___AGENDA – **AFF** UQ___
**Cybersecurity Aff
2ac UQ
Won’t pass –
Turf wars, partisanship, and SOPA hangover overcome PC – we control vote count
Martinez, 4-25 – Jennifer, Daring the Senate on cybersecurity , POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75566.html
The bills — including the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act — are expected to pass the House without a problem by
Friday, giving Republicans a partisan talking point and providing them cover should cyberenemies execute attacks against American agencies or
utilities. It’s
a tough spot for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and for President Barack Obama, whose aides lean
toward the Senate’s comprehensive cybersecurity approach but have been unwilling to box themselves in by
criticizing the House bill directly. For now, Reid remains paralyzed by turf wars , an inability to collect
the 60 votes needed to get a bill to the floor and the hangover effect from anti-piracy legislation
that left many Democratic senators preternaturally afraid of crossing the Internet companies and
activists behind the anti-SOPA efforts. On CISPA, some tech and Internet firms — such as Facebook, Microsoft and IBM — support the
House bill. But cyberliberties groups have taken to social media to wage a campaign to brand it as a
“cyberspying” bill that would let companies share private information on users with the federal government. At the heart of the
cyberfight in Congress is a partisan impasse over how far the government should go in requiring private
companies and utilities to maintain specific cybersecurity standards.
PC won’t solve – predictive ev
Cassata, 4-26 – Donna, House moves ahead with cybersecurity bill,
http://www.kgwn.tv/story/17780363/house-moves-ahead-with-cybersecurity-bill.
House Republicans are pushing ahead with legislation to protect the nation's critical infrastructure and corporations from
electronic attacks despite Obama administration objections that the legislation fails to protect Americans' civil liberties. The House
begins work Thursday on the bill designed to address the cybersecurity threat by getting the private sector and government to share
information to thwart attacks from foreign governments, terrorists and cybercriminals. Although the information sharing is voluntary, civil
liberties groups fear the measure could lead to government spying on Americans. The administration objections run deeper. "The sharing of
information must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian
nature of cyberspace," the administration said in a statement Wednesday. "Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive." The
administration also complained that the bill's liability protection for companies that share information is too broad and argued that the
Homeland Security Department should have a primary role in domestic cybersecurity. In its current form, the administration said, the
president's advisers would recommend a veto of the bill. Yet
White House opposition is not expected to derail the
House bill, which has bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats said Wednesday. "It certainly will have an
impact, I think, on the margin of the vote, but the bill is still likely to pass ," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who
had hoped to amend the bill by limiting the government's ability to collect information, such as birthdays, that could be used to identify
individuals. His measure reflected the concerns of the White House, but Republicans refused to allow its consideration. A final vote on the bill is
expected Friday. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has worked closely with Rep. C.A. "Dutch"
Ruppersberger of Maryland, the panel's top Democrat, on the overall legislation as well as on several amendments to clarify parts of the
measure. Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and companies such as Facebook and Google are receptive to the legislation because it
does not impose new regulations on businesses requiring them to share information, making that step voluntary. "The basis for the
administration's view is mostly based on the lack of critical infrastructure regulation, something outside of our jurisdiction," Rogers and
Ruppersberger said in a joint statement late Wednesday after the administration veto threat. "We would also draw the White House's attention
to the substantial package of privacy and civil liberties improvement announced yesterday, which will be added to the bill on the floor." One
possible foe also has signaled that it won't work to defeat the bill. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a leading organization on Internet
freedom, said this week that the Intelligence Committee had made "important privacy improvements" in the bill. The organization still raised
concerns about the flow of Internet data to the National Security Agency. "We will not oppose the process moving forward in the House," the
group said in a statement. "We will focus on the amendments and subsequently on the Senate." The
administration backs a
Senate bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would give the Department of Homeland Security
the authority to establish security standards. "The government applies safety standards for cars, food, building structures and toys, to name a
few," Lieberman, Collins and Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement. "Why not do the same for the
infrastructure that powers our economy and provides us with the highest standard of living in the world?" However,
that legislation
remains stalled, facing opposition from senior Senate Republicans. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on
the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during a hearing last month that the Homeland Security Department is "probably the most
inefficient bureaucracy that I have ever encountered" and is ill-equipped to determine how best to secure the nation's essential infrastructure.
McCain has introduced a competing bill. House
Republicans are determined to secure passage of their bill, a step
they hope will force the Senate to act.
No chance of Cybersecurity – differences are irreconcilable
WSJ, 4-27 – House Passes Cybersecurity Bill,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577369660212282978.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj.
Congress moved toward gridlock over how to improve the security of the nation's computer networks when the House of
Representatives approved a measure opposed by the White House and at odds with Senate efforts on the
issue. House passage of its measure, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, came on a 248-168 vote Thursday and was supported by
both Republicans and Democrats. The House vote came despite a warning by the White House that senior advisers would recommend a
presidential veto if the measure also passed the Senate, which is considered unlikely. The
White House prefers a Senate bill
that would concentrate cybersecurity efforts in the Department of Homeland Security and would require companies to bolster
security for critical infrastructure, such as electrical and water systems. The House bill only facilitates the swapping of
threat data between private companies and the National Security Agency and other government departments. The House version also was
criticized by civil-liberties groups that said its provisions allowing businesses to share information with the government to improve
cybersecurity could compromise American citizens' privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a dangerously overbroad bill that
would allow companies to share our private and sensitive information with the government without a warrant and without proper oversight."
The Obama administration says cybersecurity should be overseen by civilian agencies. The Senate bill favored by the White House and
supported by Democrats and Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), would place Homeland Security officials in charge of the effort. However, the
Senate measure is opposed by business groups because of requirements that businesses adopt measures to improve
security, steps executives see as burdensome. The twin controversies—whether to regulate security and whether a
civilian agency should head up the effort— seem likely to snarl efforts to plug the growing gaps in
network security. Earlier
attempts at cybersecurity legislation drew broad, bipartisan support but little
momentum . In the past year, the debate has grown more polarized
over whether government should play a
larger role in requiring businesses to strengthen their cybersecurity.
Cybersecurity won’t pass and it’s subject to massive delay even if it does
Cassata, 4-27 – House passes CISPA cybersecurity bill Obama opposes, Chicago Sun Times,
2http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/12165666-418/house-passes-cispa-cybersecurity-bill-obamaopposes.html.
The House’s solid bipartisan vote for a cybersecurity bill sends a message to the Senate: Now it’s your turn
to act. Ignoring a White House veto threat, the House approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act–
known as CISPA–which would encourage companies and the federal government to share information collected on the Internet to help
prevent electronic attacks from cybercriminals, foreign governments and terrorists. The vote Thursday was 248-168, with 42 Democrats joining
206 Republicans in backing the measure. Congressional
leaders are determined to get a cybersecurity bill
completed this election year but that may be difficult . The Obama administration and several leading Senate
Democrats and Republicans want a bill that would give the Homeland Security Department the
primary role in overseeing domestic cybersecurity and the authority to set security standards. The House bill would
impose no new regulations on businesses, an imperative for Republicans . In the coming weeks , the
Senate will try to proceed on its bill by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, who have said the House bill is
inadequate in protecting against cyberattacks. Senior Senate Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, argue that Homeland Security is
ill-equipped to determine how best to secure the nation’s essential infrastructure and has introduced his own bill.
1ar UQ – Top**
Leading conservatives block
Sasso, 4-23 – Brendan, OVERNIGHT TECH: Conservative groups slam House cybersecurity bill, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223199-overnight-tech-conservative-groups-slamhouse-cybersecurity-bill
Six leading conservative groups urged Congress to re-work the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)
on Monday. In a letter to bill sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the conservative groups
wrote that CISPA "risks unduly expanding federal power, undermining freedom of contract, and harming U.S.
competitiveness in the technology sector." The letter was signed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, TechFreedom, FreedomWorks,
Americans for Limited Government, the Liberty Coalition and American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas. The goal of CISPA is to help
companies beef up their defenses against hackers who steal business secrets, rob customers' financial information and wreak havoc on
computer systems. The measure would tear down legal barriers that discourage companies from sharing information about cyber threats. But
the conservative groups slammed CISPA for using a broad definition for "cyber threat information" and for a sweeping immunity provision for
companies that hand over information to the government. The groups warned that the bill would prevent companies from assuring customers
that they could protect their private data. The letter explained that the bill would allow third parties, such as data storage companies, to share
information with the government even if they had signed a contract with other companies to secure the data. The conservative groups also
criticized CISPA for allowing the government to use the information for purposes other than addressing cybersecurity threats and for not
including tougher oversight requirements for how the government handles the data it collects. Although the bill allows only for voluntary
information sharing, the groups said the bill should be amended to ban government agencies from pressuring companies to share information.
"If CISPA is not revised to reflect our concerns, however, it may have serious unintended consequences for America’s
vibrant technology sector — and for our constitutional rights. Therefore, we urge CISPA’s sponsors to consider these recommendations before
sending the bill to the House floor," the groups wrote. The House is set to vote on the bill this week. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) also criticized
CISPA in an op-ed in The Hill, comparing it to the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
Won’t pass – can’t reconcile different bills
Bartz, 4-11 – Diane, House to take up cybersecurity bill with revisions, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/us-cybersecurity-congress-idUSBRE8391FY20120411.
Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he had not seen the
proposed amendments, and could not say if they would allay his group's concerns. The Senate is
considering two cybersecurity bills, both of which overlap with the information-sharing measure
proposed by the Rogers-Ruppersberger bill. James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert who calls the Rogers-Ruppersberger
bill "nice to have but not enough ," predicted a rough road for the legislation. "You're going to see a
bill out of the Senate and out of the House that are markedly different ," he said.
Partisanship, elections and time all block – empirics prove
Smith, 3-19-12 – Gerry, Cybersecurity Bill Faces Uncertain Future In Fight Over Regulation, Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/cybersecurity-bill-regulation_n_1362529.html
Yet in recent weeks, the prospect of passing major cybersecurity legislation for the first time has grown
uncertain . Senators have introduced competing bills amid differences over whether the Department of Homeland
Security should be given power to enforce cybersecurity standards at private companies, which own and operate 85 percent of critical
infrastructure. Many Republicans and business lobbyists, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, oppose legislation with regulations,
claiming they would harm companies, while many Democrats say DHS enforcement is the only way to properly address cyber vulnerabilities to
critical infrastructure. Comprehensive cybersecurity
legislation has never reached the floor of Congress for
a vote. After a year in which numerous government agencies and major corporations revealed that hackers had infiltrated their networks to
steal corporate secrets or leak sensitive customer data, many still think this could be the year to pass a cyber bill. Thus far, more than 30
cybersecurity bills have been unveiled on Capitol Hill, emerging from a wide range of committees, including Commerce, Foreign Affairs,
Intelligence and Homeland Security. But privately,
several Congressional aides and observers say the debate over
cyber legislation has become increasingly partisan and that time is running short to pass legislation
in an election year .
Competing proposals, regulations and privacy doom it
I.S.I., 3-22 – Infosec Island, online news source “designed especially for IT and network professionals
who manage security, risk, and compliance issues.” “Lawmakers Continue Clash Over Cybersecurity
Legislation,” http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/20782-Lawmakers-Continue-Clash-OverCybersecurity-Legislation.html.
Lawmakers continue to clash over a myriad of proposed cybersecurity bills even as Congressional oversight
committees are presented with testimony that underscores the urgency presented by an rapidly growing threat to national security. “It is
critical that we strengthen our cybersecurity posture, and we urge Congress to recognize the need for new tools to more effectively prevent
and respond to potential cyber attacks on the homeland,” said assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John
Brennan. Brennan's statements backup FBI Director Robert Mueller's statements made last week to a Senate oversight committee when he
warned that terrorist groups are actively "using cyberspace to conduct operations." "While to date terrorists have not used the Internet to
launch a full-scale cyber attack, we cannot underestimate their intent," Mueller said. In February, Senators Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, John
D. Rockefeller IV, and Dianne Feinstein jointly introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 which was intended to reconcile multiple bills
previously proposed for consideration. The legislation enjoys strong bipartisan
but
the bill
support, making it the leading contender for passage,
could be held up for debate for some time . "That’s the most comprehensive bill and probably the most likely to
change behavior in the private sector. Without holding the private sector to a general standard, we haven’t really addressed the hardest issue,"
said former assistant DHS secretary Stewart Baker. Despite
having prompted the introduction of the Cybersecurity Act of
2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has plans to reintroduce legislation proposed by the White House last
year - legislation that many private sector leaders say is too punitive in nature and would disincentivize companies from
both investing in better security measures and from disclosing data loss events. “That’s the part that could sink the whole
bill ,” said Internet Security Alliance Larry Clinton. "There's really no doubt that they have proposed here developing a fairly extensive
regulatory structure and again that is precisely the opposite of what the president himself promised when he released the cyberspace policy
review back in 2009," Clinton stated during a taping of C-SPAN's "The Communicators" which aired last August. The Obama administration's
proposal is "a punitive model where we're trying to blame the victims of the attack. I don't think that the administration's proposal really does
anything that I can see to enhance cybersecurity," Clinton had said. Also in
contention is a proposed bill offered by Senator
John McCain which has less of a regulatory focus than the White House proposal, and instead seeks to break down barriers to threat
intelligence sharing within government and with the private sector. Critics have lambasted
the bill over privacy concerns
and argue it would give law enforcement and intelligence agencies too much access to private information that should not be subject to routine
government oversight.
1ar UQ – Elections
More evidence partisanship and elections make it impossible
Network World, 3-20-12 – Cybersecurity Bill Soap Opera,
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/80077
So where are we on cybersecurity legislation at this point? Who knows. There is probably a bit of back office deal making
going on but we can't expect much real action due to partisan politics and an election year . Beside,
cybersecurity is too esoteric and geeky for broad appeal. Why focus on cybersecurity when you can
simply call your opponent to task on emotional issues gasoline prices, health care reform, or social issues?
Won’t pass – elections, dueling bills, lobbies and Obama’s PC fails
Gorman, 3-9-12 – Siobhan, Cybersecurity Bills Duel Over Rules for Firms, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203961204577269832774110556.html.
A bipartisan Senate bill to bolster cybersecurity has sparked a competing proposal from Republicans wary of new regulations
for businesses, a signal that burgeoning anti-government fervor has begun shaping national-security measures. The White House-backed
proposal would require companies that own computer networks integral to key critical infrastructure like electric-power systems and nuclear
reactors to meet certain cybersecurity standards. Sponsors include the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security panel, Sens.
Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine). The Republican alternative, unveiled last week, omits provisions for critical
infrastructure security and instead focuses on creating better mechanisms for the sharing of cyberthreat information between the government
and industry. The bills' future will likely depend on whether the debate is seen as one primarily about national security or economic growth,
congressional and industry officials say. "Is this a national-security conversation or is this an economic-prosperity conversation?" said one
telecommunications-industry official, who favors the Republican bill. "It's not about building a new battlefield." Election-year
politics
could derail enactment of any cybersecurity measure , but lawmakers and industry officials increasingly say they believe
Congress will pass a bill. The competing measures are expected to reach the Senate floor soon. Much of the debate so far has focused on
whether proposed new regulations would be too onerous and costly for the private sector. Business interests have played a key role in crafting
both proposals. The bipartisan bill would create a new regulatory regime. The Homeland Security Department would work with industry to
determine which computer systems within companies were running infrastructure where a cyberattack would be catastrophic. For those
companies, Homeland Security and industry representatives would establish required standards. The regime would be overseen either by
relevant federal regulators—for instance, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the case of electric utilities—or by Homeland Security.
Congressional officials said they have incorporated thousands of changes into the bipartisan
legislation to address business concerns. For example, they have included waivers for industries that show they have met
security standards, and have said that Homeland Security would oversee the standards only for industries not already regulated by another
agency. "This bill actually takes a really innovative approach to regulation," said James Lewis, a cybersecurity specialist at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies who has advised the White House. The White House-backed bill also has measures that aim to improve
threat data-sharing, like the GOP bill. Republicans have promoted their proposals as an effort to improve security without placing new
requirements on the private sector. "Some may say our bill doesn't go far enough, because it does not impose layers of regulation on critical
infrastructure," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) recently at the Republican bill announcement. "Private-sector innovation is the engine that
drives our economy today, and more government is seldom the solution to any problem." The
GOP bill has drawn significant
industry support. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is expected to support the framework of the bill. It backs "the overarching principles
behind the nonregulatory approach to cybersecurity policy," said Chamber spokesman Bobby Maldonado. Industry representatives who oppose
new cybersecurity requirements, however, are beginning to discuss what regulations they might be willing to accept, a telecom industry official
said. "If it's crammed down our throats, what would we be OK with swallowing?" the telecom official said, describing the process. "You're
preparing for the worst case." The White House sought this week to refocus the debate on national security. Officials
deployed a small army of top intelligence and national-security officials to meet with senators to warn about inadequacies of the current
system and explain why cybersecurity standards would improve security. To make their point, they played out a hypothetical situation of a
cyberattack on the power grid in New York. "It was really pointing out this is a security bill," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,
who was part of Wednesday's briefing, in an interview. "That we're being attacked now and that we haven't had a catastrophic attack, but we
shouldn't wait until there is one to address the problem legislatively." White House officials said cybersecurity standards are essential to
protecting the nation. "As long as there are weak links in the core critical infrastructure, there's a risk for everybody," said Howard Schmidt, the
White House cybersecurity chief, adding that even seemingly small intrusions can escalate into large problems. Sen. Chambliss
said the
briefing didn't sway him from the Republican approach. " The case has not been made , especially in these
difficult economic times, that more government regulation of critical infrastructure will clearly improve, rather than hinder, our cybersecurity,"
he said. Some cybersecurity specialists say the drafters of the White House-backed bill have already undermined the security provisions in
making accommodations to business interests. For example, changes in the bill that raised the threshold for determining which computer
systems would be required to meet the new-standards regime now leave out many critical systems, said Alan Paller, director of research for the
SANS Institute cybersecurity firm. "That's a stellar example of how business can disembowel an important piece of legislation," he said.
Won’t pass – election year makes partisan conflicts and failure inevitable
Lohrmann, 3-8-12 – Dan, Michigan's first chief security officer (CSO) and deputy director for
cybersecurity and infrastructure protection, “Will New Cybersecurity Legislation Pass in 2012?”
Government Technology, http://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/Will-NewCybersecurity-Legislation-030812.html.
The list of articles highlighting the need for cybersecurity legislation in 2012 goes on and on. So is this a done deal? Well … this is an
election year and partisan battles are raging . While some groups like ISPs and civil libertarians are still saying no new
regulations are needed, the holdup seems to be dueling bills between the two sides of the aisle. The public
rhetoric emphasizes two extremes of a government Internet takeover on one side versus the very serious cyber threat to all critical
infrastructures and our economy on the other. There is also debate over who should do what, such as should the National
Security Agency (NSA) have control over domestic monitoring and/or information sharing – which would be a big change in policy. A recent
Reuters article reported this: “A
Senate aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Senate is unlikely
to pass either the McCain bill or the Democratic version and that talks on a possible compromise could begin in the
coming weeks. President Obama's proposed legislation, like the omnibus bill Reid wants, would leave DHS in charge of cybersecurity. DHS could
ask for help from the NSA, but would be subject to closer oversight than actions led by the NSA and other parts of the Defense Department.”
1ar UQ – Mandates
Mandates hold up progress even if there’s broad consensus about the need for action
NPR, 3-22 – Cybersecurity Bill: Vital Need Or Just More Rules?
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149099866/cybersecurity-bill-vital-need-or-just-more-rules
The prospect of such a paralyzing strike has convinced U.S. security officials and members of Congress that a new
law may be needed to promote improved cyberdefenses at critical facilities around the country. Progress on that legislation,
however, has been slowed by a debate over whether new cybersecurity measures should be
mandated or merely encouraged. Heavy-Handed? The Lieberman-Collins initiative would also establish baseline cybersecurity
standards that all companies in an industrial sector would be required to meet. The
legislation, however, has run into stiff
opposition from private firms, the Chamber of Commerce and from members of Congress who view
it as heavy-handed. "Unelected bureaucrats at the [Department of Homeland Security] could promulgate prescriptive regulations on
American businesses," charges Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the co-author of an alternative cybersecurity bill that favors voluntary information
sharing between the government and private industry. Advocates of mandatory cybersecurity standards, however, say the owners and
operators of critical assets have consistently underestimated their vulnerability to cyberattacks and therefore are unlikely on their own to take
the steps necessary to bolster their own defenses, particularly if they cost money. Many operators, for example, do not realize their industrial
controls may be accessible via the Internet.
Alt Cause 2ac
Private sector competition blocks effective cybersecurity
POLITICO, 3-21 – Budget cuts put cybersecurity at risk,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74313.html
WANTED: cybersecurity experts willing to work for the federal government for less pay and fewer benefits than offered by private companies
like Google. That sums up the federal government’s problem in trying to attract and retain a talented workforce to fight cybercrime. Budget
limitations have hamstrung the government’s ability to compete with the private sector, which can
offer cyber researchers more pay and more opportunities for advancement. And competition is
particularly fierce in the U.S., where there is a shortage of students graduating with science, tech, engineering
and math degrees. “Confronting today’s cyber challenges requires a highly skilled and motivated research community, and it’s well documented
that the demand for cyber expertise greatly exceeds the supply ,” James Peery, director of the Information Systems
Analysis Center at Sandia National Laboratories, told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing this week. And the problem isn’t just
finding skilled employees — it’s also keeping them around. “We’ve all recognized that the talent
is central to this entire
discussion,” Zachary Lemnios, the Defense Department’s assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, testified. “We are
not competitive salary-wise,” NSA’s Research and Development Director Michael Wertheimer said.
Alt Cause 1ar
The government can’t compete – that’s a huge liability
POLITICO, 3-21 – Budget cuts put cybersecurity at risk,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74313.html
At Sandia National Laboratories, staffers are being solicited by private companies offering a greater than 50
percent increase in salary and better benefits, Peery said — and more employees are taking companies
up on their offers. North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, was alarmed
by what she heard. “When we’re talking about the new threat of cybersecurity as the next terrorist activity, it really
concerns me that we’re limited in pay scales and promotion scales.”
2ac IL D – Bill Fails
Any bill that can pass will fail – defer to quals
Kelly and Benson, 2-24-12 – U.S. gears up for cyberwar amid conflicting ideas on how to fight it,
Reprint from CNN, http://www.kaj18.com/news/u-s-gears-up-for-cyberwar-amid-conflicting-ideas-onhow-to-fight-it/.
Saving business is a key concern of those drawing up the battle plan for this cyberwar, but protecting lives is important, too. One bill
introduced last week in the Senate proposes to require private companies that operate "critical infrastructure"
to prove that they are protecting themselves from cyber attack. Under the legislation, the Department of Homeland Security
would determine which businesses are deemed "critical infrastructure." It would include things such as water filtration plants, air traffic control
systems and electrical grids. But
Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary for policy at DHS and now a partner at
efforts little more than "jawboning." "It is an incremental
step, but it's not even the beginning of the solution . The other guys have already lapped us and all
we've done is tie our shoes," Baker said.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, calls Genachowski's
Industry solves it better on their own
Kelly and Benson, 2-24-12 – U.S. gears up for cyberwar amid conflicting ideas on how to fight it,
Reprint from CNN, http://www.kaj18.com/news/u-s-gears-up-for-cyberwar-amid-conflicting-ideas-onhow-to-fight-it/.
Kevin Mandian was an unlikely cyber warrior. Stationed at the Pentagon in 1993 as an Air Force computer security
officer, mainframes were his life from 9 to 5. He wanted to be a medical examiner and sort through the "blood and guts" to figure out what
had caused some catastrophic event to a human body. Instead, he heads a firm that deconstructs cyberattacks and tells Fortune 100 companies
just how the attack was launched. His company is actively investigating more than 40 intrusions reported by clients. When
he started
the company in 2004, it was a one employee operation. Today, he employs more than 200 people. He's
flown more than 100,000 miles a year for the past several years visiting clients who have been the victims of cyber attacks. He's not a big
believer in government curing the problem. "Cancer. We've known about cancer for 4,000 years and we've never cured it," Mandian said from
his company headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. "I think with a lot of the IT security woes, people think there's going to be a cure, you can
legislate a cure, and to me it's almost like legislating a cure for cancer. It's more complex than that and the complexity is because a lot of the
intrusions rely on human nature." Mandian literally banks on human nature. That's because part of the problem with Internet security is the
user. Using a computer screen displayed on an oversize monitor, he overlays the user's screen with the hackers. As the user logs into his e-mail
account, the hacker waits. He has done his research. He knows that just a day earlier, the user attended a conference on security. He knows
that because of the Internet. Both the conference and a list of attendees was posted on a company website. The hacker has downloaded the
PowerPoint presentation that was given, infected it with a malware program to take over the user's computer and e-mailed it to the user with
the subject line reading: Thank you for attending the conference. PowerPoint presentation attacked. With one click, the user has allowed the
hacker into his computer. "We are trusting and I think you've gotta be, and a lot of the intrusions I've seen would work on me," Mandian
explains as he lays out just how cyberattack work so well. Mandian
predicts decades of growth for cybersecurity
specialists ahead, regardless of what the U.S. government eventually does to tackle the problem . "I
think there's gonna be a growth in it because the private sector has to protect the private sector in
this regard," Mandian said. "There's not going to be a magic phone number to get a DHS person on the
phone for a computer intrusion."
2ac ! D
No impact – big actors have no motive and small groups aren’t deadly
Sasso, 3-17-12 – Brendan, 'System is blinking red': Alarming rhetoric in push for cybersecurity bills,
Hillicon Valley, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/216519-alarming-rhetoricused-in-push-for-cybersecurity-bills.
Jerry Brito, director of the Technology Policy Program at George Mason University, said the "rhetoric does not match
the reality" on cybersecurity. "When members of Congress talk about [cybersecurity] they conflate the different threats," Brito
said. He explained that cyber espionage is a "very real" problem that is "happening right now." Companies and foreign
governments are hacking into the computer systems of American companies to steal their trade secrets and gain a competitive advantage. But
Brito said the likelihood of a cyber attack having a major "kinetic effect"—meaning significant physical
destruction— is low . He said he doubts that terrorist groups or hacker collectives like Anonymous have
the sophistication to takedown critical infrastructure systems. Foreign governments, such as Russia or China,
could probably wreak havoc with a cyber attack, Brito said, but they would likely only employ that tactic if the
U.S. was already engaged in all-out war with them. Brito said comparing a potential cyber attack to Sept. 11 or
Pearl Harbor is "totally hyperbolic." "We should be wary of people who are trying to make us afraid," he added.
Cyber-danger is hype – default to empirics
Rid, March ’12 – reader in war studies at King's College London, “Think Again: Cyberwar. Don't fear
the digital bogeyman. Virtual conflict is still more hype than reality.” Foreign Policy, March/April,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/cyberwar?page=full.
No way. "Cyberwar is coming!" John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt predicted in a celebrated Rand paper back in 1993. Since then, it seems to
have arrived -- at least by the account of the U.S. military establishment, which is busy competing over who should get what share of the fight.
Cyberspace is "a domain in which the Air Force flies and fights," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne claimed in 2006. By 2012, William J. Lynn III,
the deputy defense secretary at the time, was writing that cyberwar is "just as critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space." In
January, the Defense Department vowed to equip the U.S. armed forces for "conducting a combined arms campaign across all domains -- land,
air, maritime, space, and cyberspace." Meanwhile, growing
piles of books and articles explore the threats of
cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism, and how to survive them. Time for a reality check : Cyberwar is still
more hype than hazard. Consider the definition of an act of war: It has to be potentially violent, it has to be purposeful, and it has to
be political. The cyberattacks we've seen so far, from Estonia to the Stuxnet virus, simply don't meet these criteria. Take the dubious story of a
Soviet pipeline explosion back in 1982, much cited by cyberwar's true believers as the most destructive cyberattack ever. The account goes like
this: In June 1982, a Siberian pipeline that the CIA had virtually booby-trapped with a so-called "logic bomb" exploded in a monumental fireball
that could be seen from space. The U.S. Air Force estimated the explosion at 3 kilotons, equivalent to a small nuclear device. Targeting a Soviet
pipeline linking gas fields in Siberia to European markets, the operation sabotaged the pipeline's control systems with software from a Canadian
firm that the CIA had doctored with malicious code. No one died, according to Thomas Reed, a U.S. National Security Council aide at the time
who revealed the incident in his 2004 book, At the Abyss; the only harm came to the Soviet economy. But did it really happen? After Reed's
account came out, Vasily Pchelintsev, a former KGB head of the Tyumen region, where the alleged explosion supposedly took place, denied the
story. There are also no media reports from 1982 that confirm such an explosion, though accidents and pipeline explosions in the Soviet Union
were regularly reported in the early 1980s. Something likely did happen, but Reed's book is the only public mention of the incident and his
account relied on a single document. Even after the CIA declassified a redacted version of Reed's source, a note on the so-called Farewell
Dossier that describes the effort to provide the Soviet Union with defective technology, the agency did not confirm that such an explosion
occurred. The available evidence on the Siberian pipeline blast is so thin that it shouldn't be counted as a proven case of a successful
cyberattack. Most other commonly cited cases of cyberwar are even less remarkable. Take the attacks on Estonia in April 2007, which came in
response to the controversial relocation of a Soviet war memorial, the Bronze Soldier. The well-wired country found itself at the receiving end
of a massive distributed denial-of-service attack that emanated from up to 85,000 hijacked computers and lasted three weeks. The attacks
reached a peak on May 9, when 58 Estonian websites were attacked at once and the online services of Estonia's largest bank were taken down.
"What's the difference between a blockade of harbors or airports of sovereign states and the blockade of government institutions and
newspaper websites?" asked Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip. Despite his analogies, the attack was no act of war. It was certainly a
nuisance and an emotional strike on the country, but the bank's actual network was not even penetrated; it went down for 90 minutes one day
and two hours the next. The
attack was not violent, it wasn't purposefully aimed at changing Estonia's behavior, and
no political entity took credit for it. The same is true for the vast majority of cyberattacks on record.
Indeed, there
is no known cyberattack that has caused the loss of human life. No cyberoffense has
ever injured a person or damaged a building. And if an act is not at least potentially violent, it's not
an act of war. Separating war from physical violence makes it a metaphorical notion; it would mean that there is no way to distinguish
between World War II, say, and the "wars" on obesity and cancer. Yet those ailments, unlike past examples of cyber "war," actually do kill
people.
Complexity prevents effective cyber-attacks
Rid, March ’12 – reader in war studies at King's College London, “Think Again: Cyberwar. Don't fear
the digital bogeyman. Virtual conflict is still more hype than reality.” Foreign Policy, March/April,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/cyberwar?page=full.
Just the opposite. U.S. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper warned last year that the volume of malicious software on American
networks had more than tripled since 2009 and that more than 60,000 pieces of malware are now discovered every day. The United States, he
said, is undergoing "a phenomenon known as 'convergence,' which amplifies the opportunity for disruptive cyberattacks, including against
physical infrastructures." ("Digital convergence" is a snazzy term for a simple thing: more and more devices able to talk to each other, and
formerly separate industries and activities able to work together.) Just
because there's more malware, however, doesn't
mean that attacks are becoming easier. In fact, potentially damaging or life-threatening cyberattacks
should be more difficult to pull off. Why? Sensitive systems generally have built-in redundancy and
safety systems, meaning an attacker's likely objective will not be to shut down a system, since merely
forcing the shutdown of one control system, say a power plant, could trigger a backup and cause operators
to start looking for the bug. To work as an effective weapon, malware would have to influence an active
process -- but not bring it to a screeching halt. If the malicious activity extends over a lengthy period, it has to remain
stealthy. That's a more difficult trick than hitting the virtual off-button. Take Stuxnet, the worm that sabotaged Iran's nuclear program in
2010. It didn't just crudely shut down the centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility; rather, the worm subtly manipulated the system. Stuxnet
stealthily infiltrated the plant's networks, then hopped onto the protected control systems, intercepted input values from sensors, recorded
these data, and then provided the legitimate controller code with pre-recorded fake input signals, according to researchers who have studied
the worm. Its objective was not just to fool operators in a control room, but also to circumvent digital safety and monitoring systems so it could
secretly manipulate the actual processes. Building
and deploying Stuxnet required extremely detailed intelligence
about the systems it was supposed to compromise, and the same will be true for other dangerous
cyberweapons. Yes, "convergence," standardization, and sloppy defense of control-systems software could increase the risk of
generic attacks, but the same trend has also caused defenses against the most coveted targets to improve
steadily and has made reprogramming highly specific installations on legacy systems more complex ,
not less.
1ar ! D – Empirics
Ignore their alarmist predictions – even the worst-case scenario is NBD
Rid, March ’12 – reader in war studies at King's College London, “Think Again: Cyberwar. Don't fear
the digital bogeyman. Virtual conflict is still more hype than reality.” Foreign Policy, March/April,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/cyberwar?page=full.
Keep waiting. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta delivered a stark warning last summer: "We could face a
cyberattack that could be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor." Such alarmist predictions have been
ricocheting inside the Beltway for the past two decades , and some scaremongers have even upped the ante by raising
the alarm about a cyber 9/11. In his 2010 book, Cyber War, former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke invokes the specter of
nationwide power blackouts, planes falling out of the sky, trains derailing, refineries burning, pipelines exploding, poisonous gas clouds wafting,
and satellites spinning out of orbit -- events that would make the 2001 attacks pale in comparison. But
the empirical record is less
hair-raising, even by the standards of the most drastic example available. Gen. Keith Alexander, head of
U.S. Cyber Command (established in 2010 and now boasting a budget of more than $3 billion), shared his worst fears in an
April 2011 speech at the University of Rhode Island: "What I'm concerned about are destructive attacks," Alexander said, "those that are
coming." He then invoked a remarkable accident at Russia's Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric plant to
highlight the kind of damage a cyberattack might be able to cause. Shortly after midnight on Aug. 17, 2009, a 900-ton turbine was ripped out of
its seat by a so-called "water hammer," a sudden surge in water pressure that then caused a transformer explosion. The turbine's unusually
high vibrations had worn down the bolts that kept its cover in place, and an offline sensor failed to detect the malfunction. Seventy-five people
died in the accident, energy prices in Russia rose, and rebuilding the plant is slated to cost $1.3 billion. Tough
luck for the Russians,
but here's what the head of Cyber Command didn't say: The ill-fated turbine had been malfunctioning
for some time, and the plant's management was notoriously poor. On top of that, the key event that
ultimately triggered the catastrophe seems to have been a fire at Bratsk power station, about 500
miles away. Because the energy supply from Bratsk dropped, authorities remotely increased the burden on the Sayano-Shushenskaya
plant. The sudden spike overwhelmed the turbine, which was two months shy of reaching the end of its 30-year life cycle, sparking the
catastrophe. If
anything, the Sayano-Shushenskaya incident highlights how difficult a devastating attack
would be to mount. The plant's washout was an accident at the end of a complicated and unique chain of events. Anticipating such
vulnerabilities in advance is extraordinarily difficult even for insiders; creating comparable coincidences from cyberspace would be a daunting
challenge at best for outsiders. If
this is the most drastic incident Cyber Command can conjure up, perhaps it's
time for everyone to take a deep breath.
**Jackson-Vanik Aff
2ac UQ
Jackson-Vanik only passes with conditions that destroy relations attached
Ivanov, 4-27 – Magnitsky for Jackson-Vanik: A fair trade? Russia Beyond the Headlines,
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/04/27/magnitsky_for_jackson-vanik_a_fair_trade_15417.html.
More and more it is becoming clear that for the Jackson-Vanik amendment to be lifted, something must be
put in its place to remind Russia that the U.S. will never see it as an equal partner. Many see the
Magnitsky Bill as a viable replacement. I wonder how many members of the U.S. Congress have heard of Adam Montoya. In
2009, Montoya was sentenced to a prison term for counterfeiting commercial checks and credit cards. Shortly after arriving at the Pekin,
Illinois, federal penitentiary, Montoya began complaining of abdominal pain. For nine days, he pleaded with his guards to take him to the
doctor; they refused and instead gave him Tylenol. On the evening of Nov. 12, 2009, Montoya reported having trouble breathing; a prison
staffer promised to get him help the next day. But next morning, Montoya was found dead in his cell. The autopsy showed that he had died of
internal bleeding caused by a burst spleen. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice denied a wrongful death and personal injury claim filed by
the Montoya family. The Montoya case is unlikely to reach Capitol Hill. Our lawmakers have no interest in the death of an “ordinary” victim of
the U.S. criminal justice system; they prefer instead high-profile cases in distant countries. Take, for example, that of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax
attorney who died under suspicious circumstances in Russian police custody on Nov. 16, 2009 (what a sad coincidence!). After having accused a
number of Russian law-enforcement officials in the embezzlement of funds from the state Treasury, Magnitsky was arrested and kept in
detention without trial for almost a year. For five days prior to his death, Magnitsky had complained of worsening stomach pain, but received
no medical treatment. No American interests were damaged in the Magnitsky case, but this didn’t prevent Sen. Ben Cardin (DemocratMaryland) from introducing, last May, of the
“Magnitsky bill” (S. 1039). The bill would deny U.S. visas to Russian
officials implicated in Magnitsky’s death and also freeze their financial assets in the United States. Last
week, a similar bill (H.R. 4405) was introduced in the House of Representatives by James McGovern (Democrat-Massachusetts). Expressing
concerns that the adoption of the bill would hurt U.S.-Russia relations, the Obama administration took a
preventive step: last summer, the State Department composed a list of 60 individuals related to Magnitsky’s death whose entry in the
U.S. would be prohibited; the administration then argued that the composed list would make S. 1039 “redundant.” In addition, the White
House wrote a memo highlighting multiple shortcomings of the bill. In particular, it was argued that the criteria for placing names on the
“Magnitsky list” were so ambiguous that it would set a bad precedent for how the United States deals with human rights cases around the
world. In recent weeks, the Magnitsky bill returned to the focus of congressional attention ; the reason is
Russia’s upcoming accession to the World Trade Organization. Discussion is underway in Congress on what to do with the Jackson-Vanik
amendment, the notorious relic of the Cold War that still deprives Russia of the permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status as a
punishment for a policy restricting Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union in the 1970s. The Obama administration wants the amendment to
be lifted, arguing that with Russia in the WTO, not granting it PNTR status will hurt interests of American businesses. While
agreeing
with the White House that the amendment should go, many in Congress refuse to just repeal it; they
insist that something else should be put in place to hold Moscow accountable for what they habitually
call “human-right abuses.” A consensus is growing that the Magnitsky bill must be adopted first ,
followed by the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and granting Russia PNTR status. Interestingly, the Obama
administration’s original opposition to S. 1039 seems to be gradually morphing into almost enthusiastic
support – a change of heart driven by the Department of State and personally Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Appearing before
Senate Foreign Relation Committee in February, Clinton called again for lifting the Jackson-Vanik amendment, but stressed the “need to send a
clear, unmistakable message to Russia that we care deeply about rule of law in Russia.” Clinton then suggested that Cardin could work with the
White House to “achieve both goals.” Recently, Cardin came up with a modified version of the bill; the new version makes it more difficult to
add names to the list of human right violators the bill would create. Incidentally, the House version of the bill, too, takes into account a number
of concerns articulated in the White House’s memo of last year. Reiterating
Moscow’s known opposition to the bill,
Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak warned Congress that passage of the bill could
“ impair the ability ” of the United States and Russia to work together on important issues . He also
promised that there would be “ significant reaction ” in Russia to any attempt to link the PNTR status
with the subject of human rights in Russia.
thinking what precisely this “reaction” will be.
As the adoption of the
Magnitsky
bill
looks imminent , the Kremlin should start
Won’t pass – PC fails, huge delay and it’ll only pass with conditions that destroy
relations
Palmer and Cornwell, 4-23 – Doug Palmer and Susan Cornwell, “Russian envoy warns on U.S.
human rights bill,” Chicago Tribune, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-23/news/sns-rt-us-usarussia-tradebre83m1ed-20120423_1_human-rights-jackson-vanik-sergei-magnitsky
Proposed U.S. legislation to punish Russian officials involved in h uman r ights abuses could have "a
significant negative impact " on U.S.-Russian relations, Moscow's envoy to the United States warned on Monday
Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak said the U.S. Congress should not tie the so-called Sergei Magnitsky bill to an
expected vote this year on establishing "permanent normal trade relations" between the two countries. "If that is taken to
an extreme, it'll be a significant negative impact on Russian-Americans relations," Kislyak told reporters at a luncheon to tout Russia's hopes for
closer trade ties with the United States. "I cannot predict how we would react, but I'm certain it would undermine our ability to work together
on a number of issues," Kislyak said. The 2009 death of the 37-year-old Magnitsky, who worked for equity fund Hermitage Capital and died
after a year in Russian jails, spooked investors and tarnished Russia's image. Before his arrest, Magnitsky had testified against Russian interior
ministry officials during a tax evasion case against Hermitage. The Kremlin human rights council says he was probably beaten to death. The
case has heightened concerns in Congress about human rights conditions in Russia and made it even
harder for the White House to persuade lawmakers to lift a Cold War-era trade provision known as the JacksonVanik amendment. However, if Congress refuses to remove the provision and establish permanent normal trade relations, Russia could
legally deny U.S. companies the market-opening benefits of Moscow's accession into the World Trade Organization, which is expected by late
July or August. HANGOVER FROM SOVIET UNION Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1974 to put pressure on the former Soviet
Union to allow Jews to emigrate. Nearly four decades later, it is at odds with WTO rules that require all members to provide normal trade
relations with each other on an unconditional basis. Various U.S. administrations have judged Russia to be in compliance with Jackson-Vanik
since 1994. However, Congress has kept Jackson-Vanik on the books for Russia while repealing it for many other former Soviet republics, such
as Ukraine, and for China and Vietnam as those countries negotiated agreements to enter the WTO. A
number of lawmakers in
both houses of Congress want the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik provision to include language that
punishes h uman r ights abusers in Russia, such as those who may be responsible for the Magnitsky's death. They have been
pushing for legislation that includes asset freezes and visa bans on human rights violators in Russia. Kislyak said the proposed bill was an
unreasonable and unacceptable intrusion into Russian sovereignty. "There is no country in the world that is perfect," he said, noting that
Moscow had concerns about what he described as the U.S. court system's failure to investigate some cases of abuse or even the death of
Russian children adopted by U.S. parents. The countries should keep such issues separate, he said. "As far as we are concerned, Magnitsky case
has nothing to do with trade," Kislyak said. "For us, the proposition to bring Magnitsky case, it's almost an attempt to replace an anti-Soviet
Jackson-Vanik (law) by an anti-Russian Magnitsky law." Passing a clean bill would benefit both countries, Kislyak argued. While U.S.-Russia trade
has grown to about $42 billion annually over the past decade, that is only about one-tenth of the trade between the Russia and the European
Union, he said. A
new U.S. Senate draft of the Magnitsky bill, which already has the bipartisan support of
more than 30 senators, would extend the penalties to human rights violators "anywhere in the world"
to avoid specifically targeting Russia. A Senate aide said it may not come up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee until late May, after Russia's incoming president, Vladimir Putin, visits Washington. Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Max Baucus is pushing for a vote on permanent normal trade relations before Russia enters the WTO, but some observers
believe action on the controversial issue could be delayed until after the November 6 U.S. elections. If
that happens, Russia will cut tariffs on goods from other WTO members but not from the United States since Washington would not be in
compliance with its obligations, Kislyak said.
1ar UQ – Top
Elections and human rights push it back to the Lame Duck
Reddy, 4-6-12 – Sudeep, U.S. Risks Missing Boom in Russia, Wall St Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304177104577312260501829328.html
Election-year sparring could keep the U.S. from lifting long-standing restrictions on trade with Russia by the time
the country joins the WTO this summer. As a result, U.S. companies wouldn't receive the same legal protections against Russian tariffs and
other hurdles to business that companies from other countries would gain, putting the U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage,
executives say. The largest business groups in the U.S., including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say passing legislation to lift the U.S.
restrictions is their No. 1 trade goal this year. Dozens of smaller organizations, including the National Chicken Council and the Toy Industry
Association, are lobbying lawmakers too. The U.S. will "stick out like a sore thumb" if it doesn't remove the trade restrictions, says Richard
Holwill, vice president of public policy at Amway Corp. "All it does is hurt American companies." The direct-sales company is trying to ramp up
sales of nutrition and cosmetics products in Russia. The stakes are high for U.S. companies, which are eager for new markets amid slow growth
in advanced economies like the U.S. and Europe. U.S. exports of goods and services to Russia could double over the next five years from $9
billion in 2010 if U.S. companies get full access to the market, according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. At
issue is the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold War measure that restricts U.S. trade relations with nations that limit emigration. Congress
passed the law in 1974 to ensure that Jews could leave the Soviet Union freely. That hasn't been a problem since the Soviet Union collapsed,
and U.S. administrations have waived the measure's restrictions annually for Russia since the early 1990s. U.S. companies are counting on WTO
protections against legal or regulatory barriers in Russia's markets. But unless the U.S. repeals Jackson-Vanik permanently for Russia—annual
waivers aren't sufficient—Moscow still could maintain high tariffs on U.S. products and keep other hurdles against U.S. companies that want
access to Russia's 140 million consumers. The WTO procedures also would give the U.S. a forum to address customs or intellectual-property
disputes. In recent years, U.S. companies have turned to the WTO to rule on trade disputes with China over chicken, tires and rare-earth
minerals. At Amway, Russia accounted for about $550 million of the company's $10.9 billion in revenue last year. The Ada, Mich., company lost
sales of some U.S.-made cosmetics in recent years when Russia imposed bans, a move that could be challenged under WTO rules after Russia
joins the trade group. Caterpillar lost ground in Russia to Japan's Komatsu, whose equipment was used on a pipeline in the Leningrad Region. .
