Mubarak's 30-year reign ends. "While initially it may have been prudent for the Obama administration
to walk that rhetorical tightrope to keep the confidence of regional leaders, that moment has surely passed," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), a
former chairman of the Middle East subcommittee, said Monday. "By their passion, courage and sacrifice in the streets, Egyptians have proven
beyond question that they are taking their government back and that the Mubarak-era of rule is ending. . . . His last act of service to Egypt should
be to facilitate a fast transfer of power to a transitional government that can prepare for free and fair elections." Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a
member of the Senate intelligence committee, said Monday: "Mr. Mubarak will have to go, but not without an exit strategy that prevents the
government from falling and leaving the door open for extremists." The top House Republican in charge of Egypt's aid declined overtures to
revoke that assistance. "I urge caution when deciding what the U.S. response will be," said Rep. Kay Granger (Tex.), the chairman of the
Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. "It is critical that we are deliberate about the actions we take. Egypt has been a moderate
influence in the Middle East and has a peace agreement with Israel. I am continuing to monitor the events on the ground very closely." Even
before the Egyptian protests, some conservatives had advocated for eliminating foreign aid to that country to help cut the more than $1 trillion
deficit. A proposal by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would eliminate all aid to Egypt and Israel, the two largest recipients of U.S. financial assistance in
the past three decades. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested using the military
assistance that Egypt receives as a carrot to force Mubarak to hold new elections. Egypt receives about $1.5 billion a year in U.S. economic and
military assistance. "The United States must leverage its long-standing assistance to press Mr. Mubarak to let the voice of his people be heard
through legitimate democratic elections," Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement. Reid declined Monday to give his opinion on whether the United
States should reduce its aid to Egypt, saying only that "the White House is totally on top of this." Since
the Camp David Accords
of 1978, which ended the long war between Egypt and Israel, there has been a widespread bipartisan agreement
that each nation would receive U.S. financial help, a pact that top congressional leaders were not willing to discuss
undoing. "I think there's been general support for what the president has been doing," Reid said.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
33
Ptx Starter Pack
Winners Win
Controversial policies are still a win—especially for Obama
Heineman 10 (Ben, Senior Fellow at two Harvard schools: the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School's
Program on Corporate Governanc [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/nopresidential-greatness-without-spending-political-capital/37865/] No Presidential Greatness
Without Spending Political Capital/ March 23)
Only in recent months, when he was willing to make it his personal issue and to spend
significantly from his store of political capital, was President Obama able to achieve
victory in the bitter congressional battle over health care reform. Presidential greatness is
combining policy and politics to win significant victories that have a major impact on the
trajectory of national life. Such victories--which upset the status quo--only occur when a
president takes political risks and is willing to incur short-term unpopularity with
significant segments of the electorate. There have been two great Democrat presidents
since FDR--Harry Truman and LBJ. Both came to office through the death of a president;
both could have run for a second elected term; both declined to do so because they were
extremely unpopular; but, part of their unpopularity was due to courageous decisions
which required large expenditure of personal capital and which changed the course of
history.
Wins snowball and increase pc
Mitchell 09 (Lincoln Mitchell, Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics,
Columbia University, Time for Obama to Start Spending Political Capital, June 18, 2009,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/time-for-obama-to-start-s_b_217235.html)
A cynical interpretation of the choice facing Obama is that he can remain popular or he can
have legislative and other policy accomplishments, but this interpretation would be wrong.
By early 2010, Obama, and his party will, fairly or not, be increasingly judged by what
they have accomplished in office, not by how deftly they have handled political challenges.
Therefore, the only way he can remain popular and get new political capital is through
converting his current political capital into concrete legislative accomplishments. Health
care will be the first and very likely most important, test.
Winners win and increase political capital
Mann 9 – *Senior Lecturer of Governance Studies @ Brookings Institute [Thomas, “After the
2008 Election: Politics and the Governance in the United States,”,
4/21/09,http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2009/0421_governance_mann.aspx]
In reality, each presidency has its own political dynamic, shaped by the size of the initial
election victory, the contours of the economy, conditions of war or peace, public
impressions, and legislative victories and defeats. Political capital is not a finite
commodity generated in the election and then quickly depleted in battles to enact a policy
agenda. It can be replenished through early legislative victories, reassuring leadership, and
improving conditions at home and abroad. Presidents have often garnered significant
policy victories well after their first year in office. The challenge is to begin one’s
presidency in a way that banks some initial achievable goals, avoids personal missteps and
legislative defeats, and lays the political groundwork for sustained leadership throughout
the life of his administration.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
34
Ptx Starter Pack
PC =/= Key
Political capital not key to the agenda
-their evidence misuses the term
-ideological and partisan leanings outweigh
Dickinson 9 – Professor of Political Science
Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard
University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 526-2009, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor,
Obama and Presidential Power,”
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidentialpower/
As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to
hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal
Senate approval before Congress adjourns 1for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the
start of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more
Political scientists, like baseball
devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in
Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of
legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece
of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress.
interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power.
writers evaluating hitters, have
That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote
These measures,
however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power.