Opponents of granting Russia status as a full trade partner "fail to understand it is protection for U.S. companies when we let Russia into the
WTO," says Mr. Holwill, of Amway. "We will be seriously disadvantaged" if the U.S. stands alone. President Barack Obama has called on
Congress to repeal Jackson-Vanik, even though his administration has sparred with Russia recently over Syria and Iran. His Russia policies have
drawn criticism from the leading Republican president contender, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who last week called
Russia "our No. 1 geopolitical foe." Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) said at a recent hearing that repeal of Jackson-Vanik "isn't a
slam dunk" given the nation's track record on corruption and human rights. "Russia's blatant disregard for human rights
and the rule of law is every bit as relevant today as it was decades ago," he said. Russian officials dispute the allegations and maintain that U.S.
officials need to move past their memories of Russia from the Cold War. Sen. Kyl and other top Republicans are supporting legislation
introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) that is designed to punish Russian officials accused of human-rights violations. The bill was inspired by
Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer for investment firm Hermitage Capital Management Ltd. who died in a Russian prison in 2009 after accusing
government officials of fraud. Repealing
Jackson-Vanik without replacing it with human-rights legislation
would be " unconscionable ," says Hermitage Chief Executive William Browder, once one of the largest foreign investors in Russia.
The Obama administration says it believes human-rights concerns should be addressed separately from the trade measure. The tensions
likely will push the trade bill past the summer —after Russia has joined the WTO—and into the lame-duck session
of Congress in November. That would give non-U.S. companies a head start in the country.
1ar Delay
PC doesn’t solve it in time – Obama won’t invest any energy until after the elections –
more evidence
Eremenko, 3-28 – Anti-Russian Amendment Now Headache for U.S.,
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120328/172439008.html.
Economic sanctions against Russia imposed by the United States in 1974 could backfire on America this year, but are likely to stay in
place because of persistent political and ideological grudges between the two Cold War rivals, analysts
said. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was defunct in practice over the last two decades, but things got tricky after Russia completed its 18-yearlong path to the World Trade Organization (WTO) last year, with more than a little help from the White House. WTO rules ban formal trade
restrictions such as the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which means the United States could face economic sanctions from Moscow and pressure
from WTO once Russia completes the treaty's ratification, expected this summer. Elections First "Russia has no practical interest in canceling
the Jackson-Vanik amendment," Konstantin Kosachyov, then-State Duma lawmaker with United Russia and deputy head of the international
affairs committee at the lower chamber, said in late February. "Common sense predicts it will be canceled this summer. But it may become a
hostage of the election campaign in the United States," Kosachyov said. The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama
is making a
push to have Congress formally repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment in regard to Russia, but this is unlikely to
happen before the U.S. presidential elections in November, according to Russian and American pundits contacted by RIA
Novosti. Kosachyov's prediction was echoed by Angela Stent of Georgetown University and Valery Garbuzov of the Russian Institute of the
United States and Canada, both of whom said the Jackson-Vanik is expected to stay in place until the U.S. presidential elections. Obama has
spoken against the amendment, a tool of the Cold War that denies Russia the status of permanent normal trade relations over the restriction
on emigration of Soviet Jewry in the 1970s. “I have asked Congress to repeal Jackson-Vanik to make sure that all your companies and American
companies all across the country can take advantage of it,” he said in March at a business roundtable in Washington, D.C. U.S. ambassador to
Russia, Michael McFaul, has called repeal of the amendment a top priority for the White House this year. He has repeatedly spoken against
Jackson-Vanik, including in an interview with Voice of America last week. The Obama administration could
attempt swaying pro-
Jackson-Vanik congressmen
one by one or try to get the business lobby to convince the legislators of the damages U.S. businesses
faces in Russia over the amendment, Garbuzov said. But neither strategy would yield fast results , he said.
Won’t pass until the summer
de Waal, 2-23-12 – More Than Georgia on Obama's Mind, National Interest, reprinted @ CFR,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/02/23/more-than-georgia-on-obama-s-mind/9vn5.
For the White House, this was something they could offer Saakashvili in lieu of a new defense deal. And it positions them cleverly as
they seek to have Congress repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, something that needs to happen before American companies
can get the trade privileges they are entitled to with Russia under World Trade Organization rules. The push to scrap Jackson-Vanik
will be made in the early summer , just after Vladimir Putin’s presumed return to the Kremlin. It will help to
be able to tell Congress that business is blind and the United States is seeking free trade not just with Russia but with its archenemy Georgia as
well.
Won’t happen until way later in the year – they’ll wait for Russian accession
WaPo, 2-23-12 – Washington Post, Baucus meets Medvedev ahead of Russia trade debate Baucus
meets Medvedev ahead of Russia trade debate, Lexis.
Baucus is anticipating a debate over granting Russia permanent normalized trade relations (PNTR) status - which would also
require the repeal of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment - sometime this spring or summer . By then, Russia will be a
full member of the World Trade Organization, and U.S. companies would be at a disadvantage in doing business in Russia if
the PNTR issue is not resolved, according to Baucus.
No internal link – won’t be debated until Spring at the earliest
The Hill, 2-21-12 – Kirk set to talk trade on Capitol Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005trade/212105-kirk-set-to-talk-trade-on-capitol-hill
Meanwhile, Congress will need to provide permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Russia by waiving
the Jackson-Vanik Amendment — a 37-year-old provision crafted to put pressure on communist nations for human-rights abuses and
immigration policies. Russia was formally invited to join the WTO in December, and has until July 22 to accept a several-hundred-page report of
rules it must follow. The United States won't enjoy full trade benefits with Russia unless they move forward with permanent normal trade
relations. At this point, lawmakers
are getting up to speed on the issue and could aim to take up legislation this
spring, although there isn’t a clear timeline.
1ar 2x Bind**
The only way Jackson-Vanik will pass is with human rights conditions attached – our
Ivanov evidence says Obama has folded on his initial opposition to the Magnitsky bill –
the *Top Russian official to the U.S.* says that quote it would “impar the ability to
work together on important issues” and quote “promised that there would be a
SIGNIFICANT reaction
Comparative evidence is swamps the benefits of repeal
Welt, 4-30 – Center for American Progress, Russia, Trade, and Human Rights,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/us_russia_magnitsky.html.
The continued application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia and other countries it wasn’t designed for has been a longstanding irritant in U.S.-Russian
relations. The
Russian government has repeatedly warned that passing the Magnitsky Act to replace
Jackson-Vanik will have a negative impact on U.S.-Russian relations. This would not be reason to avoid passing the
bill, of course. But Congress should still consider the negative impact of legislation that implies a U.S. linkage between Russia and the extinct
Soviet Union and between Russia and the more adversarial countries to which the United States typically applies such sanctions. As
difficult
as it can be to secure sustained Russian cooperation on issues such as gross human rights violations in Syria and Iranian
nuclear proliferation, it will be far more difficult to do so if the United States insists on placing Russia in the
same basket of top-ranked international offenders.
Obama won’t block it – it would be suicide
Bosco, 4-30 – David, Is Congress about to trip up trade relations with Russia? Foreign Policy,
http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/30/congress_russia_and_the_wto.
***NOTE – This evidence ends in an ellipsis – it’s the end of the article
But the administration faces a devilish political dilemma. It made getting Russia into the WTO a top
priority, but it will be loathe to publicly oppose Congressional human rights action, particularly with
the Romney camp having identified Russia as America's top "geopolitical foe." Writing in the World Politics
Review, Daragh McDowell predicts a gloomy outcome: [I]f and when the Magnitsky bill passes, Obama will have to
sign it. To do otherwise would be electoral suicide . Similarly, Putin and the Russian elite will have to
respond in kind. To do otherwise risks their continued authority, which for many members of the Russian elite could
amount to actual suicide. So before either the White House or the Kremlin has a chance to negotiate the
contours of their relationship in the 21st century, a major roadblock will have been placed in the way of
positive collaboration...
HR conditions are a 2x-bind – it won’t pass without them but they independently tank
relations
Butler, 3-27-12 – Desmond, US trade upgrade may worsen relations with Russia, AP,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haRDYl_wxvUHQ2SGzhfBvaXW9z7g?docId=633
ce0bb28a14581846aed8821fbce94
The Obama administration wants Congress to remove Soviet-era trade restrictions that have been a sore point in U.S.-Russia relations for
decades. But the conditions lawmakers are demanding to make the change may only worsen America's increasingly shaky relations with
Moscow. Republicans
and Democrats are trying to tie the easing of the so-called Jackson-Vanik restrictions
to a measure imposing sanctions against Russian officials linked to human rights abuses. That would
infuriate Russia
and would be the latest hitch in what administration officials consider a major foreign policy success: improved
relations with Russia after a sharp downturn during the Bush administration. They call it the "reset." Obama administration officials are trying
to keep the rights and trade measures apart. They are concerned about retaliation and do not want to aggravate relations further. Tensions
have been growing over issues like missile defense and the international response to uprisings in Libya and Syria. But the U.S. still hopes for a
degree of cooperation with Russia on other matters, such as stopping Iran's nuclear program. "We want to deal with trade issues in one sphere
and democracy issues and human rights in another sphere," said Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia. The administration first wants
to deal with trade. It has powerful allies in the U.S. business community supporting the repeal of Jackson-Vanik, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which calls the repeal its top trade priority this year. Russia soon will get more opportunities for international trade when it joins
the World Trade Organization. If the U.S. doesn't repeal Jackson-Vanik, American companies could be at a competitive disadvantage. But it's a
delicate matter in an election year. Republicans
are reluctant to offer Obama any perceived victory by
unconditionally repealing the restrictions. And President Barack Obama doesn't want to appear too critical
of the rights measure, which has support from both parties. His likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has attacked
Obama for signing a major nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
( ___ ) Jackson-Vanik won’t pass – too many debates over conditions
Wasson, 3-21 – Ros-Lehtinen wants strings attached to Russia trade bill, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/217297-ros-lehtinen-wants-strings-attached-torussia-trade-bill
The Obama administration's top trade priority for 2012 hit another stumbling block on Wednesday when the House
GOP's international relations point person demanded that strings be attached to a Russia trade bill. House
Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told a hearing that Congress should not lift restrictions on trade with
Russia, by lifting the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, without "first holding Moscow accountable for actions that run contrary to U.S.
national security interests and to such foreign policy priorities as the promotion of human rights and democracy." Russia will be joining the
World Trade Organization this summer, and the administration argues that failure to lift Jackson-Vanik will only hurt U.S. exporters. Russia will
join the WTO with or without congressional approval. Ros-Lehtinen said WTO membership was a gift from the United States to a humanrights violator. “The most recent gift was U.S. approval last December of Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization, including pressuring
our ally Georgia to go along despite the fact that Russia continues to occupy its territory. Russia’s entry into the WTO, with U.S. support, is
astounding given Russia continues to be one of the biggest violators of intellectual property rights, robbing U.S. citizens and companies of
billions of dollars every year," she added. She said
Jackson-Vanik "has long been a symbol of U.S. commitment to
human rights and democracy in Russia." "Removing Russia from its provisions would be interpreted in Moscow and elsewhere
as a seal of approval from the U.S. Congress, even as the human-rights situation in Russia continues to deteriorate," she added. Sen. Jon Kyl
(R-Ariz.) said this month that he, too, wants conditions attached to the Russia trade bill.
1ar No Pass
Won’t pass before Russia accedes and human rights trigger the link
Eremenko, 3-28 – Anti-Russian Amendment Now Headache for U.S.,
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120328/172439008.html.
The stumbling block is Russia's track record on human rights, which remains unimpressive: Russia has been ranked a "Not Free" country in all
annual Freedom in the World surveys by U.S.-based rights watchdog Freedom House since 2004. U.S. legislators
are unlikely to
repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment until "there is some substitute legislation that will monitor the
human rights situation in Russia," Director of the Center for Russian, Eurasian and East European Studies at Georgetown
University, Angela Stent, said in emailed comments. The prime candidate is the Magnitsky Act, which proposes to blacklist for entry and seize
U.S. assets of some 60 Russian officials linked to the death of Hermitage Capital lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in pretrial prison in 2009. Magnitsky's
supporters insist he was unfairly arrested and possibly abused in prison for exposing a $230-million fraud involving tax and police officials. The
State Department admitted last year to separately blacklisting at least some officials on the list for U.S. entry, triggering an angry diplomatic
reaction from Moscow. The White House opposes linking the Jackson-Vanik amendment with any other legislation on human rights in Russia,
McFaul said earlier this month, The Cable foreign policy blog reported. But the Republicans,
who control the House of
Representatives, will not cave in easily even if the decision to keep Jackson-Vanik in place has "more
political meaning than common sense," said Valery Garbuzov of the Institute of the United States and Canada. "They have a
negative attitude toward Russia and see Obama as playing too soft, giving concessions to Russia that it uses to get stronger," Garbuzov said.
Stent of Georgetown University said the pro-Jackson-Vanik lobby in Congress is in fact a bipartisan group.
Congress will not consider
cancellation of the amendment before Russia ratifies the WTO treaty , said Max Baucus, the chairman of
the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. The Magnitsky Act, meanwhile, will likely be considered by the Foreign Relations
Committee in April, committee head Senator John Kerry said on Tuesday.
***Won’t pass – Iran, Syria, human rights, no PC investment and vote count
Inside US Trade, 2-24-12 – BAUCUS MEETS WITH MEDVEDEV, RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AHEAD OF MFN
DEBATE, v30, #8, Lexis.
In his meetings, Baucus also asked about non-trade related issues such how Russia is strengthening human rights and the
rule of law. During his meeting with Lavrov, Baucus pushed for Russia to reevaluate positions it has taken on Syria
and Iran discussing what steps Russia is willing to take to halt the violence in Syria and Russia's response to Iran's nuclear program,
according to a statement from his office. Baucus' willingness to publicly address issues not directly related to trade echoes an administration
official's acknowledgment this month that these
issues are likely to be linked to the debate in Congress to remove
am not even convinced that something like
Syria, which has nothing to do with Russia's WTO accession, won't lead some senators to say 'why
should I do that?'" Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon told members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia on Feb. 17.
Gordon said he expects that members of Congress will also insist on some human rights-related trade-off for
the lifting of Jackson-Vanik. But, according to a transcript of his remarks, he said the administration is "in a pretty good place in
Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment and grant permanent MFN. "I
being able to say what we are doing, what we have done on that front, so that any Senator who wants to feel comfortable that we're not
sweeping democracy and human rights under the carpet can know that's the case," he said. Gordon, speaking in Moscow,
offered no
indication on what additional actions the administration planned to take in order to address nontrade issues with Congress in the context of a vote on Jackson-Vanik. He acknowledged that the administration is "gearing up" for
further
engagement on Capitol Hill and that officials have repeatedly stressed that permanent MFN is not a gift to the Russians. However, several
private-sector sources said
administration lobbying efforts have been minimal
up to now. He told the chamber members
that the administration hopes businesses will be "very much engaged" in the work of explaining to Congress that extending permanent MFN is
in the business interests of the U.S. The Obama administration, however, has
been under heavy pressure by business groups to
take a leadership role in convincing Congress on foreign policy grounds to pass Jackson-Vanik legislation. Congressional and
business sources have said commercial arguments will not be enough to garner the necessary votes , since
almost all questions raised about Russia relate to foreign policy and geopolitical issues and, for many businesses at least, Russia
is not a
major export market (Inside U.S. Trade, Jan. 13).
Top GOP lawmakers will block it – committee proves
Palmer, 3-7-12 – Obama push for Russia trade bill ignites debate, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-usa-russia-trade-idUSTRE8261RL20120307.
U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday disagreed over President Barack Obama's push for legislation this year to
strengthen trade ties with Russia by repealing a largely symbolic Cold War provision that conflicts with today's global trade rules.
The discussion during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Obama's trade agenda previewed what is expected to be an
intense debate
this year over approval of "permanent normal trade relations" with Russia in light of concerns in Congress over
Moscow's human rights record and foreign policy aims. Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat who recently visited Moscow, said
approval of the trade measure by lifting a 1974 provision known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment could double U.S. exports to Russia in five
years. Failing to act would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage because it would allow Russia to deny them some of the marketopening benefits that Moscow has agreed to make to join the World Trade Organization. "If we don't pass PNTR by this summer, U.S.
companies will lose out to competitors in China, Europe and the 150 other members of the WTO," the Montana Democrat said at the hearing.
"We simply can't let that happen." The
top Republican on the Finance panel, Senator Orrin Hatch, criticized Obama for
focusing on Russia instead of pursuing broader legislation to give the White House enhanced authority
to negotiate new trade deals with other countries.
1ar PC Fails
1ar UQ – HR
HR legislation devastates the DA – our Butler evidence says Obama can’t win – he
won’t earn unconditional support from the GOP in an election year but sanctions
CRUSH would quote “infuriate Russia”
PC doesn’t solve – Obama’a push just creates MORE opportunity for the Magnitsky bill
Butler, 3-27-12 – Desmond, US trade upgrade may worsen relations with Russia, AP,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haRDYl_wxvUHQ2SGzhfBvaXW9z7g?docId=633
ce0bb28a14581846aed8821fbce94
Those rights concerns prompted two Democrats, Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts and Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, to
propose the Magnitsky bill, which would make it difficult for Russians suspected of abuses from doing business, including using credit
cards, outside their country. It also calls for publicly identifying Russians tied to abuses, a significant escalation that the administration worries
could rile relations. The measure also is backed by prominent Republicans, including Sen. John McCain. The bill was named for lawyer Sergey
Magnitsky, who died in a Russian jail in 2009, when the pancreatitis he developed was left untreated. Proponents of the bill say the death and
allegations of torture highlight corruption in Russia's judicial system. Prospects were uncertain for getting the measure passed as a stand-alone
bill. But
with the administration
and business groups
pushing hard to get Jackson-Vanik repealed, senators
saw an opportunity to boost its prospects by tying together the two measures, underscoring the link between
trade with Russia and human rights. The administration tried to defuse the issue last year by issuing travel bans on 60 unnamed Russian officials
believed to be responsible for Magnitsky's imprisonment, torture and death. Russia later responded by saying it had banned unnamed U.S.
officials it claims were involved in abuses related to U.S. counterterror policies. If Congress insists on linking the two bills, the
administration wants to drop the provision calling for the naming of rights abusers. They argue that such
disclosure would be inconsistent with State Department practice and counterproductive, because it would remove the uncertainty that human
rights violators already face about whether they are on a U.S. blacklist. Human
rights advocates, though, fear the
administration may go too far to avoid upsetting Moscow. "If the Russian leadership is going to throw U.S.-Russian relations over
the side because we are going after Russian officials who engage in gross human rights abuses, then the reset isn't very solid to begin with,"
says David Kramer, president of the human rights advocacy group Freedom House.
1ar UQ – GOP
The GOP won’t let Obama pass an unconditional repeal – our Butler evidence says
they’ll ONLY give in if there are concessions – this is PARTICULARLY true since Obama’s
hot mic incident
Butler, 3-27-12 – Desmond, US trade upgrade may worsen relations with Russia, AP,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haRDYl_wxvUHQ2SGzhfBvaXW9z7g?docId=633
ce0bb28a14581846aed8821fbce94
Obama's handling of relations with Russia became a bigger political issue Monday after he told outgoing
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to deal with the contentious issue of
missile defense after the November election. Obama apparently did not realize he was being recorded. Republicans
seized on the remarks, demanding an explanation. And on Tuesday, Obama denied having a hidden agenda. "I want to
reduce our nuclear stockpiles. And one of the barriers to doing that is building trust and cooperation around missile defense issues," he said.
GOP opposition over human rights is strong
Mondaq, 3-8-12 – Bipartisanship Necessary To Move Narrow Trade And Customs Agenda In Congress:
2012 Legislative Outlook, Lexis.
Russian Trade Sanctions: In his State of the Union address, President Obama declared "this Congress should make sure that no foreign company
has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia."9 With the Russians seeking
admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Administration is asking Congress to lift the Jackson-Vanik
amendment, which, since 1974, has imposed trade sanctions against Russia. This change would allow U.S. exporters to reap the benefits of
reduced tariffs in Russia, once it is under the WTO agreement.10 However, there
is strong resistance among some
Republicans to eliminating Jackson-Vanik, due to ongoing concerns about Russian human rights.
Obama won’t bargain – they’re at an impasse
Rogin, 3-12-12 – Josh, McFaul: No human rights bill trade for granting Russia top trade status, Foreign
Policy – The Cable,
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/12/mcfaul_no_human_rights_bill_trade_for_granting
_russia_top_trade_status.
President Barack Obama's administration will not support any human rights or democracy legislation in
exchange for Congress repealing the 1974 Jackson-Vanik law, which is preventing Russia from getting top trade status with
the United States, the U.S. envoy to Moscow said today. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Mike McFaul, the former NSC senior director for
Russia and a key architect of the administration's "reset" policy with Russia, was in Washington today --along with all other U.S. ambassadors -in advance of a huge conference at the State Department Tuesday. He made
clear, in two separate speaking events, that
the administration's top trade priority in 2012 is to repeal the Jackson-Vanik law, which has blocked Russia from getting Permanent
Normal Trade Status (PNTR). However, the administration doesn't support any replacement for the law, such as the
Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011 -- legislation meant to promote human rights in Russia that is named for the anticorruption lawyer who died in a Russian prison, after allegedly being tortured, two years ago. Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to link the
passage of the Magnitsky bill to the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was put in place in the 1970s to punish Russia for its
treatment of Jewish would-be emigrants but now stands in the way of lifting U.S.-Russian trade restrictions. Last year, the State Department did
quietly issue visa bans for the Russian officials linked to the case, and McFaul said that's enough.
Won’t pass – Magnitsky bill
WaPo, 2-23-12 – Washington Post, Baucus meets Medvedev ahead of Russia trade debate Baucus
meets Medvedev ahead of Russia trade debate, Lexis.
Some GOP lawmakers want to link the issues of human rights and corruption in Russia to the granting of
PNTR status. Those lawmakers are pushing for passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of
2011, named for the anti-corruption lawyer who was allegedly tortured and died in a Russian prison two years ago. These Republicans including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee - want
passage of the Magnitsky bill to be
the cost of repealing the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment. The administration would prefer not to link Magnitsky to this trade
status, because it would prompt the Russians to take retaliatory measuresagainst the United States in other areas of bilateral cooperation.
Moscow staunchly opposes the Magnitsky bill. In fact, the Russian government and is moving forward with the prosecution
of Magnitsky on criminal tax charges, even though he is dead.
**UQ 1ar – XT Delay
2ac Obama/PC Not Key
Obama isn’t key – Baucus is
Sac Bee, 2-21-12 – Sen. Baucus Meets with U.S. Business Leaders in Russia, Sees Gains for U.S. Jobs
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/21/4279466/sen-baucus-meets-with-us-business.html
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with American business leaders in Moscow this
morning on the need for legislation to expand opportunities for US exports that would create more American jobs. Andrew
Somers, chief executive of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia (AmCham), representing more than 700 companies, warned that
American companies will face a serious competitive disadvantage if Congress does not soon abrogate the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment,
which denies Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations. "We hope that Congress will act quickly on this trade issue," said Somers. Senator
Baucus is in Russia to meet with the Russian President and other officials to discuss economic, trade and foreign affairs issues, as well
as with leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce. "Opening doors overseas in countries like Russia will propel our economic recovery
forward and create jobs across the United States," Baucus said. "Holding Russia to its promises as it enters the World Trade Organization, and
seeking a greater share of the Russian market, is a one-way economic benefit for the United States and an absolute no-brainer."
Obama isn’t spending his capital and he doesn’t need to
Washington Trade Daily, 1-30-12 – Remember Jackson/Vanik and Jewish Emigration From the
Soviet Union? http://washingtontradedaily.blogspot.com/2012/01/remember-jacksonvanik-andjewish.html.
Repealing Jackson/Vanik – or at the minimum taking Russia off the list – would happen in a "New York minute" in
Congress. But the President has to ask . For the past two decades at least the President has had no problem in annually waiving
Jackson/Vanik to allow most-favored-nation treatment. Why the hesitancy? Some in Washington want to await the outcome of the election in
Russia set for mid-March. Some in Congress want to await the outcome of the election in the United States this November. Free-trade
supporter Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) – who chairs the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee – strongly backs permanent MFN for
Russia, but said recently that it won’t be easy unless the White House gets behind the push. The President’s remarks
in the State
of the Union can’t – by any stretch of the imagination – be considered a "push ." So – as he has done in earlier
trade issues – the President is putting the United States in a difficult and embarrassing position. To demonstrate how easy Congressional
removal of Jackson/Vanik restrictions on Russia could be, two House members – who can be described on sitting on the opposite poles of the
political spectrum – recently established a Russia economic cooperation caucus. They are Rep. Gregory W. Meeks – a liberal Democrat from
Queens, New York – and Rep. Dan Burton – a conservative from Indianapolis, Indiana. Given their wide divergence of thinking on almost
everything else, it should not be difficult to gain significant support from members in the middle. Approval in the Senate –
which typically prides itself as the more diplomatic chamber of Congress – should be no problem.
2ac Alt Causes
US-Russia decline in cooperation inevitable due to sabotage accusations
Bodzash, '12 -- Dennis, "Russia claims foul play after space losses, pins blame on America?"
http://www.examiner.com/space-news-in-national/russia-claims-foul-play-after-space-losses-pinsblame-on-america
For Russia' s Federal Space Agency, Rocosmos, 2011 was not a banner year as the agency lost several missions, including the high-profile
Phobos-Grunt, which was set to touch down on Martian Moon Phobos, take samples, and return them to Earth. While space exploration is by
no means easy, the string of failures was still a bit unusual. Now, Rocosmos
chief Vladimir Popovkin is making some
sensational claims about why his agency has had so many failures in the past 12 months: foul play. In an interview
with Russia's Izvestia newspaper, Popovkin stated that “It is unclear why our setbacks often occur when the vessels are traveling through what
for Russia is the 'dark' side of the Earth — in areas where we do not see the craft and do not receive its telemetry readings.” From Russia's
viewpoint, the Western Hemisphere, home to the United States, is the 'dark side' of the Earth. He then added "I do not want to blame
anyone, but today
there are some very powerful countermeasures that can be used against spacecraft
whose use we cannot exclude.” Now, it doesn't take a degree in geopolitical affairs to realize that American-Russian relations
are at their lowest since the end of the Cold War over 2 decades ago. Between disagreements in areas of
diplomacy, especially over what to do with 'rogue' nations, and the threat-counter threat of missile defense systems,
almost continual bickering with Russia have inspired the Obama administration to attempt a 'reset' of relations. So,
could there be anything to Popovkin's claims? Well, to start with, Popovkin sort of answered his own question about the failures happening
when it is out of range from mission control, that is on the other side of the Earth. If something were to happen to a spacecraft, one would
want it to be on the near side of Earth, where mission control can transmit new instructions up into orbit, possibly fixing the problem and
saving the mission. If a failure were to happen on the far side of Earth, by the time the craft comes back into range, it may be too late. As for
foul play, yes, there is always a possibility, especially in this age of cyber terrorism, where hackers
can get into and sabotage just
about anything, including satellites. Still, without any evidence, any claims of sabotage must be taken with a grain of salt.
It reverses previous cooperation
Kramer, '12 -- Andrew, "Russian Official Suggests Weapon Caused Exploration Spacecraft’s Failure,"
New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/science/space/russian-official-suggestsweapon-caused-spacecraft-failure.html?_r=2.
Mr. Popovkin’s remarks to the newspaper Izvestia were the first high-level suggestion of nefarious interference.
A retired commander of Russia’s missile warning system had speculated in November that strong radar signals from installations in Alaska
might have damaged the spacecraft. “We don’t want to accuse anybody, but there are very powerful devices that can influence spacecraft
now,” Mr. Popovkin said in the interview. “The possibility they were used cannot be ruled out.” Mr. Popovkin also suggested that equipment on
the spacecraft may have broken down while the vehicle was stored on the ground, waiting for the time when Earth and Mars would be in the
right places in their orbits for the mission to proceed, something that happens only every two years. “If we had not sent it to Mars in 2011, we
would have had to throw it away,” he said of the craft. The
interview came at a time of rising anti-Americanism in
Russian politics, and may have been intended mostly for a domestic audience. Russian officials often drop hints of foreign meddling, for
example in stirring the recent street protests in Moscow; such comments are usually taken to mean the United States. Mr. Popovkin’s
remarks stood out in stark contrast to the cooperative spirit of recent Russian civilian space endeavors
carried out in partnership with NASA, the European Space Agency and other foreign partners. Though Russia maintains a military
wing of its space program, confrontation and even competition with the United States in space largely vanished with the end of the cold war.
The two powers called the space race a tie and agreed to build the International Space Station together; now that the American space shuttles
are retired, NASA astronauts fly to the station aboard Russian rockets. Mr. Popovkin did not directly implicate the United States in the
interview. But he said “the frequent failure of our space launches, which occur at a time when they are flying over the part of Earth not visible
from Russia, where we do not see the spacecraft and do not receive telemetric information, are not clear to us,” an apparent reference to the
Americas.
**Transportation
2ac UQ
Won’t pass – Keystone
Geman, 4-24 – Ben, Reid draws line against Keystone, The Hill E2 Wire – Environment and Energy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223433-reid-draws-line-against-keystone,
Senate Democrats will hold firm and reject House Republican demands to include approval of the Keystone oil
pipeline in transportation funding legislation, their leader said Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he
would not in any way help Republicans move Keystone approval across the finish line. “Personally, I’m not
— I’m not one of the conferees — but personally I think Keystone is a program that we’re not going, that I am not going to help in any way I
can,” Reid told reporters. “The president feels that way. I do, too.” Reid’s
position creates more political uncertainty for
popular transportation programs and sets Senate Democrats up for a collision
with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)
and other Republicans insisting on the project as a price for a new highway bill.
No political will – talks are broken down – defer to Quals
Mineta and Skinner, 4-23 – Norman Mineta was transportation secretary for President George W.
Bush. Samuel Skinner was transportation secretary for President George H.W. Bush. They are now cochairmen of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center David R. Goode National Transportation Policy
Project, Transportation policy needs push to get moving, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75438_Page2.html
The tradition of broad bipartisan support for investments in surface transportation has largely broken down .
We must get that back. Research and experience show, however, that this erosion of transportation support does not necessarily extend to the
public. Most citizens still voice support for public spending on transportation when they realize it can result in positive local
outcomes. The public is also receptive to the message that smart transportation investments make a positive long-term contribution to
economic growth, U.S. competitiveness and job creation. Despite
broad support in principle, however, active public
engagement on these issues has been elusive . The public must convince our leaders that transportation investment and
reform is crucial. While many Americans experience our inefficient transport systems in their daily lives, other national effects — including lost
productivity on the broader economy or high transportation costs on the price of goods — are less obvious. Without
a public
mandate, most policymakers won’t risk reforming the current system in a political landscape fraught
with so many other competing demands . The failure last month to reauthorize our long-term highway system funding is just
the most recent example. We must create: 1. A positive, forward-looking tone that frames the transportation debate around issues of
economic growth, jobs and U.S. competitiveness, combined with quality of life.
Won’t pass – taxes, partisanship and budgets all crush it
Wolfe, 4-5 – Kathryn, Transportation bill faces more bumps ahead, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74891.html
As Congress starts back down the road on hammering out a transportation bill, expect more
nail-biting extension deadlines,
delayed projects for states and partisan spats. The reason is simple: money . With gas tax revenues
falling, there just isn’t enough money to go around for federal transportation programs. The simplest
solution would be to raise the gas tax, but that’s politically poisonous. Still, the pressure from states and outside
groups to finish a bill has politicians upping the rhetoric and reaching for some unorthodox and ultimately temporary solutions. “We’ve just
been caught up partially in election-year politics and partially in this whole battle that seems to trump and
override our issue , which is the budget battle,” said Pete Ruane, president and CEO of the American Road & Transportation
Builders Association. “That’s not going to go away; you could call that the new normal. That’s going to be part of this debate every
single time until they finally make some tough decisions about how to fund these programs.”
1ar UQ – No Chance**
No action coming before the elections
Mineta and Skinner, 4-23 – Norman Mineta was transportation secretary for President George W.
Bush. Samuel Skinner was transportation secretary for President George H.W. Bush. They are now cochairmen of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center David R. Goode National Transportation Policy
Project, Transportation policy needs push to get moving, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75438_Page2.html
The outlook for future investment in the U.S. transportation system remains uncertain . Many who have
been involved in transportation for decades now say that the future of this critical economic underpinning looks
unclear. But this indecision, and the resulting stagnation, carry a high price at a time when the stimulus funding of the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act is all but exhausted; Highway Trust Fund revenues are projected to remain flat or to decline, and budgets at all
levels of government are stretched thin by the recession. We must harness a confluence of forces this year, including the presidential election,
to open the door to fundamental change in transportation policy and programs. The first part of the year has seen some bursts of legislative
activity, though it remains unclear whether this can lead to long-term reauthorization. We
are under no illusions about the
difficulty of being heard in an election year , let alone the difficulty of setting a substantive reform
agenda in motion at a time of extreme political polarization . Nonetheless, we are confident that concerted advocacy
can achieve the objective we have set: to raise a sense of urgency about the importance of transportation investment and create conditions for
real change in our nation’s approach to transportation.
1ar UQ – Gas Tax
Gas tax is a pre-requisite and there’s NO solution
Wolfe, 4-5 – Kathryn, Transportation bill faces more bumps ahead, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74891.html
The underlying problem remains that the Highway Trust Fund, the place where gas tax revenues are deposited, does
not have enough money in it to adequately fund the country’s transportation needs. Raising the gas tax — which has
remained static since the last time it was raised in 1993 — is something politicians won’t touch, especially in an
election year . And the other widely discussed solution, switching to a system that would charge
people based on how many miles they’ve driven, has technological and ideological challenges . Some
fiscal conservatives, backed by groups such as The Heritage Foundation, have suggested that the government should just
“devolve” the program back to the states. But Ruane said that is a nonstarter. “Do you realize what the states would
have to do themselves? They’d all have to raise their own taxes, … anywhere from 20 cents up to a dollar,” he said. “It sounds good, but it’s
naive politically and they haven’t done their homework.” Jack Basso, director of program finance and management at the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, said shorter bills are certainly a possible outcome, though he noted that in past
decades, transportation bills ran two years because of the way cost estimates worked. “It’s not like God came down from Mount Sinai and
ordered that — it’s become a practice and it’s certainly good if we can do that,” Basso said. But he noted that even the Senate’s two-year bill
hasn’t been a panacea. “ Even
if you have a two-year bill, if you don’t have any money in the trust fund, you
have the same problem,” Basso said. “What I hope comes out of all of this is we get through what we’re in now, and then it becomes
clear that the money fix has to be found because you can see how much angst is going on right now.”
1ar UQ – Partisanship
Zero chance of bipartisanship – it’ll be another ugly battle
Wolfe, 4-5 – Kathryn, Transportation bill faces more bumps ahead, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74891.html
Before Congress left for a two-week recess, the two parties brawled right up to the point of no return about
whether to extend transportation programs that were otherwise set to expire last weekend. Democrats wanted House Republicans to just take
up the Senate’s two-year, $109 billion transportation bill, but the House wanted more time to put together its own longer-term bill. In
the
end, Congress did what was expected and extended programs for three months, but not before a
bruising fight of unprecedented length and volume over something typically considered a routine
matter. It’s not unusual for a transportation bill to need many extensions before lawmakers can strike a final deal, but there’s rarely been a
case when an extension has generated so much angst. Now the clock is again ticking, and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said
there’s so far been no serious attempt to include Democrats in the House discussion. Rather, Republicans have
been fighting among themselves in an attempt to find a way to pass the bill with only party votes. Some lawmakers want to get
the federal government out of the business of transportation funding completely, shifting responsibility to the states. Ed Wytkind, president of
the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, said the
gas tax shortfall has been years in the making.
1ar UQ – Vote Count
Odds are heavily against passage
NYT, 3-14-12 – Hope for a Good Transportation Bill,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/opinion/hope-for-a-good-transportation-bill.html.
Against heavy odds , Congress may yet produce a decent national transportation bill that would make needed
investments in roads, bridges and mass transit without undermining environmental protections or providing handouts to big polluters. Related
in Opinion Gail Collins: The Senate Overachieves (March 15, 2012) The Senate gave hope of a such an outcome when it approved on
Wednesday a two-year reauthorization bill that would funnel $109 billion to states and communities for mass transit and bridge-and-road
projects, many of which have been deferred for years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, mustered enough votes to defeat
several destructive amendments while approving a very good one. The bad amendments, all from Republicans, would have: undercut Clean Air
Act protections against mercury and other toxic pollutants from industrial boilers; opened up all of America’s outer continental shelf, as well as
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil drilling; and overturned President Obama’s wise decision to delay the environmentally risky Keystone
XL oil pipeline. The good amendment — a victory for conservation that drew substantial Republican support — would dedicate 80 percent of
the penalties paid by BP for the gulf oil spill to environmental restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. It would also authorize $700 million a year for
two years for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the open space program that Congress has shortchanged for years. Getting
the
House to move in a similar direction will be harder . Its transportation bill — a five-year, $260 billion measure —
has gone nowhere , which is just as well. The bill would have eliminated guaranteed public financing for mass transit and relied on
highly speculative revenue from oil and gas drilling. Speaker John Boehner said last week that he was ready to take up the Senate measure, or
something close to it. That could be a tactic to spur his colleagues to devise their own alternative. But accepting the Senate bill would be exactly
the right thing to do
2ac PC not Key
Obama isn’t key – he won’t invest PC or solve the funding fights
Wolfe, 4-5 – Kathryn, Transportation bill faces more bumps ahead, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74891.html
**NOTE: The ‘He’ this evidence cites = Jack Basso, director of program finance and management at the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
He was hinting at the way the Obama administration has handled transportation policy to date. Early on,
transportation watchers felt the administration was disengaged. When Democrats held the House, the
administration’s only substantial transportation policy proposal was to ask for an 18-month extension to give them time to work out their
positions. And
the administration has never submitted a formal transportation reauthorization to
Congress — a first in recent memory. Instead, the administration has included the skeleton of a
reauthorization proposal as part of its annual budget submission, which until this year had no
identified pay-fors.
2ac PC Bad
Obama’s PC blocks the deal – prefer specificity, he’s a terrible ambassador
Schweizter, 2-16-12 – Lisa Schweitzer is an associate professor at the Price School of Public Policy at
the University of Southern California. She specializes in transit policy. POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72987_Page2.html#ixzz1mta9GVUE
Enter the House bill, which would spend $260 billion over five years for road and bridge projects and other transportation programs. If the
administration didn’t want to grapple with the political risk of raising gas tax revenues three years ago, it had to expect that the things that it
favors but others don’t value — like transit — could get the ax. And if there’s one thing the House bill makes clear, it’s that not
everyone
shares the Obama administration’s urban transportation priorities. No wonder. LaHood and President Barack
Obama have been terrible ambassadors for their urban transportation visions. Unlike previous transportation
secretaries, who discreetly played politics, LaHood has acted like a big-city mayor, not the head of a national agency. He has
constantly advocated urban-friendly transport modes like mass transit. LaHood, in one of his first moves, announced that highway spending
should be “balanced” with spending on transit, walking and biking projects. In other words, take money from highway projects. But neither
LaHood nor Obama bothered to explain why, exactly, there should be any such spending shift with
money that comes largely from automobile drivers. The administration has instead been deploying gauzy buzzwords like
“livability” — declaring that driving is bad, while transit, walking and biking are good.
2ac ! D
There’s no impact – they’ll just pass a stop-gap again (they did it in March…)
**Student Loans
2ac UQ
No compromise and PC isn’t key – Harkin and other officials do the heavy lifting
POLITICO, 4-27 – GOP jams Harkin on prevention fund,
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BB2AEB46-85C6-45ED-8225-C173ED65B699
You want a student loan bill, House Republicans asked Democrats? Fine — we’ll just take it out of
Tom Harkin’s preventive health fund. It’s one of those political “gotchas” that Washington lives for these days. By using the
health reform law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund — created by Harkin — to pay for the House version of the student loan bill, House
Republicans seemed to have come up with a clever way to get back at President Barack Obama for saying
the GOP doesn’t care about rising student loan rates. Except for one thing: after the House votes Friday on the bill,
which is almost sure to pass, House Republicans will have to negotiate with the chairman of the Senate
education committee if they actually want an agreement to prevent student loan rates from doubling. And who would that
chairman be? Tom Harkin, of course. And as much as Harkin wants to solve the student loan problem,
he’s adamant about not digging into the prevention money — which was already cut once to help pay for the payroll
tax cut. Harkin told POLITICO Thursday he had an “ironclad agreement” with the White House and other Democrats “that the prevention fund
cannot be invaded any more.” ”That’s it. That’s the end of it. No more. That’s it. No more. That’s it,” he said. As chairman of the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Harkin
largely wrote the preventive health sections of the Affordable
Care Act, including the prevention fund that Republicans dubbed a “slush fund.” But he’s also working on the Senate student loan bill, so
House Republicans may well have to go through him to get something that can be signed into law. That may not be the plan, though — and top
House Republicans know they’ve picked one of the most vulnerable parts of the health care law as a target. After all, the Prevention and Public
Health Fund has been raided before — as House Speaker John Boehner is reminding everyone who will listen. The payroll tax cut extension,
which Obama signed into law earlier this year, cut $5 billion out of the fund. And Obama’s own budget proposal this year would have slashed it
by $4.5 billion. House Republicans want to wipe out the rest of the $11.9 billion that’s slated to go into the fund over the next decade. If Obama
and the Democrats wouldn’t stick up for the preventive health fund before, Republicans reasoned, how can they fight a student loan bill over it
now? “I think they’ve made clear the precedent here,” Boehner said at a Thursday press conference. Harkin
has promised to fight
against cuts to the fund before, only to be undercut by the White House and Democratic leaders. This time, however, top
administration officials and Hill Democrats, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, are
also rejecting using the prevention money to pay for the student loan bill. “I think what’s different is that this time
the line has been drawn in the sand ,” said Richard Hamburg, deputy director of the Trust for America’s Health, one of the main
public health groups supporting the fund. Top Democrats have been “very vocal in the last 24 to 48 hours,” he said, that “this is not a fund
that’s there to be used every time someone needs dollars for some thing or another.” The fund isn’t aimed at one of the central goals of the
health care law — expanding coverage or making medical care more cost-efficient — but it’s loaded with programs that are bound to appeal to
voters in the communities that get the funds. According to the latest breakdown on the HHS website, it’s going to tobacco prevention,
programs to help communities fight chronic diseases, workplace wellness, building public health infrastructure, and expanding the public health
workforce. “The programs are very specific. There’s no secrets. There are a number of public sites to go to … to find out exactly what the funds
are being used for,” Hamburg said. The challenge Democrats and other public health supporters have always had, however, is to make the case
that these programs really save money — which may be one reason they’re so vulnerable. And House Republicans are so sure the fund is
vulnerable that they’ve already used the prevention fund in another bill — a package of health care cuts the House Energy and Commerce
Committee approved just Wednesday to meet the savings targets of the House budget resolution. Still, Harkin
is promising that this
is the end of the road for the fund’s opponents. “They always will” come after the fund, Harkin said. But this time, he’s
sure he can stare them down.
It’s ONLY a funding question and no compromise is coming
CBS, 4-29 – Analysis: Student loan agreement? Not so fast, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301505245_162-57423848/analysis-student-loan-agreement-not-so-fast/
In the political campaigns still taking shape, President Barack Obama, Republican challenger Mitt Romney and lawmakers of both
parties
say they want to protect college students from a sharp increase in interest rates on federally subsidized loans. Agree, they
might, and act they surely will . But first, they settled effortlessly into a rollicking good political brawl. In
less than 72 hours, what might have looked like a relatively simple matter mushroomed into a politically
charged veto showdown
that touched on the economy and health care, tax cuts and policies affecting women. Accusatory campaign
commercials to follow, no doubt. "This is beneath us. This is beneath the dignity of this House and the dignity of the public trust that we enjoy,"
protested House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio as he and Democrats both maneuvered for position. Evidently not. "It shouldn't be a
Republican or a Democratic issue. This is an American issue," Obama said in North Carolina last week as he broached the topic of legislation in a
move to gain support students in the fall election. He urged his listeners to tweet their lawmakers and urge them to block an increase in
interest rates on federally subsidized loans issued beginning July 1. There was partisan pop behind Obama's message, though. Over two days of
campaign-style appearances on college campuses, he quoted one unnamed Republican lawmaker as saying she had "very little tolerance for
people who tell me they graduate with debt because there's no reason for that." Another GOP lawmaker likened student loans to "stage three
cancer of socialism," he said. Both Republicans quickly said they had been quoted out of context. Within a day, Romney told reporters he
agreed on the need to prevent the rate increase, while conceding nothing to Obama in the search for political advantage. "I support extending
the temporary relief on interest rates for students," he said, and cited "extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market" in a jab at the
president's handling of the economy. Congressional Democrats announced they would write legislation to prevent a doubling of the current 3.4
percent interest rate, and cover the $6 billion cost by requiring more wealthy individuals to pay Social Security and Medicare payroll tax. It was
a not-so-subtle reprise of a campaign perennial, the allegation that Republicans want to cut programs benefiting those who aren't rich to
protect tax cuts for those who are. "Let's be honest," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "The only reason Democrats
have proposed this particular solution to the problem is to get Republicans to oppose it, to make us cast a vote they think will make us look bad
to the voters they need to win the next election." He then accused Democrats of wanting to pay for the legislation "by raiding Social Security
and Medicare, and by making it even harder for small businesses to hire." Democrats noted that the Republican-written budget included no
provisions to block the increase in the interest rate. It was evidence, they added, that if the GOP had its way, the cost of borrowing would
double soon. Two conservative groups, the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth, both opposed the change, but only about 30 GOP
House members voted against it. The Democratic charge brought a rebuttal from Boehner, who said at midweek that the Republican-controlled
House would vote quickly to prevent the interest rate from rising. " The
one point. " No
issue is not a partisan issue ," he said, echoing Obama on
one here expected interest rates would go up in the fall. " Then he, too, put his thumb on the political
scales. The Republican bill would cover the $6 billion cost by slicing into a fund to cover preventive health care costs. That expanded the
struggle to include one of the Republicans' own campaign planks — the promise to repeal what they deride as "Obamacare," and failing that, to
dismantle it piece by piece. Charge gave way to counter-charge having little or nothing to do with student loans. Democrats said the health care
fund Republicans had targeted was evidence of a "war on women." "Give me a break," protested Boehner on the House floor. Addressing
Democrats, he said, "you may have already forgotten that several months ago you voted to cut $4 billion out of this fund to pay for the payroll
tax cut." By then, the White House weighed in with a veto threat, which House Republicans promptly ignored in passing
its version of the measure on a near party-line vote of 215-195. With that, Congress, its approval rating mired in the teens, went on a one-week
vacation.
EVERYONE agrees on an extension and no impact for several years
Block, 4-30 – Sandra, Most student loans unaffected by upcoming increase in rates, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/story/2012-04-30/student-collegeloans/54647578/1.
You know an issue has reached critical mass when it's the topic of late-night comedian Jimmy Fallon's "Slow Jam the News" segment, and none
other than President Obama shows up to help. The subject of the slow jam? On July 1, the interest rate for some new federal student loans is
scheduled to increase to 6.8% from 3.4%. President Obama
wants to extend the lower rate for another year. Republicans
in Congress say they support the extension, but disagree with the president's plan to pay for it. Many graduates are struggling with
unaffordable loan payments, so any suggestion that loans will become more expensive is worrisome to a lot of college students. But a lot of
information that has been circulated about the pending rate increase is misleading, if not downright wrong, says Kalman Chany, author of
Paying for College Without Going Broke. If you have student loans, or plan to borrow, here's what you need to know: The
increase
would only affect interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans for undergrad students issued after July 1,
2012. Interest rates for existing loans won't change . About a third of undergraduate students have subsidized Stafford
loans, which are awarded based on economic need. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 gradually reduced the rates for
subsidized loans for undergraduate students from 6.8% to 3.4% through 2012-13. The rates are fixed for the life of the loan. For example, the
rate for subsidized Stafford loans issued for academic year 2010-11 is 4.5%. That rate won't change on July 1, no matter what happens in
Congress. An interest-rate rate increase for subsidized Stafford loans would affect more than 7 million undergraduate students, according to
the Department of Education. The administration estimates that doubling loan rates would increase their interest costs by more than $5,000
over the life of the loan. That estimate is based on a borrower with $23,000 in subsidized Stafford loans, the maximum allowed for
undergraduate dependent students. A borrower with an $11,329 loan would pay an extra $2,265 in interest, or about $22 a month, based on a
10-year repayment term, according to FinAid.org. •Rates for unsubsidized Stafford loans won't change. The College Cost
Reduction and Access Act didn't affect rates for unsubsidized Stafford loans, which are available to all full-time college students, regardless of
financial need. Unsubsidized Stafford loans issued since July 1, 2006, have a fixed rate of 6.8%. Likewise, rates for subsidized loans for graduate
and professional students will remain at 6.8%. •Even if
rates rise on July 1, subsidized Stafford loans are generally
less costly than private student loans. Some private lenders are advertising student loan rates as low as 3%, which makes them
look like an attractive alternative to Stafford loans with a 6.8% rate. But private loan rates are usually variable, which means they could shoot
higher if overall rates rise. And to get the lowest rates, most borrowers will need a co-signer, which puts that individual — usually a parent —
on the hook for payments if the borrower falls behind. If
you qualify for a subsidized Stafford loan, the government
will pay the interest on the loan while you're in school, Chany says. Interest on private student loans and unsubsidized
Stafford loans accrues while you're in school. If you don't make interest payments — and some private lenders require that you do — the
interest is capitalized and added to your loan balance. In
addition, both subsidized and unsubsidized federal student
loans offer repayment options that typically aren't available to borrowers with private loans. If you lose
your job, for example, you automatically qualify for deferral of loan payments for up to three years. Borrowers who can't afford
their monthly payments may be eligible for the income-based repayment program, which reduces payments
based on discretionary income. After 25 years of qualifying payments, the balance of the loan will be forgiven. The federal government also
offers loan forgiveness programs for borrowers who pursue careers in public service. Some private lenders provide forbearance or interest-only
payments for borrowers who are experiencing hard times, but that's voluntary.
Still won’t pass – partisanship is too fierce
LA Times, 4-30 – The politics of student loans, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/laed-stafford-20120428,0,1118808.story.
President Obama set off yet another cacophony of partisan bickering in Washington by warning that interest on
some student loans would skyrocket if Congress didn't act soon. Last week lawmakers from both parties hinted that they were ready to solve
the problem, albeit in a temporary and superficial way. But first they ginned up another meaningless political battle, leaving roughly 7 million
students in the lurch. At issue is the interest on subsidized Stafford loans, which the federal government issues directly to low- and moderateincome students. In 2007, Congress cut the interest rate gradually from 6.8% to 3.4%, but only for loans issued before June 30, 2012, after
which the rate jumps back to 6.8%. The rationale for keeping the rate low is stronger today than it was in 2007, considering the alarmingly rapid
increase in college tuition. But with student loan debt at historic highs, the availability of cheap loans may be a double-edged sword: It helps
families cope with fast-rising college fees, but it encourages students to take on more debt. It's worth exploring whether the federal
government has enabled colleges to raise tuitions by making loans and grants available to more students, as well as the broader question of
how to make college more affordable. There's precious little time left to do so, however, before the interest rate on Stafford loans is set to
jump. Leaders of the House and Senate education committees say they're pursuing a one-year extension of the lower interest rate to buy time
to work out a more comprehensive approach. The
seeming consensus on a temporary fix, however, has given way
to sniping over how to cover the $6-billion cost. Senate Democrats first proposed collecting more payroll taxes on high-income workers in
small professional services firms; then their House counterparts called for cutting tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. House Republicans,
meanwhile, offered a bill, passed Friday on a largely party-line vote, that would eliminate a fund in the 2010
healthcare reform law that finances state and local preventive care projects. It's doubtful these cuts were chosen for
their policy merits. Instead, the goal seems to be making the other side look bad. That's how the
game is played now in Washington . Even when Democrats and Republicans agree on a destination,
they can't help but pick a fight along the way .
Rate increases are inevitable even if the bill passes
O’Connell , 4-30 – Brian, Student Loan Rates May Rise Regardless of Politics: Fitch,
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11514380/1/student-loan-rates-may-rise-regardless-of-politicsfitch.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
But even if a deal is reached in Washington , there's no guarantee that college students won't be
paying even more for student loans. That's the consensus of a new white paper released by Fitch Ratings,
which says that students and families may gain in the short term, but "regulatory uncertainties" may add to loan costs
in the long run. "A scheduled doubling of interest rates on subsidized undergraduate Stafford student loans could create a short-term
opportunity for private lenders, although Fitch Ratings believes that regulatory
uncertainty with respect to the student
lending business, a dwindling number of lenders in the space, and longer-term interest rate dynamics
would all likely result in little response from private lenders. Left with few alternative financing sources, future
undergraduate students could face higher interest rates as a result." Fitch notes that a higher rate environment could boost private lending to
college-going students and their families. If rates did pop up to 6.8%, the firm says that banks and other lenders would surely swoop in and
undercut the high rate to grab a larger slice of the burgeoning student loan market.
1ar UQ
Agreement inevitable
Espo, 4-30-12 – David, Analysis: Student loan agreement? Not so fast, USA Today,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UFE1D80.htm.
In the political campaigns still taking shape, President Barack Obama, Republican challenger Mitt Romney and lawmakers of
both parties say they want to protect college students from a sharp increase in interest rates on federally subsidized loans.
Agree, they might, and act they surely will . But first, they settled effortlessly into a rollicking good political brawl.
It passed on the 27th
Lillis, 4-27 – Pelosi: GOP 'folded' on student loans due to pressure from Obama, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/224259-pelosi-gop-folded-on-student-loans-due-to-pressurefrom-obama
Pelosi said Obama's public campaign to prevent interest rates on federally subsidized Stafford loans from doubling this summer
was "too hot" for Republicans to handle, leading GOP leaders to schedule their hasty Friday vote to keep the lower rate. "The
Republicans have folded because the president made the issue too hot to handle. That is why the bill is coming up today," Pelosi said
during a press briefing in the Capitol just hours before the vote. "They felt the heat of the president going out there and saying, 'We cannot
allow [the rate hike] for families trying to send their kids to college. So the timing is their folding." After five years at the 3.4 percent level, the
interest rate on Stafford loans is set to double to 6.8 percent on July 1 if Congress doesn't intervene first. House Democrats have urged a
continuation of the 3.4 percent rate, while Republicans have twice this year passed legislation returning to the 6.8 percent rate, including a vote
held last week. On
Wednesday, however, Republicans flipped, introducing legislation to extend the 3.4
percent rate for another year. To pay the $5.9 billion cost, the Republicans proposed to eliminate a $12 billion preventative health
services fund created by the Democrats' 2010 healthcare reform law – money the GOP has long-characterized as a "slush fund." The extra
savings, under the GOP bill, would go to pay down the deficit. The White House on Friday threatened to veto the GOP bill, saying elimination of
the healthcare fund would hinder access to health services, particularly for women. "This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious
response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves," the White House said in a statement. Republicans were quick to fire
back. Hoping voters forget their promotion of the 6.8 percent level, GOP leaders say the Democrats' opposition threatens students with the
higher rate. "The president is so desperate to fake a fight that he’s willing to veto a bill to help students over a slush fund that
he advocated cutting in his own budget," Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Friday in an email. "It’s a
simple as this: Republicans are acting to help college students and the president is now getting in the way.”
The only issue to be resolved is funding
Lillis, 4-27 – Pelosi: GOP 'folded' on student loans due to pressure from Obama, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/224259-pelosi-gop-folded-on-student-loans-due-to-pressurefrom-obama
On Wednesday, however, Republicans flipped, introducing legislation to extend the 3.4 percent rate for another year. To pay the $5.9
billion cost, the Republicans proposed to eliminate a $12 billion preventative health services fund created
by the Democrats' 2010 healthcare reform law – money the GOP has long-characterized as a "slush fund." The extra savings, under the GOP bill,
would go to pay down the deficit. The
White House on Friday threatened to veto
the GOP bill, saying elimination of the
healthcare fund would hinder access to health services, particularly for women. "This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious
response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves," the White House said in a statement. Republicans
were quick
to fire back. Hoping voters forget their promotion of the 6.8 percent level, GOP leaders say the Democrats' opposition threatens students
with the higher rate. "The president is so desperate to fake a fight that he’s willing to veto a bill to help students over a slush fund that he
advocated cutting in his own budget," Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Friday in an email. "It’s a
simple as this: Republicans are acting to help college students and the president is now getting in the way.” The
issue has become
prominent on the campaign trail, where Obama and the Democrats are trying to turn the Republicans' initial opposition to the 3.4
percent rate into a liability for the GOP. Obama featured the issue in his weekly White House address last weekend, and has since taken that
message on the road, including making stops at several college campuses this week. "We have to make college more affordable for young
people,” Obama said Tuesday at University of North Carolina. “That’s the bottom line.” Adding to the pressure on congressional Republicans,
Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, endorsed a one-year fix on Monday.
With both sides now advocating
a one-year extension of the 3.4 percent rate, the fight is now over how to pay for it . Behind Boehner,
Republicans are pointing out that Democratic leaders, including Obama, have already supported a $4 billion cut to the preventive fund as part
of December's payroll tax deal. "They’ve made clear the precedent is there," Boehner said Thursday. "They don’t believe this money is essential
to their program. That’s why it’s being paid for here." But Democrats have rejected that notion, arguing that they never supported the
healthcare cut in the payroll package, and conceded to it only in the name of compromise.
More ev it’s only a funding question
Fram, 4-26 – Alan, Political battle over student loans heating up, Business Week,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UCR8EO0.htm.
On a day in which both sides used the student loan fight to bolster their standing with voters and cast the
other side negatively, the leader of House Democrats accused Republicans of writing a $5.9 billion bill that would raid women's
programs to keep the student loan interest rates from growing. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters she will oppose the GOPwritten bill on Friday, when it is scheduled for a House vote. The measure would prevent the 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford
student loans from doubling as scheduled on July 1. Pelosi
said Republicans have decided, "`Let's take it out of our
old favorite target, women's health,' and that's just wrong." The House GOP bill would cut a $17 billion prevention and public
health fund for immunization campaigns, research, screenings and wellness education. That fund was created by Obama's health care overhaul
law. Boehner and other Republicans have dubbed it a "slush fund" and sought to cut it to finance a variety of projects, succeeding earlier this
year in helping to pay for maintaining doctors' Medicare reimbursements. "It may be a slush fund for him, but it's survival to women," Pelosi
said of Boehner's remarks. She added, "That just goes to show you what a luxury he thinks it is to have good health for women." Democrats in
recent weeks have accused Republicans of waging a war on women because of their stances on insurance coverage for contraception and other
social issues. Leaders of both parties have said they want to prevent the cost of federal student loans from rising, but they are fighting over how
to pay for it. Boehner announced there would be a vote in an abruptly called news conference Wednesday that followed days of pounding by
Obama and congressional Democrats. It also came two days after the GOP's presumptive presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, tried defusing
the issue by embracing the call for freezing interest rates, putting more pressure on congressional Republicans to back the effort or look
isolated. The backdrop to the student loan fight is a push by both parties to appeal to younger voters, an Obama strength in his 2008 election
win, and to signal their sensitivity to families' struggles during the economy's prolonged slump. At the same time, each side
wants to
force the other to take politically uncomfortable votes. The Senate Democratic version would force
high-earning owners of some privately owned corporations to pay more Social Security and Medicare payroll
taxes, violating Republicans' anti-tax doctrine. "I hope my Republican colleagues will stop insisting on protecting tax dodgers," said Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Senate Republicans have said they support keeping loan interest rates down
for another year but oppose the Democrats' way of paying for it .
**Export-Import Bank
2ac UQ
No chance of Ex-Im – gridlock inevitable
Krasting, 4-21 – Bruce, The Fight Over The Export-Import Bank Could End Very Badly, Business Insider,
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-21/politics/31377888_1_debt-limit-boeingsubsidies#ixzz1tGeMtWV9
So there is a fight brewing on this issue. It is the same fight that has been going on over every economic
issue. Conservatives want to cut back on big programs, liberals want to expand them as fast as
possible. Some on the Pro side include the Administration, big exporters like Boeing, liberals and their press: There are many voices on the
Con side: Central to the issues at Exim is Boeing. From 2005 to 2010 Exim financed 634 Boeing aircraft. In 2011 it lent foreign
airlines another $11.4B. This lending has surely helped Boeing, but it’s killing the domestic air carriers which
have to compete on overseas routes. Delta Airlines has sued Exim over its lending to Air India. The lawsuit has to be resolved as
part of the extension of the debt limit. Liberal guys, like Chuck Schumer have been talking to Delta. The proposal is to offset the competitive
disadvantage that Exim creates, with new subsidies for the airlines. Subsidies that create inequities that are fixed with more subsidies is bad
government. I can’t see the Delta Airlines “fix” getting inked without a large price tag. That
cost will be the Republicans
insisting that any subsidies be “paid” for with other cuts. A pissing match appears to be in the offing .
When S&P downgraded the USA, it pointed at political gridlock and the inability of D.C. to agree to confront issues as the principal reason for
the downgrade. The
fight over Exim is a good example of that gridlock .
Won’t pass – favoritism and GOP – even Durbin isn’t confident
Anderson, 4-9 – Durbin frustrated over failed bank export bill, WJBC, http://wjbc.com/durbinfrustrated-over-failed-bank-export-bill/.
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is frustrated over how re-authorization for the Export Import Bank is going in Congress.
Authorization for the bank, in business since 1934, expires at the end of May. Supporters say it’s essential to financing export deals that
corporate banks deem too risky, but which American businesses find essential to making deals happen. Durbin, who supports the bank,
says something funny happened when a reauthorization bill with bipartisan sponsorship came up for a cloture vote: Republican
support evaporated . “I can’t believe that we lost the vote on the floor of the Senate for the Export Import Bank,” Durbin said. “If you
take a look at some of those on the other side of the aisle who voted against it, they’re co-sponsoring the bill!” Critics of the bank say
it favors politically connected companies and interferes with the free market. Further negotiations are taking
place. Some of the Republicans who voted against cloture have asked the Senate majority leader for another chance. U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo,
R-Egan, has introduced a bill in the House to extend authorization to 2015 and to increase the bank’s financing authority.
The GOP will CRUSH the Bank
Bellingham Herald, 4-15 – Export-Import Bank at the mercy of Congress,
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/04/15/2481780/export-import-bank-at-themercy.html#storylink=cpy.
Many conservatives are moving to put an end to the bank , saying it has done little more than reward
the companies with the best lobbyists on Capitol Hill. “Boeing spent over $12 million lobbying Congress last year and, in
return, is getting billions of dollars in Export-Import Bank financing,” Chocola said. “Congress should end the Federal Bank of Boeing and instead
promote more international trade through corporate tax reform and lower tariffs.” Republican Rep. Dave Reichert of Auburn, a member of the
House Ways and Means Committee and its trade subcommittee, said he has been urging House leaders to schedule a vote quickly on the
proposed extension. But three of Reichert’s GOP
colleagues – Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Tom McClintock of California and Jeff
Flake of Arizona – have introduced the Export-Import Bank Termination Act of 2012. It would stop the bank from
issuing any loans, loan guarantees or insurance within 30 days of enactment, and the bank would be abolished within three years.
2ac PC Not Key
PC isn’t key – Hoyer and Cantor do the bargaining and it’s about MONEY. All Obama
does is disclose details, it’s not about persuading people
Rogers, 4-24 – David, Congress close to Ex-Im Bank deal, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75574.html
House leaders showed increased confidence Tuesday of a deal soon on renewing the Export-Import Bank charter, with most attention on a
three-year framework raising the exposure cap to between $130 billion and $140 billion. In
recent days the White House has
provided new detail forecasting the bank’s lending needs into 2015. While the administration won’t
get everything it wants , House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has moved substantially from the much
tighter caps he had proposed earlier this spring. “My sense is we want to get this done,” Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
told reporters of his own negotiations with Cantor. When POLITICO asked Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) later if an Ex-Im bill agreement would
be reached, his one word answer was “Sure.” Boeing Co. and Delta Air Lines are still anxious, caught up in their own corporate brawl over
language in the draft bill that could impact the bank’s future financing for passenger aircraft sales overseas. But an April 19th White House
letter has helped clear the air at least regarding how much exposure Ex-Im will need if it is to manage the demands for new financing. “Frankly,
the more we sell, hooray for us, we are exporting goods, the more the cost will be,” Hoyer said. Indeed, the revised White House estimates
suggest that through fiscal 2015, the bank’s needs could reach $159 billion—$18 billion more than had been predicted a year ago. The short
term changes can be as important. By the end of fiscal 2012 this September 30, the bank’s exposure could be as high as $117 billion, well above
its current $100 billion cap but also above the additional $10 billion stepped-increase proposed by the Senate Banking Committee. In the talks
now, getting some short-term leeway may be as important as the 2014 and 2015 caps. And for this reason, it’s
possible to see a deal
shaping around a bill running through fiscal 2014 and raising the cap to between $130 billion – the Senate proposed
level—and the revised White House forecast of $143 billion. Hoyer steered clear of providing any
details but indicated he and Cantor are “pretty close” to an agreement, and Republicans also said that their hope is to
have legislation in place to be taken up by the House when it returns May 7 from next week’s recess.
**VAWA
UQ – 2ac
The GOP will block new provisions but even the worst case doesn’t trigger an impact
Miller, 3-16-12 – Sunlen, Politics vs. Policy: Violence Against Women Act Dustup in Senate, ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/politics-policy-violence-women-act-dustupsenate/story?id=15930290#.T2QnecCPX18.
Republican aides emphasize that their bosses are not against the Violence Against Women Act, originally
passed in 1994 and reauthorized at least twice by Congress. But the new version of the bill, they say, is a " drastic expansion "
of parts of the law as it was negotiated by the Senate Judiciary Committee this year. The disagreement has forced Republican senators into a
political corner on an issue in which they believe they're right about the policy. But their opposition to the tweaks and updates to the bill is
what has garnered much attention, especially in the context of what's been called a war on women. A
Republican aide said the
Democratic changes to the bill, "deliberately contain unserious legal provisions on issues such as immigration
designed to create the false appearance of obstruction."
UQ – 1ar
The GOP will say they were boxed in and block it
Miller, 3-16-12 – Sunlen, Politics vs. Policy: Violence Against Women Act Dustup in Senate, ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/politics-policy-violence-women-act-dustupsenate/story?id=15930290#.T2QnecCPX18.
Senate Democrats hope that Republicans can stomach the parts they don't like for the sake of the whole
bill. Republicans point the finger at Democrats for wanting to fast-track the bill through the Senate, despite
Republican objections to parts of the legislation. Rather than working to make changes, Republicans said,
Democrats want to hold the imperfect bill to a vote now, which would force Republicans to block the
bill.
There’s no impact because those objections aren’t SUBSTANTIVE – they’ll still support
VAWA but inevitably oppose on four issues
Miller, 3-16-12 – Sunlen, Politics vs. Policy: Violence Against Women Act Dustup in Senate, ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/politics-policy-violence-women-act-dustupsenate/story?id=15930290#.T2QnecCPX18.
The Act itself, first passed 18 years ago, is in its essence uncontroversial , reauthorized twice with bipartisan support each time.
The Act was last reauthorized in 2006, for five years. Republicans have problems with this year's authorization in four
areas, none of which deal directly with violence against women per se. First, there is concern that
under the new bill thousands of additional visas would be issued. A U visa is given to victims of certain crimes for
temporary legal status and work eligibility in the United States, and some believe the updated law would increase the annual number of U
visas. "Visa numbers should not be increased without also addressing the fraud and making sure the finite number of visas available go to
people that truly deserve them," a Republican aide said. Second,
Republicans fear the updated bill fails to address
immigration fraud. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard from witnesses at a July hearing about how foreign nationals prey on U.S.
citizens to get a green card. For example, witnesses explained that after saying "I do," the foreign national lodged false allegations, sometimes
of physical abuse, to get out of the marriage, collect alimony and secure a green card. Witnesses said that their side of the story was never
heard, because the U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services handles all these green card applications at one remote service center that relies
exclusively on paper; neither the the allegedly abused foreign national nor the accused citizen is interviewed. Third,
Republicans say
the reauthorization grants authority to Indian tribal courts to bring criminal cases against non-Indians
for the first time if the cases involve domestic violence. The committee has held no hearing exploring the ramifications of
such a change on law enforcement operations or the ramifications on non-Indians, so Republicans do not believe that this should be included at
this time in the reauthorization. Fourth,
Republicans say the bill does not sufficiently hold accountable grantees
of the Violence Against Women Act for taxpayer dollars. They say that the Government Accountability Office has
consistently found that the dollars are not tracked adequately enough to show results and effectiveness of the Violence Against Women Act
programs, and that the inspector general has found money has been misused to the detriment of victims. Republicans want more oversight.
But Democrats say opposing the current version of the bill is equal to opposing the bill. "It certainly shouldn't be controversial," Sen. Patty
Murray, D-Wash., said on the Senate floor. "This one shouldn't be about politics. Protecting women against violence shouldn't be a partisan
issue." Republicans
said they are not against the bill , but like any reauthorization, they want to reserve
the right to take issue with the bill's new provisions.
More evidence that VAWA will at LEAST remain AS effective as it is now
Barrett, 3-15-12 – Ted, Accusations fly in Senate over Violence Against Women Act, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/politics/senate-vawa-accusations/index.html.
" Nobody opposes the reauthorization of this legislation ," Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told
CNN. "If you follow the Judiciary Committee work on it, the questions had to do with the additions that have been made to this bill related to
illegal immigrant visas, related to the additional sums of money and grants that would be available and the like. "So
what Republicans
are focusing on is how to make a bill that should be reauthorized functional in this day and age of
significant budget constraints so we can still accomplish the goals of the legislation," Kyl continued. "I really
resent the implication by some of my Democratic friends that if you're trying to improve the bill that somehow you are for violence against
women. That's reprehensible." Asked whether the provisions about undocumented immigrants and gays and lesbians needed to be pulled from
the bill, Kyl said: "I don't know. Reasonable people ought to be able to sit down and work these things out." Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama,
accused reporters of "carrying Schumer's water," when they asked him whether he opposed the bill because it would include illegal immigrants
and gays and lesbians. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is the Democrats' top message strategist in the Senate. Republicans think it was his
idea to suddenly put VAWA on the floor, just after high-profile battles over other women's issues -- like abortion and contraception -- were in
the news. "I'm
always for the Violence Against Women bill," said Sessions who voted for a GOP alternative bill that was
defeated in the Democratic-majority Judiciary Committee. But he said every time VAWA is up for reauthorization, "if you
don't agree with everything that's in it, they just attack you as being anti-women."
Thumper – Fights Inevitable
Fights are inevitable – it’s a partisan minefield
Cordes, 3-16-12 – Nancy, Domestic violence bill suddenly controversial, CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505163_162-57398797/domestic-violence-bill-suddenly-controversial/.
Women's issues have become politically-charged on Capitol Hill, just as they have throughout the nation. Now,
the two major parties are at odds over a domestic violence bill. Democrats say Republicans are refusing to
stand by victims of domestic violence, but Republicans accuse Democrats of setting a political trap. The
Violence Against Women Act passes every five years with overwhelming support. But this year, it's in jeopardy. "Combating domestic violence
and sexual assault is an issue that we should all be able to agree on," says Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D, Minn.) Since 1994, the act has provided
federal grants for domestic violence programs and law enforcement. But this
year's version includes some new provisions,
extending domestic violence programs to same-sex couples, giving Native American tribes more
prosecution powers, and enabling some illegal immigrants who have been battered to get temporary
visas. "Is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I don't think so!" Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif.) declared on the
Senate floor. But Republicans accuse Democrats of playing politics with domestic violence. "I have cautioned my Republican colleagues not to
walk into a trap," says moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine. She supports
the bill, but says Democrats are refusing
to allow any changes to it because, she says, they want to label Republicans who vote against as soldiers
in a war on women. "Sadly," says Collins, "I think that some of my Democratic colleagues are trying to use this bill to drive a wedge
between Republicans and women voters. This should not be a partisan issue on either side." The debate comes on the heels of a controversy
over contraception fueled by comments conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh made about a Georgetown University law student
who advocated for birth control insurance coverage. "It makes her a slut, right? Limbaugh said. "It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid
to have sex. Democrats believe that fight, and clashes over Planned Parenthood and abortion, will cost the GOP with women in the fall. And
Democrats moved up the timing of the domestic violence bill to capitalize on the controversies
PC Not K – 2ac
PC isn’t key – passage is inevitable – it’s a manufactured controversy
The Hill, 3-15-12 – Grassley slams Dems for Violence Against Women Act strategy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/216301-grassley-slams-dems-for-violence-against-womenact-strategy.
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Thursday accused Senate Democrats of
rushing legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in a bid to make it appear that
Republicans oppose the bill. "The Violence Against Women Act program has strong bipartisan support
in the Senate," Grassley said. "It's a shame that the majority party is manufacturing another partisan, political
crisis, because in actuality, there is no concern that the VAWA will go away."
PC Not K – 1ar
VAWA is inevitable – their ev is just electioneering
The Hill, 3-15-12 – Grassley slams Dems for Violence Against Women Act strategy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/216301-grassley-slams-dems-for-violence-against-womenact-strategy.
Grassley released that statement just after several Senate Democrats spoke on the floor about the need to reauthorize the VAWA program.
Grassley said Republicans broadly support reauthorization but want time to assess how that's done.
"No doubt we need to consider the VAWA bill at the appropriate time, but there must be a fair process that includes consideration of our
alternative that ensures more money goes to victims rather than bureaucrats and helps root out more of the well-documented fraud in the
program," he said. "The
Republican leadership has no intention of blocking fair consideration of this bill."
Grassley also noted press reports saying that Democrats are purposefully trying to move the bill quickly in order to
create Republican opposition in order to use that opposition for campaign advertising.
PC Not K – a2 Fights
Compromise is inevitable
Lowder, 3-16-12 – J Bryan, Are Democrats in Danger of Looking Too Political on the Violence Against
Women Act? Slate,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/03/16/are_democrats_in_danger_of_looking_too_political
_on_the_violence_against_women_act_.html.
Republicans are obviously aware that their enemies will try to portray their resistance in the terms that
Feinstein describes, and I suspect they will try to work out a reasonable comprise on VAWA before too much
damage is done. But what about the Democrats? At the end of the Times piece, Senator Roy Blunt suggests that the new
champions of women may be “in serious danger of overplaying their hand,” and I actually think he has
a point. While I certainly praise the support that Democrats have displayed for women’s issues in this
election cycle, I’m starting to be turned off by the giddiness with which they’ve taken on the mantle of
lady defender. I admit that the issue of political tone is small potatoes compared to the very important programs and services at stake in
these debates, but I’m still a little uncomfortable with the unequivocal friend-or-foe rhetoric that has come to dominate this conversation.
Sure, I’m personally all for the inclusion of immigrants under the statute, but you have to admit that the Republican desire to be cautious about
the larger implications of such allowances is not the same as just “one more” wholesale attack on women. It’s simply dishonest to pretend that
there aren’t other issues involved in that kind of change, whether you agree with the opposition or not. And of course, Republicans
are
right to sense political maneuvering in the timing of this push. Democrats know they have a good
thing going with women right now, and they’re undoubtedly looking to score another blow while their
opponent is laid low. For the sake of victims of domestic violence, VAWA should be reauthorized as soon as possible, but Democrats
need to remember that we all know they’re in the midst of a tough election contest, too. Fight the good fight for women, but please, leave the
noble posturing at home.
PC Not K – a2 Vote Count
WE control vote count – not enough now but more are INEVITABLE regardless of fights
Murphy, 3-16-12 – Patricia, Senate Dems and Republicans Square Off Over New Violence Against
Women Act, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/16/senate-dems-andrepublicans-square-off-over-newviolence-against-women-act.html
Although the bill has 58 co-sponsors, including all 17 women—Democrats and Republicans—in the Senate, it is
two votes short of a 60-vote margin that would guarantee passage. Getting two more Republicans on board should
be easy enough, especially under the political circumstances. But the new version of the bill has several controversial
provisions, including language to include gay and lesbian couples , as well as illegal immigrants
bill’s protections, which could make
its goals.
in the
it impossible for some Republicans to vote for the bill, even if they support
**Random
Keysteone – 2ac Yes Pass
Keystone will pass – cooperation will win out
Geman, 4-24 – Ben, Reid draws line against Keystone, The Hill E2 Wire – Environment and Energy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223433-reid-draws-line-against-keystone,
It’s possible that Reid’s statement is a negotiating tactic . Indeed, some Democrats signaled that there could be
room for a compromise that stops well short of GOP demands for almost immediate approval of a cross-border permit
for Keystone. “It depends on what the Keystone pipeline measure is,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “If it is
scheduling and things like that, it is one thing; if it is going to ram it down people’s throats without any review, that’s a
different question,” said Whitehouse, who is not on the conference committee. “How it shakes out will be up to the conferees.” Sen. John
Kerry (D-Mass.), asked if he was confident that the final transportation bill would be free of Keystone, replied, “It depends what
shape it were to be in. “There may be a lot of people on our side who think [that], properly done, they
may find that acceptable — I can’t tell you right now where it is at,” he said.
It’ll fail or be vetoed – either way capital is irrelevant
German, 4-24 – Ben, Senate names highway bill conferees, setting up showdown on Keystone, The
Hill, Environment and Energy Wire, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223303-keystoneendgame-inches-closer-as-senate-taps-highway-bill-conferees
The Senate has selected lawmakers to negotiate with the House over transportation funding legislation, setting up the latest
election-year battle over the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. The House version of the transportation bill approves a
permit for TransCanada Corp.’s proposed pipeline to bring Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. But the Senate plan omits
the measure, ensuring a collision over the pipeline — a project that's a top GOP priority — as the House
and Senate haggle over the transportation bill. The agreement between Senate Democratic and GOP leaders creates a 14-person Senate
delegation of eight Democrats and six Republicans. All six GOP senators voted for an unsuccessful amendment to the bill in March that requires
approval of the pipeline. The measure attracted 56 votes, including 11 Democrats, when 60 were needed. Among the eight Democratic
conferees, only Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) voted for the failed Keystone amendment last month. Baucus
supports the pipeline project that is slated to carry oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota, where production is
booming. But his office hinted that Baucus is not drawing a line in the sand over the project in the conference talks. “No one is a bigger
supporter of the Keystone Pipeline than Sen. Baucus, and he is looking for every opportunity to help move the project forward. But, Sen.
Baucus will
not put more than 1 million American jobs supported by the highway bill in jeopardy unless he’s sure
whatever Keystone measure proposed has the legs to pass Congress, be signed into law, and stand up to legal
scrutiny, so we don't end up delaying the project even further by getting it tied up in the courts,” his office said in a statement. President
Obama threatened to veto the House transportation measure over inclusion of the pipeline, which the White House
contends needs more federal review before a cross-border permit can be granted. The administration in January rejected a
permit for the project. But the White House stressed that its decision was not on the “merits” but instead because Republicans had demanded
an “arbitrary” permit deadline in a late 2011 payroll tax cut bill. The administration has invited TransCanada to reapply for the cross-border
permit, which the company intends to do. Here is the whole list of Senate conferees: Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Dick
Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David
Vitter (R-La.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).
Keystone – 2ac No Pass
Reid blocks it
Geman, 4-24 – Ben, Reid draws line against Keystone, The Hill E2 Wire – Environment and Energy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223433-reid-draws-line-against-keystone,
Senate Democrats will hold firm and reject House Republican demands to include approval of the Keystone oil
pipeline in transportation funding legislation, their leader said Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he
would not in any way help Republicans move Keystone approval across the finish line. “Personally, I’m not
— I’m not one of the conferees — but personally I think Keystone is a program that we’re not going, that I am not going to help in any way I
can,” Reid told reporters. “The president feels that way. I do, too.” Reid’s
position creates more political uncertainty for
popular transportation programs and sets Senate Democrats up for a collision with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other
Republicans insisting on the project as a price for a new highway bill. Reid’s tough line on the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline was also reflected in the
lawmakers he chose Tuesday to negotiate with the House.
Baucus won’t support it
Geman, 4-24 – Ben, Reid draws line against Keystone, The Hill E2 Wire – Environment and Energy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223433-reid-draws-line-against-keystone,
Senate leaders picked eight Democrats and six Republicans, and among the Democrats’ selections, only Sen. Max Baucus
(Mont.) — who isn’t facing reelection until 2014 — has voted for requiring approval of the project to bring oil from Canadian
oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. The other seven Democrats include Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who
heads messaging for the caucus, as well as prominent liberal Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.). Baucus, in a statement
through his office, signaled Tuesday that he’s
not inclined to insist on approval of the project in the transportation bill talks.
“No one is a bigger supporter of the Keystone pipeline than Sen. Baucus, and he is looking for every opportunity to help move the project
forward. But Sen. Baucus
will not put more than 1 million American jobs supported by the highway bill in jeopardy unless
he’s sure whatever Keystone measure proposed has the legs to pass Congress, be signed into law and stand up
to legal scrutiny, so we don’t end up delaying the project even further by getting it tied up in the courts,” his office said in a statement.
Keystone is just election fodder – if it passes Obama will veto
German, 4-24 – Ben, Senate names highway bill conferees, setting up showdown on Keystone, The
Hill, Environment and Energy Wire, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223303-keystoneendgame-inches-closer-as-senate-taps-highway-bill-conferees
The Senate has selected lawmakers to negotiate with the House over transportation funding legislation, setting up the latest
election-year battle over the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. The House version of the transportation bill approves a
permit for TransCanada Corp.’s proposed pipeline to bring Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. But the Senate plan omits
the measure, ensuring a collision over the pipeline — a project that's a top GOP priority — as the House
and Senate haggle over the transportation bill. The agreement between Senate Democratic and GOP leaders creates a 14-person Senate
delegation of eight Democrats and six Republicans. All six GOP senators voted for an unsuccessful amendment to the bill in March that requires
approval of the pipeline. The measure attracted 56 votes, including 11 Democrats, when 60 were needed. Among the eight Democratic
conferees, only Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) voted for the failed Keystone amendment last month. Baucus
supports the pipeline project that is slated to carry oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota, where production is
booming. But his office hinted that Baucus is not drawing a line in the sand over the project in the conference talks. “No one is a bigger
supporter of the Keystone Pipeline than Sen. Baucus, and he is looking for every opportunity to help move the project forward. But, Sen.
Baucus will
not put more than 1 million American jobs supported by the highway bill in jeopardy unless he’s sure
whatever Keystone measure proposed has the legs to pass Congress, be signed into law, and stand up to legal
scrutiny, so we don't end up delaying the project even further by getting it tied up in the courts,” his office said in a statement. President
Obama threatened to veto
the House transportation measure over inclusion of the pipeline,
which the White House
contends needs more federal review before a cross-border permit can be granted. The administration in January rejected a
permit for the project. But the White House stressed that its decision was not on the “merits” but instead because Republicans had demanded
an “arbitrary” permit deadline in a late 2011 payroll tax cut bill. The administration has invited TransCanada to reapply for the cross-border
permit, which the company intends to do. Here is the whole list of Senate conferees: Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Dick
Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David
Vitter (R-La.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).
Farm Bil – 2ac PC not K
The Farm Bill isn’t partisan – Obama and the GOP agree. It’s REGIONAL – both sides
have to get the South on board
Rogers, 4-23 – Delay sought on farm bill, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75515.html
A draft Senate farm bill would save $26.4 billion over the next 10 years, but it faces resistance from
Southern commodity interests who are pressing for a delay in Wednesday’s markup before the Senate Agriculture
Committee. The new cost estimates, released late Monday by the Congressional Budget Office, offer the most complete assessment yet of the
900-page measure that seeks to end the current system of direct cash payments to growers and reinvest more in new forms of crop insurance.
Within the commodity title itself, about $50.2 billion would be saved by repealing current subsidies, chiefly the cash payments. From these
savings, $28.8 billion would be re-invested in a new revenue insurance program that would give farmers added protection against “shallow
losses” —not covered now by traditional crop insurance. The new approach is most popular in the Midwest Corn Belt, and Southern cotton and
peanuts have been promised concessions in the process. But there is still Southern regional sympathy with rice growers, who are put at a
decided disadvantage and who had been banking on some relief through a more traditional system of target prices and supports. Because of its
high capital costs, rice has relied most heavily of the direct cash subsidies and will lose as much as $3 billion from the proposed change in
commodity payments. At the same time, rice has been reluctant to jump into crop insurance, since the crop is grown in flooded paddies not
vulnerable to drought. Indeed, an earlier draft farm bill embraced by top House and Senate lawmakers last November had included targeted
prices — to help rice initially. But when other crops jumped in with demands of their own, lawmakers became concerned about distortions
disrupting markets and crop growing decisions. The new draft rolled out last Friday by the Senate Agriculture Committee leadership included no
target price language. If ever there were an example of elections having consequences, this is one. Prior to 2010, when she lost her seat, Sen.
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) chaired the same Senate Agriculture panel and as a rice farmer’s daughter, she would never have permitted the
current situation. Both
the White House and House GOP leadership want still more savings from farm
programs, and one battleground will be the level of premium subsidies provided for crop insurance.
CBO’s baseline cost projections already assume some increase reflecting the higher value of commodity prices. And the draft bill would add
$3.2 billion in spending for crop insurance, chiefly for a new program tailored to cotton. Conservation programs account for $6.4 billion in
savings and just $4.3 billion would come from nutrition programs. Put another way, if the commodity and crop insurance titles of the bill are
treated together, their net savings are $16.2 billion — or more than 60 percent of the reductions altogether.
___***THUMPERS – AFF***___
2acs
NASA Fights/Link UQ 2ac**
New NASA budget triggers the link
Roop, 4-19-12 - Lee, "NASA 2013 budget looks similar in early Senate, House action," The Huntsville
Times, http://blog.al.com/space-news/2012/04/nasa_2013_budget_looks_similar.html
If the U.S. House and Senate are going to fight over federal spending for 2013, it doesn't look like NASA will be the reason. Budgets
for fiscal year 2013 proposed this week on both sides of the Capitol are close on NASA, and both sides seem poised to
spend more
on the new rocket being developed at Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center than the White House proposed. In the
House, the Appropriations Committee released a proposed $17.6 billion NASA budget Wednesday, which is $226 million below this year's
budget and $138 million below what the White House requested. In the Senate, the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee of the
Senate Appropriations Committee passed a $19.4 billion NASA appropriations bill Tuesday, but $1.6 billion of that was to fund the transfer of
weather satellite procurement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to NASA. Without that appropriation, the Senate
panel funds NASA at $17.8 billion next year, very close to the House figure of $17.6 billion. The
Senate bill gives NASA $ 1.5
billion next year for the heavy-lift rocket part of what NASA is calling the S pace L aunch S ystem. That rocket is being
designed and developed by Marshall Space Flight Center. The House bill, which goes before a subcommittee today, proposes $1.45
billion for the new rocket. The White House wanted $1.3 billion for the new rocket program next year and more
money for commercial space development. Commercial crew development, an ongoing issue between Congress
and the Obama administration , is funded at $525 million in the Senate bill. That's $119 million more than this
year's $406 million, but less than the $830 million the White House wanted. The breakout for commercial crew in the House bill was not
immediately clear. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, a member of the Senate subcommittee, praised the panel's action. "This year's
Senate CJS bill provides almost $1.5 billion for SLS vehicle development," Shelby said in a statement Wednesday. "Although that amount is
slightly less than was appropriated last year and significantly less than Congress has authorized, it still represents
a much-needed
increase over the administration's inadequate request. I applaud this subcommittee for rising above and beyond to
preserve NASA's historic role as the global leader in space exploration."
It’s a long and bitter fight
Mann, '12 -- Adam, "The New Year in Space: NASA’s Missions and Events in 2012," Wired, 1-5,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/nasa-2012/?pid=2852&pageid=91306&viewall=true.