This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely
influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists)
often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the
President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an
outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other
factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings
of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how
she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am
ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated
instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most
legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack
with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes?
influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the
alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential
setting – not arm-twisting.
power is largely an exercise in agenda-
And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost
certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends
the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
35
Ptx Starter Pack
MPX D – No Default
Markets wouldn’t panic—US would reassure markets
Foster 11
JD, Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation, “Congress Has Time and Options on Debt Limit,” 2/2,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118533071051152.html
A key consideration for any course of action is how markets would react. For this it is important to recognize which measures of debt are relevant. As noted earlier, two measures of
government debt are common to the debt limit discussion: debt that is sold in the credit markets (typically called "publicly held debt") and "gross debt" (also called the "public debt"),
which includes publicly held debt plus debt the federal government has issued internally to record certain intergovernmental transfers such as transfers from the general fund to the
Social Security trust fund. Credit markets are concerned with the publicly held debt, its growth over time, and that net interest payments are made on time.[17] Publicly held debt
If the
federal government were forced to operate indefinitely at the current debt limit, the early
reaction in credit markets could be unfavorable. Credit markets value certainty and carefully evaluate and price
uncertainty. Despite the recent run-up in federal debt and the tremendous difficulties the
federal government faces due to promises made in major entitlement programs, U.S.
government debt is still the global benchmark for safety. The uncertainty surrounding how
the federal government would operate if it were unable to issue debt would likely rattle
markets initially, leading to adverse movements in interest rates and the dollar exchange rate. The news would not be
all grim, however, as the passage of time probably would make clear. As noted, the Treasury
Department would surely affirm that all interest payments on government debt would be
made, thus reassuring bond holders. While spending cuts required to align total spending with revenues would be
stood at $9.018 trillion at the end of 2010.[18] While publicly held debt is the relevant measure of the debt for credit markets, the debt limit applies to the gross debt .
deep, triggering a huge political brouhaha, from the credit markets' perspective the overarching consideration would be that a
government previously bent on issuing destabilizing amounts of debt would be running an enforced balanced budget. Once
the
novelty wore off—and how long this would take is uncertain— markets ultimately might see the forced
austerity as beneficial, especially if they concluded that the result would be congressional
action to put the government, after decades of endless spending and borrowing, on a sound
financial footing.
Failure to raise the debt ceiling won’t lead to economic catastrophe: history proves-Istook 10—Analyst @ Heritage Foundation
Ernest Istook, 12/8/2010 “Dodging the Debt Limit Stampede” http://blog.heritage.org/?p=47944
Brand-new Congressmen don’t take office until January, but they’re already consumed with worry about the national debt. They’ll be faced with a vote expected next year to raise the
debt ceiling beyond its current $14.3-trillion (about $47,000 apiece for everyone in America). The current $14.3-trillion debt ceiling has almost doubled since May 27, 2003, when it
was set at $7.4-trillion. Projections show we’ll reach our credit limit around May of 2011, pushed along by three straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, including an expected $1.5-
Congress should not feel rushed into voting on a higher debt ceiling, although
some will try to create pressure with claims that anything else would be irresponsible. Although
trillion this year.
House Speaker-Elect John Boehner has asked that freshmen handle the issue “as adults,” many of them are adamantly against new borrowing to pay for the profligate spending that
they campaigned against. “I am against increasing the debt ceiling,” said Rep.-elect David Rivera (R-FL) during freshman orientation. “It is going to be very, very difficult, I would
say next to impossible to change my position.” Similar comments came from Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Reps.-elect Jeff Denhem (R-CA), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Bill Johnson
(R-OH)—among many others. “I’m going to vote against raising the national debt ceiling. We simply can’t continue to mortgage the future or our unborn children and
History suggests that there is
ample time for political maneuvering, so nobody should be stampeded into a bad decision.
In 1995-96, President Bill Clinton and the fresh Republican majority in Congress were
deadlocked over spending levels, so a creative Treasury Department juggled funds to
spend another $139-billion that kept government going even after reaching the debt
limit. By comparison, the annual deficit that year was $107-billion. The Treasury officially declared a “debt
issuance suspension period” on November 15, 1995, which lasted until March 29, 1996, when Congress agreed to lift the
ceiling to a then-record $5.5-trillion. We went 134 days past the deadline. Although the House approved legislation to
grandchildren,” Lee said. Backrooms are already abuzz about what trade-offs might justify a debt increase.
block the Clinton Administration from dipping into trust funds to pay government’s bills, the Senate did not. So Treasury did just that,
borrowing against federal trust funds such as Civil Service pensions, and later re-paid the money once the ceiling was raised. There
was no default on debt, and no missed payments to creditors, contractors or federal workers. Nobody
missed a Social Security check because Congress approved two weeks’ worth of temporary borrowing ($29-billion) in late March of 1996 solely for
Social Security, without counting it against the debt limit. The technical details of how Treasury juggled the books are recounted in the General Accounting Office’s report
GAO/AIMD-96-130, “Debt Ceiling: Analysis of Actions During the 1995-1996 Crisis.” That stand-off ended with a compromise unrelated to spending levels. The GOP got earnings
limits lifted for Social Security retirees and many regulations lifted from small businesses. Plus a line-item veto plan that the courts soon voided.
ASU 2011
Ziegler/Roark
36
Ptx Starter Pack
MPX D – Econ =/= War
No causality – economic decline doesn’t cause war
Ferguson in ‘6
Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor
at Harvard Business School, “The Next War of the World”, Foreign Affairs 85.5, Proquest
There are many unsatisfactory explanations for why the twentieth century was so destructive. One is the
assertion that the availability of more powerful weapons caused bloodier conflicts. But there is no correlation
between the sophistication of military technology and the lethality of conflict. Some of the worst violence of the
century -- the genocides in Cambodia in the 1970s and central Africa in the 1990s, for instance -- was
perpetrated with the crudest of weapons: rifles, axes, machetes, and knives. Nor can economic crises explain the
bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to
the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany
started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great
Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no
general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came
after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some
severe economic crises were not followed by wars.
Empirical studies show no causal relationship between economic decline and war –
democratic regimes don’t collapse and authoritarian governments increase repression as a
response.
Miller in ‘1
Morris Miller, adjunct economics professor at the University of Ottawa. “Poverty: A Cause of War?”. Peace Magazine Jan-Mar
2001, page 8 http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htm
Library shelves are heavy with studies focused on the correlates and causes of war .
Some of the leading scholars in that field suggest that we drop the concept
of causality, since it can rarely be demonstrated. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to look at the motives of war-prone political leaders and the ways they have gained and maintained power, even to the point of leading their nations to war. Poverty: The Prime Causal Factor?
Poverty is most often named as the prime causal factor. Therefore we approach the question by asking whether poverty is characteristic of the nations
or groups that have engaged in wars. As we shall see, poverty has never been as significant a factor as one would imagine. Largely this
is because of the traits of the poor as a group - particularly their tendency to tolerate their suffering in silence
and/or be deterred by the force of repressive regimes. Their voicelessness and powerlessness translate into
passivity.
poor
nations cannot organize wars, which are exceptionally costly. The statistics speak eloquently on this point. In the last 40 years
the global arms trade has been about $1500 billion, of which two-thirds were the purchases of developing
countries.
Also, because of their illiteracy and ignorance of worldly affairs, the poor become susceptible to the messages of war-bent demagogues and often willing to become cannon fodder. The situations conductive to war involve political repression of dissidents,
tight control over media that stir up chauvinism and ethnic prejudices, religious fervor, and sentiments of revenge. The poor succumb to leaders who have the power to create such conditions for their own self-serving purposes. Desperately poor people in
That is an amount roughly equal to the foreign capital they obtained through official development aid (ODA). Since ODA does not finance arms purchases (except insofar as money that is not spent by a government on aid-financed roads is available for other
purposes such as military procurement) financing is also required to control the media and communicate with the populace to convince them to support the war. Large-scale armed conflict is so expensive that governments must resort to exceptional sources, such as drug dealing,
The reliance on illicit operations is well documented in a recent World Bank report
that studied 47 civil wars that took place between 1960 and 1999 , the main conclusion of which is that the key factor is the availability of
commodities to plunder. For greed to yield war, there must be financial opportunities. Only affluent political leaders and
elites can amass such weaponry,
Some scholars have argued that it is not poverty, as such, that contributes to the support for armed conflict, but rather some
catalyst, such as an economic crisis. However, a study by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik shows that this
hypothesis lacks merit. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin American and Asia since World War II, they
concluded that much of the conventional thinking about the political impact of economic crisis is wrong: "The
severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the
collapse of regimes ... or (in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another)."
diamond smuggling, brigandry, or deal-making with other countries.
diverting funds to the military even when this runs contrary to the interests of the population. In most inter-state wars the antagonists were wealthy enough to build up their armaments and propagandize
or repress to gain acceptance for their policies. Economic Crises?