There will be much anxiety leading up to the release of President Obama’s proposed federal budget for the 2013
fiscal year, expected during the 2nd week of February. The budget proposal will suggest how much funding NASA should receive in 2013 and
beyond. Over the year, these
numbers will be subject to a long and bitter debate process in Congress, which
has been looking for ways to slash expenditures in recent years. If 2013 funding is anything like the last couple years, NASA
may have to do more and more with less and less. Of high importance will be the details of funding the James Webb Space Telescope, the
next generation space-based scientific instrument set to replace the aging Hubble Space Telescope. Already costing far beyond its initial
proposed budget, JWST
drew the wrath of members of the House of Representatives, who voted to cancel its funding last
year. The final version of the 2012 budget bill eventually included funds for JWST, though it came with the stipulation that NASA take the
needed money out of other programs. The president's budget proposal might give some clues as to how this allocation will be made. NASA
officials are also looking to the 2013 budget before making a final decision on how much they can contribute to
future Mars missions. The agency currently has a deal with the European Space Agency to conduct two joint missions to the Red Planet
–- one in 2016 and another in 2018 -– though the agency’s fiscal problems have made it increasingly unlikely that NASA will be able to honor its
commitments. ESA may turn to the Russian space agency to complete both missions, though Russia has had a poor track record thus far with
Mars missions. Shortly after the president’s budget announcement, NASA is expected to hold Senior Review
processes to decide
whether or not to continue funding many of its current missions. This may be particularly painful in the
agency’s Planetary Science division, which is expected to see flat or declining budgets over the next several years. Officials may have to
choose between the scientific return on several ongoing missions, including the Cassini spacecraft, Opportunity Mars rover, and
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Multi-Issue 2ac
Controversial votes coming and Obama will aggressively and immediately push
Raju and Brown, 4-23 – Senate Democrats carry President Obama’s water, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75511.html
Next month, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation aimed at preventing millions of college students
from seeing their interest rates double, just as Obama is campaigning at universities in battleground states such as North
Carolina, Colorado and Iowa. Just as the Senate prepares to hold a vote updating the 1994
V iolence A gainst W omen A ct, Vice President Joe Biden last week called for Congress to reauthorize the law and
touted his role in its initial enactment — dovetailing
with the aggressive push by the Obama campaign to woo
women voters. Soon, Democrats will tee up a vote on gender pay equity — and that comes after Reid and his Democratic lieutenants vigorously
attacked a GOP amendment targeting Obama’s contraception mandate. And if the Supreme Court upholds the tough Arizona immigration law,
Schumer plans to announce Tuesday that he will propose legislation targeting the state law — a move that could revive an emotional debate
this summer just as the president redoubles his effort to court Hispanic voters. The latest effort comes as Republicans in Congress are
taking a similar tack. Coordination between GOP leadership and the Romney campaign is beginning to intensify — as the Republicancontrolled House plots an election-year agenda spotlighting the economic problems under Obama. It’s the latest sign that the window for
significant legislation to pass through Congress is rapidly closing for the year — as both sides are far more eager to
make the other look out of touch rather than cut deals that could muddy the political waters. A senior administration official said there are
longer-term goals to the effort, singling out the Buffett rule in particular. “We have to start somewhere, in terms of making progress overall on
a broader budget package,” and that is by convincing Republicans to accept new revenues, the official said. “If you do a lot of campaigning
around the Buffett rule, you come back in 2013, it is sort of an established thing — the public really supports it, now what else can you do?” The
bolstered communication between Senate Democrats and Obama’s team began in September, following the summer’s debt ceiling debacle and
the president’s failed effort to cut a major deficit-cutting deal with House Speaker John Boehner — an effort that infuriated Democrats in the
Senate. Obama shifted his rhetoric from blanket finger-pointing at Congress for the country’s ills, which annoyed Democrats, and instead began
to more directly blame Hill Republicans. After Obama unveiled his $447 billion American Jobs Act, Reid began to schedule votes on individual
pieces of Obama’s jobs plan, just as the president began to ramp up his campaign against GOP opposition to his proposal. “We
are
always trying to advance our agenda. We are always trying to convince them to be supportive of our
agenda,” the senior administration official said. And part of the improving relations has to do with personnel. Former White House
chief of staff Bill Daley had a rocky relationship with Reid, with Senate Democrats often privately griping that the president’s top aide would
work far more closely with Boehner and the House GOP majority than with the leadership from the president’s own party. But after Daley’s
departure earlier this year, the White House has delegated much of its Hill outreach to Rob Nabors, the White House’s legislative affairs
director. Nabors, along with another White House liaison to the Hill, Pete Rouse, has trusted relationships with senior Democrats from their
years serving as aides on Capitol Hill. And Senate Democrats have a far more collegial relationship with Jacob Lew, the White House chief staff,
than they did with Daley. The
process hasn’t
all
been smooth . Last fall, the Obama administration launched its “We Can’t Wait”
campaign to show that it can act without Congress. But Democrats on the Hill barely paid attention to the effort, and each administrative action
often failed to garner much attention beyond the Beltway. But both sides realize it makes more sense to espouse the same rhetoric. The latest
legislative push begins this week as Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) plans to unveil a bill to stave off an interest rate increase on July 1 from 3.4
percent to 6.8 percent for millions of young voters with student loans. The White House is pushing for a one-year extension of the interest rate,
but Democrats on the Hill are grappling with how to pay for its $6 billion price tag.
Keystone 2ac
Big battles over keystone requiring an Obama veto are inevitable
German, 4-24 – Ben, Senate names highway bill conferees, setting up showdown on Keystone, The
Hill, Environment and Energy Wire, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223303-keystoneendgame-inches-closer-as-senate-taps-highway-bill-conferees
The Senate has selected lawmakers to negotiate with the House over transportation funding legislation, setting up the latest
election-year battle over the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. The House version of the transportation bill approves a
permit for TransCanada Corp.’s proposed pipeline to bring Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. But the Senate plan omits
the measure, ensuring a collision over the pipeline — a project that's a top GOP priority — as the House
and Senate haggle over the transportation bill. The agreement between Senate Democratic and GOP leaders creates a 14-person Senate
delegation of eight Democrats and six Republicans. All six GOP senators voted for an unsuccessful amendment to the bill in March that requires
approval of the pipeline. The measure attracted 56 votes, including 11 Democrats, when 60 were needed. Among the eight Democratic
conferees, only Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) voted for the failed Keystone amendment last month. Baucus
supports the pipeline project that is slated to carry oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota, where production is
booming. But his office hinted that Baucus is not drawing a line in the sand over the project in the conference talks. “No one is a bigger
supporter of the Keystone Pipeline than Sen. Baucus, and he is looking for every opportunity to help move the project forward. But, Sen.
Baucus will
not put more than 1 million American jobs supported by the highway bill in jeopardy unless he’s sure
whatever Keystone measure proposed has the legs to pass Congress, be signed into law, and stand up to legal
scrutiny, so we don't end up delaying the project even further by getting it tied up in the courts,” his office said in a statement. President
Obama threatened to veto the House transportation measure over inclusion of the pipeline, which the White House
contends needs more federal review before a cross-border permit can be granted. The administration in January rejected a
permit for the project. But the White House stressed that its decision was not on the “merits” but instead because Republicans had demanded
an “arbitrary” permit deadline in a late 2011 payroll tax cut bill. The administration has invited TransCanada to reapply for the cross-border
permit, which the company intends to do. Here is the whole list of Senate conferees: Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Dick
Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David
Vitter (R-La.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).
Veto threats require TONS of capital to sustain
Slezak, ’10 – Nicole, Professor of Political Science at University of California, “The Presidential Veto: A
Strategic Asset” http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Vater/Slezak.pdf
Spitzer states that the veto is the “key presidential weapon,”13 and I suggest that it offers him a strategy
to take both the defensive and the offensive against an often divided and combative Congress. The
president takes the defensive by waiting for legislation to be sent to him from Congress and then vetoing legislation that is unacceptable and
offensive to his administration’s goals. The veto is a way for the president to “go public” and to show his dislike for the legislation through his
veto message. In addition, he can prove to Congress that unless they amend the legislation in accordance with his suggestions, he will not pass
the bills that they send him. Gattuso speaks on this matter by stating, “The veto, moreover, is a very effective device for grabbing the public’s
attention and focusing it on the President’s struggle to pursue policies on behalf of all the people and against special interests. A veto message
may be a President’s most effective bully pulpit.”14 However, the veto is more than a tool to block, and the
president may also take
the offensive by using the veto threat. Aside from the conventional use of the veto (blocking legislation from passing), it can
also be used in this more subtle and less potentially damaging way. The veto threat is a special tool that allows the president to warn Congress
of a veto before the legislation is even presented to him. The
and which
veto threat stems from the power that the veto has built over the centuries
relies heavily on a president’s possession of political capital. If the president is in the fourth year of his
term, when
Congress is
most
likely to be confrontational , the president should not use the veto threat as often as he did in
the first year of his term. This is due to the fact that when a president enters office he is riding on the mandate of his election and has a large
amount of political capital to spend. This is why Spitzer warns that, “like
a veto itself, a threat applied too often loses its
potency, and a threat not considered credible is not a threat at all.”15
Oil Speculators – 2ac
Obama is pushing to end oil speculation and battling Congress
Snow, 4-23 – Nick, Obama wants stronger steps to curb oil price speculation, Oil & Gas Journal,
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-4c/general-interest/obama-wants-stronger-steps.html
US President Barack Obama called for more aggressive measures to prevent oil-market manipulation,
pledging stronger action by his administration and calling on Congress to fund enforcement and increase
penalties for violators. "We can't afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception
of a shortage, and driving prices higher—only to flip the oil for a quick profit," he declared. Obama said he has already asked US Atty. Gen.
Eric H. Holder Jr. to work with Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary G.
Gensler, and other federal regulatory agency chiefs "to make sure that acts of manipulation, fraud, or other illegal activity are not behind
increases in the price that consumers pay at the pump." He also
asked Congress to provide immediate funding "to put
more cops on the beat" and upgrade technology so federal market oversight keeps pace with traders.
Penalties should increase tenfold and apply not just to each violation but for every day that the violation occurs, he maintained. The president
also asked lawmakers to give the agency overseeing oil markets authority to reduce volatility and decrease speculation by requiring traders to
post appropriate margins, "which simply means that they actually have the money to make good on their trades."
Farm Bill – 2ac
Farm bill triggers the link – it causes a big spending fight over subsidies
Rogers, 4-23 – Delay sought on farm bill, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75515.html
A draft Senate farm bill would save $26.4 billion over the next 10 years, but it faces resistance from
Southern commodity interests who are pressing for a delay in Wednesday’s markup before the Senate Agriculture
Committee. The new cost estimates, released late Monday by the Congressional Budget Office, offer the most complete assessment yet of the
900-page measure that seeks to end the current system of direct cash payments to growers and reinvest more in new forms of crop insurance.
Within the commodity title itself, about $50.2 billion would be saved by repealing current subsidies, chiefly the cash payments. From these
savings, $28.8 billion would be re-invested in a new revenue insurance program that would give farmers added protection against “shallow
losses” —not covered now by traditional crop insurance. The new approach is most popular in the Midwest Corn Belt, and Southern cotton and
peanuts have been promised concessions in the process. But there is still Southern regional sympathy with rice growers, who are put at a
decided disadvantage and who had been banking on some relief through a more traditional system of target prices and supports. Because of its
high capital costs, rice has relied most heavily of the direct cash subsidies and will lose as much as $3 billion from the proposed change in
commodity payments. At the same time, rice has been reluctant to jump into crop insurance, since the crop is grown in flooded paddies not
vulnerable to drought. Indeed, an earlier draft farm bill embraced by top House and Senate lawmakers last November had included targeted
prices — to help rice initially. But when other crops jumped in with demands of their own, lawmakers became concerned about distortions
disrupting markets and crop growing decisions. The new draft rolled out last Friday by the Senate Agriculture Committee leadership included no
target price language. If ever there were an example of elections having consequences, this is one. Prior to 2010, when she lost her seat, Sen.
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) chaired the same Senate Agriculture panel and as a rice farmer’s daughter, she would never have permitted the
current situation. Both
the White House and House GOP leadership want still more savings from farm
programs, and one battleground will be the level of premium subsidies provided for crop insurance.
CBO’s baseline cost projections already assume some increase reflecting the higher value of commodity prices. And the draft bill would add
$3.2 billion in spending for crop insurance, chiefly for a new program tailored to cotton. Conservation programs account for $6.4 billion in
savings and just $4.3 billion would come from nutrition programs. Put another way, if the commodity and crop insurance titles of the bill are
treated together, their net savings are $16.2 billion — or more than 60 percent of the reductions altogether.
PC Low – 2ac
Obama’s PC is crashing – we control RECENCY and MOMETUM
Haberman, 3-12-12 – Maggie, POLITICO, CBS/NYT poll: Obama's approval ratings upside-down, hits
new low, http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/cbsnyt-poll-obamas-approvalratings-upsidedown-117211.html.
The CBS/NYTimes poll shows President Obama's approval rating underwater, having taken a dive in
recent weeks: At a time of rising gas prices, heightened talk of war with Iran and setbacks in Afghanistan, Mr.
Obama’s approval rating dropped substantially in recent weeks, the poll found, with 41 percent of respondents
expressing approval of the job he is doing and 47 percent saying they disapprove — a dangerous position for any incumbent seeking reelection. The
poll provides a statistical reminder of how unsettled and unpredictable this year’s political
landscape remains. Just one month ago, Mr. Obama reached a critical benchmark by winning approval from 50 percent of Times/CBS
News poll respondents, his re-election prospects lifting along with confidence that the nation was finally emerging from the aftermath of the
Great Recession.
No Push – 2ac**
Obama won’t spend PC on agenda – he’s all-in for re-election
Priebus, 3-1-12 – Reince Priebus is the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Fundraising:
Obama’s real priority, POLITCO, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73481.html.
It’s a big night Thursday for President Barack Obama. In New York, he will hold his 100th fundraiser since declaring
reelection — his 33rd this year alone. Let’s put that in perspective. On average, one can reasonably say attending a fundraiser takes two
hours out of the president’s schedule. So, in total, the president has likely spent at least 200 hours, or five standard workweeks, filling his
campaign coffers since April. Five workweeks away from the office is lot of time for anyone, but especially a sitting president presiding over a
difficult economy, a jobs crisis, reckless spending and high energy prices. So what
could Obama have done with the time he
could have met with congressional Republicans to find common
ground on legislation to expand the economy. Or he could have worked with the Senate to help them pass the 28
bipartisan jobs bills that House Republicans have sent them. Perhaps he could have crafted a responsible budget — instead of one that
raises taxes and increases spending. Or maybe he could have worked on a comprehensive energy policy, like he promised in 2008. But
Obama has his priorities— and reelection comes first . Even with all these fundraisers, Obama is not raising money as
was hobnobbing with wealthy donors? He
quickly as he did in 2008. Since it costs a lot to paper over a record of failure, he has to fundraise at an even faster pace. At the same point in his
reelection campaign, President George W. Bush had attended 56 fundraisers, compared with Obama’s 100. It’s not
just fundraising
that’s keeping the president away from the Oval Office, though. He’s got campaigning to do too.
Officially, however, it’s not campaigning. It’s billed as “official business” — so taxpayers foot the bill. But the purpose of the events is pretty
clear. On Tuesday, for example, the president spoke to the United Auto Workers union. It was “official business” and supposedly not partisan.
The president’s speech, though, was filled with campaign rhetoric, and the audience broke into chants of “four more years.” How is that the
people’s business? Most fundraising trips are also preceded by similar speeches. An ABC News report called the practice “presidential
piggybacking.” As the Tampa Bay Times noted, “the president’s official events have been hard to distinguish from campaign events.” Before
attending three fundraisers in Florida last week, the president gave a speech on energy, which featured many of the same themes he
campaigned on in 2008. Today, before Obama hits up New York for four separate fundraisers, he’ll give another speech in New Hampshire. It’s
funny how the speeches keep happening in battleground states. Here’s the bottom line: This
president is more dedicated to
saving his job than doing his job. He loves the thrill of the campaign but avoids the difficulties of
governing .
Jackson-Vanik – 2ac
Jackson-Vanik is Obama’s TOP priority but he has to fight GOP conditions
Wasson, 3-21 – Ros-Lehtinen wants strings attached to Russia trade bill, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/217297-ros-lehtinen-wants-strings-attached-torussia-trade-bill
The Obama administration's top trade priority for 2012 hit another stumbling block on Wednesday when the
House GOP's international relations point person demanded that strings be attached to a Russia trade bill.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told a hearing that Congress should not lift restrictions on trade
with Russia, by lifting the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, without "first holding Moscow accountable for actions that run contrary to U.S.
national security interests and to such foreign policy priorities as the promotion of human rights and democracy." Russia will be joining the
World Trade Organization this summer, and the administration argues that failure to lift Jackson-Vanik will only hurt U.S. exporters. Russia will
join the WTO with or without congressional approval. Ros-Lehtinen said WTO membership was a gift from the United States to a humanrights violator. “The most recent gift was U.S. approval last December of Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization, including pressuring
our ally Georgia to go along despite the fact that Russia continues to occupy its territory. Russia’s entry into the WTO, with U.S. support, is
astounding given Russia continues to be one of the biggest violators of intellectual property rights, robbing U.S. citizens and companies of
billions of dollars every year," she added. She said
Jackson-Vanik "has long been a symbol of U.S. commitment to
human rights and democracy in Russia." "Removing Russia from its provisions would be interpreted in Moscow and elsewhere
as a seal of approval from the U.S. Congress, even as the human-rights situation in Russia continues to deteriorate," she added. Sen. Jon Kyl
(R-Ariz.) said this month that he, too, wants conditions attached to the Russia trade bill.
Requires Obama’s personal lobbying
Kortoun, 4-4 – Lada, Jackson-Vanik amendment may be gone by summer,
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_04/Cold-War-law-russian-trade-world-trade/
The issue has been on the US agenda for the last 20 years and now it seems to be vanishing forever. As Russia has entered the WTO (it will be a
full-fledged member by July) the US is to provide the country with permanent and normal trade relations. US business also urged Congress to
remove the amendment that weakens its positions in Russia’s market compared to European companies. Margelov is optimistic as US President
Barack Obama
supports the abolition of the amendment. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, Obama’s
Administration is indeed lobbying the issue in Congress and is doing it seriously and professionally. Business is
also involved. Repealing the amendment would show that the reset of bilateral relations is more than a metaphor and means something. (end)
Buffett Rule – 2ac
Buffett Rule fight is ongoing – both parties want to continue it
Bendavid, 4-16 – Naftali, 'Buffett Rule' Tax Plan Fails in a Senate Test Vote , WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348221678464912.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj.
Together, the moves show that both parties are eager to use tax policy to advance their arguments
ahead of the fall election, with both shaping easy-to-understand proposals that the other side derides as simplistic and
ineffective.Democratic Senate candidates have seized on the issue, including Rep. Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin and Bob Kerrey
in Nebraska. The Democratic Party bought ads on Facebook and Google urging passage of the Buffett Rule and has started an online petition.
Tim Kaine,
a former Virginia governor locked in a tight race for Senate, told a Charlottesville radio station he favors the Buffett
Rule but added, "I do question a little bit the priority of doing this right now," given the other issues
Congress faces . The push for the measure began when Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, began saying publicly that he pays a
lower tax rate than his secretary, a sign that the tax code has "coddled'' the very wealthy. There are many ways to slice the argument that
millionaires pay lower taxes than the middle class. Republicans cite a Joint Committee on Taxation report last September, which found that
some 0.2% of households made more than $1 million in 2011 but paid 22.5% of all individual income taxes. A White House report released last
week said 1,470 families making more than $1 million a year paid no federal income taxes at all. Republicans say it is a bad idea to raise taxes
on investors and job creators, especially in a fragile economy. They note that the $47 billion that would be raised by the Buffett Rule over the
next decade amounts to less than 1% of the deficits projected to accrue over those years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.)
attacked Mr. Obama for promoting the measure, saying it was a distraction from more pressing matters, such as a broad tax
overhaul.
Buffett Rule is a big, top of the docket fight that drains Obama’s PC
Kim 4-9 – Seung Min, award-winning POLITICO journalist, “Buffett rule: Democrats step up support,”
POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74964.html.
Democrats are going to make sure you hear a lot about the Buffett Rule this week. The Obama campaign and
key Hill Democrats launched a weeklong offensive
Monday
to drum up support
for the Buffett Rule, which would
ensure taxpayers earning more than $1 million pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. Not surprisingly, Democrats are taking multiple
shots at Mitt Romney. “It all goes back to one simple question: Why should Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than average Americans?” said
Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager, on a conference call Monday. “That’s what this Buffett Rule is about.” Romney’s
tax returns show that he has paid less than 15 percent for his marginal tax rate because his earnings are from investment income that is not
taxed like regular income. The Buffett Rule is named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who has argued that he should be paying more of his
share in taxes since his secretary has a higher marginal tax rate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has
teed up a
procedural vote on the Buffett Rule — which would ensure taxpayers earning in excess of $1 million are paying an effective 30 percent
tax rate — for April 16, the first day back in Washington for Congress after a two-week recess, and the day before the
annual tax deadline. It’s sure to go nowhere, but Senate leaders have vowed to bring up the measure repeatedly before November to
ensure the issue stays front and center. “It’s an opportunity for senators from both political parties to stand up for tax fairness,” said Illinois
Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “Are we going to allow the GOP and Mitt Romney to take us back to the days where the
decks were stacked against the middle class?” said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who’s angling for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin and has
sponsored the Buffett Rule in the House. “As we recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It’s time we understand
that it’s going to take shared sacrifice and shared responsibility.” Obama
will travel to Florida on Tuesday to push for the
Buffett Rule, while Vice President Joe Biden will hit New Hampshire on a campaign swing Thursday to deliver a speech on
“tax fairness.” The Obama campaign has also launched a website highlighting the Buffett Rule. Implementing the
Buffett Rule would raise about $46.7 billion over a decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation — a miniscule revenue-raiser for a
government that’s run trillion-dollar deficits for four consecutive years. Republicans
have dismissed the Democrats’
maneuvers on the Buffett Rule as a show-vote that will lead nowhere and do little to ease the federal deficit and boost the economy.
“This is yet another proposal from Democrats that won’t create a single job or lower the price at the pump by a penny, but may have the
opposite effect,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement last week.
Its WASTED capital, not a win – try or die for the plan
The Hill, 4-2 – Strategy 101: Obama, taxes, and political fault lines, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/politics/219485-strategy-101-obama-taxes-and-political-fault-lines
Obama’s tax increase calls capped a week filled with unwelcome news about another form of tax rate – corporate
tax. The United States now leads the developed world with the highest corporate tax rate, overtaking Japan just on Sunday. On this
backdrop and amid a slow recovery, one must wonder why Obama is pushing for higher tax rates and
expending political capital that is unlikely to yield any legislative return .
1ars
NASA Fights/Link UQ 1ar
Fights over NASA are inevitable – Roop says big increases to SLS and commercial space
development are coming that cause fights between Obama and Congress. Mann says
that provokes quote "a long and bitter debate in Congress" and will balloon to include
Mars exploration and agency restructuring which quote "draw wrath" and are
"particularly painful"
NASA funding and fights are inevitable
Mann, '12 -- Adam, "The New Year in Space: NASA’s Missions and Events in 2012," Wired, 1-5,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/nasa-2012/?pid=2852&pageid=91306&viewall=true.
While the future is unknown and unknowable, bureaucratic agencies such as NASA like to have their agendas set
far in advance. This means that we can look forward to a great deal of exciting events in the coming year. Along
with the regular suite of expected launches, NASA will be undertaking a number of exciting new missions, likely making
some incredible discoveries, and wrestling with potential problems both within the agency and without. Here,
Wired takes a look at some of the most important missions and milestones happening in space in 2012.
Radiation studies increases are inevitable
Mann, '12 -- Adam, "The New Year in Space: NASA’s Missions and Events in 2012," Wired, 1-5,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/nasa-2012/?pid=2852&pageid=91306&viewall=true.
NASA will launch several new missions to better understand radiation and charged particles in the universe. The
Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) is scheduled for launch on March 16. NuSTAR will scan the night sky for high
energy x-rays, building on and seeing at higher ranges than previous x-ray telescopes such as Chandra. It will help astronomers answer many
questions about the universe and look for supernova remnants, black holes a billion times the mass of the sun, and subatomic particles
accelerated to nearly the speed of light. In
August, the agency will launch the Radiation Belt Storm Probes, to study
how the sun influences the Earth and its radiation belts. And December will see the launch of the
Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), a probe that will look at the solar wind and corona.
Multi-Issue 1ar (Top)
Controversial votes requiring Obama’s push are inevitable – Raju and Brown say he’s
investing political capital in student loans and VAWA – he’ll publically exert TONS of
energy on these issues because they affect key electoral constituencies
>>Insert either extension in the headers immediately below – VAWA or Student Loans
Multi-Issue 1ar (VAWA)
( ___ ) They dropped our VAWA warrant – no new 2nr answers – triggers the link
because:
a. Super controversial and requires tons of GOP arm-bending
Murphy, 3-16-12 – Patricia, Senate Dems and Republicans Square Off Over New Violence Against
Women Act, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/16/senate-dems-andrepublicans-square-off-over-newviolence-against-women-act.html
Although the bill has 58 co-sponsors, including all 17 women—Democrats and Republicans—in the Senate, it is
two votes short of a 60-vote margin that would guarantee passage. Getting two more Republicans on board should
be easy enough, especially under the political circumstances. But the new version of the bill has several controversial
provisions, including language to include gay and lesbian couples , as well as illegal immigrants
bill’s protections, which could make
in the
it impossible for some Republicans to vote for the bill, even if they support
its goals.
b. The GOP will drag it out – they don’t want to rush a vote
Miller, 3-16-12 – Sunlen, Politics vs. Policy: Violence Against Women Act Dustup in Senate, ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/politics-policy-violence-women-act-dustupsenate/story?id=15930290#.T2QnecCPX18.
Senate Democrats hope that Republicans can stomach the parts they don't like for the sake of the whole
bill. Republicans point the finger at Democrats for wanting to fast-track the bill through the Senate, despite
Republican objections to parts of the legislation. Rather than working to make changes, Republicans said,
Democrats want to hold the imperfect bill to a vote now, which would force Republicans to block the
bill.
c. Top of the docket
Strauss, 4-23 – Daniel (presumably way less cool than the one from Whitman), “Cornyn: Dems trying
to 'score cheap political points' with Violence Against Women Act,” The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/223023-sen-cornyn-dems-trying-to-score-cheap-politicalpoints-with-violence-against-women-act
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) accused Democrats of trying to " score cheap political points " with the reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, Cornyn wrote that some members
of the Senate
are turning the reauthorization of the legislation, S. 1925, into " partisan football " and trying to use it to raise campaign
funds. The
Senate plans to take up the bill right after it finishes work on a bill to reform the United States Postal
Service. Democrats are hoping to take advantage of the reauthorization to hammer Republicans on women's issues and paint Senate
Republicans as waging a "war on women." Republicans are likely to vote against Democrats' reauthorization measure because of provisions
included in it that extend special visas for illegal immigrants who are victims of abuse. It also extends protections to same-sex marriages. "This
is shameful. The law was enacted to protect and serve the interests of crime victims, not to help a political party fire up its base," Cornyn wrote
in the op-ed. "Moreover, to argue that a minor policy disagreement indicates a lack of sensitivity toward battered women is simply beyond the
pale." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) are
working on an alternative version of the bill that would appeal to Republicans. Hutchison and Grassley maintain that their version addresses
some flaws in the Democratic version, such as how it would affect government spending, in addition to the parts on immigration. "The
overwhelming majority of Republicans believe it should be reauthorized, and I have cosponsored legislation to do just that," Cornyn wrote.
"Our bill contains some commonsense proposals that would bolster VAWA and also remove a series of controversial provisions from the
Democratic alternative." But Cornyn said Democrats' opposition to the GOP version makes it unlikely to become law. So Cornyn is proposing an
amendment to the Democrats' bill that would increase funding for rape kits, add to penalties for domestic violence and sexual abuse and aid
law enforcement in capturing sex offenders. "The Justice for Victims Amendment would go a long way toward alleviating the rape-kit backlog,
giving victims the justice they deserve and keeping dangerous criminals off the streets. It would not add to the federal budget deficit, but it
would add to the tools that law enforcement can use to protect ordinary citizens," Cornyn wrote. Cornyn wrote that there won't be any kind of
compromise on improving the VAWA until Democrats stop seeking to use the legislation to gain a political advantage. "Congress has an
opportunity to make VAWA stronger and more effective. But we
won't be able to produce a genuine bipartisan
agreement until Democrats stop exploiting the issue for political gain. The American people deserve results, not reckless demagoguery."
( ____ ) Even if SENATE GOP gives up the HOUSE will still fight it
Bolton, 4-25 – Alex, GOP concedes on domestic violence bill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/223529-gop-concedes-on-domestic-violence-bill
Senate Republicans, seeking to avoid a public policy dispute with Mitt Romney, will let legislation on domestic violence pass
the upper chamber despite having concerns about its constitutionality. They will let House Republicans battle with
Democrats over controversial language expanding special visas to illegal immigrants seeking protection from
abuse, a provision specifically naming same-sex partners as eligible for domestic violence programs and
another empowering American-Indian tribal authorities to prosecute abuses alleged to have happened on their
reservations. GOP leadership officials say they will not take the election-year bait laid out by Democrats and block the bill, which would
give President Obama and his allies more ammunition to argue that the Republican Party is waging a “war on women.” Senate Republicans lost
political leverage last week when Romney’s campaign said the candidate supported the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He
stopped short of endorsing the bill Democrats crafted, however. Republicans are pushing for an alternative version of the bill sponsored by
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that does not include the contentious items, and will likely demand votes on
amendments to strip them from the Democratic legislation. But with only 47 members, Senate Republicans lack the votes to rewrite the bill.
That gives Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputies two choices: block it or let it go through. All Republicans on the
Judiciary Committee opposed the reauthorization bill when it was approved by the panel on Feb. 2. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of the
Judiciary Committee, said he was “really taken back by some of the changes in laws dealing with Indian reservations,” calling it “unacceptable
and very bad policy.” A Republican aide cited a Congressional Research Service report that warned expanding the prosecutorial power of tribal
authorities could violate constitutional guarantees on due process and double jeopardy. Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), chairman of the National
Republican Senatorial Committee and a member of the Judiciary panel, said the bill would pass despite his colleagues’ concerns. “I think you’ll
see bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women reauthorization,” he said. “I have every confidence it will be passed.” Asked whether
Republicans would thwart the bill if they failed to remove the contentious language, Cornyn said: “We have a bicameral process whereby those
things will get worked out, hopefully in the conference committee.” Cornyn said he would not vote to bottle it up in the Senate. “I don’t expect
there will be a problem,” he said. Eight Senate Republicans have co-sponsored the Democratic legislation, including Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.),
Mike Crapo (Idaho), Scott Brown (Mass.), Dean Heller (Nev.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). House
Republicans plan to move their
own version of the bill that presumably would not include the proposals related to immigrants, gay couples and
Indian reservations. House leaders have met with female lawmakers to discuss legislative strategy and plan to announce a path forward soon,
according to GOP aides.
Multi-Issue 1ar (Student Loans)
( ___ ) They dropped our student loans warrant – no new 2nr answers – triggers the
link because:
It causes a HUGE partisan battle that requires Obama to push and fight
Dennis, 4-25 – Steven, Obama Gains Traction With Student Loan Offensive, Roll Call,
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_127/President-Barack-Obama-Gains-Traction-With-Student-LoanOffensive-214057-1.html
As with the payroll tax cut extension last year, Obama appears to have picked his issue , defined the stakes and successfully
backed the GOP into a corner on a popular expiring provision. The strategy again appears likely to deliver the White House a policy, as well as
messaging, win. “I don’t think anybody believes that the interest rate ought to be allowed to rise. The question is how you pay for it,” Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday, a day after Romney indicated that he supports temporarily extending the low 3.4
percent interest rate, citing the difficult economy. The
White House began to push on the issue last Friday, and Obama
is now on a three-state tour of college campuses using the issue to highlight his differences with the GOP — contrasting
student loans and other popular government programs with Republicans voting to protect tax cuts for the rich. “If these folks in
Washington were serious about making college more affordable, they wouldn’t have voted for a budget that could cut financial aid for tens of
millions of college students by an average of more than $1,000,” Obama said of the Republican Party at a Tuesday event in North Carolina.
“They certainly wouldn’t let your student loan rates double overnight.” Obama then ripped the GOP for spending money on two wars and
enacting two tax cuts without paying for them and voting for oil company subsidies and against the Buffett Rule requiring people making more
than $1 million a year to pay at least a 30 percent tax rate. “They even voted to give an average tax cut of at least $150,000 to folks like me, the
wealthiest Americans — a tax cut paid for by cutting things like education and job training programs that give students new opportunities to
work and succeed,” Obama said. “Now, that’s their priorities.” But just
because the president and Senate Democrats appear
to have the upper hand doesn’t mean a partisan battle isn’t brewing on Capitol Hill over how to pay
for the extension of low student loan interest rates. It’s a fight the White House and Senate Democrats seem
happy to have. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the White House could support paying for the $6 billion
student loan fix by closing a tax provision that allows owners of S-chapter corporations to avoid payroll taxes on pass-through income — an
idea under consideration by Senate Democrats. “It meets the standard that we set that we can’t pay for it in a way that would harm students,
and it would also meet the standard that it wouldn’t raise taxes on anybody making under $250,000,” Carney said. But he said the White House
is open to other options as well. “We’re not wedded to one,” he said. Republicans have ripped the idea of taxing small businesses or raising
other taxes to pay for the fix. “Given the effects of the Obama economy on college students, I don’t think the temporary interest rate cut
should expire this year. But the way to prevent that is not by raiding Social Security and Medicare while making it more difficult for small
businesses to hire college students already struggling in the Obama economy,” McConnell said. “It’s by having the policymakers, not the
campaign staff, write the legislation.” If Congress does not act, more than 7 million students will see interest rates double from 3.4 percent to
6.8 percent starting July 1. The jump is the result of a 2007 law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.
Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Republicans will work to prevent the rate hike but added that Obama
should blame Democrats who wrote the 2007 law — not Republicans. “In yet another effort to distract from his economic record that is leaving
50 percent of new graduates jobless or underemployed, the president is looking to create a fight over how to deal with the rate hike,” Buck
said. “If the president was looking to be forthright, he’d admit that this looming rate hike is of his own party’s creation.” Republicans
said
tax hikes aren’t going anywhere in either chamber.
He’s personally invested and will have to battle the GOP tooth-and-nail
Slack, 4-25 – Donovan, POLITICO, Obama launches student loan campaign,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75549.html
President Barack Obama Tuesday began a three-state White House message effort appealing to a key group he needs for
his reelection campaign: Reduced loan interest for college students. Starting in North Carolina and then again in the evening here in
Colorado — he’ll continue the swing-state tour to Iowa Wednesday — he said interest rates on some 7.4 million student loans will double if
Congress doesn’t act, and urged anyone watching to reach out to members of Congress and ask them to extend a rate cut set to expire on July
1. “That’s basically a tax hike for more than 7 million students across America,” the president told students at UNC Chapel Hill. “They have to
prevent the interest rates on federal student loans from shooting up and shaking you down!” he exclaimed at the University of Colorado
Boulder. The
White House has been working with Congress to find a way to pay for the measure , which
would cost $6 billion, but much like the campaign to pass the payroll tax-cut extension and the “Buffett rule,” the
president has
taken the case public . In addition to the speaking tour, the White House unveiled a special student loan interest Twitter hashtag,
#DontDoubleMyRate, similar to the #40dollars campaign used during the deliberations over the payroll tax-cut extension. “Stand up, be heard,
be counted,” he said at both campuses, where he made basically the same speech. “Tell them now is not the time to double interest rates on
your student loans. Now’s the time double down on smart investments to build a strong and secure middle class. Now’s the time to double
down on building an America that lasts.” Obama ticked through a list of his accomplishments, from taking the middlemen out of the studentloan process to capping interest payments, and said he would hold his ground when it came to cutting other education programs. “We’ll keep
interest rates low if we take away aid from other students who need it? That doesn’t make sense,” he said. The
response from
Republican members of Congress was swift , with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell blaming Obama for
failed policies that have meant fewer jobs for young people, including the health care mandate. “I mean, you have to think that most of
these students are sharp enough to put this president’s rhetoric up against his record and to conclude that it just doesn’t add up,”McConnell
said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “As the promises of this president’s campaign collide with real life, I think young people across the country
will realize they got sold a bill of goods.”
The fight is only growing – now they’ll battle over how to pay for it
Lillis, 4-27 – Pelosi: GOP 'folded' on student loans due to pressure from Obama, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/224259-pelosi-gop-folded-on-student-loans-due-to-pressurefrom-obama
On Wednesday, however, Republicans flipped, introducing legislation to extend the 3.4 percent rate for another year. To pay the $5.9
billion cost, the Republicans proposed to eliminate a $12 billion preventative health services fund created
by the Democrats' 2010 healthcare reform law – money the GOP has long-characterized as a "slush fund." The extra savings, under the GOP bill,
would go to pay down the deficit. The
White House on Friday threatened to veto
the GOP bill, saying elimination of the
healthcare fund would hinder access to health services, particularly for women. "This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious
response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves," the White House said in a statement. Republicans
were quick
to fire back. Hoping voters forget their promotion of the 6.8 percent level, GOP leaders say the Democrats' opposition threatens students
with the higher rate. "The president is so desperate to fake a fight that he’s willing to veto a bill to help students over a slush fund that he
advocated cutting in his own budget," Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Friday in an email. "It’s a
simple as this: Republicans are acting to help college students and the president is now getting in the way.” The
issue has become
prominent on the campaign trail, where Obama and the Democrats are trying to turn the Republicans' initial opposition to the 3.4
percent rate into a liability for the GOP. Obama featured the issue in his weekly White House address last weekend, and has since taken that
message on the road, including making stops at several college campuses this week. "We have to make college more affordable for young
people,” Obama said Tuesday at University of North Carolina. “That’s the bottom line.” Adding to the pressure on congressional Republicans,
Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, endorsed a one-year fix on Monday. With both sides now advocating a one-year
extension of the 3.4 percent rate, the fight is now over how to pay for it. Behind Boehner, Republicans are pointing out that
Democratic leaders, including Obama, have already supported a $4 billion cut to the preventive fund as part of December's payroll tax deal.
"They’ve made clear the precedent is there," Boehner said Thursday. "They don’t believe this money is essential to their program. That’s why
it’s being paid for here." But Democrats have rejected that notion, arguing that they never supported the healthcare cut in the payroll package,
and conceded to it only in the name of compromise.
Keystone 1ar
NOTE – we have 1AR cards for 4 claims, so pick and choose –
1. Keystone = big fight now
2. Obama gets the blame for it
3. PC k2 veto/veto k2 PC
4. Keystone = loss
1. ( ___ ) Keystone starts a big, politicized battle
Laing, 4-20 – White House: Keystone mandate 'noxious' to highway bill's future, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/222861-white-housekeystone-mandate-noxious-to-highway-bill
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday that mandating approval of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline
was " noxious " to the future of a new federal highway bill that was approved by the House. Lawmakers in both the
House and Senate have signaled they will hold conference negotiations about a new multi-year transportation bill after the Republican-led
House approved a second temporary extension of the last funding measure for road and transit projects, which expired in 2009. GOP leaders in
the House attached a mandate to build the cross-country pipeline, which was rejected by President Obama earlier this year, to the highway bill
in a bid force the White House hand if it hopes to avoid an interruption in transportation projects later this year. The House passed the highway
bill with the Keystone approval this week despite a veto threat from Obama. Most
observers expect the pipeline language
not to survive a conference with the Democrat-controlled Senate, but Carney said Friday that the House's amendment would mean
"preemptively sacrificing American sovereignty." Carney said the amendment was added to the highway bill in a
" highly politicized, highly partisan way " and would "advance, blind … a proposal for which does not exist -- but we’ll approve it
anyway — a foreign pipeline built by a foreign company emanating from foreign territory to cross U.S. borders."
( ___ ) Obama gets all the blame
The Hill, 3-8-12 – GOP on Keystone: This isn’t over, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/215097senate-gop-on-keystone-this-isnt-over.
Republicans vowed to continue aggressively pushing for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline Thursday
shortly after the Senate narrowly rejected a GOP-backed measure to greenlight the project. The Senate Republicans
who authored the Keystone provision told reporters they are working with House GOP leadership to ensure that a measure fast-tracking
approval of the project is ultimately attached to the highway bill. “We intend to continue our efforts, including on this bill,” Sen. John Hoeven
(R-N.D.) told reporters shortly after the Senate Keystone vote. “Remember, we’re going
to have to come to an agreement
with the House, and I believe there is strong support for the Keystone XL pipeline project in the House as well.” The Senate rejected
Thursday night the Republican Keystone measure, which came up as an amendment to the Senate highway bill, in a 56-42 vote. Sixty votes
were required for passage. “We’re going to continue this fight on behalf of a project that the people of this country very much want,” Hoeven
said. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) said he hoped the measure could be added either during floor debate on the highway bill in the House or as part of
a bicameral conference process aimed at coming to an agreement on the bill. “If not, there will be other bills,” Lugar said, noting
that Republicans successfully won inclusion in a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut of a measure requiring that Obama make a decision
on the pipeline with 60 days. Obama rejected a key permit for the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline in January, insisting that the decision wasn’t based
on the merits of the project but on the “arbitrary” deadline included in the payroll tax cut package. Eleven Democrats supported the GOP
Keystone amendment Thursday, bolstering GOP hopes that the legislation could ultimately pass the Senate. “Obviously, we got a strong
majority in the Senate and we’re working our way toward the 60 votes that we need,” Hoeven said. He added that the
measure would
have won 58 supporters if two Republican lawmakers had been able to attend the vote. But Democrats and
environmental groups quickly claimed victory. “It is a big win for us because everybody thought it was going to pass,” Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said after the vote. “The big oil companies have been really misleading people
about it, so the fact that they lost it, it is a defeat for them.” Republicans
quickly sought to pin the blame for the
amendment’s failure on
President
Obama , who urged Democrats to vote against the measure in a
series of private phone calls. “President Obama’s personal pleas to wavering Senators may have tipped
the balance against this legislation,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement Thursday night. “When
it comes to delays over Keystone, anyone
looking for a culprit should now look no further than the Oval
Office.” Lugar echoed McConnell’s comments. “I suppose you’ll give credit to the president for once again blocking something,” he said
( ___ ) Vetoes require tons of capital
Conley (Assistant Professor) and Amie Kreppel, ’99 – Richard, Assistant Professor’s at University of
Florida) 99 “Presidential Influence: The Success of Vetoes and Veto Overrides”
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/kreppel/types.PDF)
The power of the President has been described as the “power to persuade” (Neustadt 1960).
Defining and
quantifying presidential influence is, however, a difficult task. Scholars have variably focused on floor success rates in Congress, individual and
aggregate party support, or agenda success (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1989; Peterson 1990; Bond and Fleisher 1990; Jones 1994). Recently
attention has been paid to the growing use of the presidential veto and
the chief executive’s attempts to persuade
members of Congress to “switch” to support his position during override attempts (Krehbiel 1998). While the frequency of presidential vetoes
and congressional override attempts may constitute indicators of presidential and congressional power, there are subtleties in the
veto/override game that have gone unexamined, particularly the difference between vetoes and override attempts of various types. The
general presumption in the literature about vetoes and overrides is that the actors involved are always focused on achieving legislative
outcomes. That is, it is assumed that all actors have as their primary goal the realization or the blockage of some legislative proposal and that
loss is costly (in terms of public and/or political prestige). As a result success is measured in terms of legislative outcomes and the number of
legislators who are convinced to switch their allegiance from one side to the other measures influence and power. We argue in this paper that
this is an oversimplification of the true strategies and goals involved. Traditional assumptions conflict with the actual empirical evidence on
veto and override attempts we bring to bear from 1969-98. Voting behavior in the Congress, particularly on contentious issues, is one of the
few real world examples of near perfect complete information on the parts of all the actors. The vote breakdown on the final conference
report is public information. In addition both parties and the White House have staff members whose job it is to investigate and predict how
members will vote once they receive pressure from either or both sides. While not perfect, both the party leaders and the President have a
very good idea of the potential success of a veto long before the veto is attempted. The same is true for an override attempt. Yet the
president’s ability to sustain vetoes and congressional leaders’ attempts to trump the president’s vetoes are vary
significantly in terms of success.
We suggest that most unsuccessful attempts were not miscalculations or failures. Instead these
failed vetoes and override attempts were a kind of position-taking aimed at informing the public rather than affecting legislative outcomes.
For this type of veto/override there is little incentive to attempt to persuade Members of Congress to switch their vote from one side to the
other.
Whenever the President or the opposition majority in Congress act to change the voting behavior of a
Member political capital is expended . It would not be logical to expend that capital in what was known ahead of time to be a
losing battle. By the same token, in those votes where victory is assured it is equally unlikely that there will be a great deal of effort expended
in attempting to sway the votes of additional (unnecessary) Members. This means that current measurements of presidential power and
influence severely underestimate the actual ability of the President to affect change. By assuming that this is always his goal they have
ignored the subtleties of the veto tool and exaggerated the need for the President to sway Members of Congress.
PC is vital to the veto threat
Lee, ‘5 – Andrew, Professor of Political Science at Claremont McKenna College, “Invest or Spend?
Political Capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush
Presidency”, Georgia Political Science Association, Conference Proceedings
With these words, the Framers created veto power, a central feature of our legislative process. The veto, traditionally an executive
prerogative designed as a defensive check on Congress, has become an offensive tool for the president’s legislative agenda. In addition
to blocking disfavored legislation, the
president may threaten to veto favored legislation to compel Congress to
change provisions within legislation. Congressional leaders take a veto threat very seriously. How does Congress
gauge the credibility of a veto threat? Legislators would gauge
the “political capital” of the president to determine
the credibility of the threat. According to political journalist Tod Lindberg (2004), political capital is a “form of persuasive authority
stemming from a position of political strength” (A21). Political capital can be measured by favorability and job approval polling numbers
because they signify support for the president’s actions and agenda. For example, President Bush’s leadership after the September 11th
terrorist attacks increased his favorability and job approval polling, and thus his political capital. He subsequently was able to launch a war with
Afghanistan and Iraq. In such cases, the president’s high political capital would make a veto more credible .
Congress must also reckon whether the president will think an issue is worth spending political capital on. As Richard S. Conley and Amie
Kreppel (1999) write, “Whenever the President . . . act[s] to change the voting behavior of a Member, political capital is expended. It would not
be logical to expend that capital in what was known ahead of time to be a losing battle” (2).
( ___ ) More ev it’s a loss and we control momentum –
POLITICO, 3-8-12 – Senate's Keystone message to W.H.,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html
Thursday’s squeaker of a Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline serves both as a warning to
President Barack
Obama that a majority of both houses of Congress supports the pipeline and as encouragement to
Republicans to keep pushing the issue. Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls
urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he
needed every bit of their help. In all, 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline. Only the fact that 60 votes were
needed for passage saved the White House from an embarrassing defeat. (Also on POLITICO: Oil industry jumps gun on Keystone vote) Sen.
Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) wryly congratulated Obama on his lobbying efforts. “That was very strong work by President Obama himself, making
personal calls to Democrats,” Lugar said. “He understood that a majority of the American public and a majority at least of the Senate are
strongly in favor of this project. “So I suppose you give credit to the president for once again blocking something, but I don't think the president
really wants to do that indefinitely,” he added. “We got a majority in the Senate,” said amendment sponsor Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who
noted that two senators — Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) — were absent. “So we would have had 58 votes had all Republicans been
able to be here.” Republicans promised that the issue, which has been a staple of the campaign trail since Obama first attempted in November
to punt the decision until 2013, will not go away. “We’re very close to the 60,” Hoeven said. “It’s hard to say exactly which members
maybe would have supported without White House intervention, but I think the important thing is that the support is there, and the support is
there because the public wants this to happen. “ The
pressure is just going to increase on the administration
to get this
project done,” Hoeven added. The 11 Democrats who crossed party lines to support the amendment were Max Baucus of Montana, Mark
Begich of Alaska, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe
Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana and Jim Webb of Virginia. Landrieu said
she was not among those getting a call from Obama. And she was not surprised to see 10 Democrats join with her to cross party lines. "We
would rather build up the capacity in North America for energy that we need than have to rely on far-flung places of the world, whether it's the
continent of Africa or the Mideast,” Landrieu said. “If we continue to drill more at home ... and continue to conserve ... we can make a great
deal of headway.” Landrieu, who has long been a lonely Democratic voice on oil drilling — supporting, for example, drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge — said both sides need to cool down. "I've said both parties have been too strong on the rhetoric.
Republicans think they can drill their way out — they're wrong. ... And Democrats think we don't need to drill more," she said.
Oil Speculators 1ar
It comes before the plan – Obama wants Congress to act right away
Weinberg, 4-17 – Obama pushes for crackdown on oil price manipulation, MSNBC,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/17/11248678-obama-pushes-for-crackdown-on-oilprice-manipulation.
President Obama introduced a new round of measures that he said would make it easier for the administration to
crack down on oil market manipulation amid persistently high gas prices. “Today we're announcing new steps to strengthen
oversight of energy markets,” Obama said, noting how continued high gas prices have made it hard for families to do things like commute and
go to the grocery store. Most of the new measures would require congressional approval, including a request for more
“cops on the beat” for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as more money to update the commission’s technology. President
Obama pushed Congress to give oil market regulators more muscle to deter price manipulation by speculators. Watch his entire statement.
Obama compared the expanding energy market to professional football, which adds more referees if
it adds more teams. “Imagine if the NFL quadrupled the number of teams but didn't increase the
number of refs. You'd end up having havoc on the field and it would diminish the game. It wouldn't be fair.” The
president also asked Congress to increase the maximum penalties for market manipulators and raise
the amount of money required for oil futures traders to back up their trades. “ Congress should do all
of this right away ,” Obama said, criticizing Senate Republicans for voting down a bill in March that would have stripped oil
companies of $24 billion in tax subsidies (four Democrats - Jim Webb of Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark
Begich of Alaska – also voted against the bill).
PC Low – 1ar
Obama’s PC has quote “dropped substantially” – our Haberman evidence from this
week says gas prices, Iran and Afghanistan will tank Obama’s capital and focus
More evidence that we control momentum – here’s data:
Lee, 3-12-12 – MJ, POLITICO, Poll: Most say Obama tanking on gas,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73875.html.
Almost two-thirds of Americans , 65 percent, said they disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is dealing
with rising prices at the pump, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds. Only 26 percent – the president’s lowest rating in the
poll — said they approve of his handling of gas prices, while a majority, 52 percent, said they “strongly” disapprove. The news comes as a
survey over the weekend found that gas prices jumped 12 cents during the past two weeks, with the average price for a gallon of self-serve
regular increasing to $3.81, as CNN reported. And despite
a February jobs report that showed the economy added 227,000 jobs,
the new poll shows Obama’s negative ratings on the pivotal 2012 issue has risen to 59 percent since
a month ago. Half of Americans gave the president very low ratings — a jump of 9 percentage points
and the highest figure yet
disapproval rating is 50 percent,
in a Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama’s
showing a downward trend
approval rating is 46 percent and his
from the 50 percent approval he enjoyed in February.
Momentum wipes out their UQ – comparative evidence
POLITICO, 3-14-12 – Obama approval ratings drop unconcerning, Senate Democrats say,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73968.html
But there’s no doubt the some of the latest surveys have upended recent conventional wisdom in Washington:
That signs of an economic recovery, continued private-sector job growth, the nasty GOP presidential primary, and White
House wins over a contraception issue and a payroll tax holiday had given Democrats and the president a
significant edge with voters. And Democrats know their recent slide in polls could become a landslide if
they fail to deliver a satisfactory response to rising gas prices and the still halting economic recovery. A New York Times/CBS News poll, which
was taken March 7-11 and surveyed nearly 900 registered voters, found that Obama’s approval numbers dropped 9 percentage points from a
month before, down to 41 percent, with 47 percent disapproving of his performance. With tensions in Iran and problems in Afghanistan, he
saw a 10-point drop in his handling of foreign policy.
No Push – 1ar
Fiat doesn’t guarantee a link – they have to read evidence describing *Obama’s
current involvement with Congress* – hold them to a high standard because their
evidence doesn’t assume Obama’s shift in political strategy in 2012
Obama won’t invest ANY PC because of the elections – it’s all rhetoric
Dallas Morning News, 1-25-12 – “Opening salvo of Obama campaign,” Lexis.
By campaigning past the Congress and straight to the American people, Obama also has set up a clear contrast
between his vision and that of Republicans, who say his policies have been an onerous burden on free enterprise and the
overall economy. But it remains to be seen whether Obama's message is what most Americans want or whether the president
will put enough of his political capital into pushing his initiatives in Congress. The nation has heard
variations of these proposals before, but Obama has failed to follow through forcefully . A test of Obama's 2012
blueprint will come soon. On Wednesday, he will begin a tour of five states that are key to his re-election bid in an effort to promote his plans
for American manufactur-ing, energy, college affordability, education and training. Back in Washington, the extension of a payroll tax cut and
unemployment insurance benefits will expire in February. And there will be yet another showdown later in the year, this one over about $1.2
trillion in otherwise automatic spending cuts and the scheduled expiration of former President George W. Bush's tax cuts. The president offered
a far more hopeful -- and even bipartisan -- tone than some had expected. But with an economy recovering too slowly, words
alone
won't get the job done.
Recent events prove he won’t push
Mitchell, 1-13-12 – Jim, “BLOG: Opinion: Obama, the GOP and the "quest" for smaller government,”
Opinion Blog (Dallas Morning News), Lexis.
I'm to the point that I can't tell the difference between a trial balloon, a legitimate offer and political
hot air. That's why I want to seriously consider the president's plan for power to merge a power last held by Ronald Reagan. The cynic in me
says Obama doesn't really expect to get this freedom and probably hopes Republicans say "no"
outright. Politically it plays into the "do no" Congress narrative if the GOP turns its back on one of itsown talking
points -- smaller, leaner more efficient government. It's not as though Obama hasn’t floated this idea before, including in
last year's State of the Union address. But then a lot of ideas floated in that address were never heard again, let
alone supported with
the administration's
political capital.
I'm guessing this
is a trial balloon so the president can
include a reference to this proposal as a new initiative in this this year's speech. But I'm hoping that (a) he is serious and (b) the GOP takes it as
a serious proposal. If each camp calls the other camp's bluff, maybe we'll finally get progress on something useful.
Jackson-Vanik 1ar
Jackson-Vanik is the ONE issue that will pass – quick passage before May’s accession is
key
Mike Brown, 3-22 – president, National Chicken Council, Trade relations with Russia will be a boost to
the U.S., The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/217251-mike-brown-presidentnational-chicken-council
If there is one thing Congress can agree on during an election year, it is a policy that will spur job creation, boost
economic growth and be budget neutral at the same time. Here is why authorizing permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for
Russia will accomplish all three. Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) formally approved late last year Russia’s
terms for membership in the organization during a three-day meeting of the WTO’s ministerial conference in Geneva. Russia will take
its seat at the WTO 30 days after notifying the organization that the Russian Duma has ratified the membership terms. Russian Deputy Prime
Minister Igor Shuvalov is on record saying that he anticipates the accession agreement being sent to the Duma in May. In Russia, retail food and
beverage sales are forecast to increase in real terms from just over $200 billion in 2010 to more than $240 billion by 2014—a 20 percent
increase. This is good news for U.S. food exporters as imports are expected to meet some of this growing consumer demand. But while Russia is
home to 142 million consumers and maintains the world’s eleventh largest economy, it is the largest economy not yet formally subject to the
global trading rules of the WTO. For
U.S. companies to benefit from Russia’s accession, it will be necessary for Congress to
permanently remove Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 and authorize the president to
extend PNTR to Russia. Jackson-Vanik requires Russia and seven other former Soviet states and non-market economies to comply with free
emigration policies before enjoying normal trade relations with the United States. Since 1994, the United States has certified annually that
Russia complies with the amendment’s provisions and has conferred normal trade relations (NTR) status. Russia at times in the past has used
arbitrary sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) actions that lack scientific justification to limit or even halt poultry and meat imports from the United
States. Without the ability to use WTO’s dispute settlement procedures and other related mechanisms, the United States will be at a very
significant disadvantage if Russia chooses to evoke bogus SPS measures against U.S. poultry. As a member of the WTO, Russia is obligated to
bind its agricultural import tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). But, if Russia misuses SPS provisions, the tariff bindings and TRQs will become a
secondary concern. Other world poultry competitors will undoubtedly step up and try to replace the United States if the Russian market is
disrupted for U.S. poultry exports. USTR notes that U.S. farmers and exporters will have more certain and predictable market access as a result
of Russia’s commitment not to raise tariffs on any products above the negotiated rates and to apply non-tariff measures in a uniform and
transparent manner. The National Chicken Council urges Congress to approve PNTR for Russia by mid-2012 to help assure the United States can
continue to compete in the Russian poultry market. Exporting $300 million of poultry to Russia annually will provide better incomes for more
U.S. workers and additional poultry to be produced by a growing number of family farmers across America. The chicken industry is certainly not
the only beneficiary of granting Russia PNTR, as there is significant commercial opportunities for other U.S. exporters, including those
businesses in the fruit, livestock, agriculture equipment, aerospace, consumer goods, high tech instruments, construction equipment, textiles
and medical equipment sectors, among others. Congress will
not be voting on Russia’s WTO accession, rather it will
be voting on giving the United States equal accession to general tariff reductions, market opening measures and the
ability of U.S. interests, such as poultry, to seek trade relief, if necessary, through the WTO. A vote for Russia PNTR is a vote for
U.S. job creation and economic growth. It makes no sense for the United States to lose access to the
world’s eleventh largest economy over an outdated law.
Obama is pushing it
RIA Novosti, 3-22 – Congresswoman Wary of Jackson-Vanik Repeal,
http://en.ria.ru/world/20120322/172320673.html.
Russia is now poised to join the World Trade Organization in May or June. The
U.S. risks losing out on increased exports to
is pressing Congress
to throw out the Cold War-era amendment on behalf of U.S. farmers and manufacturers. The Administration is
Russia once the country formally joins the organization because of Jackson-Vanik. The U.S. administration
now seeking to give Russia permanent normal trade relations, which requires lifting the Jackson-Vanik restrictions.
Buffett Rule 1ar
The Buffett Rule is a loss – it won’t even get past the procedural stage
Halperin, 4-11 – Basil, Buffett Rule Set To Fail In Senate Vote Despite Obama's Campaign, Policy Mic,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/6755/buffett-rule-set-to-fail-in-senate-vote-despite-obama-scampaign.
On April 16, the Senate will reject a bill that would enact the Buffett rule mandating that Americans with a million dollars or
more in income pay a minimum of 30% in taxes. This will be done without the bill ever receiving a simple up and
down vote
on the Senate floor. How is it possible that legislation can die without ever receiving a direct vote? Gross manipulation of
Senate rules. On the 16th, the
Senate is scheduled – brace yourself – to vote on whether to vote on whether to
debate the Buffett rule legislation. Because this is a procedural vote forced by Senate Republicans on whether to cut off
prior debate, it needs 60 votes to pass, which the Buffett rule does not have . If it were a traditional up and down vote, it
would need 51 votes, and the legislation would be passed.
Triggers the link – big Obama push and fight with the GOP
Tau, 3-31 – Byron, Obama urges Warren ‘Buffett rule’ passage, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74695.html/.
President Barack Obama repeated his call Saturday for Congress to act on the so-called Buffett rule — calling the
measure “common sense,” not class warfare. The Buffett rule, named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, was first floated by Obama late
last year after a New York Times op-ed by the Omaha businessman encouraged Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy. Since then, Obama has
named his plan to raise taxes on investment income after Buffett — pointing to the fact that the billionaire’s secretary pays a lower tax rate
than he does because of a system that taxes investment income at a much lower rate than salary and wages. “Some people call this class
warfare. But I think asking a billionaire to pay at least the same tax rate as his secretary is just common sense,” Obama said in his weekly
address. “We don’t envy success in this country. We aspire to it. But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their
fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few.” Obama
and the White House have
been aggressively pushing a plan that would tax investment income at a much higher rate— with a highprofile mention in the State of the Union and shout-outs as a stump line on the campaign trail. Congress is set to take up the
measure as a piece of legislation — pitting Obama against congressional Republicans who oppose raising
taxes on upper earners, citing adverse effects on job creation and investment. “Every Member of Congress is going to go on
record. And if they vote to keep giving tax breaks to people like me – tax breaks our country can’t afford – then they’re going to have to
explain to you where that money comes from,” Obama said. “Either it’s going to add to our deficit, or it’s going to come out of your pocket.
“Seniors will have to pay more for their Medicare benefits. Students will see their interest rates go up at a time when they can’t afford it.
Families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less,” Obama said. Obama and his team have been
framing the issue as one of essential fairness — where Americans who have done well need to give back a little more.
___AGENDA – **NEG** UQ___
** Cybersecurity Neg
1nc UQ
Cybersecurity will pass but requires Obama to strongly and carefully push
Martinez, 4-25 – Jennifer, Daring the Senate on cybersecurity, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75566.html
The House is sending a message to the White House and Senate Democrats this week by passing a batch of
cybersecurity bills aimed at preventing the digital version of a Pearl Harbor: Not on our watch. The idea is to spur Democrats
to move — giving them the choice to either bring their own stalled bill to a vote or risk standing on
the wrong political side of a national security issue. “I’m hoping … when we pass these bills, the Senate will pass something and that
will give us a chance to go to conference and accomplish something,” Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, who led the GOP
Cybersecurity Task Force last year, told POLITICO. “We can do lots of talking, but they need to pass something.” The bills — including the controversial Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act — are expected to pass the House without a problem by Friday, giving Republicans a partisan talking point and providing
them cover should cyberenemies execute attacks against American agencies or utilities . It’s
a tough spot for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
and for President Barack Obama, whose aides lean toward the Senate’s comprehensive cybersecurity approach but
have been unwilling to box themselves in by criticizing the House bill directly. For now, Reid remains paralyzed
by turf wars, an inability to collect the 60 votes needed to get a bill to the floor and the hangover effect from anti-piracy legislation that left
many Democratic senators preternaturally afraid of crossing the Internet companies and activists behind the anti-SOPA efforts. On CISPA, some
tech and Internet firms — such as Facebook, Microsoft and IBM — support the House bill. But cyberliberties groups have taken to social media
to wage a campaign to brand it as a “ cyberspying” bill that would let companies share private information on users with the federal
government. At the heart of the cyberfight in Congress is a partisan impasse over how far the government should go
in requiring private companies and utilities to maintain specific cybersecurity standards. The main House bill, written by Intelligence Committee
Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would make it easier for private companies to share information about
cyberthreats with the government — including utilities that could be vulnerable to attacks. The bill doesn’t require much of the companies that participate, so the
coalition supporting it includes a variety of industry players who don’t want the regulatory shackles in alternative legislation. The primary Senate bill, written by
Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and ranking member Susan Collins (R-Maine), would establish new cybersecurity standards and give the
Homeland Security Department the power to oversee their implementation by utilities and other entities. For now, the House will go it alone. Votes are expected
The move provides cover for Republicans in the event of an
attack and puts pressure on the Senate and the White House on a matter that all sides agree is vital to
America’s national security interests. The White House has been cagey on the matter. While criticizing Rogers’s bill
Thursday on a handful of other cyberbills; the CISPA vote is slated for Friday.
by inference — never by name — senior administration officials declined to comment earlier this week when asked if Obama would veto CISPA
if it were to make it to his desk. After all, he’s
running for reelection and might want to move quickly on
cybersecurity legislation — in case it becomes a political issue. The administration is toeing a careful line : It doesn’t
want to trash a bipartisan national security-focused bill that’s actually making headway through Congress, but it also
doesn’t want to ease up on its push for legislation that would hold critical infrastructure operators accountable for
meeting a set of security standards. Republicans have decried that approach as too heavy-handed. While top administration and defense
officials have endorsed the Lieberman-Collins approach in classified briefings in the Senate, Republicans aren’t backing down on rallying
opposition to a measure that would tack new security rules onto industry. A group of Senate Republicans, led by Arizona’s John McCain, are
backing a rival measure that focuses on improving information sharing between industry and government, mirroring many aspects of CISPA in
the House. Asked
if there could be a compromise, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
said: “It probably could, but they’re going to have to include critical infrastructure.” “Look, if you don’t have it, you don’t have a
cybersecurity bill,” he said. House Intelligence Committee leaders said Tuesday they’ve agreed to incorporate
changes to CISPA that address privacy and civil liberties concerns raised by advocacy groups, such as the Center for
Democracy & Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union. Other House members will introduce these changes as amendments when the bill is on
the floor for debate. The changes are aimed at narrowing how the government can use information that is shared with it by private companies. It will also
encourage that reasonable efforts be made by the government to minimize the impact on privacy and civil liberties when information is shared by companies. CDT
said there are still additional amendments it would like to have adopted into the bill, but it “will not oppose the process moving forward in the House.” “The
[Intelligence] Committee listened to our concerns and has made important privacy improvements and we applaud the committee for doing so,” the cyberliberties
group said in a statement. However, the group said its concern that the bill would increase the flow of Internet data to military agencies such as the National
Security Agency is still outstanding. Meanwhile, Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Adam Schiff of California submitted amendments to the
House Rules Committee on Tuesday that aim to incorporate additional privacy protections into the bill. One of Thompson’s amendments attempts to incorporate
language of a bill by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) that passed out of the House Homeland Security Committee last week but which GOP leadership has decided not to
bring to the House floor for consideration. Despite the criticism about the privacy implications of CISPA, Rogers predicted he has “well past” 200 votes in favor of
the measure. “We
feel very confident we have the votes for the bill,” he said.
2nc UQ
Cybersecurity will pass – Martinez works for POLITICO Pro and says momentum, vote
count and bipartisan support all guarantee passage IF Obama can successfully manage
partisanship and the reconciliation committee
We control momentum – opponents are jumping on board
Sasso, 4-24 – Brendan, The Hill – Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s tech blog, “House to amend cybersecurity
bill, privacy group sees 'good progress',” http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223483house-to-amend-cybersecurity-bill-privacy-group-calls-changes-good-progress
The authors of a House cybersecurity bill said Tuesday they will offer several amendments to address the concerns of
privacy groups. After the announcement of changes by authors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the
Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), one of the leading groups campaigning against the bill, said it still has
concerns but will "not oppose the process moving forward in the House." "In sum, good progress has been
made ," CDT said in a statement. "The committee listened to our concerns and has made important privacy improvements and we applaud
the committee for doing so." The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is expected to pass the House later this week. The goal
of CISPA is to help companies beef up their defenses against hackers who steal business secrets, rob customers' financial information and wreak
havoc on computer systems. The bill would tear down legal barriers that discourage companies from sharing information about cyber threats.
But civil liberties groups warned the measure would encourage companies to hand over private information to government spy agencies.
Rogers and Ruppersberger said lawmakers will offer amendments on the floor later this week to address the concerns of the privacy groups.
One amendment would tighten limitations on how the government can use the information it collects. The government would only be able to
use the information to protect against a cyber attack, investigate cyber crime, protect national security, protect against theft or bodily harm or
to protect minors from child pornography. CDT argued that the bill should be further amended to only allow the information to be used for
cybersecurity purposes. The amendments would also narrow the definition of "cyber threat information" and would bar the federal
government from retaining or using information beyond the explicit purposes of the bill. Another amendment would restrict the scope of the
liability protections for companies that turn over data to the government. The changes address many of the core concerns of privacy groups,
but notably would not prevent spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency (NSA) or the CIA from accessing the information. The privacy
groups argue that a domestic agency, such as the Homeland Security Department, would be a more appropriate body to handle the personal
information. CDT said the bill still "falls short" because of the "flow of internet data directly to the NSA and the use of information for purposes
unrelated to cybersecurity." "Recognizing the importance of the cybersecurity issue, in deference to the good faith efforts made
by Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger, and on the understanding that amendments will be considered by the House to
address our concerns, we
and subsequently
will not oppose the process moving forward in the House. We will focus on the amendments
on the Senate," the group said.
Compromise on cybersecurity is coming because Obama is committed
Rushe, 4-27 – Dominic, Cispa approved by House but critics urge Senate to block 'horrible' bill,
Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-house-senate-bill?newsfeed=true.
Richardson said senior figures including Adam Schiff of the House intelligence committee, Anna Eshoo, on the subcommittee on
communications and technology, plus 28 congressional Republicans had voted against the bill. "We are disappointed that it
got this far but we remain optimistic that this bill can be killed," Richardson said. She said the big danger now was that a
compromise would be drawn up which could still endanger civil liberties online. Earlier this week the Obama administration
said it would veto the bill unless major amendments were made. Obama's Office of Management and Budget said the
administration was " committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the
process
"must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the
civilian nature of cyberspace."
Obama will push a compromise – the only obstacle is Congressional inaction
Walsh, 4-27 – Deirdre, House Passes Cybersecurity Bill Despite Obama Veto Threat, Boston Channel,
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30962946/detail.html#ixzz1tGaXtfd6
While the Obama administration and many congressional Democrats agree the United States needs to respond
to cyberthreats, they and many outside civil liberties advocates say the House bill fails to sufficiently guard
personal information. They worry the new rules allowing Internet companies to share information with the National Security Agency
could give unfettered access by the intelligence community to data about any individual surfing the Web or sending e-mail. In its
statement opposing the bill and promising a veto, the administration on Wednesday said, "Cybersecurity
and privacy are not mutually exclusive." In a reference to the George Orwell book that described a society in which
government was eavesdropping on its citizens, Rep Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, said during Thursday's debate, "I know it's 2012 but it still feels
like 1984 in the House today." But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued the administration's insistence on specific standards and
broader limitations on how much personal information can be shared goes too far. "The White House believes the government ought to control
the Internet; the government ought to set standards and the government ought to take care of everything that's needed for cybersecurity.
They're in a camp all by themselves," Boehner said Proponents of the House bill said they addressed the concerns about privacy raised by many
outside groups by adding provisions to narrow how government agencies can use any personal information, limiting it mainly to prosecuting
crimes and preserving national security. Some of those changes helped dampen an outside lobbying effort to defeat the bill. While the
American Civil Liberties Union rallied against the measure, another group concerned about protecting privacy rights, the Center for Democracy
and Technology, agreed the process needed to move forward. California Democratic Rep Adam Schiff said he was disappointed his move to
limit the transfer of personal information was not allowed a vote on Thursday. He said people want to be secure online, but "they have no idea
their information is being collected in this cybernetwork, and that information is not necessary to protect ourselves from a cyberthreat. We
want to minimize that." Schiff said companies have the capability to limit the transfer of this information, "but they would rather not have the
obligation to do it." Ruppersberger said requiring private companies to strip out all personal information was a "nonstarter" with congressional
Republicans and the Internet providers who would be the ones giving the intelligence community access to their networks. Conceding
there's a split among Democrats on the bill mainly because of the privacy concerns, Ruppersberger said the
fight targeted the bipartisan House bill because "we're the only game in town." Still, 42 Democrats voted for the
measure. Although there is a bipartisan Senate proposal offered by independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Maine Republican
Sen. Susan Collins that the White House prefers, that version has not been scheduled for a vote. Ruppersberger
said the
compromise bill wasn't perfect, but said, "The most important thing is to move forward." He warned
the only thing standing in the way of protecting communications networks for businesses and individuals was inaction by
Congress .
It’ll pass but acting quickly and bipartisanship are key
Thornberry, 4-25 – Rep. Mac, (R-Texas) is chairman of the House GOP Cybersecurity Task Force. He
also serves as the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and as a member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “Cybersecurity needs our full attention,” POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75604.html
Threats in cyberspace pose a real and direct danger — to our economy and our security. Study after study and commission after commission
have issued warnings and made recommendations. Not much has resulted — yet the threats continue to grow more numerous and more
sophisticated. The House is now about to do something about it. This
week we are set to consider four bills that will begin
to close the expanding gap between these growing threats and technological changes and the outdated laws and
policies that cannot keep up. The House is set to vote on legislation to update the Federal Information Security Act of 2002 — to push the
government to do a better job of protecting its networks, requiring continuous monitoring and defense in depth. There are two bills that will
focus more of our federal research and development efforts on cybersecurity, complementing the massive private-sector investment in this
area. The four bills also include legislation to help with information sharing. The federal government now has a great deal of information about
threats, which it uses to help defend military and intelligence networks. But much of that capability is sidelined when it comes to defending the
rest of the country — particularly critical infrastructure. The new House bill would allow government information to be shared with the private
sector, private-sector information to be shared — voluntarily — with the government, and private entities to share with each other. There are
safeguards to ensure that information is not misused and the privacy of individual Americans is protected. The
new bills are the
product of many months of work that began early in this Congress. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority
Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) last year recognized that Congress could not go another session without beginning to reduce the nation’s
vulnerability in cyberspace. They created a Cybersecurity Task Force to make recommendations and coordinate among the nine House
committees with significant jurisdiction on this issue. Since the task force issued recommendations last fall, the various committees have been
devising legislation. These
bills received bipartisan support and are the result of much listening and
consultation with a wide variety of sources . They build on the work done in cybersecurity over the past few years by House
Democrats, like Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), and others. While there are differences of opinion about some details,
there is tremendous agreement about what needs to be done. These bills are just the beginning. The most prominent criticism of the legislation
has been that it does not go far enough. It is true that these four bills will not solve all of our problems in cyberspace. But it is likely a mistake to
try to do so all at once. In an area where the vast majority of what we want to protect is owned by the private sector — and where American
innovation and competitiveness is key to our nation’s success — we need to tread carefully. Each of the four bills is a start — a strong,
significant start — but only a start. They will help make the country safer. But the Cybersecurity Task Force made a number of other
recommendations that should be — and many are being — pursued by the appropriate committees. The security of their computers and the
information stored on them is at risk — every minute of every day. The damage from the information that is being stolen, manipulated or
destroyed is already costing us jobs, chipping away at our competitiveness and undermining our national security. Yet, as with so many issues,
we cannot let the quest for the perfect, overarching bill prevent us from achieving the good, a-step-in-the-rightdirection bill. In cybersecurity, we cannot afford to wait any longer to get it done perfectly. We need to act
now .
Cybersecurity is the ONLY bill that will pass – the Aff causes partisanship and delay
Rhoades, 4-6 – Matthew, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Truman National Security Project, “For
cybersecurity, let bipartisanship succeed,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/technology/220329-for-cybersecurity-let-bipartisanship-succeed.
When Congress returns from recess, expectations of what it can accomplish this year will remain low. The 112th
Congress has not been very productive thus far, and significant achievements will only grow more difficult as the next election nears. But,
believe it or not, there are a few remaining glimmers of bipartisan hope in 2012. One of which is passing
cybersecurity
legislation.
Cyber efforts haven’t garnered much press so far for two simple reasons. First, unlike the budget and the
Keystone XL pipeline, cyber proposals only recently became mired in entrenched political partisanship. And second, it’s an issue that isn’t well
understood.
The current debate revolves around a simple concept: how do we keep hackers and foreign intelligence agencies from shutting
down our electric grid, controlling our railroad switches, or manipulating financial transactions? About 85 percent of what’s known as “critical
infrastructure” is owned by private entities, many of which have already been the victim of a cyber attack.
This past week, a payment
processor for Visa and MasterCard was breached, compromising 1.5 million credit cards. In the spring of 2011, both the Sony PlayStation
Network and RSA – a company that provides security systems for the Department of Defense – were hacked. The Sony attack resulted in 77
million personal accounts stolen and the RSA attack cost the company over $66 million to investigate. Last
year alone, cybersecurity
breaches cost U.S. companies about $100 billion. Even our military is not totally secure. The U.S. Air Force –
which leads the military’s cybersecurity operations – was hacked last October. A computer virus infiltrated part of the drone fleet, downing our
sophisticated weaponry with a few lines of code. Because
the Air Force works with private contractors, holes in the
business community’s cyber defenses directly endanger our national security apparatus . There are
currently two efforts in the United States Senate to protect U.S. businesses and national interests. The first is a bipartisan bill
championed by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), that is over
four years in the making. The competing bill – led by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and championed by the Chamber of Commerce – was
introduced just this March.
There is a lot in common in the two bills, but the biggest difference lies in how we fortify the large amount of core
critical infrastructure that is owned by private companies. The Chamber of Commerce – which was breached by Chinese hackers in May 2010 –
would prefer not to require businesses to meet certain standards critical to cybersecurity. The Chamber’s proposal allows businesses to
voluntarily share information with the federal government about cyber breaches, an approach that leaves us vulnerable to attack and slow to
detect intruders. The bipartisan approach is better. The proposal would require owners of critical infrastructure to meet
minimum security standards and, in exchange, receive only limited liability in the case of an intrusion. That’s a fair deal. This bill would also
require companies to report significant breaches to the federal government. In return, they would receive help from the intelligence
community in improving detection, prevention, and response techniques.
In March, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano,
and White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan conducted a classified cyber attack simulation for roughly 25 U.S. Senators. The
demonstration played out a scenario in which New York City’s electric system was breached. Senator Rockefeller said “the simulation was
realistic and illustrated just how dangerous inaction on cybersecurity legislation can be.” Cybersecurity
legislation may be
Congress’s best hope for a significant, bipartisan achievement in 2012— and it’s necessary. The proposals are
expected to reach
the House floor at the end of this month and the Senate floor in May. Congress should choose the best
path forward by finishing the bipartisan work started back in December 2008. Congress faces yet another fork in the road. Either it can adopt
a comprehensive approach, where the business and public sectors work cohesively to deter threats, or it can allow us to remain vulnerable to
attack. The government needs to work hand-in-hand with our business community, not put out fires after they ignite. We
can rise to the
challenges of cybersecurity today by leaving partisan politics out of it.
Obama is pushing cybersecurity – it has bipartisan consensus and any delay is deadly
CDP, 3-9-12 – Congressional Documents and Publications (Federal Information and News Dispatch,
Inc.), PUSH FOR CYBERSECURITY BILL CONTINUES, Lexis.
Key industry stakeholders and top administration officials continue to weigh in on the need for
cybersecurity legislation. In a letter to sponsors of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, defense contractor Northrop Grumman yesterday
urged action to protect critical infrastructure from cyber threats. And today, Commerce Secretary John Bryson penned an op-ed in POLITICO on
the need for immediate action on cybersecurity legislation. The bipartisan cybersecurity bill, introduced last month by Senators Jay
Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., addresses cyber vulnerabilities and
gives the federal government and the private sector the tools necessary to protect our most critical
infrastructure from growing cyber threats. The text of Secretary Bryson's op-ed follows: The New Face of Corporate Espionage
By Commerce Secretary John Bryson Over the past 5 years, a highly sophisticated team of operatives have stealthily infiltrated more than 70
U.S. corporations and organizations to steal priceless company secrets. They did it without ever setting foot in any victim's office. Sitting at
undisclosed computers, they could be anywhere in the world. This is the new face of corporate espionage. Thieves whose identities are safely
obscured by digital tradecraft rather than a ski mask, robbing companies of the ideas that are the source of American ingenuity. We now rely on
the Internet to conduct business, supply communities with power and water, communicate with loved ones and support our troops on the
battlefield. Our digital infrastructure is part of our country's lifeblood. Individual consumers, government agencies and small and large
businesses are all increasingly vulnerable to growing threats. However, there is another reason to care about Internet security that is less
known: protecting U.S. competitiveness and jobs in the global economy. In the coming weeks Congress has an opportunity to do just that. As
we mark National Consumer Protection Week -- a time for consumer advocacy groups, private organizations and agencies at every level of
government to highlight the ways individuals and families can protect themselves from scams, fraud and abuse--we are reminded of the role
we each play in defending ourselves against online attacks and securing cyberspace. U.S. companies use information networks to create and
store their unique ideas. The ideas that power our economic growth. Every day the networks of these companies, from large corporations to
small businesses, are targeted by criminal organizations and nation-state thieves for these trade secrets. Though this new corporate espionage
is rampant and rising, calculating the damage to U.S. interests remains difficult. Not all data theft victims are aware of -- or willing to report -these incidents. Even when a cyber-intrusion is detected, investigators usually cannot determine what information has been stolen or how the
ultimate recipients will use it. In the aggregate, the theft of this property, including everything from sensitive defense technology to innovative
industrial designs, insidiously erodes government and corporate competitive advantages among global peers. The effect on individual
companies can be far more tangible and dramatic. U.S. companies invest considerable time and money in researching and developing new
products, only to be undercut by cheaper-priced competition using their stolen property. Unfortunately, companies experience losses from this
every day, which can mean worker layoffs and less hiring. Quite simply -- cyber espionage means fewer American jobs. Yet many cyber
intrusions could be prevented by implementing sound cybersecurity practices. To
address this, President Barack Obama sent
Congress a package of legislative proposals last May to give Washington new authority to share information about cyber
threats with businesses, and if asked, to provide assistance to prevent cyber theft. The proposal would also require that companies most critical
to national security and economic prosperity improve their cybersecurity defenses. There
is now strong bipartisan consensus
in Congress for cybersecurity reform. A report issued last fall by a House Republican task force recommended many of the
concepts that the president had proposed to Congress. Indeed, one specific reason for legislative reform referenced by the House GOP was the
need to prevent information from being stolen from business databases. The
Senate has also shown a willingness to tackle
this issue. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) have introduced
legislation that would provide new authorities for information sharing and voluntary government assistance, while also requiring the companies
that the nation relies upon for its security and prosperity to implement cybersecurity defenses. Both
sides of the aisle should
work together to pass meaningful legislation as quickly as possible. We need congressional leaders to
follow through without delay to address this issue of national consequence. The administration has
provided Congress with its vision
for how to protect U.S. ingenuity from cyber theft. But only Congress can grant the government
new authorities to help companies with that task. The Senate is expected to take up the issue in the coming weeks. We hope the House will act
soon as well. Each day that passes, more property is stolen from American businesses, eroding
and putting workers at risk. It's now time to modernize our laws and save American jobs.
our competitiveness
Cybersecurity will pass but negotiating quick compromise is key
Palmer, 3-7-12 – Obama push for Russia trade bill ignites debate, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-usa-russia-trade-idUSTRE8261RL20120307.
A recent Reuters article reported this: “A Senate aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Senate is unlikely to pass either the McCain
bill or the Democratic version and that talks
on a possible compromise could begin in the coming weeks. President
Obama's proposed legislation, like the omnibus bill Reid wants, would leave DHS in charge of cybersecurity. DHS
could ask for help from the NSA, but would be subject to closer oversight than actions led by the NSA and other parts of the Defense
cyber legislation deal will get done in 2012 . No, I don’t have any inside
knowledge. Nor do I know what will be in the final deal and what will be left out. Nevertheless, too much is at stake to do nothing until
2013. In my view, Mark Weatherford is right that the Internet is too vital and the risks are too high to hold off. Could cyber legislation
wait until after the election in November? Possibly – with a deal coming after Thanksgiving. But I
Department.” What do I think? My view is that
hope it doesn’t take that long . Like many around the world – I’m watching closely and seeing cyber holes that need to be filled.
Bottom line, I agree that more can be done - and needs to be done - on cybersecurrity in DC in 2012.
Election fights and business interests won’t derail it
Gorman, 3-9-12 – Siobhan, Cybersecurity Bills Duel Over Rules for Firms, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203961204577269832774110556.html.
Election-year politics could derail enactment of any cybersecurity measure, but lawmakers and industry
officials increasingly say they believe Congress will pass a bill . The competing measures are expected to reach the
Senate floor soon. Much of the debate so far has focused on whether proposed new regulations would be too onerous and costly for the
private sector. Business
interests have played a key role in crafting both proposals.
Cybesecurity will pass but Obama has to invest all his capital to overcome obstacles
Davis, 2-15-12 -- Kim, "Senators Get Cold Feet on Cybersecurity," Internet Revolution,
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=679&doc_id=239303&f_src=internetevolutio
n_gnews.
Readers with long memories might recall that it was in May last year that the White House announced that the nation's critical
infrastructure was "at risk" and called on Congress to move forward with plans to protect it. Launching the
administration's own cybersecurity legislative proposals, President Obama almost pounded the table : Just as we failed in
the past to invest in our physical infrastructure -- our roads, our bridges and rails -- we've failed to invest in the security of our digital
infrastructure... This status quo is no longer acceptable -- not when there's so much at stake. Right. Fix it -- and fast. Well, let's see where
we're at, some nine months later. The Senate this week revealed a new bill aimed at achieving some of the White House's goals. Specifically, it
tackles the thorny problem that the infrastructure on which we all rely is largely in private hands, and would require enterprises responsible for
key elements of the infrastructure -- like power plants and oil pipelines -- to meet cybersecurity standards. The cherry on the cake is that
enterprises complying with the regulations would enjoy liability protection. Even so, to
say that lawmakers are tentative about
be an understatement. Although the bill enjoys bipartisan support,
industry -- together with its predictable Congressional chorus of support -- is lobbying hard against it. Burdensome. Why throw
regulating private enterprise would
out what's working? Let's have incentives rather than more rules. You could write the script. Seven bold senators have already asked majority
leader Harry Reid to slam on the brakes. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, John McCain of Arizona, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Saxby Chambliss of
Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming have signed a letter calling for hearings upon hearings:
This is not the kind of legislation that can result in a carefully balanced solution unless the full process is afforded. Understand:
nobody is
actually against cybersecurity . Everyone just wants to have a conversation. In other words, for "full process," read "not this year."
(Reid had hoped to bring the bill to a vote next month.) It was left to Senator Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, to sound a note of
sanity: We
are on the brink of
what could be a
calamity . A widespread cyber attack could potentially be as devastating to this
country as the terror attacks that tore apart this country 10 years ago.
It has a huge chance of passage despite opposition
Lefkow, 2-15-12 – US Senate in new cybersecurity push, AFP,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hceiitOippk466IoKVINWgh7eyMg?docId=CNG.
d2dffb7bb5556b9a072d2459a2931d3f.161.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is to hold a hearing on the bill on Thursday. James Lewis, a
cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, described the bill as a "really significant
piece of legislation" but said "key sections of it have been diluted." "The part that really counts is the ability to hold
critical infrastructure to mandatory standards and that's under tremendous industry pressure to have it hollowed out," said
Lewis, who is scheduled to testify before the committee. Lewis said the
passage
bill " has the best chance of any I've seen" of
but he was "not optimistic."
It’s all but wrapped up – Obama negotiations are key
Clayton, 2-16-12 – Mark, Christian Science Monitor, Lexis.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is almost finished, and Obama administration officials say it is urgently
needed to defend porous computer networks that control key American industries from attacks that could cause mass casualties and
hammer the economy. But the bill would require federal oversight of some "critical infrastructure" - mostly controlled by private industry - and
seven Republican senators are balking, saying the bill has not had enough review. The bill's difficult balancing act is in making sure that the 85
percent of the nation's "critical infrastructure" that is controlled by private companies is really secure without unduly interfering with private
industry. The need for some plan of action has been highlighted by reports of intrusions into systems controlling the US power grid, water
systems, and US oil company networks by hackers. None are now subject to federal oversight to ensure they have adequately secure cyber
networks. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 would seek to remedy that problem by: Defining as "critical infrastructure" computer systems that - if
disrupted by cyberattack - "would cause mass death, evacuation, or major damage to the economy, national security, or daily life." Such
systems would be required to meet federally overseen security standards. Owners who think their systems were wrongly designated could
appeal.Requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with the owners of designated critical infrastructure systems to develop
performance requirements. If a sector is secured, no new requirements would be developed or required.Allowing owners of a covered system
to determine how best to meet the new security requirements and then verify fulfillment of those requirements through a third-party assessor
or even "self-certify" its own systems.Requiring information-sharing between private sector and federal government agencies on threats and
incidents, with an emphasis on civil liberties and privacy. In
an effort to smooth passage, the bill has already removed
one provision that critics had claimed would have given the president a "kill switch" to essentially turn off the
Internet.
PC K – 2nc
Obama’s PC is key – it lines up Dems and forces the GOP to narrow their aims
The Hill, 4-26 – House approves cybersecurity bill over Obama veto threat,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/224115-house-approves-cybersecurity-bill-over-obamaveto-threat.
The House on Thursday approved controversial cybersecurity legislation that the Obama administration has
threatened to veto. Members approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection (CISPA) act, H.R. 3523, in a 248-168 vote that split
both parties somewhat. The bill was supported by 42 Democrats, while 28 Republicans opposed it. The House approved the bill after making a
number of changes aimed at limiting the way the government could use the information that companies provide. CISPA would make it easier
for companies to share information with the government about the threats facing their networks. Supporters — Republicans and Democrats
alike — said the proposal is a reasonable compromise between the need for privacy and security. "The intelligence community has the ability to
detect these cyber threats, these malicious codes and viruses, before they are able to attack our networks," said Intelligence Committee
ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). "But right now, federal law prohibits our intelligence community from sharing the classified
cyber threat with the companies that will protect us that control the network, the AT&Ts, the Verizons, the Comcasts, those groups. "We have
the ability to give them the information to protect us, but yet we have to pass a law to do that." The
bill enjoyed strong bipartisan
support before the administration issued a veto threat and sided with privacy advocates who argue the bill does not do
enough to protect consumers' private information. The White House also wants regulatory mandates for critical
infrastructure providers, which are not contained in CISPA. Ruppersberger said earlier Thursday that Obama's veto threat of his bill
was like a "kick in the solar plexus". It also seemed to have the effect of peeling Democrats off the bill, as several
Democrats took up Obama's arguments
during floor debate. "In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode
the privacy protections of every single American using the Internet," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). "It would create a Wild West of
information sharing, where any certified business can share with any government agency, who can then use the information for any national
security purpose and grant the business immunity from virtually any liability." Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) added that the bill is an
"unprecedented, sweeping piece of legislation that would waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity."
Republicans did allow several amendments to be considered that narrowed the scope of the bill,
including proposals from members of both parties. One from Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) would allow the government to use the information it
collects only for five purposes, all related to protecting people and prosecuting crimes. Others
would prohibit the government
from using certain electronic data as it works to fight cyber threats, narrow the definition of what information can be shared, and
encourage the government to create procedures to protect privacy. Even before those amendments, supporters argued that the bill has
enough safeguards in it to ensure the privacy of consumer data. "The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private
information," Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) said. "It significantly limits the federal government's use of that information that the private companies
voluntarily provide, including the government's authority to search data." The bill is one of four cybersecurity bills the House is expected to
consider this week. The others are the Federal Information Security Amendments act (H.R. 4257), the Cybersecurity Enhancement act (H.R.
2096), and the Advancing America's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development act (H.R. 3834). House Republicans
have put these three bills on the suspension calendar, a process usually reserved for non-controversial bills that will require them to pass by a
two-thirds majority vote.
a2 It Passed
This is our argument – it passed the House and Obama is key to facilitating interchamber negotiations
There’s bipartisan support but it’ll be a challenge – Obama has to invest in the Senate
vote
Cassata, 4-27 – House passes CISPA cybersecurity bill Obama opposes, Chicago Sun Times,
2http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/12165666-418/house-passes-cispa-cybersecurity-bill-obamaopposes.html.
The House’s solid bipartisan vote for a cybersecurity bill sends a message to the Senate: Now it’s your turn
to act. Ignoring a White House veto threat, the House approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act–known as CISPA–which
would encourage companies and the federal government to share information collected on the Internet to help prevent electronic attacks from
cybercriminals, foreign governments and terrorists. The vote Thursday was 248-168, with 42 Democrats joining 206 Republicans in backing the
measure. Congressional
leaders are determined to get a cybersecurity bill completed this election year but that
may be difficult . The Obama administration and several leading Senate Democrats and Republicans want a bill
that would give the Homeland Security Department the primary role in overseeing domestic
cybersecurity and the authority to set security standards. The House bill would impose no new regulations on businesses, an imperative
for Republicans. In the coming weeks, the Senate will try to proceed on its bill by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan
Collins, R-Maine, who have said the House bill is inadequate in protecting against cyberattacks. Senior Senate Republicans, such as Sen. John
McCain of Arizona, argue that Homeland Security is ill-equipped to determine how best to secure the nation’s essential infrastructure and has
introduced his own bill.
a2 Civil Libs Block
The bill will be modified to solve liberty concerns – that’s the thesis of our 1NC ev.
More ev that solves:
Bartz, 4-11 – Diane, House to take up cybersecurity bill with revisions, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/us-cybersecurity-congress-idUSBRE8391FY20120411.
But the bill, which has 105 co-sponsors, has come under attack from groups like the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, which said in a blog post last month that the bill failed to use narrow enough language to define a cyber threat. The group said
the bill would give the government free rein to monitor communications, filter content from sites like WikiLeaks, or possibly shut down access
to online services. In
a news conference on Tuesday, Rogers and Ruppersberger said their bill had no such intent. They said they
would clarify that private companies would give information about threats only to the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. This would cut out the National Security Agency, which has the best cybersecurity
expertise in government but is distrusted by civil liberties groups because of warrantless wiretapping as part of the war on terror.
And they stressed that the bill's goal was only to share information about malicious software code - not content. "Malicious code will be caught
before it gets into networks. That's where we think we make the biggest bang for the buck," Rogers said.
2nc IL
Cybersecurity Act is crucial – dot-govs, detection, info clearing house and bureaucracy
Infosec, 2-23-12 – DHS's Mark Weatherford on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, Infosec Island (Like
Stratfor but not quite as crazy or hacked by Anonymous…)
http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/20504-DHSs-Mark-Weatherford-on-the-Cybersecurity-Act-of2012.html
While congress continues to wrangle with partisan political maneuvering where national security legislation is concerned, Mark
Weatherford, Deputy Under Secretary for Cybersecurity, has publicly endorsed the recently unveiled
Cybersecurity Act of 2012. "It will help keep the American public safe from theft, fraud and loss of personal and financial data.
Another important component in the proposed legislation addresses one of DHS’ core cybersecurity missions –
securing the federal executive branch networks," Weatherford says. The Department of Homeland Security, for better or
worse, has taken the lead in cybersecurity efforts for the federal government, and Weatherford believes the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 will
enable the agency to better fulfill its mission. "Protecting
the “dot-gov” domain is critical because it’s not only
where the government does its own business and maintains essential functions, but it’s also where
we provide services to the American people. One of the ways DHS helps to secure these networks is through the
National Cybersecurity Protection System, which leverages sophisticated intrusion detection
capabilities. We also provide onsite technical assistance to help agencies bolster their own cybersecurity defenses and respond to incidents
when they happen," Weatherford said. The proposed legislation, which attempts to reconcile a hodgepodge of bills introduced in
Congress over the past several years, would allow for DHS to better act as an information clearing house for multiple
government agencies Weatherford says. "The proposed legislation would enable DHS to be more effective and efficient in its protection of
federal networks by clarifying DHS’ authorities in this space and enabling better sharing of cybersecurity information from other federal
agencies to DHS." Weatherford also points to the fact that the President’s FY 2013 budget request allocates an additional $200 million dollars in
funding for federal cybersecurity efforts, which combined with reforms in the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, could lead to significant improvements
in the federal security posture. "The
legislation would further this effort by modernizing the Federal Information Security
to focus agencies’ network security efforts on the implementation of actual
security measures instead of costly and ineffective paperwork exercises," Weatherford explained." Whether or not
the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 will be enacted over competing legislation is still in question, but Weatherford believes the bill will
effectively allow DHS to better carry out the task of leading the federal government in improving
information systems security. "Cybersecurity is complex and always changing. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 aligns closely with the
Management Act (FISMA)
Administration’s proposal and serves to better define what is expected of DHS and what tools are at our disposal to accomplish the
cybersecurity mission. In short, it will enable us to execute on our current mission more efficiently and effectively to protect the federal
government’s computer networks," Weatherford conlcudes.
**Elections
1nc UQ
Obama wins because he controls the *perception* of strong management – the plan
derails its
Zogby, 4-25-12 – John, Senior Advisor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, best-selling author, founded the polling firm Zogby International, 8.0 May Be Obama's Lucky
Number, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2012/04/25/8-0-may-be-obamas-luckynumber/.
Those may be arbitrary numbers, and a voter’s personal job situation and that of his community may mean more than that of the nation.
However, that
poll gives us a guide to how perceptions of the economy, and most important the direction it is
heading, will impact the election. With the current official rate at 8.2%, Obama is looking good. Perhaps not coincidentally,
the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls has Obama leading Mitt Romney, 47.5%-44.4%, or right at the plurality
predicted by last year’s poll. If a USA Today survey of what it calls “50 top economists” is accurate, a polling majority could be within sight for
Obama. According to the paper, “economists think job growth for the rest of the year will be about 20% stronger than they did after
Christmas.” Yes, predictions by economists can have what we pollsters call a high margin of error. Plus there are dissenters among economists.
In the short term, some fear rising gas prices and question whether an unusually warm winter/spring may have inflated seasonal job growth.
Others look longer term and see little change in personal debt and uncertainty about fiscal policies in both Europe and Washington. Then there
is the issue of the “the real jobless rate,” which includes the unemployed who may be left out of the official number, notably people who have
stopped looking for work. Some claim that rate is more than two points higher than the official number. Whether
it is perception or
reality, an improving economy is very much a factor in the rise of Obama’s approval rating and his
standing
against Romney. That’s
most important in swing states , where there is hard evidence of a better economy.
Manufacturing is on the upswing in Ohio and Michigan, and increased tourism is giving some relief to unemployment rates in Arizona, Nevada
and Florida. Economic gains are making it harder for Romney to build momentum. For every statement about robust party support for Romney
and optimism he will win, there are also reported rumblings among GOP insiders that Romney is a weak candidate with little chance of ousting
Obama. No one seems at all eager to be Romney’s running mate. That may be the usual posturing and lowering of expectations by those who
don’t want to look like losers when someone else gets tapped. Or perhaps this Jon Stewart Daily Show piece accurately satirizes a field in which
all the most talked about choices appear to be begging Romney to choose someone else. Being number two on a losing ticket is not a path to
future political success. Pessimism
about Romney assumes continued good economic news and no new
events that put Obama in a bad light . We all know what happens to those who assume. Timing would seem to be
everything. So what happens if the jobless rate dips under 8% in September, but jumps in October? That seems like a nightmare for Team
Obama, and could be if the race is Bush v. Gore close. Otherwise, late breaking bad news may not be as strong a predictor as economic growth
over the first three quarters or the incumbent’s approval rating heading into the last few months of the campaign.
2nc UQ Overview
Obama wins now – our 1NC Zogby evidence says the perception of strong economic
management buoys his approval rating in key swing states, but quote “new events
that put Obama in a bad light” would be devastating. Defer Neg for 3 reasons –
a. We control the only relevant factor – the economy – it’ll deliver victory
Memoli, 4-20 – Michael, 5 things the early polls tell us about the Obama-Romney matchup, Chicago
Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-la-pn-what-the-obama-romney-polls-tellus-about-race-20120418,0,2821916.story
For starters, you may not be surprised to learn that it's expected to be a close race. The top line numbers -- that is, the head-tohead matchup between the Democratic incumbent and his likely GOP challenger -- range from a 9-point lead for Obama (CNN/Opinion
Research Corporation) to a 5-point advantage for Romney (Gallup). The
latest poll of the bunch, from NBC News and the Wall Street
Obama ahead 49% to 43%. A composite of recent polls from Real Clear Politics gives Obama, on average, a nearly 3-point
lead. Those early numbers are getting most of the attention, but the campaigns are more interested in what the deeper
data show. And while each survey has a different overall result, there are areas of consensus among them that point to
the candidates' main strengths and weaknesses, and the nature of the November electorate. 1. Republicans are rallying ...
Journal, puts
slowly: Given how many Republican candidates laid claim to the frontrunner mantle at various points of the primary battle, it is noteworthy
that the party's base seems to be quickly accepting the fact that Romney is the one they must support if they are to defeat President Obama. A
Pew Research Center poll showed that 88% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters say they will support Romney this fall.
Despite conventional wisdom that suggested Romney was weakest among the more conservative elements of the party, Pew found that they
were more likely to be certain of their support for him now, by a margin of 82% compared to only 66% of moderate and liberal Republicans
who were certain. A CBS/New York Times poll found that 54% of Republican primary voters now say they want Romney to lead them into the
fall campaign -- not an overwhelming majority, but a significant jump from a March poll that found only 30% felt that way then. Romney's
favorable rating, still historically low for a major party nominee at this time, is nonetheless improving now that Republicans' internal sniping is
subsiding. Among all voters, CNN's poll showed his personal favorable rating jumped from 37% in March to 44% in April. A Washington
Post/ABC News poll saw less of a bounce so far, though, with his favorable rating still at just 35%. What's really motivating Republicans is their
hostility to Obama. Among registered general election voters who said they would support Romney, 63% said their vote was one against
Obama while 35% said it was a vote for Romney. 2. It's the economy, stupid: Never
mind the dust-up over Hilary Rosen’s comments,
Ted Nugent’s rant, or anything involving dogs. The overwhelming concern of voters at this point is a
serious one: the state of the economy. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 53% of voters said jobs and the economy was the
most important issue when thinking about their choice in the election. They showed the race as 47% to 43% for
Obama overall. But 45% of voters said Romney was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared to 43% who said Obama was. It was the
only issue where Romney led. That may explain why the president does not have a more significant lead given
how well he scores against Romney on some key questions.
b. Approval rating – it’s the best empirical baseline – Obama will stay above 50% if he
stays on message
Paulson, 4-24-12 – Scott, President Obama's approval rating at 50% - Obama leads Romney by 7%,
Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-s-approval-rating-at-50-obama-leadsromney-by-7
According to the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, President Barack Obama’s approval rating is at 50%, and Obama is currently leading
Mitt Romney - the apparent GOP presidential candidate – by 7%. The latest poll regarding the 2012 presidential election shows Obama with
49% to Romney’s 42%. This
should be great news for President Obama and his supporters. Recent analyses of Obama’s
former low approval ratings – stuck in the mid 40s for several months - continually compared Obama to former presidents’
ratings in their fourth year as president. Obama had been doing worse than his predecessors who have lost in their
presidential re-election bid. These presidents, of course, were former President Jimmy Carter and former President George H. Bush.
Former President Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide, and former President Bill Clinton defeated the first Bush president. Now that
Obama is showing strong gains as Election Day 2012 approaches, thoughts and talk of a 2012 Obama loss will most assuredly be toned down.
According to Gallup’s own historical analysis, all incumbent presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower ,
who won re-elections, had an approval rating of 50% or better. Those presidents were former Presidents Johnson,
Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush president - George W. Bush. Therefore, if Obama can hold these approval
numbers – and if history repeats itself – he will win a second term . Obama’s ratings have been turbulent this past month. At the
beginning of April 2012, Obama’s ratings declined when the unemployment rate remained constant. That was a grave disappointment as it was
expected to keep improving. However, as gas prices edged slightly lower this month, Obama’s approval rating began to rebound. In recent
times, persons who have been polled have indicated that high gas prices are their biggest concern about President Obama’s presidency and the
nation's economy. As
American’s satisfaction with the way America is headed improves and their confidence in the
economy slightly improves, Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney increases. In the past week, Romney has lost his lead of 48%-to-43%
over Obama.
c. Swing states – Obama’s ahead in them because of the economy and they’re key
TPM, 4-25-12 – Swing State Poll: Obama By 4, Voters Give Romney A ‘Second Look,’ Talking Points
Memo, http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/swing-state-poll-obama-by-4-voters-give
A new poll of swing states from Purple Strategies shows President Obama’s lead shrinking to four points in a sample of voters in Colorado,
Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Obama
leads likely Republican nominee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 44, and the race is even tighter in key
states. The President leads Ohio by 5 points, 49 - 44, and holds a 2 percent lead in Virginia, 48 to 46. The men are tied at
47 percent in Colorado, and Romney is up 2 points in Florida, 47 - 45. “While the Purple Electorate vote has been steady, independents have
moved toward Romney since March. Today, Romney holds a 2-point lead (46% to 44%), while in March President Obama led among this key
swing constituency by 8 points,” Purple Strategies wrote in their analysis. “Purple
Obama ‘ has the right ideas to build the economy
State voters believe that President
in a way that will provide more opportunities for you’ (42% to 38%), and
‘for the next generation’ (44% to 41%). However, those advantages disappear when looking just at independents (37%/38%, and 39%/39%
respectively).”
d. Quals – Defer to Zogby
Huffington Post, ’12 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby.
John Zogby, former president and CEO of Zogby International, remains by all accounts the hottest pollster in the United States today. "All hail
Zogby, the maverick predictor who beat us all," proclaimed the Washington Post in November 1996 after
Zogby alone called that
presidential election with pinpoint accuracy. In the recent razor-thin 2000 elections, daily national tracking polls conducted by
Zogby International in the last few weeks foretold a tightening of the race for president while nearly all other polling firms projected an easy
victory for Gov. George W. Bush. Zogby International instead was the first to observe the gap closing significantly between Bush and VicePresident Al Gore in the waning hours of the election. In his post election 2000 review, the acclaimed Godfrey Sperling, columnist for the
Christian Science Monitor called John Zogby "Champion Pollster." "In 1996, John Zogby came within one-tenth of 1 percent of the presidential
result - the best performance turned in by any of the pollsters. This year Mr. Zogby was the first pollster I heard being cited on TV as finding
that Gore was pulling out slightly, by 2 percent, ahead of Mr. Bush. But when I talked to Zogby a few days ago, he was elated with how close he
had come this year to predicting the final outcome - and rightly so." Zogby continued to rank in the top tier in 2004 both in the nationwide polls
for Reuters and in the 20 states that he polled. Since 1996,
Zogby has polled for Reuters News Agency, the largest news
agency in the world, and in 2000 polled for NBC News, the network news watched by most Americans. His
clients also include MSNBC, the New York Post, Fox News, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Gannett News Service, Houston Chronicle, Miami
Herald, Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Albany Times Union, the Buffalo News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Cincinnati Post, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, the Toledo Blade, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, the Syracuse Herald, and nearly every daily
newspaper in New York State, as well as television stations throughout the U.S. He
has been praised as "the most accurate
pollster" (Seattle Post Intelligencer, Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA Today), "respected" and "pioneering" (Albany Times Union),
"the pace setter in the polling business" (New York Post), and "the big winner in 1996" (Campaigns and Elections, L. Brent Bozell,
and the O'Leary/Kamber Report). Zogby regularly appears on all three nightly network news programs plus NBC's "Today Show," ABC's "Good
Morning America" and is a frequent guest for Fox News and MSNBC special programs, along with CNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." He
also is a regular political commentator for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation. He has been spoofed
on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and the Late Show with David Letterman. He has been
profiled in the New Yorker, Fortune Magazine, Inc., and Investors' Business Daily.
2004
appearance on The Daily Show
The highpoint of his life was his
October 28,
with Jon Stewart. His analytical expertise has been published on the opinion pages of the
New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday and the Boston
Globe. Following his correct call in the 1997 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the Houston Chronicle exclaimed, "and the winner again is John
Zogby." Mary Matalin, host of her own national radio show, calls Zogby
the "prince of pollsters," and Barry Farber has declared
has also distinguished himself in Canada where he alone called the popular vote
victory of the Liberals over the Parti Quebecois in the Quebec election of 1998. He was the first pollster to see a victory for Vicente Fox in the
2000 Mexican election, and triumphed in the 2001 Israeli election being the only pollster to call the 26-point margin victory of
defense minister, Ariel Sharon. Zogby further distinguished himself by polling the Iran Presidential election closer than even the Iran
News Agency. Zogby holds degrees in history from Le Moyne College and Syracuse University. He has taught history and political
science at the State University of New York, Utica College, and at Hamilton College's Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center. In addition he is a
him "America's Pollmaster General." He
member of the Board of Trustees of Le Moyne College. He received the distinguished Alumni Award in June 2000. A frequent lecturer and
panelist, he is listed with Leading Authorities and the Capitol Speakers Bureau in Washington, DC and the National Speakers' Bureau, in Chicago.
He continues to lecture all over the world. He
also serves on the Advisory Council for Bio-Technology for the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He has polled, researched and consulted for a wide spectrum of business media, government, and
political groups including Coca Cola, Microsoft, CISCO Systems, Philip Morris, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, MCI, Reuters America, and
the United States Census Bureau since 1984. Zogby
continues to poll extensively throughout the world - at last
count in 62 countries. Zogby has polled and conducted focus groups throughout the United States. He has polled in Canada, Brazil,
Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Korea, along with the Middle East. He is married to Kathleen Zogby, a special education teacher, and has
three sons, Jonathan, Benjamin, and Jeremy.
Demographics – 8 advantages
Murray, 4-19 – Mark, NBC News Senior Political Editor, NBC/WSJ poll: Obama leads Romney by six
points, but Republican ahead on economy,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/19/11291546-nbcwsj-poll-obama-leads-romney-bysix-points-but-republican-ahead-on-economy?lite
With the Republican presidential primary season essentially over and with the general election campaign now under way, President Barack
Obama begins the race with a six-point lead over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, according to a new NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll. Obama’s advantage is fueled by his traditionally strong-standing among African
Americans , Latinos and young voters , as well as with women and even political independents .
What’s more, he’s viewed – by substantial margins – as more likeable , compassionate and better
for the middle class
than Romney.
Five more reasons it’s a rout for Obama
Miller, 4-25 – Aaron David, distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, 5 Reasons Obama Will Win in November, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/25/5_reasons_obama_will_win_in_november.
It's almost May. Six months to go until the only presidential poll that counts. Worries abound in the Obama camp: Large Democratic donors
have dried up, the fragile economic recovery is looking weaker, independents are, well, being independent, and the Republicans have finally
found their nominee and maybe their voice too. Worrying about getting reelected is part of a president's job description, but this president
really shouldn't be all that concerned. The election is bound to be closer than in 2008, but when it's over, the
presidential gods will
likely have smiled kindly on Barack Obama. Here are the top five reasons why. 1. Americans are reelecting
imperfect and flawed presidents. I know it's going to come as a shocker, but Obama hasn't been a great president in his first term
and is unlikely to be one in his second. His two claims to fame -- saving the economy from another Great Depression and passing his signature
health-care legislation -- won't get him there. The first will largely be taken for granted, and the second is still a very uncertain and untested
proposition. The president's foreign policy has been very competent, but aside from the killing of Osama bin Laden, it has had no spectacular
successes. But what's so great about being great anyway? Greatness is certainly not a requirement for reelection. The
last two U.S.
presidents -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- were reelected comfortably, and neither could hardly be
considered a candidate for the presidential hall of fame. Both were flawed and imperfect men: Obama's predecessor was
below average; Clinton clearly above average. That's about where Obama falls too. Consider this: Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States
has had four presidents who served out two terms: Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Even with a push from partisans and revisionist
historians, none really belongs in the very top tier. 2.
Obama has history on his side. Since 1980, only one U.S.
president has failed to gain a second term. That was George H.W. Bush, who defied the odds by succeeding a two-term
president of the same party. Since FDR, this has happened only once. It's a tough hill to climb. Americans generally tire of too much single-party
dominance. Indeed, that's why Hillary Clinton should take a very hard look at her chances in 2016 -- should Obama be reelected. A set of three
presidents -- Clinton, Bush 43, and perhaps Obama -- is hardly a valid statistical sample, but it does tell you something about the power of the
incumbent. It's hard to defeat a sitting president. Although a bad economy offsets some of the incumbent's advantage, Americans tend to get
comfortable with their presidents. Presidents are also able to act presidential right up to Election Day. The presidency has a great many bells
and whistles, including the White House, which Aaron Sorkin's West Wing president once described as the world's greatest home-court
advantage. There's also the issue of continuity. These days, U.S. state and congressional politics have gotten pretty combustible and polarized.
The media circus at the national level only makes things seem more out of control. As Americans watch their politics implode, they seem to be
seeking a measure of stability in the one institution that they all have responsibility for shaping -- the presidency. In these turbulent times,
Americans tend to stay with their guys, flawed as those guys may be. Should Obama be reelected, it will only be the second time in U.S. history
that America has had three two-term presidents in a row. The last time? Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. "Throw the bums out" doesn't seem
to be as compelling a line these days. 3. The guy's a mensch (kind of). If location, location, location is the key to success in the real
estate business, then being liked -- cubed -- plays a big part in a president's success too. When Americans choose a president, they do so partly
on the basis that they're inviting him (or her, someday) to be part of their lives for four and possibly eight years. This means being able to like
the person and be comfortable with him. Forget whether the candidate is brilliant -- the most overrated quality in the presidency. Can he be
trusted? Is he trying to do the right thing? Is he arrogant and out of touch, or likable and down to earth? Can one imagine spending an hour
with the president and not having to look down at one's shoes for the entire conversation? Think about whom you'd want to spend time with:
Bill Clinton or Bob Dole; Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter. If the president has a normal family life, that helps too, particularly if he's got a cool
wife, cute kids, and a dog. Obama can appear detached, even cold, at times. More often, though, he's accessible and sincere. You'll
never convince the birthers, racists, and Obama-haters that he's anything other than an alien president. But back on planet Earth, most
Americans, according to recent polling, see him as more likable, more in touch with the needs of average people, than Republican candidate
Mitt Romney. He's good on his feet and appears pretty comfortable in his own skin. That's the elusive quality of
emotional intelligence. Are you in balance? Can you relate to others, keep your demons and insecurities under control, and stay out of trouble?
Obama gets high marks in this important category. 4.
The Republicans are weak and divided. You can't beat
something with nothing. That old saw in politics wins out most every time. The Republican Party has never gotten
over its love affair with Reagan. Look at the parade of Republican hopefuls who rose and fell during primary season. Had Reagan been around,
he'd have been frustrated with the divisions in Republican ranks. And the Gipper might have described the primaries as an audition in which the
last guy standing got the part only because the producers were exhausted and needed to get the play into rehearsals before the opening. I
know the main counterpoint: Republicans will come together because they need to defeat Obama.
But the gaps between the Republican base and the centrists are huge; the obsession with social issues
risks alienating independents; there are real doubts that Romney is conservative enough; and there's
not much enthusiasm for his stiff style on the campaign trail. All this is creating real trouble for a party that seems to
have lost its way. Add to that Republican difficulties in making inroads with women and Hispanics, and you might conclude that the election is
Obama's to lose. 5. The economy: bad, but Obama wins on points. Clearly, much will depend on how voters perceive their
economic reality closer to the election. Obama really isn't running against Romney -- he's running against the economy. By the fall, it's likely
that about the best he'll have to show is a weak recovery. Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that when it comes to the economy,
the all-important Ohio voters see Romney vs. Obama as an unpalatable choice between liver and Brussels sprouts. Still, when Americans vote
for a president, they ask themselves two questions: To what degree is the guy in the White House responsible for my misery? And if I vote for
the other guy, can he really make it better? Barring another economic meltdown, I'm betting that enough Americans will conclude that things
are getting better, albeit slowly; that Obama is doing the best job he can under tough circumstances; that the president is much more attuned
to those who are suffering; and that the Republicans
have neither better answers on the economy nor a
compelling-enough candidate worth giving the benefit of the doubt. So don't worry too much, Mr. President. You
may not be getting into the presidential hall of fame, but it looks like you're going to get another shot to try.
More Econ UQ
More ev Obama can ONLY win if he controls the economy – it’s the only thing that can
beat him
Meyerson, 4-24 – Harold, Shaky economic prospects threaten both parties, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/shaky-economic-prospects-threaten-bothparties/2012/04/24/gIQAFOQTfT_story.html
In the short term, the recovery looks shaky. In the long term, the economy looks shaky — so shaky that it may be many years before a president
of either party or any ideology can count on winning a second term. Polls show
that President Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney
is narrowing, but should Obama lose in November the decisive factor won’t be Romney (who is as inept a
presidential candidate as this country has produced in decades). The real culprit will be the economy . The winter’s encouraging
signs of recovery have given way to spring doubts. Weekly unemployment claims have risen and housing starts have declined. The specter of a
new European recession threatens to stifle U.S. exports and endanger global finance. But it is the reasons behind the past month’s sobering
economic news that really threaten Obama’s reelection — and would imperil Romney’s in 2016, should he unseat Obama this fall. As currently
constituted, the U.S. economy looks less and less capable of generating the kind of prosperity that a president, or a party, needs to ensure a
long run in power. Consider the housing market. The problem isn’t just that 11 million homeowners owe more on their homes than those
homes are worth. It is also, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week, that housing sales remain weak “because many buyers don’t have
enough cash for a down payment or can’t qualify for a loan, despite the fact that mortgage rates have fallen to near-record lows.” That’s what
happens when U.S. incomes fall — as they’ve continued to do even in the midst of our semi-recovery. The stagnation or decrease in wages is
partly due to our multinational corporations, which historically have provided about one-fifth of U.S. jobs, and disproportionately more of our
high-paying jobs. More and more, however, they are hiring abroad, not at home. Commerce Department data released last week show that
U.S. multinationals increased their domestic workforce by 0.1 percent in 2010, while increasing their overseas employment by 1.5 percent.
Sixty-eight percent of those companies’ employees were based in the United States in 2010, down from 75 percent in 1999. And that doesn’t
include those foreign workers who, like the million-plus employees of Foxconn, work abroad for the contractors of U.S. companies, rather than
directly for U.S. firms such as Apple. With offshoring comes lower wages for those American workers whose jobs could be shipped to the
Foxconns of the world. The steady decline of wages at many of our marquee manufacturers is one of the major stories of the current recovery.
The $28 hourly wage that workers in unionized plants outside the South used to count on looks increasingly like a relic of the broadly shared
prosperity that America used to enjoy. With private-sector unions now weakened by ineffectual labor laws and implacable employer
opposition, manufacturing wages have been slashed to $14 an hour, or lower, in many places. Meanwhile, wages in retail and most other
service sectors are unlikely to rise while historically higher wages in manufacturing continue to plummet. No wonder more and more Americans
can’t afford to buy houses, despite record-low mortgage rates. None of this is news — at least, not experientially — to the American people.
Last week’s CBS News-New York Times poll, which showed Obama and Romney running even at 46 percent, also turned up massive evidence of
economic insecurity and the ratcheting downward of hopes that once were widely held. Two-thirds of the respondents said they were
concerned about their continuing ability to pay for their housing. Forty percent of parents said they have had to scale back their expectations
for their children’s college educations. Nothing in Romney’s record suggests he would challenge these trends. Enhancing worker power to
restore the share of corporate revenue that used to go to wages, or using the government’s power to help build domestic industry, are ideas
not dreamt of in his philosophy. His tax proposals call for lowering taxes on the wealthy, though their investments are as likely to create jobs
abroad as they are at home. Unlike
Romney, Obama acknowledges many of the factors behind the decline in
Americans’ economic situations and has worked — as his embattled health-care reform and his push for low-interest
student loans and a fairer tax system all indicate — to mitigate many of their consequences. But the imbalances in the U.S.
economy — in part, both the cause and consequence of the growing political power of the very rich — are deeply rooted in the increasingly
destructive form of capitalism in this country. Barring fundamental changes, they will vex any president who hopes to extend his tenure by
delivering prosperity to an awaiting electorate.
**Oil Speculators
2nc UQ
More evidence that Obama will push the issue even if it’s political theater
Lotterman, 4-24 – Edward, Economist, teaches and writes in St. Paul, Minn, Why proposals to
counter oil speculation may fall short, http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/24/2089949/edlotterman-why-proposals-to.html.
President Obama's proposals to deal with the possible adverse effects of oil trading focus on two somewhat
separate issues. The first is deliberate manipulation of prices for the benefit of someone in the petroleum industry or for some financial
speculator. The second is the possible negative effects of excess speculation, per se, on oil prices and hence on the public. Two initiatives
Obama called for address the first issue. One is increased funding for enforcement by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, which oversees oil futures markets. Trading in these markets has burgeoned in the past 20 years, and funding for oversight has
not kept up. So many economists will support the president's call, although dyed-in-the-wool libertarians might prefer the abolition of the
commission itself. The second change sought from Congress is an increase in penalties for price manipulation. Penalties for violations of U.S.
securities law have not kept up with inflation, either, so an increase would restore their inflation-adjusted value. Besides, given the history of
presidents appointing blue-ribbon panels, amid much publicity, to investigate gasoline price rigging only to have these bodies come back with
negative reports, this is the measure with the least real-world relevance in the package. It may be a waste of time, but it won't do any harm.
The remaining two important proposals have more substance and probably would raise sharper divisions within economics. Both deal with
speculation rather than manipulation. The first is tighter “position limits” on the number of futures contracts any single investor can hold. The
idea is that if a single trader, particularly a speculator, is prohibited from holding a disproportionate fraction of the total quantity traded, the
opportunity for market manipulation is lessened. This agrees with basic economic theory that the economy as a whole suffers when someone
has even quasi-monopoly power. One objection to this is enforceability. Traditionally, participants in futures markets included hedgers, actual
producers, processors or users of the commodity and speculators, typically individual traders or specialized firms. Large investment banks and
investment funds stayed away. That has changed. These large investment firms now make up a significant and increasing fraction of total
trading and are the target of the administration's new initiative. However, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and U.S. law govern
only U.S.-based exchanges. Those based elsewhere might quickly step in to fill the gap if new regulations made U.S. exchange-based trading less
attractive to the big players. Furthermore, as the history of the “investment vehicles” formed to hold derivative mortgage-backed securities
demonstrates, Wall Street is adept at establishing myriad shell companies. This might be a means to an end run around tight position limits.
The final element of Obama's proposals is higher margin requirements for speculative trading of oil
futures. Margin is a deposit held by the commodity exchange to cover any possible default on a contract. If prices move adversely for anyone,
additional margin must be put down. But the fact that one can contract to buy or sell something by putting down only a fraction of its value
allows a much higher value of financial leverage than if one purchased or sold actual oil. Increase the amount of margin required, and you
decrease the return on investment from any profit on the contract itself. Reduce potential profit, and you reduce the attractiveness of
commodity futures to large investment funds. Both of these measures, more restrictive position limits and higher margin, will result in lower
fuel prices only if speculation itself is driving prices up. Economists are divided, but there is evidence that about 15 percent of price increases in
the past couple years derive from speculative activity. That estimate is explained in a publication from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. It
can be found at research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/article/9179. The authors note that fundamental factors of supply and demand remain
the primary determinants of prices. Most people citing this study fail to note that the same logic explaining higher prices in a rising market
could lead to lower prices in a falling market. In other words, speculation may well accentuate market swings, but it doesn't necessarily raise
prices over the long term. As
many commentators have pointed out, the president's proposals are largely
political window dressing, since they don't have much chance of getting past House Republicans. But
the issue will arise again , regardless of who wins in the November election.
**Defense Cuts Neg
1nc UQ
The GOP is attempting to reverse defense sequestration but Obama is blocking it
Jordan, 4-23 – Bryant, VA Ruled Exempt from Automatic Budget Cuts, Military.com,
http://www.military.com/news/article/va-ruled-exempt-from-automatic-budget-cuts.html.
This kind of uncertainty over exactly what might happen has only worsened the anxiety over sequestration, which
Defense Department, VA and other officials have warned could be catastrophic if allowed to take effect. But there has been no
break in the political logjam that created it – although some lawmakers have offered legislation that would
void sequestration or specifically protect defense and veterans programs, President Obama has said he would veto it .
Congress must come up with a "comprehensive solution" to reducing the long-term deficit, Obama insists , rather
than just giving some programs a pass after last year's failure to reach a deal. Republicans say the president and Democrats
are insisting on tax increases and as such refuse to go along .
2nc UQ
Obama will hold the line on sequestration now but he faces a large and devoted
opposition
The Hill, 4-1-12 – GOP, Dems at impasse over defense cuts, despite calls for action,
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/219363-gop-dems-at-impasse-over-defensecuts-despite-calls-for-action
Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other when it comes to reversing $500 billion in
automatic defense cuts set for Jan. 1, despite an increasingly loud push to cancel them. Lawmakers in both parties say the automatic
cuts through sequestration cannot take effect, and that they want them to be undone now. But even if both sides agree that
sequestration cannot stand, the two parties remain unwilling to budge an inch on the $1.2 trillion-pound
gorilla that stands in the way: taxes. The partisan disconnect played out on Thursday in dueling public appearances. Sen. John McCain (RAriz.) led a group of seven Republican senators in a Capitol Hill news conference who warned of devastating consequences if Congress did not
act soon, and McCain said the GOP was “stretching out our hand” to sit down and negotiate with Democrats. Across the Potomac River, House
Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) gave a speech at the RAND Corp., where he also said Congress should avoid
the “blunt instrument” of sequestration and said Congress needed a “sense of urgency” about its fiscal health. However, Smith boldly predicted
that Congress would likely stop sequestration from going into effect next year. “I do not think [it] will happen,” he said during the Thursday
speech. Just exactly how lawmakers plan to avoid it is a much more difficult question. The problem is that the two sides still deeply disagree
about how to achieve the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction that would replace the automatic cuts to defense and non-defense discretionary
spending — cuts that were designed to be so bad as to force the two sides to reach a deal. “The military’s budget is a hostage to a fight that’s
much larger, centered around tax cuts and entitlement reform,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the conservative-leaning American
Enterprise Institute. “The problem Sen. McCain and all members who want to address this right now are facing is that nothing has changed,”
she said. “The dynamic of the debate and a deal to change the law are the same as they were a year ago.” Democrats insist that Republicans
must put tax increases on the table in a deficit deal, which Republicans have said they will not do. Republicans, meanwhile, accuse Democrats
of being unwilling to touch entitlement spending. The divide is what doomed the supercommittee in November, and set sequestration in
motion. As the clock ticks closer to January 2013, Pentagon officials and defense industry leaders continue to ratchet up their rhetoric about
sequestration’s potentially disastrous impact. At a Senate hearing this week, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, said
“hundreds of thousands” of jobs will be at risk if sequestration hits, and warned about broken contracts on big weapons systems. “Across the
department there are places where a devastating impact would occur, and of course that ripples down through all tiers of the industrial base,”
Kendall said at his confirmation hearing Thursday. “There would be hundreds of thousands of jobs impacted by it.” Most defense and budget
analysts and many members of Congress say sequestration will not get dealt with until a lame-duck session after the November election.
Sequestration is one of numerous big-ticket items that will likely get tackled in the final weeks of the year, including the expiration of former
President George W. Bush’s tax rates. Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said it’s quickly becoming more plausible that
sequestration will actually occur — particularly if neither party gets a knockout blow in the November elections. “It’s a measure of how
paralyzed the political system is, that everybody agrees sequestration is a bad idea, and yet” it could happen, Thompson said. “Depending on
the outcome of the election, we could get sequestration not just for a few months, but a few years,” he said. “The explanation is really simple:
If we get a split decision in which each party has a veto, they won’t be able to repeal the law.” GOP defense hawks have pushed for Congress to
avoid throwing sequestration to the lame-duck session, with bills from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and
McCain and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to push it back one year. “I have never seen a lame-duck session that ended up in anything
but a disaster,” McCain said. “For
us to somehow say, ‘OK, we’ll wait until after the November election,’ is
crazy.” McCain and the other GOP senators raised the need for bipartisanship at their news conference, and
called on President Obama to hold a meeting with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to hash out a deal. “We’re open to
any ideas — this has to be a bipartisan exercise,” Kyl said. When asked about Democrats insisting that taxes be on the table, however, McCain
said, “Of course we are against tax increases.” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who said earlier this year he
believes sequestration will force the GOP to give on taxes, told The Hill he and McCain have yet to sit down to discuss a fix to the automatic
cuts. “Revenues have to be on the table, including tax increases on upper-income folks,” Levin said. “There’s no way you can do serious deficit
reduction without including a significant amount of revenues, including. I believe, a tax restoration on the upper bracket.” After appearing at
McCain’s news conference, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) accused Democrats of “playing chicken” with national defense spending. “They’re willing
to say that if we don’t concede the tax increases they’re willing to gut America’s national defense,” Rubio said of Democrats. “I think that’s a
very dangerous proposition to take.” Republicans have frequently quoted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s doomsday characterizations of
sequestration in their pleas for not letting the defense cuts occur, while blasting Obama for not proposing his own solution. Obama
said he will veto legislation undoing sequestration without providing its equivalent in deficit
reduction.
has
The GOP will attempt to block sequestration but fail because of Obama’s objection
Rogers, 3-11-12 – David, Looming defense cuts prompt GOP shift, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73856.html.
House Republicans leaders hope to use this spring’s budget resolution to set in motion a novel deficit-reduction bill
designed to substitute for the nearly $110 billion in automatic spending cuts due to take effect in January. At this stage, the
goal is not to match the full $1.2 trillion in 10-year savings ordered by the Budget Control Act last summer. Instead, the primary focus is
on the first round in 2http://www.politico.com/tag/teaparty013, half of which — about $54.7 billion — would come from national
defense spending. Nonetheless, the long-term budget impact of the package could be significantly more. That’s because tea party
conservatives are increasingly impatient with the practice of 10-year savings to pay for one-year costs. And the GOP feels pressure to show that
if the sequester is blocked, the savings will be recouped in a matter of years — not a decade. That more-compressed schedule for repayment
could translate into deeper cuts over a longer period. To move fast in an election year, the House would dust off an old
budget tool more often associated with the Senate. Individual House committees would be instructed to report back with designated savings
and the final package then reported from the House Budget Committee under the expedited, reconciliation procedures allowed for in
the budget law. Typically, reconciliation has been used as a joint exercise with the Senate, since it allows a deficit-reduction bill to move
without fear of a filibuster. But House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) recently
circulated a “primer” on how it could be used in the House alone. And the goal is to put a bill on the Senate’s doorstep as one alternative to the
threatened cuts from the Pentagon. In designing that sequester machinery, the White House insisted on the deep defense cuts in hopes of
forcing Republicans to show more flexibility in accepting significant new revenues as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with the growing
federal debt. It was always a gamble and one that’s yielded disappointing results thus far, as seen in the failed supercommittee debt talks last
fall. Going into November’s elections, President Barack Obama remains firm that taxes must be part of the equation, and his 2013 budget
shows his own path to avoid a sequester. But both the Pentagon and Republicans are nervous as the January deadline gets closer. The
House GOP’s strategy will almost certainly shift the burden away from defense. Health care expenditures,
federal workers’ compensation and farm subsidies are all potential targets in the reconciliation process. Ryan is already contemplating a nearly
$20 billion cut from the appropriations caps set last August. The
White House and Democrats have cried foul , accusing
Republicans of walking away from a deal that their own leadership blessed at the time. Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio), who was intimately part of those 2011 talks, sidestepped the question at his weekly press conference last week. But the GOP
would argue that the threatened sequester was also part of the same August deal, and if nothing is done to resolve the impasse, those
appropriations caps will be slashed far more than $20 billion in January. Breaking down the numbers, the $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction target
always included $216 billion credited to interest savings on the debt resulting from the actual cuts. The real reductions total about $984 billion
but are spread over nine years under the sequester machinery. Much of the defense half — $54.7 billion — would come from discretionary
appropriations for the Pentagon. And about $38.7 billion of the nondefense portion would also come from appropriations. Thus Republicans
argue that the $1.047 trillion caps would hold for only the first quarter of fiscal 2013, beginning Oct. 1. And the picture will radically change, in
any case, once the sequester hits in January. “The failure to acknowledge the sequester is a failure to acknowledge the ‘deal,’” said a
Republican aide familiar with the talks. Ryan is not scheduled to outline the full details of his draft resolution until the House returns from its
latest recess next week. And the path ahead could still be difficult. No new tax revenues — such as loophole closings — are expected to be part
of the package, and Democrats would argue that the
GOP is only digging itself in deeper by refusing to consider
these options. Tampering with the appropriations caps invites more delay in moving spending bills this spring and summer. And with the
current farm law due to expire in the fall, the House Agriculture Committee will be reluctant to cut subsidies unless it has some promise of
when it can move its new five-year bill.
Obama will push defense sequestration cuts but Congress will battle him
Heinrichs, 3-1-12 – Rebeccah Heinrichs, adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies,
Heinrichs: Obama Suffering From Defense Rhetoric Gap, Roll Call,
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_102/rebeccah-heinrichs-obama-suffering-from-defense-rhetoricgap-212750-1.html.
As steep as the budget cuts are, if Congress refuses to raise taxes, Obama promises to authorize another $500
billion in defense cuts, which Panetta warns would hollow the force. Not one person at the Senate Armed Services hearing — civilian,
uniformed military, Democrat or Republican — argued that threats to the United States have grown more remote, and as Sen. Joe Lieberman (IConn.) pointed out, they have only intensified. Lieberman flatly declared that the president’s defense budget leaves the United States assuming
an “unacceptable” level of risk. In an interview on “60 Minutes” in January, Panetta said it would take only a year for Iran to reach a nuclear
weapons capability from the time it decides to do so, and another couple of years to produce a missile capable of carrying the warhead to the
United States. That could be as early as 2015, five years before Obama’s missile defense plan is scheduled to harden homeland defenses against
that threat. The president’s new defense strategy said, “Homeland defense and support to civil authorities require strong, steady state force
readiness, to include a robust missile defense capability.” Yet in the budget he now proposes, the president slashed those very capabilities by
$200 million, and mothballed the SBX radar, which would help homeland defense discriminate between lethal warheads and decoys meant to
confuse the defensive system. Without this radar, U.S. defenses are less capable of handling increasingly complicated missile threats. Panetta
noted that observers should consider the budget as a whole, rather than program by program. True. But some defense platforms provide
unique contributions to national security. Missile defense is the last line of defense against incoming missiles headed for American cities, and
there are no alternatives. Obama has also promised to do all he can to protect Israel from the threat of Iran, but if he has his way, the budget
for cooperative missile defense programs that do just that will be halved. The gap between the administration’s stated policies and its plans to
implement them is growing considerably. In
Washington, like everywhere else, how money is spent is indicative of
what is truly important to those spending it. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee,
noted this in a highly critical opening statement at a February hearing: “Perhaps most concerning, in light of the administration’s own
identification of the Asia-Pacific region as the focus of U.S. defense strategy, this budget would require the Navy to reduce shipbuilding by 28
percent.” And there are many other aspects of Obama’s military budget that vie for the title “most concerning.” One is that the proposition of
cutting defense to help the economy may actually do more to hurt it. Not all cuts are savings. States such as Florida — a critical election-year
battleground — depend on military spending for tens of thousands of jobs. According to Marion Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries
Association, the defense cuts Obama plans will put roughly 350,000 Americans out of work, and if he cuts the additional $500 billion he
threatens, as many as 1 million people could lose jobs. Thankfully, the president’s budget is merely a suggestion to Congress, which
controls the country’s purse strings, and a budget battle is brewing. McCain foreshadowed the fight.
“The administration has not led,” he said. “For the sake of our national security, Congress should.” McCain is right, and if
Congress fails to do so, perilous times are ahead.
Obama is maintaining his veto threat against attempts to block defense cuts
Spring, 3-1-12 – Baker, Heritage Foundation, OBAMA'S DEFENSE BUDGET MAKES PROTECTING
AMERICA ITS LOWEST PRIORITY, Lexis.
While the Administration will likely repeat this misrepresentation about the defense budget and the spending caps in the Budget Control Act in
the coming months, the
sequestration process established by the same act will impose much lower levels of defense
spending. The President has made it clear that he will veto any bill that would eliminate or alter the
sequestration process. Undoubtedly, the President will attempt to explain how the strategy outlined in the review can still be executed
under these much lower levels of defense spending.
Obama’s threat to veto is vital – it scuttles the deal
Heller 2-22-12. Mark, Times Washington Correspondent, “Armys chief warns of deep personnel cuts
without budget deal”, http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120222/NEWS03/702229846]
The active duty Army stands at about 560,000 soldiers and is slated to come down to 490,000, a reduction
that could mean fewer troops assigned to Fort Drum. The Army National Guard stands at 350,000, and the Army Reserve has 205,000
members, Gen. Odierno said. In addition, the White House, through the Office of Management and Budget, directed agencies not to plan for
the effects of sequestration in their budget proposals for next year. So congressional leaders who oppose further defense cuts have had a hard
time squeezing estimates from the Pentagon. “There’s no planning to be done,” Gen. Odierno said. “We have no choice where it comes from.”
Lawmakers have been scrambling for a way to avoid the across-the-board cuts but have yet to come
up with a solution that also will satisfy the White House. President Obama has threatened to veto
legislation that specifically exempts the Defense Department; in the White House’s view, painful cuts
are part of the consequences of Congress failing to meet its obligations under the Budget Control Act.
The GOP’s efforts are falling apart
Wright, 3-7-12 – Austin, Buck McKeon budget fix hits rough waters, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73755.html.
Rep. Buck McKeon’s plan to push back the effects of sequestration by a year hit a snag on Wednesday. “I talked
to the speaker about it today,” the California Republican told POLITICO. “He’s trying another approach.” McKeon’s bill, which has 65
cosponsors, would cut the number of federal workers by 10 percent over 10 years, with the reductions achieved entirely through attrition.
Under the plan, the federal government would hire only one new employee for every three who retire. The
chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee said he would continue pushing for the measure, despite House Speaker John
Boehner’s reception. “At some point, I think they’ll need a solution,” McKeon said. House leaders, he added, “are working on a lot of
different alternatives. Meanwhile, I’m the only one that has a bill.”
2nc PC Key
**PC key to veto threat
Andrew Lee (Professor of Political Science at Claremont McKenna College) 05 “Invest or Spend? Political
Capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency”,
Georgia Political Science Association, Conference Proceedings
With these words, the Framers created veto power, a central feature of our legislative process. The veto, traditionally an executive
prerogative designed as a defensive check on Congress, has become an offensive tool for the president’s legislative agenda.
In addition to blocking disfavored legislation, the president may threaten to veto favored legislation to compel
Congress to change provisions within legislation. Congressional leaders take a veto threat very seriously. How
does Congress gauge the credibility of a veto threat? Legislators would gauge the “political capital” of the president to
determine the credibility of the threat. According to political journalist Tod Lindberg (2004), political capital is a “form of
persuasive authority stemming from a position of political strength” (A21). Political capital can be measured by favorability and job approval
polling numbers because they signify support for the president’s actions and agenda. For example, President Bush’s leadership after the
September 11th terrorist attacks increased his favorability and job approval polling, and thus his political capital. He subsequently was able to
launch a war with Afghanistan and Iraq. In such cases, the
president’s high political capital would make a veto more
credible. Congress must also reckon whether the president will think an issue is worth spending political capital on. As Richard S. Conley and
Amie Kreppel (1999) write, “Whenever the President . . . act[s] to change the voting behavior of a Member, political capital is expended. It
would not be logical to expend that capital in what was known ahead of time to be a losing battle” (2).
Obama’s veto threat keeps the party in line – even hawks won’t be vocal
Kim, 12-14-11 – Reporter for POLITICO, “GOP eager to scuttle defense cuts,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70443.html
To be sure, GOP efforts to roll back the defense cuts face an uphill struggle in the Democratic-led Senate
and at the White House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said the automatic cuts should stay in place, and
the Obama administration has vowed to veto efforts to rolling back or tweaking those cuts. Graham on
Wednesday called the veto threat “twisted.” “I can’t conceive a president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, threatening to veto an
effort to save the Defense Department from ruin,” Graham said. “I would expect the commander-in-chief to come to the aid of those who are
going to get devastated.” The
Republican senators expect to introduce their bill when Congress reconvenes in
January. The automatic cuts don’t kick in until the beginning of 2013, but the lawmakers said they need to act about a year in advance
because Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would need about that much time to plan for those budget cuts. Some Democrats want to
avoid the automatic cuts, too, but haven’t been as vocal about it as the Republicans who want to do away with the
defense sequester. That’s where Kyl thinks he can pick off some Democratic support. “I think, in reality, there is as much fervor on the
Democratic side to prevent the across-the-board to nondefense discretionary spending,” said Kyl, who said he’s discussed
his proposal with Democrats. “I suspect [they] would be perfectly supportive of ways to do that reduction more intelligently as well.”
Veto threats require PC to be credible
Liberal American 12/7/10 “Obama Use that Veto or a Lesson from Harry Truman, Part One”,
http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/obama-use-that-veto-or-a-lesson-from-harry-truman-part-one.html
A veto threat, in particular, could be a game-changer, since President Obama would be staking a lot of his
political capital on the outcome.What impact would a veto threat have? This seems very difficult to predict.
Republicans would have to decide whether they felt the threat was credible. They’d furthermore have to decide
whether they believed it to be advantageous to force Mr. Obama to use his veto pen. Congressional Democrats, in effect, would have to answer
the same questions. Mr. Obama would have to decide at what point, if any, he would be willing to accede to a compromise.
Political capital key to veto credibility – empirically true
Andrew Lee (Professor of Political Science at Claremont McKenna College) 05 “Invest or Spend? Political
Capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency”,
Georgia Political Science Association, Conference Proceedings
To explain these inconclusive results and opposing effect, this study provided four alternative explanations: divided
government, investing political capital, the effect of the legislative and electoral cycles, and
congressional anticipation. Divided government, a widely accepted explanation, accounts for the four observed presidential veto
threats in the 107th Congress. The explanation of investing political capital proposes that in times of increased political capital, the president
will decrease opposition language in order to maintain or increase political capital. The argument for legislative and electoral cycles posits that
these decreases in opposition language are primarily due to an increase in legislative activity and impending elections for the president. Lastly,
congressional anticipation argues that Congress is the primary actor anticipating veto threats and
designs legislation favorable to the president in times of high presidential political capital. No single
alternative theory can entirely explain the use of veto threats under President Bush’s first term. For example, the president would not be able
to invest political capital without having the opportunity of increased legislation created by the legislative cycle. It is more likely that a
combination of these factors produced the data in the first Bush administration. During periods of high legislative activity, the
Congress,
divided during the 107th Congress, anticipated more credible veto threats due to high political capital.
Congress constructed legislation that was favorable to the president, and the president invested his political capital
by decreasing his veto threats and opposition to legislation. Congress creates legislation that is more favorable to the president, and the
president supports Congress in order to invest his political capital. Ultimately, this
means that Congress and the president
are inadvertently working to create agreeable legislation during times of high political capital. Conversely,
when political capital decreases, the president gradually increases his opposition language.
___***THUMPERS – NEG***___
Top Level Answers
2nc a2 Thumpers – TOC**
Not exerting PC and they’re all wins
Raju and Brown, 4-23 – Senate Democrats carry President Obama’s water, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75511.html
When President Barack Obama called for a vote on the “Buffett rule,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled it for Tax Day. As Obama
barnstorms college universities, the Senate will vote to keep interest rates from doubling on student loans. And as gender issues bubble up in
the presidential campaign, pay equity legislation is waiting in the Senate’s wings. It’s
a sharp contrast from much of the past
three years, filled with intraparty backbiting as Democrats on Capitol Hill often accused Obama of being detached from
legislating, while the White House expressed frustration over a gridlocked Senate. But now Senate Democrats are carrying
Obama’s water on key issues the president raises on the campaign trail in a bid to court women, Latinos, young voters and
independents who could decide the election. With
legislating likely to come to a virtual halt before the election,
messaging votes are expected to dominate the House and the Senate agenda. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the head
of the Senate Democrats’ communications and policy operation, says cooperation between the White House and his caucus has “never been
stronger.” “It resonates much more strongly when both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are singing from the same hymnal and that’s what’s been
happening,” Schumer told POLITICO on Monday. “What’s changed is both sides realize we’re attached at the hip. Our candidates depend on the
president doing well, and the president depends on Democrats being in line with him.” Much of the tighter coordination began last fall,
dovetailing with a White House staff shakeup as well as a more brass-knuckled partisan strategy for which Obama began to more directly take
on Republicans in Congress. But the more partisan strategy opens up the White House to criticisms that it has given up on legislating in favor of
election-year point scoring. “Over the past several months, President Obama has kept a pretty busy schedule for campaign events,” said Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday. “But as the president heads out for more campaign-style events this week, let’s not forget
that what he’s actually doing here in Washington is far more important than what he’s saying out on the campaign trail.” In
recent
weeks, the White House’s fingerprints have been all over the Senate calendar. The White House asked for its socalled Buffett rule — which would set a minimum 30 percent tax rate for millionaires — to be scheduled just as millions of Americans filed their
tax returns. While the measure stood no chance of passing, it served to reinforce the Democratic Party’s mantra of “income inequality” and
amounted to a subtle jab at the wealthy Mitt Romney for paying an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010.
There’s no other AGENDA ITEM at the FINISHING LINE now
Gregg, 4-23 – former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman
and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and as ranking member of the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations. He also is an international adviser to Goldman
Sachs. “Why stay? President, Congress should just go home until after the election,” The Hill,
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/222963-why-stay-just-go-home-until-after-theelection
The president is in full campaign mode . So is Congress. The federal government has been put into a
holding pattern until the November elections . Like “Major, Major, Major” from “Catch-22,” it appears that although
everyone in Washington is still there, no one is actually there. This being the situation, one might ask — Why don’t they all go home? They
could leave Washington to the pundits and lobbyists. President Obama could go back to Chicago and campaign from there, reconnecting with
his old friend and former chief of staff, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Members of Congress could go back to their districts or wherever else it is they
live, since everyone knows that nothing is going to happen. If Washington was vacated, it would be a more honest expression of the reality of
the status of governance for the next six months. It might help the American people believe that there is some integrity to the situation. Of
course, this would give the bureaucracy a disproportionate role in the everyday activity of the government. But on the other hand, it would
focus the fact that Washington is already run almost entirely by a professional, mid-level cadre of government workers. Congress
only
engages at the margin in the day-to-day activities of the government and since no legislation is going
to be done , no budget resolution passed or individual appropriations bills completed, even the role of Congress and the White House is
dramatically reduced.
Only agenda items at the FINISH LINE trigger the link
Drum, 10 – Kevin, Political Blogger who formerly directed Calpundit and the Washington Monthly’s
Political Animal, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/immigration-comingback-burner
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political
issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one .
Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare
reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we
often take a look at
polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is,
they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the
airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once
Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and
Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will
probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration
background issue during the Bush administration too until
2007, when
was bubbling along as sort of a
he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell
broke loose . The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate
solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on
immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will
be soon.
Keystone – 2nc
Keystone won’t require Presidential action – Senate Dems will negotiate
Geman, 4-24 – Ben, Reid draws line against Keystone, The Hill E2 Wire – Environment and Energy,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/223433-reid-draws-line-against-keystone,
It’s possible that Reid’s statement is a negotiating tactic . Indeed, some Democrats signaled that there could be
room for a compromise that stops well short of GOP demands for almost immediate approval of a cross-border permit
for Keystone. “It depends on what the Keystone pipeline measure is,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “If it is
scheduling and things like that, it is one thing; if it is going to ram it down people’s throats without any review, that’s a
different question,” said Whitehouse, who is not on the conference committee. “How it shakes out will be up to the conferees.” Sen. John
Kerry (D-Mass.), asked if he was confident that the final transportation bill would be free of Keystone, replied, “It depends what
shape it were to be in. “There may be a lot of people on our side who think [that], properly done, they
may find that acceptable — I can’t tell you right now where it is at,” he said.
Student Loans – 2nc
Student loans is *NEG* UQ – it’s a carefully chosen win that gives Obama PC
Dennis, 4-25 – Steven, Obama Gains Traction With Student Loan Offensive, Roll Call,
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_127/President-Barack-Obama-Gains-Traction-With-Student-LoanOffensive-214057-1.html
As with the payroll tax cut extension last year, Obama appears to have picked his issue , defined the stakes and
successfully backed the GOP into a corner on a popular expiring provision. The strategy again
appears likely to deliver the White House a policy, as well as messaging, win . “I don’t think anybody believes
that the interest rate ought to be allowed to rise. The question is how you pay for it,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said
Tuesday, a day after Romney indicated that he supports temporarily extending the low 3.4 percent interest rate, citing the difficult economy.
The White House began to push on the issue last Friday, and Obama is now on a three-state tour of college
campuses using the issue to highlight his differences with the GOP — contrasting student loans and other popular government
programs with Republicans voting to protect tax cuts for the rich. “If these folks in Washington were serious about making college more
affordable, they wouldn’t have voted for a budget that could cut financial aid for tens of millions of college students by an average of more than
$1,000,” Obama said of the Republican Party at a Tuesday event in North Carolina. “They certainly wouldn’t let your student loan rates double
overnight.” Obama then ripped the GOP for spending money on two wars and enacting two tax cuts without paying for them and voting for oil
company subsidies and against the Buffett Rule requiring people making more than $1 million a year to pay at least a 30 percent tax rate. “They
even voted to give an average tax cut of at least $150,000 to folks like me, the wealthiest Americans — a tax cut paid for by cutting things like
education and job training programs that give students new opportunities to work and succeed,” Obama said. “Now, that’s their priorities.” But
just because the
president and Senate Democrats appear to have the upper hand
doesn’t mean a partisan battle
isn’t brewing on Capitol Hill over how to pay for the extension of low student loan interest rates. It’s a fight the White House and Senate
Democrats seem happy to have. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the White House could support paying for the $6
billion student loan fix by closing a tax provision that allows owners of S-chapter corporations to avoid payroll taxes on pass-through income —
an idea under consideration by Senate Democrats. “It meets the standard that we set that we can’t pay for it in a way that would harm
students, and it would also meet the standard that it wouldn’t raise taxes on anybody making under $250,000,” Carney said. But he said the
White House is open to other options as well. “We’re not wedded to one,” he said. Republicans have ripped the idea of taxing small businesses
or raising other taxes to pay for the fix. “Given the effects of the Obama economy on college students, I don’t think the temporary interest rate
cut should expire this year. But the way to prevent that is not by raiding Social Security and Medicare while making it more difficult for small
businesses to hire college students already struggling in the Obama economy,” McConnell said. “It’s by having the policymakers, not the
campaign staff, write the legislation.” If Congress does not act, more than 7 million students will see interest rates double from 3.4 percent to
6.8 percent starting July 1. The jump is the result of a 2007 law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.
Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Republicans will work to prevent the rate hike but added that Obama
should blame Democrats who wrote the 2007 law — not Republicans. “In yet another effort to distract from his economic record that is leaving
50 percent of new graduates jobless or underemployed, the president is looking to create a fight over how to deal with the rate hike,” Buck
said. “If the president was looking to be forthright, he’d admit that this looming rate hike is of his own party’s creation.” Republicans said tax
hikes aren’t going anywhere in either chamber.
VAWA – 2nc
VAWA doesn’t trigger the L – no GOP fight b/c of elections and Romney
Bolton, 4-25 – Alex, GOP concedes on domestic violence bill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/223529-gop-concedes-on-domestic-violence-bill
Senate Republicans, seeking to avoid a public policy dispute with Mitt Romney, will let legislation on
domestic violence pass the upper chamber despite having concerns about its constitutionality. They will let House Republicans battle
with Democrats over controversial language expanding special visas to illegal immigrants seeking protection from abuse, a provision specifically
naming same-sex partners as eligible for domestic violence programs and another empowering American-Indian tribal authorities to prosecute
abuses alleged to have happened on their reservations. GOP
leadership officials say they will not take the electionyear bait laid out by Democrats and block the bill, which would give President Obama and his allies more
ammunition to argue that the Republican Party is waging a “war on women.” Senate Republicans lost political leverage last week when
Romney’s campaign said the candidate supported the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He stopped short of endorsing the
bill Democrats crafted, however. Republicans are pushing for an alternative version of the bill sponsored by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (RTexas) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that does not include the contentious items, and will likely demand votes on amendments to strip them
from the Democratic legislation. But with
only 47 members, Senate Republicans lack the votes to rewrite the bill.
That gives Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputies two choices: block it or let it go through. All
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed the reauthorization bill when it was approved by the panel on Feb. 2. Sen. Jeff Sessions (RAla.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he was “really taken back by some of the changes in laws dealing with Indian reservations,”
calling it “unacceptable and very bad policy.” A Republican aide cited a Congressional Research Service report that warned expanding the
prosecutorial power of tribal authorities could violate constitutional guarantees on due process and double jeopardy. Sen. John Cornyn
(Texas),
chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a member of the Judiciary panel, said the
bill would pass despite his colleagues’ concerns . “I think you’ll see bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women
reauthorization,” he said. “I have every confidence it will be passed.” Asked whether Republicans would thwart the bill if they failed to remove
the contentious language, Cornyn said: “We have a bicameral process whereby those things will get worked out, hopefully in the conference
committee.” Cornyn said he would not vote to bottle it up in the Senate. “I don’t expect there will be a problem,” he said. Eight Senate
Republicans have co-sponsored the Democratic legislation, including Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Scott Brown (Mass.), Dean
Heller (Nev.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). House Republicans plan to move their own version of the bill that presumably would not include the
proposals related to immigrants, gay couples and Indian reservations. House leaders have met with female lawmakers to discuss legislative
strategy and plan to announce a path forward soon, according to GOP aides. McConnell said Tuesday morning that Senate Republicans will not
get in the way. “There’s
no reason to have a fight over something nobody wants to have a fight over ,” he
said. “We’re happy to work toward a reasonable time agreement to pass it in short order.” Senate
Republicans don’t want to
become a lightning rod in the contest between President Obama and Romney over female voters. They are also aiming to
capture control of the Senate this fall. Romney’s campaign has made clear that it is not interested in
seeing the V iolence A gainst W omen A ct blow up in Congress.
Issue-Specific
Afghanistan – 2nc
Recent events have built a bipartisan consensus behind Obama’s exit strategy
Detroit Free Press, 3-11-12 – Analysis: Obama's Afghanistan problem gets worse,
http://www.freep.com/article/20120311/NEWS07/120311028/Analysis-Obama-s-Afghanistan-problemgets-worse-.
Likewise, many Republicans —who as a party fought against a quick exodus in Iraq and criticized Obama's 2008
presidential campaign promise to end the war — are now reluctant to embrace a continued commitment in
Afghanistan. "There's something profoundly wrong with the way we're approaching the whole region, and I think it's going to get
substantially worse, not better," said GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich. "I think that we're risking the lives of young men and women in a
mission that may, frankly, not be doable." American voters
appear frustrated as well. In results from a Washington Post-ABC
News poll released Sunday, 55% of respondents said they think most Afghans oppose what the United States is trying to do there. And 60%
said the war in Afghanistan has been " not worth fighting ."
PANETTA has to spend capital to fix things, not Obama
POLITICO, 3-14-12 – Leon Panetta arrives in Afghanistan, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73988.html.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
arrived in Afghanistan on Wednesday to meet with troops, commanders and
Afghan government officials just days after a U.S. soldier allegedly went on a deadly shooting spree. The visit was planned
months ago, long before the weekend slaughter that claimed the lives of 16 villagers, including women and children. But the trip propels
Panetta into the center of escalating anti-American anger and sets the stage for some difficult discussions with Afghan leaders. Panetta and
other U.S. officials say the shooting spree should not derail the U.S. and NATO strategy of a gradual withdrawal of troops by the end of 2014.
But it has further soured relations with war-weary Afghans, jeopardizing the U.S. strategy of working closely with Afghan forces so they can take
over their country's security. There were clear concerns about security in the large tent at Camp Leatherneck where Panetta was slated to talk
to troops. Before Panetta came into the hall, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall told the more than 200 Marines in the room to take their weapons outside
and leave them there. Afghan troops had already been told not to bring their guns in. "Something has come to light," Hall told the troops. It was
a highly unusual order, and some in the audience said they had never seen that happen before. Asked about the order, Hall said all he knew
was that "I was told to get the weapons out." A U.S. defense official said the request was not a reaction to an immediate threat. Speaking on
condition of anonymity to describe security procedures, the official said the base commander made the decision that no one would be allowed
to bring in weapons. The official said the decision was made out of respect for troops from other countries, such as the Afghans, who are never
allowed to bring guns into an event. It was not a request from Panetta or his security team, the official said. Panetta
met with several
Afghan provincial leaders, and told them the primary mission is to prepare for the transition to Afghan security control. He
acknowledged there will continue to be challenges from the enemy as well as issues between U.S. and Afghan allies, but said everyone must
remain committed. The military has detained an Army staff sergeant in connection with Sunday's massacre. Even before the shootings, antiAmericanism was already roiling in Afghanistan over U.S. troops burning Muslim holy books, including Qurans, last month on an American base.
The burnings came to light soon after a video purporting to show four Marines urinating on Taliban corpses was posted on the Internet in
January. Military commanders have yet to release their final investigation on the Quran burnings, which U.S. officials say was a mistake. Five
U.S. service members could face disciplinary action in connection with the incident. Panetta's
two-day visit is scheduled to
include meetings with President Hamid Karzai, Afghan defense officials and provincial leaders, as well as
routine discussions with his commanders on the ground. The sessions are likely to touch on America's
planned withdrawal of about 22,000 troops by fall, including as many as 10,000 Marines from Helmand Province.
Buffett Rule 2nc
Doesn’t trigger the link – our evidence is about a huge, unplanned debate over space
policy
It passed
Bendavid, 4-16 – Naftali, 'Buffett Rule' Tax Plan Fails in a Senate Test Vote , WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348221678464912.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj.
The Senate on Monday blocked the so-called Buffett Rule, a measure designed to ensure that high earners pay at least 30% in
federal income tax, on a near-party-line vote highlighting the split over a key element of President Barack Obama's election-year message. The
measure drew 51 votes, with 45 opposed, short of the 60 votes needed to advance . Sen. Mark Pryor of
Arkansas was the only Democrat to oppose the measure; Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to support it. The vote came
three days before the House is due to vote on a Republican proposal to cut small-business taxes by 20%. Together,
the moves show
that both parties are eager to use tax policy to advance their arguments ahead of the fall election, with
both shaping easy-to-understand proposals that the other side derides as simplistic and ineffective.
The Buffett Rule is *Neg* UQ – it’s a win
The Hill, 4-2 – Strategy 101: Obama, taxes, and political fault lines, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/politics/219485-strategy-101-obama-taxes-and-political-fault-lines
On this backdrop and amid a slow recovery, one must wonder why Obama is pushing for higher tax rates and expending
political capital that is unlikely to yield any legislative return. The answer lies in the president’s campaign strategy. It has
nothing to do with actually getting any of these tax increases passed any time soon. Or, for that matter, reducing the budget deficit. In fact, if
this was about the deficit, why focus on a mere $47 billion reduction over 10 years when the Bush-era tax cuts repeal alone could account for
$600 to $900 billion over that same period? Obama
is outlining the presidential election’s ideological battleground. With
about eight months left until election day, and with Mitt Romney as his likely Republican opponent, President Obama is
drawing the political fault lines between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” The strategy is simple:
draw clear political and ideological fault lines between you and your opponent, shake the electoral
ground, and hope for a landslide in your favor and one which buries your opponent. In his radio address,
Obama said it was time "to stop giving tax breaks to people who don't need them." By people, he meant Romney – a multi-millionaire who pays
a lot less in tax than he allegedly should. Sure, he is also a successful businessman, but one who is depicted as out of touch with everyday, hardworking Americans. To Obama and his White House, it is the national conversation around tax increases that matters. With a likely opponent in
Romney who struggles to identify with average Americans – and amid gaffes in trying to do so – Obama hopes to leverage the class warfare-rich
political discourse to alienate voters away from his opponent. It
work.
is an age-old approach that this president believes it will
Budget 2nc
The budget is irrelevant – no fights or push until November
The Economist, 2-13-12 – The phony war,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/barack-obamasbudget?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/thephonywar.
TAKEN at face value, Barack Obama’s latest budget is a bold combination of fiscal rectitude, populist tax increases and
industrial policy-lite: tax breaks for manufacturers, more money for community colleges, and a dollop of money for infrastructure. Do not
take it at face value . A president’s budget has always been hostage to whatever Congress is in a mood to grant. In the last three years,
however, the gap between aspiration and reality has become so large as to be almost surreal. Mr Obama promises to cut the deficit by $3.8
trillion over the next decade. Of that, $1.4 trillion comes from raising taxes on the wealthy. Most of this he has asked for since his first budget,
in 2009, when he proposed eliminating George W. Bush’s tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 and capping their deductions. This
year, he adds a hefty new charge: repealing preferential rates on dividend income for the wealthy, which raises $206 billion over 10 years. His
proposal to shut down all sorts of tax breaks for multinationals and slap banks with a crisis fee return, once again, to the budget, along with a
handful of populist new measures such as “removing tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas” (worth $90m over 10 years). Such tax increase
went nowhere when Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With Republicans in charge of the House and
able to filibuster almost anything in the Senate, the odds any of these tax proposals will pass this year are close to nil. Much
of his
purported spending reduction is accounting legerdemain: he claims to save more than $800 billion from drawing down
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most of that was never going to be spent anyway. His cuts to Medicare and Medicaid consist almost
entirely of squeezing health-care providers; benefits and beneficiaries are spared. There are painful cuts to discretionary spending excluding
defence: it sinks from 3.1% of GDP in fiscal 2012 to 1.7% in 2022. Those cuts, however, were forced on him by budget deals last year, and it’s
not clear how the federal government is supposed to fulfill so many of its responsibilities, from running the courts to fighting forest fires, on a
starvation diet. Mr Obama did omit nearly $1 trillion of further cuts set to begin next year under last year’s budget deal (the “sequester”); he
argued his budget provides a wiser alternative. The
gap between rhetoric and reality shows up plainly in the bottom
line. In 2009, Mr Obama laid out a plan that would lower the budget deficit to 3.5% of GDP by this year; he now reckons it will be 8.5%
instead. The national debt was supposed to peak as a share of GDP at 67% last year; he now figures it will peak next year, at a much higher 78%.
There are two reasons Mr Obama’s budgets have become irrelevant, one good and one bad. The first, good reason is that since 2008 balancing
the budget has simply had to take a back seat to averting economic collapse. Nominal GDP this year will be 6%, or almost $1
trillion, smaller than Mr Obama projected three years ago. That miss alone explains some of the worsening in the deficit and debt ratios. The
remainder is largely down to explicit decisions to delay tax increases and spending cuts. The resulting red ink is not pretty but plainly better
than applying a fiscal vice at a time when monetary policymakers are running out of ideas for stimulating demand. The second, bad reason is
that the parties are deeply polarised, largely over Republicans’ refusal to consider tax increases on a scale that Democrats consider meaningful.
The result of these two forces is that fiscal policy only gets made when it absolutely must, usually in late-night white knuckle negotiating
sessions with a sword hanging over the heads of both parties: the expiration of Mr Bush’s tax cuts in December, 2010; a government shutdown
in April, 2011; and a near-default last August. Mr
Obama’s advisers know how little the budget matters . As they went
through the motions of explaining it today, they noted that big initiatives, such as corporate tax reform and the Buffett rule minimum tax for
millionaires, are not part of it; they will come later as part of a broader reform proposal. Bigger changes to entitlements would likewise be part
of a “grand bargain” between Republicans and Democrats and Mr Obama was not about to share his negotiating position with reporters.
Administration officials, like the Republicans, know the real fight comes after November , when the
battle for the White House is over and several big deadlines loom. Chief among these are the expiration of Mr Bush’s
tax cuts and the sequester. No one knows how that crunch will be avoided, and reading Mr Obama’s budget leaves one none the wiser.
The budget is just talk – no vote coming
Ryan, 2-13-12 – Senate minority leader: President's budget is 'dead on arrival', The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/210329-mcconnell-obama-budget-a-charade-andcampaign-document.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded to President Obama's newly released budget Monday, dubbing it "a charade" and
"campaign document" that even lacked support from congressional Democrats. "Today President Obama released a budget that isn’t really a
budget at all," said McConnell. "It’s a campaign document." “So this is a charade, this is a charade,” he added later in his floor speech in
suggesting his counterpart, Majority Leader Harry
Reid
(D-Nev.),
would not call up the plan
“The inconvenient truth that President Obama and his own top advisers don’t want to admit is
due to lack of Democratic support.
that this budget isn’t going
anywhere
because the president’s own party doesn’t want to have anything to do with it," said McConnell. "Indeed, the Democratic
majority leader here in the Senate has already declared it dead on arrival."
China 2nc
Doesn’t trigger the link because it’s just RHETORIC not a PUSH and
China is Neg UQ – it’s a WIN for Obama
The Economist, 3-13-12 – Picking fights,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/03/trade-0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/pickingfights.
HAVING talked yesterday about the importance of maintaining a constituency for economic liberalisation and about the state of adjustment in
China's economy, it seems like an opportune moment to highlight this news: “ The Obama administration Tuesday intends
to
escalate its trade offensive against China, a move heavy with political overtones , by pressing the World Trade
Organization to force the export giant to ease its stranglehold on rare-earth minerals critical to high-tech manufacturing. The
announcement, which will be made by President Barack Obama, marks a new front in the administration's electionyear effort
to turn up the heat on China, amid competition from the president's potential Republican rivals on the matter. It could also
pressure China to respond to the WTO on an issue that is of high importance to a range of manufacturers.”
This is a smart fight for
the Obama administration to pick , so far as it goes. China's limits on rare-earth exports haven't actually
amounted to much, so the economic cost to a change in China's rules is sure to be small (the political cost
may be a different story). Neither is America going into this battle alone. In terms of domestic politics, it's a savvy move.
Republican presidential candidates, including front-runner Mitt Romney, have been more than willing to bash China. Mr Obama is no
doubt anxious to shore up a potential weakness . This is dangerous ground on which to tread, however. The world has
managed to avoid a descent into protectionism through the Great Recession and the subsequent recovery, but a deterioration in international
cooperation is still possible. "Crisis fatigue" may breed isolationism. The timing is not auspicious; elections will occur in a number of key
economies this year, including America's. China is scheduled to go through a major transfer of power, at a time when its growth prospects are
highly uncertain. This is no time to add to stress on key international relationships. I suspect that Mr Obama would not have joined this cause if
he felt it would strain the Sino-American relationship in a destabilising fashion. After all, his administration has consistently refused to take the
(politically appealing) step of declaring China a currency manipulator. If America's economy begins to look shakier, however, and the pressure
from Republican challengers intensifies, then he may find it attractive to take a harder trade line. This is the risk to prolonged economic
weakness: it erodes the constituency for liberalism. And all the misguided macro policies that weaken recovery unnecessarily are contributing
to this erosion.
Contraceptives 2nc
Contraception’s a win for Obama – continued focus builds his capital
KC Star, 2-23-12 – Commentary: GOP goes back to the 1960s on birth control,
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/23/3440305/commentary-gop-goes-back-tothe.html#storylink=cpy.
In their unflagging efforts to distance themselves from mainstream America, Republican leaders have gleefully seized upon a social issue that’s
guaranteed to backfire in November: Birth control. If you’re mystified, you’re not alone. Ignoring
years of public-opinion polls,
the GOP is boldly marching backwards into the 1960s to question whether contraception is a legitimate health-care
benefit. The target, as always, is President Obama. He issued an executive mandate requiring that free birth control be included in
health plans provided to employees of schools, charities and hospitals connected to religiously affiliated institutions. Although the mandate
excludes churches, Roman Catholic bishops are in a huff, saying the contraception provision violates the First Amendment and “freedom of
religion.” Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the
coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they
work. Republican
strategists see the controversy as another opportunity to bash Obama’s healthcare reforms,
and also to rile up white Christian evangelicals who don’t like the president anyway. As political miscalculations go, this one
could be epic . If you’re looking for a sure way to galvanize female voters against your own party, attack birth control. Whom does the
administration’s mandate help? Teachers, secretaries, nurses, lab techs — working women who can’t afford, or don’t choose, to get pregnant.
Yet to hear the yowls of outrage, you’d think these hospitals and schools were being ordered to round up their workers and force-feed them
birth-control pills against their will. Leading
the opposition are Catholic bishops, whose archaic dictums against
contraception are widely disregarded by their own flock. According to most surveys, about 98 percent of sexually active
Catholic women use some type of birth control. It’s safe to assume that rather large segment includes employees of, say, the University of
Notre Dame. Polling also shows that more than two-thirds of
all practicing Catholics believe you can still be a good
Catholic if you use contraception. So, they basically humor the church hierarchy on this subject, politely listening to priestly
reminders and acknowledging the occasional admonition from the pope himself. There’s no movement to excommunicate parishioners for the
alleged sin of using condoms, IUDs or pills because that would effectively leave most churches empty as a tomb on Sundays. Now, after decades
of having their stance against birth control ignored, Catholic bishops have finally found a receptive audience: Republicans in Congress. Last
week, having nothing more important to do, a House committee scheduled a hearing modestly titled: “Has the Obama Administration Trampled
on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are seeking to block any health-insurance rules that
conflict with a business owner’s private beliefs, whatever that means. If such an amendment passes, we could theoretically see a mass
conversion to Catholicism among company executives trying to squirm out of offering birth control in their employees’ medical policies. Smart
corporations already provide contraceptive coverage because it’s way cheaper than paying obstetrical costs for unplanned pregnancies.
Interestingly, as the bishops and their newfound evangelical allies promise to fight on in the courts and in Congress to knock down the
president’s rule, little mention is being made of the large federal sums received by many of the religiously affiliated institutions affected by the
birth-control mandate. Why should any school or hospital that takes a dime of taxpayer money be exempt from providing the same healthcare
benefits that apply across the board? That’s what contraception is — basic health care — and that’s how it’s perceived by a majority of
Americans. In a New York Times/CBS poll last week, 65
percent of those surveyed said they support Obama’s
directive that all health-insurance plans should include birth control. Fifty-nine percent of everyone interviewed, as well as 57 percent of
Catholics, said contraceptives should also be provided by the medical plans of religiously-affiliated employers. Obviously, limiting the
availability of birth control is an unpopular idea in this country. That it’s getting traction in Congress
illustrates how completely the Republican Party has been carjacked by its bug-eyed, right-wing fringe. Even
as national women’s groups mobilize to support the administration, the GOP presidential candidates are piping up to denounce the birthcontrol benefit as a sinister plot against religion. Among the alarmed is Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts uttered not a whisper
of objection to a state law that was virtually identical to the president’s mandate. You
can be certain that the fall election
won’t hinge on social issues that were settled in the minds of voters decades ago. If the Republicans stay on this
sorry, dead-end path, Obama’s task is clear: Ice the champagne .
The issue is DEAD
The Hill, 2-13-12 – Debate suddenly shifts on birth control,
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/210467-debate-shifts-on-birthcontrol.
The furor over President Obama’s birth-control insurance mandate appears to have vaporized as quickly
as it blew up . The White House faced just two questions on the issue at a briefing with reporters Monday,
just days after the intense controversy threatened to swamp the president’s reelection campaign. While the president’s Friday
“accommodation” did not win over the White House’s most harsh critics, some Republicans and Catholic groups have offered measured
support, including centrist Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, suggesting Obama might have at least muddied the
waters. In statements to a home-state newspaper, the senators
said Obama seemed to have addressed the concerns
over religious institutions. Snowe said the new policy appeared to include the changes she had pressed for, and Collins called it a
“step in the right direction.” Former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough (Fla.) said the divide among Republicans could help redefine the debate as a
battle over contraception, rather than religious freedom. “He
had a unified Catholic front against him, he split that in
half now and now he can move on,” Scarborough, the host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
Contraceptives is NEG UQ
POLITICO, 2-14-12 – Republicans say contraception-rule fight is not over,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72833.html.
And House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is holding a hearing on the regulation on Thursday. The tone of
the hearing is clear from the question posed in the title: “Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of
Conscience?” But the
strategy could backfire. While the original policy, which would have required religious-affiliated
rejected by Republicans and many Democrats on Capitol Hill, the modified policy could
have more support and is getting at least a closer look from potential critics. It’s also not clear that the public is as
offended by the contraception rule as congressional Republicans are. Even before Obama announced the compromise Friday, a
institutions to cover contraceptives, was
Fox News poll of 1,110 registered voters conducted Feb. 6-9 found that the public approved of the original policy, 61 percent to 34 percent.
Democrats and independents favored the policy, while Republicans opposed it. And even
if the polls overstate the support for
Obama’s position, the risk to the GOP is that the public may not have the appetite for a long debate
on the issue. “The public has been resistant to extended discussions of topics other than jobs or the economy,” said Michael Dimock, Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press. “Regardless of the validity of the argument, the question is: Are you still talking about this? The
public’s patience for issues not related to the economy and jobs is only so long.” The
theory played out in the fall and winter
on the debt ceiling and unemployment insurance debates, Dimock said. Even if the public agreed with Republican
positions on the nation’s debt, “there was a definite impression that they were the more extreme party.”
Corporate Tax – 2nc
Corporate tax was a win
Moran, 2-22-12 – Michael, The Battle of the Tax Reform Plans Begins, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/02/22/the_battle_of_the_tax_reform_plans_begins.h
tml
This is a smart political tack for a variety of reasons. First, this will be a move even the GOP House will
have trouble resisting – supported as it is by the US Chamber of Commerce and a host of other business interests. Secondly, it
will highlight the pragmatic side of Obama, perhaps angering some on the left of his base, but more importantly appealing to
the great American middle – the real prize in any US presidential election. With the revelations that General Electric in 2010 not only brought
'good things to light' but also avoided paying a single dime of tax – all while earning whopping profits and standing as the country’s largest
manufacturing company – it will not be hard to counter
for Budget and Policy Priorities chart provides added perspective:
claims that corporate America is overtaxed. This Center
The plan is LEGISLATION – the corporate tax was just rhetoric
Borosage, 2-23-12 – President, Institute for America's Future, The President's Corporate Tax Reform
Message: Say What? Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/thepresidents-corporate_b_1296091.html?ref=politics
The Obama administration released a "framework" for corporate tax reform yesterday, proposing to lower corporate tax
rates, and pay for that by closing various corporate tax loopholes. The "framework" isn't really a corporate tax reform
proposal. It is a message document , framed in a bitterly partisan election year when no reforms are
about to take place . So what is the message? The president wants to show that he's sensitive to business
complaints about the complicated tax code with the highest nominal rates in the industrial world, outraged at the loopholes and scams
built into the code, committed to providing incentives for businesses to create jobs here at home, and stout in opposing more corporate tax
cuts unlike his Republican opponents. But
has become. The
a brief look at the framework shows how truly limited and conservative our debate
corporation lobby has won the fight before it has begun by defining the terms of the debate.
Gas Prices – 2nc
Doesn’t effect Obama
CSM, 2-21-12 – High gas prices: How big a problem for Obama?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0221/High-gas-prices-How-big-a-problemfor-Obama.
Still, the public does not necessarily blame the president for rising prices. Last May, a poll conducted by the Pew
Research Center found that 31 percent blamed greed, oil companies, and speculators for the rising prices.
Another 19 percent blamed wars and unrest in the Middle East. Only 14 percent blamed politics or
policy.
If he’s in trouble he’ll just release the SPR again
CSM, 2-21-12 – High gas prices: How big a problem for Obama?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0221/High-gas-prices-How-big-a-problemfor-Obama.
A key factor, says Sabato, will be the price of gasoline in seven swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and
Virginia. He doesn’t rule out a move on the price front right before Nov. 6. “I wonder if Obama
would release oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] so it was timed just right to draw prices down before the election,” he says.
Last year, Obama released oil from the SPR when prices started to go up because of the unrest in Libya.
That had a very short effect on energy prices.
Health Care – 2nc
Health care won’t matter until AFTER the election – GOP strategy proves
Bolton, 3-1-12 – Alex, McConnell to skip healthcare reform repeal votes until after election, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/213521-mcconnell-to-skip-healthcare-repeal-votes-till-afterelection.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) told his colleagues this week that he does not want to vote
again on repealing President Obama’s healthcare reform law until after the November elections. The GOP’s game
plan on healthcare is politically sensitive because influential conservative activists have called for repeated votes on repeal. But many
Republicans on Capitol Hill want to focus on other issues in the coming months, most notably gas
prices and the economy.
North Korea – 2nc
North Korea is a win
Washington Post, 2-29-12 – North Korea nuclear-food aid deal: Did the Obama administration buy
the same horse for the third time? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/northkorea-nuclear-food-aid-deal-did-the-obama-administration-buy-the-same-horse-for-the-thirdtime/2012/02/29/gIQAVqvviR_blog.html
The Obama administration has said it would not repeat those mistakes, stating that it “will not buy this
horse for a third time” by re-entering negotiations with North Korea. However, after Wednesday’s State
Department announcement, the administration may be making itself vulnerable to criticism for retreating from its original position. But the
cost is minimal for the United States
and could be worth it, says Victor Cha, a former White House Asia adviser, now at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. “On one hand, you could say with the food aid that they’re buying the same horse for the third
time,” said Cha to The Washington Post earlier Wednesday. “On the other hand, it means getting a handle on what has been a runaway nuclear
program that’s continued unabated for more than three years. For that, a bit of food isn’t that high of a price.” As part of the agreement, North
Korea has also agreed to allow officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency to resume inspection of its uranium-enrichment facilities.
With some reservation, Richard Bush, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies says there is something to
be valued from Wednesday’s announcement. “Washington, Seoul and Tokyo have long sought [North Korean] actions that demonstrate some
degree of seriousness and sincerity toward resolving the nuclear dispute in a way that is acceptable to us and the steps announced today were
on the list we had put forward,” said Bush. He acknowledged that the move was only a confidence building measure, but noted that “they could
indeed be an initial step on a path towards serious negotiations, negotiations that Pyongyang scuttled by its own actions.” The State
Department, which brokered the deal last week in Beijing, appears to be cautiously optimistic about the results. “The
United States
still has profound concerns regarding North Korean behavior across a wide range of areas, but today’s announcement
reflects important, if limited, progress in addressing some of these,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a
statement.
Nuclear Cuts – 2nc
No final agreement and they aren’t even close – any details will be classified
Burns, 2-14-12 – Robert, US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLpTYbb95M3laDHbWsTgvkNs7e3g?docId=dc9
6c170fe2c4d5986ac70ee6d9e1c16.
No final decision has been made , but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed
strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a
congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations. The potential cuts would
be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S.
back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked
at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003. Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear
weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.
A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options
developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama . The Pentagon's press secretary,
George Little, declined
to comment on specific force level options because they are classified . He said Obama
had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence. The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on
its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one
element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries. Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, "The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The
United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security." Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism
from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are
strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear
"umbrella" that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear
forces. The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty
with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the
basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon. The
U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550
deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had
1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting
below 1,550 on their own. Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st
century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is "poorly suited" to deal with
challenges posed by "unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons" — an apparent reference to Iran. It's unclear what calculus went into each
of the three options now under consideration at the White House.
Transportation – 2nc
Doesn’t trigger the link because it doesn’t require Obama’s PC – Boehner pushes
Sherman, 3-7-12 – Jake, John Boehner: Step on the gas on highway bill, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73727.html.
Speaker John Boehner exhorted his Republican colleagues to stop sitting on their hands and pass the
House’s highway bill. In a Wednesday morning meeting in the Capitol basement, the Ohio Republican launched a lastditch effort to salvage the so-far futile effort
to pass a massive plan to rebuild the nation’s roads — the main GOP jobs bill
of the 112th Congress. Republicans have rejected a five-year plan penned by Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) and
an 18-month bill floated by GOP leadership. That’s led to a weeks-long standstill. Now, the House has to pass either some version of Mica’s
highway bill — which includes reforms many conservatives love — or the Senate bill, which House Republicans have criticized. “Inaction is
always the easier path. It’s the path the Democratic-controlled Senate has chosen on most issues of consequence,” Boehner told the
conference, according to a source in the room. “But on highways, even the Senate – the do-nothing Democratic Senate – is going to pass
something.” The
highway bill has been a case study of the divisions within the House Republican
Conference . Parochial issues and the price tag of a large infrastructure bill have scared off upward of
90 lawmakers, who told GOP leaders they would not support Mica’s legislation. Leaders believe they’ve solved many of the outstanding
issues, and are trying to pass something — anything — out of the chamber to strengthen their hand with the Senate. Highway funding runs dry
March 31. The
length of any package is a key issue. A five-year deal is widely favored because it would
allow construction projects to proceed with certainty, which both parties think would create jobs. During the private party
meeting, freshman Reps. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin, Rick Crawford of Arkansas, Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania and James Lankford of Oklahoma all
urged the passage of a five-year extension. It’s
unclear whether Boehner’s push will work. In his remarks to the conference,
he encapsulated what has made leadership aides and lawmakers red in the face for the past few months. “The American people entrusted us
with the majority in the House. What we do with it is up to us,” Boehner said. “We can use it to take steps together, one at a time, toward the
vision we share. Or we can do nothing. We can squander the time we’ve been given … allowing our internal disagreements to paralyze us.”
It’s BOEHNER’S signature item
Roll Call, 3-7-12 – House GOP Faces Stark Highway Bill Options,
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_105/House-GOP-Faces-Stark-Highway-Bill-Options-212922-1.html.
Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) — who had made the highway bill his signature policy issue this year — will use
an early morning meeting of the Republican Conference to lay out the options facing lawmakers,
including passing some version of his original five-year spending plan, passing an 18-month version or waiting for the Senate to complete its
version and taking up that.
The current debate is all about AMENDMENTS and its AMONG CONGRESS
The Hill, 3-7-12 – Reid says Senate has deal on amendments to $109B highway bill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/214871-senate-reaches-deal-on-transportationamendments.
"It's a huge job . We have 30 amendments we have to dispose of. So there is no question that senators should expect
Despite Reid's optimism , the Senate is expected to take up to ten amendment
votes Thursday, and leave the rest for next week. Among the amendments that will get a vote are ones
from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to extend oil and gas drilling permits in the Outer Continental Shelf, one from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
to eliminate duplicative federal programs and one from Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to reduce the 2013 discretionary spending cap.
Another amendment authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline is also up for a vote. The Keystone amendment, as well as the
proposals from Vitter, Coburn and some others, will require a 60-vote threshold, making them unlikely to pass .
a number of votes tomorrow."
The Senate bill authorizes transportation spending for two years, and would spend about $109 billion. The Senate returns at 9:30 a.m. and
plans to take up the bill after an hour of morning debate.
___***ELECTIONS***___
**Aff – General
New 2ac Cards – TOC
Even recent, qualified guesses about the election are too far off to be accurate
Rothberg, 4-24 – Stuart, regular contributor to Roll Call, One Way to Look at the Presidential Polls,
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_126/one-way-look-presidential-polls-214016-1.html
It’s really amazing how some people with years of political experience change their opinions about the
political landscape to match the latest poll. It’s not that poll results shouldn’t affect our understanding of politics
or inform us about what people are thinking. It’s that too often people behave as if the most recent poll they
encounter has enormous predictive value. At this point in the cycle, it probably doesn’t .
There’s no silver bullet – experts concede things will change rapidly & unpredictably
Rothberg, 4-24 – Stuart, regular contributor to Roll Call, One Way to Look at the Presidential Polls,
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_126/one-way-look-presidential-polls-214016-1.html
And most professional pollsters, Democrat and Republican, are much more cautious than the average casual political
observer of reading too much into one poll number or in projecting forward on the basis of a single survey. It’s no wonder that there
is some confusion about the race for the White House, given the wide range of polling results from
different outlets. Gallup once again shows Romney ahead, most recently by 3 points (but a couple of days earlier by 5 points), while Fox
has him up by 2 points. The CBS News/New York Times poll has the race even, but Quinnipiac University and Pew have Obama up by 4 points,
NBC News/Wall Street Journal has the president’s margin at 6 points — the same margin as its late February/early March survey — and CNN
has Obama ahead by 9 points (down from 11 points less than a month ago). According to Pollster.com, all surveyed registered voters. While
most are within the “margin of error,” the results lead to very different conclusions. Some have Romney ahead narrowly, while others have
Obama with a substantial lead. Given
the range of results, not all of these polls can be conveying the state of the race
accurately. Two recent Fox News polls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida might be able to help — if, of course, you believe
they present an accurate snapshot of the contests in their states. Conversely, if the national numbers are right, then the
state numbers can’t possibly be accurate. The April 15-17 Anderson Robbins Research (D)/Shaw & Company Research (R) poll
for Fox News shows Obama leading Mitt Romney by 6 points (45 percent to 39 percent) in the Buckeye State. If those numbers are correct,
then the Gallup and national Fox numbers must be wrong. In addition, if the state survey accurately reflects the state of the presidential
contest, then the CBS News/New York Times numbers can’t be right either. Ohio is a swing state, and it is unlikely that Romney will win
nationally but lose the Buckeye State by 6 points. In fact, he’s likely to do better in Ohio than he is nationally. After all, Obama won Ohio in 2008
by about 4.5 points while he was winning nationally by just more than 7 points. The Fox News state survey in Florida, conducted by the same
two companies at the same time as they were polling in Ohio, shows Obama leading Romney by 2 points in Florida, 45 percent to 43 percent.
Again, the national Gallup and Fox News numbers and the Fox Florida numbers can’t both be right. Obama carried Florida four years ago by less
than 3 percentage points while he was winning nationally by more than 7 points. He will surely underperform in Florida again later this year, so
if he wins Florida, he certainly will win nationally (by a larger margin). My guess (and it’s purely a guess and therefore not worth much) is that
Obama holds a narrow lead over Romney, probably in the low-to-middle single digits. That lead could well shrink during the next couple of
months, but even if it doesn’t, the general election is likely to be close if jobs and gas prices continue to be problems for the White House. In
any case, my advice is clear: Don’t
treat any survey as if it has a monopoly on the truth.
Econ > L
It’s the economy, stupid
Politico, 2-22-12 – “Poll: Obama tops 50% vs. all comers,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73154.html.
Despite “some positives here for the president, so much depends on the trajectory of the economy over the
next several months ,” warned Carroll Doherty, associate director at Pew Research Center , which Monday
showed Obama taking 52 percent of the vote and beating his closest competitor, Mitt Romney, by 8 percentage points.
Polling Fails
Polling is distorted and isn’t predictive
Roll Call, 1-31-12 – Rothenberg, Stuart, “In Presidential Polling, Context Always Matters,”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_87/presidential_polling_context_always_matters-211949-1.html.
The only politics that Americans have seen recently is weeks of Republicans beating each other up in
the presidential race. Gingrich says how terrible Romney is. Santorum says how terrible Romney (and sometimes Gingrich) is. And Romney says
how terrible Gingrich is. It’s the
classic circular firing squad. And after a month of Republicans assassinating Republicans, guess
public at large has an increasingly poor impression of the Republican Party and GOP White
House hopefuls. That’s not at all unusual. Remember, of course, that all of this is occurring during a strengthening stock market, a
drop in the unemployment rate and talk on television and in newspapers of an improving, albeit still sluggish, economy. And yet, when you
put some of the numbers in context , the situation is less clear. The new survey’s right direction/wrong track (30
what? Polls find that the
percent/61 percent) isn’t much different than the result in the late October 2010 poll (31 percent/60 percent), when Republicans won a huge
victory. Obama’s current job approval (48 percent) is only a single point better than it was in mid-October 2010 (47 percent). Even more
noteworthy, the current 6-point Democratic advantage on the generic ballot is only a little better than the party’s 2-point advantage in October
2010 and is far smaller than its 13-point advantage right before the 2008 elections. But even
if the economy doesn’t move one
way or the other decisively, you can bet that the partisan argument will heat up again, putting the
president back into focus and into the center of the political discussion. And when the GOP race ends,
probably well before the convention in August, voters will start to compare the two nominees across a large number of
dimensions during a very spirited campaign. I’d bet that only then will independents, who are more sensitive to
short-term factors and the national mood, seriously consider the two nominees and decide how they will vote. And only then
will we get a reliable handle on the shape of the electorate heading toward Election Day.
Too Far Away – 2ac**
The election is 195 days away – April polls are empirically worthless
Cohen, 4-25 – Micah, 538 Blogs @ NYT run by Nate Silver, What Do Springtime Polls Tell Us About the
General Election? http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/what-do-springtime-polls-tellus-about-the-general-election/
It is easy to get lost in the weeds. But, of course, the election is still more than six months away , and in the past 10
presidential campaigns, the national polling leader in late April has won the election only half of the
time. Drawn from FiveThirtyEight’s polling database, which includes thousands of surveys, here is the average of the 10 most recent national
polls as of late April in each election year going back to 1972 (for the 1980 election and before, fewer than 10 general election polls conducted
in the first four months of the year were available). The leader in national polls at the end of April in the past two elections has gone on to win.
Before 2004, however, the April leader lost the popular vote more often than not. The two biggest misses came in 1980 and 1992, both years
that featured legitimate third-party candidates. President Jimmy Carter was narrowly leading a three-way race in 1980, with the independent
John Anderson garnering nearly 21 percent of the vote (Mr. Carter actually led Ronald Reagan by 15 percentage points when polls tested a
head-to-head match-up). Of course, the race shifted quickly. By June 30, The Times’s William Safire wrote: In the federal bureaucracy, the sense
of the inevitability of Reagan permeates the attitude of “Schedule C” appointees; 2,000 plum-holders in the middle reaches of the Carter
administration are busily preparing résumés. Mr. Carter would lose to Mr. Reagan by almost 10 percentage points, and Mr. Anderson would
win just 7 percent of the vote. In late April 1992, Bill Clinton was statistically tied with the independent Ross Perot, and both were trailing
President George Bush. Mr. Clinton would go on to outperform his April polling in November by 16 percentage points. The list goes on: In late
April 1976, President Gerald R. Ford was more than five percentage points ahead of Mr. Carter. Mr. Ford would lose by 2 points. Michael
Dukakis was ahead of George Bush in April 1988, and Mr. Bush’s son, George W., was ahead of Al Gore in April 2000. The elder Bush went on to
win the election outright, while George W. lost the popular vote but won the presidency after a protracted court fight. The polls were not
necessarily “wrong” in these cases. They may have been an accurate measure of each race at that time. But the quality of campaigns and
candidates can sway allegiances, and real-world events often intervene. On April 24, 1980, the United States launched Operation Eagle Claw, a
covert mission to rescue the American hostages being held in Iran. The mission would end in disaster, deeply wounding Mr. Carter’s re-election
effort. In 1992, the elder Mr. Bush saw the sky-high approval ratings he enjoyed in early 1991 tumble into the 30s as the economy stalled. In
2004, President George W. Bush eked out re-election, helped, many believe, by an Osama bin Laden video message released days before the
vote. In the 2012 election, the
daily push-and-pull between the Obama and Romney campaigns, as well as intermittent swings in the
horse-race polling, will often be the focus on political blogs and television. But general election polls have a
stronger tendency to revert to the mean , and the fruits of a well-executed campaign strategy or the lasting
implications of a news event are likely to take time to truly manifest themselves. The winner of each day’s
news cycle might seem important in the moment, but there are still 195 days , and news cycles,
remaining till Nov. 6. And since 1972, winning in April has been no guarantee of winning in November.
Too Far Away – 1ar
Unpredictable shifts are inevitable – the race is SEVEN months away
POLITICO, 3-14-12 – Obama approval ratings drop unconcerning, Senate Democrats say,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73968.html
Election Day is still more than seven months away , of course, and the landscape will undoubtedly shift
— perhaps dramatically — before voters head to the polls. One huge variable is the still to be
chosen Republican presidential nominee. Republicans also don’t look so hot in public polls, and some recent surveys show the
president’s approval rating holding steady.
Most voters don’t tune in until May
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Republican poll analysis: Warning signs for both parties, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73306
In an election year when an incumbent is running for reelection, late winter to early spring is, more often than not, a time when the incumbent
begins to gain a more solid footing in framing the general election, and the challenger party is struggling with moving beyond the necessity to
focus on the primary electorate, and beginning to draw the contrast between themselves and the incumbent. Even
against the most
endangered incumbent, February, March, and even April, is a time when the process of reelecting or
rejecting the incumbent has not yet begun for the vast majority of the American electorate.
Turns Case = BS
The election won’t affect space policy either way
Dean, '12 -- James (not Jimmy), "NASA a hot topic among frontrunners," Floriday Today,
http://www.news-press.com/article/20120106/NEWS0107/301060029/NASA-hot-topic-amongfrontrunners?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome.
After the retirement of the space shuttle year, frustration over the decline in the nation’s human space flight
capability might leave President Barack Obama open to attack in the 2012 campaign. But experts say the Republicans
vying to replace Obama are unlikely to seek big changes to NASA’s post-shuttle transition, which relies on Russia to
deliver U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station until the commercial sector is ready to take over the job. Obama’s signature
space policy shift — privatizing astronaut flights to the space station — is a conservative one, and tight NASA budgets in the
coming years will limit flexibility to change course. “His image on space is vulnerable. I think his policies are less vulnerable,” said
Howard McCurdy, a professor of public affairs at American University in Washington. “Since the White House has already
embraced the commercial approach, it’s hard for a Republican to get on the other side of that position.”
a2 State Polls
It’s too early to call individual states – their polling is irrelevant
Kuhn, 3-4-12 – David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics, RCP,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/04/critical_big_five_swing_states_electoral_map_o
bama_ohio_florida_virginia__wisconsin_colorado_109116.html.
State polling is irrelevant at this point . Political science also provides no guidance on predicting the
critical presidential swing states this early. Some campaigns will invest in models that use data one
now considers--electoral votes, performance in recent presidential elections, states trend during the race, demographics--and other
measures like state polling and party identification. "We could agree today on how about 40 states would go," said
Daron Shaw, a UT-Austin political scientist who was the director of election studies for the 2000 Bush campaign. It's that last
ten or so that, as Shaw noted, drive Obama strategist "David Plouffe and Republican strategists crazy."
a2 Obama = CTBT
Obama won’t be able to ratify CTBT – too many GOP Senators
GSN, 3-30 – Global Security Newswire, U.S. Can Maintain Nuclear Arsenal Without Testing: Expert
Report, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-can-maintain-nuclear-arsenal-without-testing-expert-report/.
Observers have said they do not expect any sort of push for Senate approval before presidential and congressional elections in November.
Action after that, though, is likely to require Obama’s re-election and support from some GOP members, as
67 affirmative votes are necessary to secure ratification. Thirteen Republican senators backed Obama’s first major arms control
measure, the U.S.-Russian New START nuclear treaty. However, some GOP lawmakers have in recent months expressed
deep skepticism about the president’s commitment to sustaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and
leaders in the chamber have shown no signs of favoring the test ban (see GSN, March 9 and July 18, 2011). The
experts who produced the new report avoided stating whether the country would benefit from joining the treaty, sticking strictly to technical
issues.
**Elections – Obama Wins
Obama W – 2ac
Obama wins because he controls the *perception* of strong management – the plan
derails its
Zogby, 4-25-12 – John, Senior Advisor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, best-selling author, founded the polling firm Zogby International, 8.0 May Be Obama's Lucky
Number, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2012/04/25/8-0-may-be-obamas-luckynumber/.
Those may be arbitrary numbers, and a voter’s personal job situation and that of his community may mean more than that of the nation.
However, that
poll gives us a guide to how perceptions of the economy, and most important the direction it is
heading, will impact the election. With the current official rate at 8.2%, Obama is looking good. Perhaps not coincidentally,
the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls has Obama leading Mitt Romney, 47.5%-44.4%, or right at the plurality
predicted by last year’s poll. If a USA Today survey of what it calls “50 top economists” is accurate, a polling majority could be within sight for
Obama. According to the paper, “economists think job growth for the rest of the year will be about 20% stronger than they did after
Christmas.” Yes, predictions by economists can have what we pollsters call a high margin of error. Plus there are dissenters among economists.
In the short term, some fear rising gas prices and question whether an unusually warm winter/spring may have inflated seasonal job growth.
Others look longer term and see little change in personal debt and uncertainty about fiscal policies in both Europe and Washington. Then there
is the issue of the “the real jobless rate,” which includes the unemployed who may be left out of the official number, notably people who have
stopped looking for work. Some claim that rate is more than two points higher than the official number. Whether
it is perception or
reality, an improving economy is very much a factor in the rise of Obama’s approval rating and his
standing
against Romney. That’s
most important in swing states , where there is hard evidence of a better economy.
Manufacturing is on the upswing in Ohio and Michigan, and increased tourism is giving some relief to unemployment rates in Arizona, Nevada
and Florida. Economic gains are making it harder for Romney to build momentum. For every statement about robust party support for Romney
and optimism he will win, there are also reported rumblings among GOP insiders that Romney is a weak candidate with little chance of ousting
Obama. No one seems at all eager to be Romney’s running mate. That may be the usual posturing and lowering of expectations by those who
don’t want to look like losers when someone else gets tapped. Or perhaps this Jon Stewart Daily Show piece accurately satirizes a field in which
all the most talked about choices appear to be begging Romney to choose someone else. Being number two on a losing ticket is not a path to
future political success. Pessimism
about Romney assumes continued good economic news and no new
events that put Obama in a bad light . We all know what happens to those who assume. Timing would seem to be
everything. So what happens if the jobless rate dips under 8% in September, but jumps in October? That seems like a nightmare for Team
Obama, and could be if the race is Bush v. Gore close. Otherwise, late breaking bad news may not be as strong a predictor as economic growth
over the first three quarters or the incumbent’s approval rating heading into the last few months of the campaign.
Demographics – 8 advantages
Murray, 4-19 – Mark, NBC News Senior Political Editor, NBC/WSJ poll: Obama leads Romney by six
points, but Republican ahead on economy,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/19/11291546-nbcwsj-poll-obama-leads-romney-bysix-points-but-republican-ahead-on-economy?lite
With the Republican presidential primary season essentially over and with the general election campaign now under way, President Barack
Obama begins the race with a six-point lead over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, according to a new NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll. Obama’s advantage is fueled by his traditionally strong-standing among African
Americans , Latinos and young voters , as well as with women and even political independents .
What’s more, he’s viewed – by substantial margins – as more likeable , compassionate and better
for the middle class
than Romney.
Five more reasons it’s a rout for Obama
Miller, 4-25 – Aaron David, distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, 5 Reasons Obama Will Win in November, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/25/5_reasons_obama_will_win_in_november.
It's almost May. Six months to go until the only presidential poll that counts. Worries abound in the Obama camp: Large Democratic donors
have dried up, the fragile economic recovery is looking weaker, independents are, well, being independent, and the Republicans have finally
found their nominee and maybe their voice too. Worrying about getting reelected is part of a president's job description, but this president
really shouldn't be all that concerned. The election is bound to be closer than in 2008, but when it's over, the
presidential gods will
on Barack Obama. Here are the top five reasons why. 1. Americans are reelecting
imperfect and flawed presidents. I know it's going to come as a shocker, but Obama hasn't been a great president in his first term
likely have smiled kindly
and is unlikely to be one in his second. His two claims to fame -- saving the economy from another Great Depression and passing his signature
health-care legislation -- won't get him there. The first will largely be taken for granted, and the second is still a very uncertain and untested
proposition. The president's foreign policy has been very competent, but aside from the killing of Osama bin Laden, it has had no spectacular
successes. But what's so great about being great anyway? Greatness is certainly not a requirement for reelection. The
last two U.S.
presidents -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- were reelected comfortably, and neither could hardly be
considered a candidate for the presidential hall of fame. Both were flawed and imperfect men: Obama's predecessor was
below average; Clinton clearly above average. That's about where Obama falls too. Consider this: Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States
has had four presidents who served out two terms: Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Even with a push from partisans and revisionist
historians, none really belongs in the very top tier. 2.
Obama has history on his side. Since 1980, only one U.S.
president has failed to gain a second term. That was George H.W. Bush, who defied the odds by succeeding a two-term
president of the same party. Since FDR, this has happened only once. It's a tough hill to climb. Americans generally tire of too much single-party
dominance. Indeed, that's why Hillary Clinton should take a very hard look at her chances in 2016 -- should Obama be reelected. A set of three
presidents -- Clinton, Bush 43, and perhaps Obama -- is hardly a valid statistical sample, but it does tell you something about the power of the
incumbent. It's hard to defeat a sitting president. Although a bad economy offsets some of the incumbent's advantage, Americans tend to get
comfortable with their presidents. Presidents are also able to act presidential right up to Election Day. The presidency has a great many bells
and whistles, including the White House, which Aaron Sorkin's West Wing president once described as the world's greatest home-court
advantage. There's also the issue of continuity. These days, U.S. state and congressional politics have gotten pretty combustible and polarized.
The media circus at the national level only makes things seem more out of control. As Americans watch their politics implode, they seem to be
seeking a measure of stability in the one institution that they all have responsibility for shaping -- the presidency. In these turbulent times,
Americans tend to stay with their guys, flawed as those guys may be. Should Obama be reelected, it will only be the second time in U.S. history
that America has had three two-term presidents in a row. The last time? Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. "Throw the bums out" doesn't seem
to be as compelling a line these days. 3. The guy's a mensch (kind of). If location, location, location is the key to success in the real
estate business, then being liked -- cubed -- plays a big part in a president's success too. When Americans choose a president, they do so partly
on the basis that they're inviting him (or her, someday) to be part of their lives for four and possibly eight years. This means being able to like
the person and be comfortable with him. Forget whether the candidate is brilliant -- the most overrated quality in the presidency. Can he be
trusted? Is he trying to do the right thing? Is he arrogant and out of touch, or likable and down to earth? Can one imagine spending an hour
with the president and not having to look down at one's shoes for the entire conversation? Think about whom you'd want to spend time with:
Bill Clinton or Bob Dole; Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter. If the president has a normal family life, that helps too, particularly if he's got a cool
wife, cute kids, and a dog. Obama can appear detached, even cold, at times. More often, though, he's accessible and sincere. You'll
never convince the birthers, racists, and Obama-haters that he's anything other than an alien president. But back on planet Earth, most
Americans, according to recent polling, see him as more likable, more in touch with the needs of average people, than Republican candidate
Mitt Romney. He's good on his feet and appears pretty comfortable in his own skin. That's the elusive quality of
emotional intelligence. Are you in balance? Can you relate to others, keep your demons and insecurities under control, and stay out of trouble?
Obama gets high marks in this important category. 4.
The Republicans are weak and divided. You can't beat
something with nothing. That old saw in politics wins out most every time. The Republican Party has never gotten
over its love affair with Reagan. Look at the parade of Republican hopefuls who rose and fell during primary season. Had Reagan been around,
he'd have been frustrated with the divisions in Republican ranks. And the Gipper might have described the primaries as an audition in which the
last guy standing got the part only because the producers were exhausted and needed to get the play into rehearsals before the opening. I
know the main counterpoint: Republicans will come together because they need to defeat Obama.
But the gaps between the Republican base and the centrists are huge; the obsession with social issues
risks alienating independents; there are real doubts that Romney is conservative enough; and there's
not much enthusiasm for his stiff style on the campaign trail. All this is creating real trouble for a party that seems to
have lost its way. Add to that Republican difficulties in making inroads with women and Hispanics, and you might conclude that the election is
Obama's to lose. 5. The economy: bad, but Obama wins on points. Clearly, much will depend on how voters perceive their
economic reality closer to the election. Obama really isn't running against Romney -- he's running against the economy. By the fall, it's likely
that about the best he'll have to show is a weak recovery. Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that when it comes to the economy,
the all-important Ohio voters see Romney vs. Obama as an unpalatable choice between liver and Brussels sprouts. Still, when Americans vote
for a president, they ask themselves two questions: To what degree is the guy in the White House responsible for my misery? And if I vote for
the other guy, can he really make it better? Barring another economic meltdown, I'm betting that enough Americans will conclude that things
are getting better, albeit slowly; that Obama is doing the best job he can under tough circumstances; that the president is much more attuned
to those who are suffering; and that the Republicans
have neither better answers on the economy nor a
compelling-enough candidate worth giving the benefit of the doubt. So don't worry too much, Mr. President. You
may not be getting into the presidential hall of fame, but it looks like you're going to get another shot to try.
Obama W – Econ 1ar
Obama wins now – our 2AC Zogby evidence says the perception of strong economic
management buoys his approval rating in key swing states, but quote “new events
that put Obama in a bad light” would be devastating.
We control the only relevant factor – the economy – it’ll deliver victory
Memoli, 4-20 – Michael, 5 things the early polls tell us about the Obama-Romney matchup, Chicago
Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-la-pn-what-the-obama-romney-polls-tellus-about-race-20120418,0,2821916.story
For starters, you may not be surprised to learn that it's expected to be a close race. The top line numbers -- that is, the head-tohead matchup between the Democratic incumbent and his likely GOP challenger -- range from a 9-point lead for Obama (CNN/Opinion
Research Corporation) to a 5-point advantage for Romney (Gallup). The
latest poll of the bunch, from NBC News and the Wall Street
Obama ahead 49% to 43%. A composite of recent polls from Real Clear Politics gives Obama, on average, a nearly 3-point
lead. Those early numbers are getting most of the attention, but the campaigns are more interested in what the deeper
data show. And while each survey has a different overall result, there are areas of consensus among them that point to
the candidates' main strengths and weaknesses, and the nature of the November electorate. 1. Republicans are rallying ...
Journal, puts
slowly: Given how many Republican candidates laid claim to the frontrunner mantle at various points of the primary battle, it is noteworthy
that the party's base seems to be quickly accepting the fact that Romney is the one they must support if they are to defeat President Obama. A
Pew Research Center poll showed that 88% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters say they will support Romney this fall.
Despite conventional wisdom that suggested Romney was weakest among the more conservative elements of the party, Pew found that they
were more likely to be certain of their support for him now, by a margin of 82% compared to only 66% of moderate and liberal Republicans
who were certain. A CBS/New York Times poll found that 54% of Republican primary voters now say they want Romney to lead them into the
fall campaign -- not an overwhelming majority, but a significant jump from a March poll that found only 30% felt that way then. Romney's
favorable rating, still historically low for a major party nominee at this time, is nonetheless improving now that Republicans' internal sniping is
subsiding. Among all voters, CNN's poll showed his personal favorable rating jumped from 37% in March to 44% in April. A Washington
Post/ABC News poll saw less of a bounce so far, though, with his favorable rating still at just 35%. What's really motivating Republicans is their
hostility to Obama. Among registered general election voters who said they would support Romney, 63% said their vote was one against
Obama while 35% said it was a vote for Romney. 2. It's the economy, stupid: Never
mind the dust-up over Hilary Rosen’s comments,
Ted Nugent’s rant, or anything involving dogs. The overwhelming concern of voters at this point is a
serious one: the state of the economy. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 53% of voters said jobs and the economy was the
most important issue when thinking about their choice in the election. They showed the race as 47% to 43% for
Obama overall. But 45% of voters said Romney was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared to 43% who said Obama was. It was the
only issue where Romney led. That may explain why the president does not have a more significant lead given
how well he scores against Romney on some key questions.
Obama W – Zogby 1ar
Defer to Zogby
Huffington Post, ’12 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby.
John Zogby, former president and CEO of Zogby International, remains by all accounts the hottest pollster in the United States today. "All hail
Zogby, the maverick predictor who beat us all," proclaimed the Washington Post in November 1996 after
Zogby alone called that
presidential election with pinpoint accuracy. In the recent razor-thin 2000 elections, daily national tracking polls conducted by
Zogby International in the last few weeks foretold a tightening of the race for president while nearly all other polling firms projected an easy
victory for Gov. George W. Bush. Zogby International instead was the first to observe the gap closing significantly between Bush and VicePresident Al Gore in the waning hours of the election. In his post election 2000 review, the acclaimed Godfrey Sperling, columnist for the
Christian Science Monitor called John Zogby "Champion Pollster." "In 1996, John Zogby came within one-tenth of 1 percent of the presidential
result - the best performance turned in by any of the pollsters. This year Mr. Zogby was the first pollster I heard being cited on TV as finding
that Gore was pulling out slightly, by 2 percent, ahead of Mr. Bush. But when I talked to Zogby a few days ago, he was elated with how close he
had come this year to predicting the final outcome - and rightly so." Zogby continued to rank in the top tier in 2004 both in the nationwide polls
for Reuters and in the 20 states that he polled. Since 1996,
Zogby has polled for Reuters News Agency, the largest news
agency in the world, and in 2000 polled for NBC News, the network news watched by most Americans. His
clients also include MSNBC, the New York Post, Fox News, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Gannett News Service, Houston Chronicle, Miami
Herald, Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Albany Times Union, the Buffalo News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Cincinnati Post, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, the Toledo Blade, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, the Syracuse Herald, and nearly every daily
newspaper in New York State, as well as television stations throughout the U.S. He
has been praised as "the most accurate
pollster" (Seattle Post Intelligencer, Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA Today), "respected" and "pioneering" (Albany Times Union),
"the pace setter in the polling business" (New York Post), and "the big winner in 1996" (Campaigns and Elections, L. Brent Bozell,
and the O'Leary/Kamber Report). Zogby regularly appears on all three nightly network news programs plus NBC's "Today Show," ABC's "Good
Morning America" and is a frequent guest for Fox News and MSNBC special programs, along with CNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." He
also is a regular political commentator for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation. He has been spoofed
on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and the Late Show with David Letterman. He has been
profiled in the New Yorker, Fortune Magazine, Inc., and Investors' Business Daily.
2004
appearance on The Daily Show
The highpoint of his life was his
October 28,
with Jon Stewart. His analytical expertise has been published on the opinion pages of the
New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday and the Boston
Globe. Following his correct call in the 1997 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the Houston Chronicle exclaimed, "and the winner again is John
Zogby." Mary Matalin, host of her own national radio show, calls Zogby
the "prince of pollsters," and Barry Farber has declared
has also distinguished himself in Canada where he alone called the popular vote
victory of the Liberals over the Parti Quebecois in the Quebec election of 1998. He was the first pollster to see a victory for Vicente Fox in the
2000 Mexican election, and triumphed in the 2001 Israeli election being the only pollster to call the 26-point margin victory of
defense minister, Ariel Sharon. Zogby further distinguished himself by polling the Iran Presidential election closer than even the Iran
News Agency. Zogby holds degrees in history from Le Moyne College and Syracuse University. He has taught history and political
science at the State University of New York, Utica College, and at Hamilton College's Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center. In addition he is a
him "America's Pollmaster General." He
member of the Board of Trustees of Le Moyne College. He received the distinguished Alumni Award in June 2000. A frequent lecturer and
panelist, he is listed with Leading Authorities and the Capitol Speakers Bureau in Washington, DC and the National Speakers' Bureau, in Chicago.
He continues to lecture all over the world. He
also serves on the Advisory Council for Bio-Technology for the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He has polled, researched and consulted for a wide spectrum of business media, government, and
political groups including Coca Cola, Microsoft, CISCO Systems, Philip Morris, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, MCI, Reuters America, and
the United States Census Bureau since 1984. Zogby
continues to poll extensively throughout the world - at last
count in 62 countries. Zogby has polled and conducted focus groups throughout the United States. He has polled in Canada, Brazil,
Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Korea, along with the Middle East. He is married to Kathleen Zogby, a special education teacher,
and has three sons, Jonathan, Benjamin, and Jeremy.
Obama W – Approval 1ar
Approval rating – it’s the best empirical baseline – Obama will stay above 50% if he
stays on message
Paulson, 4-24-12 – Scott, President Obama's approval rating at 50% - Obama leads Romney by 7%,
Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-s-approval-rating-at-50-obama-leadsromney-by-7
According to the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, President Barack Obama’s approval rating is at 50%, and Obama is currently leading
Mitt Romney - the apparent GOP presidential candidate – by 7%. The latest poll regarding the 2012 presidential election shows Obama with
49% to Romney’s 42%. This
should be great news for President Obama and his supporters. Recent analyses of Obama’s
former low approval ratings – stuck in the mid 40s for several months - continually compared Obama to former presidents’
ratings in their fourth year as president. Obama had been doing worse than his predecessors who have lost in their
presidential re-election bid. These presidents, of course, were former President Jimmy Carter and former President George H. Bush.
Former President Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide, and former President Bill Clinton defeated the first Bush president. Now that
Obama is showing strong gains as Election Day 2012 approaches, thoughts and talk of a 2012 Obama loss will most assuredly be toned down.
According to Gallup’s own historical analysis, all incumbent presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower ,
who won re-elections, had an approval rating of 50% or better. Those presidents were former Presidents Johnson,
Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush president - George W. Bush. Therefore, if Obama can hold these approval
numbers – and if history repeats itself – he will win a second term . Obama’s ratings have been turbulent this past month. At the
beginning of April 2012, Obama’s ratings declined when the unemployment rate remained constant. That was a grave disappointment as it was
expected to keep improving. However, as gas prices edged slightly lower this month, Obama’s approval rating began to rebound. In recent
times, persons who have been polled have indicated that high gas prices are their biggest concern about President Obama’s presidency and the
nation's economy. As
American’s satisfaction with the way America is headed improves and their confidence in the
economy slightly improves, Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney increases. In the past week, Romney has lost his lead of 48%-to-43%
over Obama.
Obama W – Swing State 1ar
Swing states – Obama’s ahead in them because of the economy and they’re key
TPM, 4-25-12 – Swing State Poll: Obama By 4, Voters Give Romney A ‘Second Look,’ Talking Points
Memo, http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/swing-state-poll-obama-by-4-voters-give
A new poll of swing states from Purple Strategies shows President Obama’s lead shrinking to four points in a sample of voters in Colorado,
Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Obama
leads likely Republican nominee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 44, and the race is even tighter in key
states. The President leads Ohio by 5 points, 49 - 44, and holds a 2 percent lead in Virginia, 48 to 46. The men are tied at
47 percent in Colorado, and Romney is up 2 points in Florida, 47 - 45. “While the Purple Electorate vote has been steady, independents have
moved toward Romney since March. Today, Romney holds a 2-point lead (46% to 44%), while in March President Obama led among this key
swing constituency by 8 points,” Purple Strategies wrote in their analysis. “Purple
Obama ‘ has the right ideas to build the economy
State voters believe that President
in a way that will provide more opportunities for you’ (42% to 38%), and
‘for the next generation’ (44% to 41%). However, those advantages disappear when looking just at independents (37%/38%, and 39%/39%
respectively).”
Obama’s lead is huge – far exceeds the margin of error
The Hill, 3-26-12 – Obama opens up a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney, according to new poll,
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/218119-poll-obama-opens-up-double-digit-lead-over-romney.
President Obama leads GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney by 10 percent, according to a Suffolk University
poll released on Monday. Obama leads Romney 47 percent to 37 percent, and leads Rick Santorum 49 percent to 37 percent. Of the 1,070
people the poll surveyed, 39 percent were Democrats, 34 percent were Republicans, and 22 percent were either independent or unaffiliated.
The poll was conducted between March 21 and 25, and has a 3 percent margin of error.
Polls prove the edge – favorability, job approval and protracted primary
The Hill, 3-26-12 – Obama opens up a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney, according to new poll,
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/218119-poll-obama-opens-up-double-digit-lead-over-romney.
According to the Suffolk survey, the president’s job approval rating is at 46 percent, with 45 of those surveyed percent
saying they disapprove. This is in line with most other current polls. The president also holds a 15 percent lead in
favorability over Romney. Fifty-two percent said they have a favorable view of the president, with 43
percent unfavorable. Only 38 percent said they have a favorable view of Romney , compared to 44 percent unfavorable.
The drawn-out primary process is hurting the Republican candidates, according to the poll, with 43 percent
saying they are now less likely to support the Republican candidate in the general election, while only 29
percent said they are now more likely to support the Republican candidate. “The Republican Primary race is taking its toll on
Mitt Romney and the GOP,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, in a statement. “The
Republican Primary process has been so divisive that frustrated voters are saying that they would rather vote for a thirdparty candidate than one of the Republicans, which clearly benefits President Obama. Romney’s unfavorables have shot up over the past year,
while Obama’s core numbers have held in the mid-high forties."
Obama will win – the latest polls show huge margins and no GOP base enthusiasm
Politico, 2-22-12 – “Poll: Obama tops 50% vs. all comers,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73154.html.
President Barack Obama is topping 50 percent support in match-ups against each of the four Republican
presidential candidates, a new poll finds. In a general election contest against Mitt Romney, the president leads his Republican
51 to 43 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK survey on Wednesday. This demonstrates a significant lead
for Obama compared to the December poll when the two were virtually tied at 47 to 46 percent. Meanwhile, Obama would
opponent
lead Rick Santorum 52 to 43 percent, Newt Gingrich 52 to 42 percent, and Ron Paul 53 to 44 percent. While both candidates are trailing well
behind Obama, Santorum is virtually tied with Romney as the preferred presidential nominee among Republican voters. Thirty-three percent of
Republicans and Republican-leaning voters said they would like to see Santorum seize the party’s nomination, while 32 percent chose Romney.
Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were both the preferred nominees of 15 percent of Republicans. Romney was shown with the highest favorability
rating in the GOP field at 50 percent; Paul and Santorum were next with 47 and 44 percent favorability ratings, respectively, while Gingrich
trailed behind at 33 percent. The
poll revealed a significant level of dissatisfaction among the Republican
voting bloc about the current presidential field –39 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning
voters said they are not satisfied with their choice of 2012 candidates. The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted Feb. 16-20
among 1,000 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
Economic growth, GOP infighting, empirics, head-to-heads and momentum prove
POLITICO, 2-15-12 – “Obama up in polls, despite high pessimism,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72942.html.
The uptick in the economy and the ongoing GOP presidential primary fight have helped Obama’s
approval ratings climb to their highest levels in national and key state polls since the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“He’s
back around 50 percent, traditionally an important benchmark for presidents,” Doherty said. A
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Wednesday displayed the dichotomy: 60 percent said they think the country is doing very or pretty
badly, compared to just 40 percent who said it’s doing very or fairly well. Meanwhile, Obama’s approval rating was at 50 percent, the same
level he hit in a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday and a Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week. His disapproval
rating, meanwhile, is in the low 40’s. Reviews of
Obama’s handling of the economy are the highest they’ve been
since the spring of 2010 in the Times/CBS poll, but they’re still low for a president facing reelection. Forty-four percent of those
surveyed said they approve, while 50 percent disapprove. And on the economy itself, just 11 percent surveyed for the Post/ABC poll said they
would rate the economy as good, while 89 percent said it’s not so good or poor. In
head-to-head national matchups against
the leading GOP candidates, Obama has an edge. The race is tightest when he’s pitted against Mitt Romney, but Obama
still leads him by between 6 and 8 points – just outside the margin of error but not quite a runaway — in several polls released in
the last week. That’s a marked improvement from just three weeks ago, when a Times/CBS poll had the two candidates
tied at 45 percent.
a2 Econ
Obama can win despite low confidence in the economy – current polls prove
POLITICO, 2-15-12 – “Obama up in polls, despite high pessimism,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72942.html.
There’s not a lot of confidence in the direction of the country or what President Barack Obama’s done to help the
economy — but he’s gaining in popularity nonetheless . And a slate of recent national and
battleground state polls show the consequences: The president heads into his re-election campaign
well ahead of where he was even a few months ago, but his improved position remains vulnerable, especially if the
economy dips again. Continue Reading California will make apps carry privacy policies Despite “some positives here for the president, so much
depends on the trajectory of the economy over the next several months,” warned Carroll Doherty, associate director at Pew Research Center,
which Monday showed Obama taking 52 percent of the vote and beating his closest competitor, Mitt Romney, by 8 percentage points.
a2 Enthusiasm
Are you kidding? The GOP clearly isn’t enthused about Romney…
Here’s the data – Obama’s crushing it – we control momentum
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Democratic poll analysis: Obama strong against beleaguered Republican
candidates
The improvement in the direction of the country coupled with the Republican primary process has
united Democrats . Sixty-three percent of Democrats now believe the country is heading in the right direction, and 92% of
Democrats vote for Obama
against a generic Republican. That number is even higher when the President faces Santorum and
over three-quarters of Democrats (76%) say they are extremely likely to vote
compared to just 65% in November. Republican enthusiasm has held at 79%, while independents’ vote likelihood has dropped 8
points (69% today, 77% in November). Invigorating the Democratic base—and maintaining that enthusiasm—is
paramount, but the Republican primary process has greatly helped achieve this. Rebuilding the lead that Democrats had among
Romney. In addition, today,
independents at the Congressional level is also critical in order to re-take Congress.
The enthusiasm gap closed before the GOP even named a candidate
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html
Lake noted that the enthusiasm gap favoring Republicans has almost disappeared , as 92 percent of
Democrats approve of Obama and 72 percent say they’re likely to vote in November. “ There’s no
dissension in the Democratic ranks ,” she said.
a2 Fundraising
Obama will catch up on fundraising
Priebus, 3-1-12 – Reince Priebus is the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Fundraising:
Obama’s real priority, POLITCO, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73481.html.
It’s a big night Thursday for President Barack Obama. In New York, he will hold his 100th fundraiser since declaring
reelection — his 33rd this year alone. Let’s put that in perspective. On average, one can reasonably say attending a fundraiser
takes two hours out of the president’s schedule. So, in total, the president has likely spent at least 200 hours, or five
standard workweeks, filling his campaign coffers since April.
a2 Gas Prices
Silver study proves no correlation b/w prices and the election
NPR, 2-21-12 – Could Higher Gas Pump Prices Leave Obama Running On Empty?,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/21/147207760/could-higher-gas-pump-prices-leaveobama-running-on-empty.
Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight blog examined this issue in February 2011 just before the Republican presidential
campaigns took off in earnest. It was at a stage when Obama was clashing with congressional Republicans who were accusing his
energy policies of contributing to higher prices at the pump. Silver found there to be, at best, a weak correlation
between gas prices and presidential elections though he makes the important point that there isn't as much data as one
might want; there have only been 16 presidential elections since 1948, the point at which he starts looking at gas prices, the GDP and election
results. A key excerpt: "The upshot is this: higher gas prices are important to the extent that they affect things like G.D.P., inflation and
unemployment. But there
isn't evidence that they matter above and beyond that."
He won’t get the blame
CSM, 2-21-12 – High gas prices: How big a problem for Obama?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0221/High-gas-prices-How-big-a-problemfor-Obama.
Still, the public does not necessarily blame the president for rising prices. Last May, a poll conducted by the Pew
Research Center found that 31 percent blamed greed, oil companies, and speculators for the rising prices.
Another 19 percent blamed wars and unrest in the Middle East. Only 14 percent blamed politics or
policy.
If he’s in trouble he’ll just release the SPR again
CSM, 2-21-12 – High gas prices: How big a problem for Obama?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0221/High-gas-prices-How-big-a-problemfor-Obama.
A key factor, says Sabato, will be the price of gasoline in seven swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and
Virginia. He doesn’t rule out a move on the price front right before Nov. 6. “I wonder if Obama
would release oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] so it was timed just right to draw prices down before the election,” he says.
Last year, Obama released oil from the SPR when prices started to go up because of the unrest in Libya.
That had a very short effect on energy prices.
a2 He’ll Blow It
Obama will win by default – GOP will kill itself
Lux, 2-20-12 – 2012 Scenarios: What if the Economy Heads Back Downhill? Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/obama-jobs-2012_b_1289076.html.
Given the stunning weakness of the remaining Republican presidential candidates and the Tea Party
Republicans in the House, and Obama's successful re-positioning as a pro-middle class populist, if the economy
keeps getting stronger and stronger in the coming months, this election will turn into a Democratic sweep . This group
of Republicans is so extreme, and so bad -- and so extremely bad, for that matter -- that what we all had been
assuming would be an incredibly challenging election year for Democrats could yet turn into a great
year for my party. For the country's sake, both on economics and politics, I hope with all my heart that this is exactly what it happens, and it
just might.
Obama wins by default
Munshaw, 2-19-12 – Poli Sci Prof @ Towson, What is Obama’s biggest challenge in the 2012
election?, http://www.thetowerlight.com/2012/02/what-is-obamas-biggest-challenge-in-the-2012election/comment-page-1/.
President Barack Obama’s biggest challenger in the 2012 race for the White House isn’t a Republican or an Independent, but himself. At this
point, it is Obama’s race to lose, because all of the Republican challengers have shown weaknesses
that almost make them unelectable to anyone who is not a die-hard conservative. Newt Gingrich wants to build a moon base and
can’t seem to fight off accusations of extramarital affairs. Mitt Romney is filthy rich, and knows it, but he won’t admit it and tries to relate to
the middle class. And Rick Santorum’s last name is Santorum. Just take a second to Google Santorum. I dare you. But seriously, Santorum’s
campaign is poorly organized and he doesn’t have nearly the amount of money and staff that Romney has. If
Obama hits the
campaign trail hard this year, with members of his staff such as David Axelrod and Jim Messina returning from his 2008 campaign,
he should easily get enough votes from Democrats to keep his seat in the White House. While
Obama’s presidency to date has had its ups and downs, there hasn’t really been anyone willing to step
up and legitimately challenge him. As long as Obama doesn’t make any major mistakes or gaffes, and none
of the Republican candidates can find a way to overcome their flaws and lay down legitimate counter arguments to the Obama administration’s
policies,
it’s Obama’s race to lose .
a2 Health Care
The GOP won’t challenge Obama on health care
Bolton, 3-1-12 – Alex, McConnell to skip healthcare reform repeal votes until after election, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/213521-mcconnell-to-skip-healthcare-repeal-votes-till-afterelection.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) told his colleagues this week that he does not want to vote
again on repealing President Obama’s healthcare reform law until after the November elections. The GOP’s game
plan on healthcare is politically sensitive because influential conservative activists have called for repeated votes on repeal. But many
Republicans on Capitol Hill want to focus on other issues in the coming months, most notably gas
prices and the economy.
a2 Indies
Obama is DECISIVELY ahead with key independent groups
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Democratic poll analysis: Obama strong against beleaguered Republican
candidates
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73305_Page2.html#ixzz1nsYujBmb.
The swing among independent voters is similarly spectacular , as these perennial battleground voters
now align themselves with President Obama. When pitted against Santorum and Romney, Obama beats both men by
solid double-digit margins among independents (+16 and +12, respectively). Obama’s leads among
independent women are even more pronounced ; the President boasts a whopping 28-point lead among independent
women against both Santorum and Romney. As mentioned, blue-collar voters—another key swing constituency—are
also supporting the President, especially blue-collar women who decisively choose Obama over Romney and Santorum (+22 and
+16, respectively).
a2 Jobs
Even if Obama’s jobs numbers are low they’re better than the GOP’s
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html
Despite his improved standing, Obama remains under water on the three issues most important to voters: 51 percent
disapprove of his handling of the economy, 50 percent on jobs and 59 percent on government spending and the budget deficit. But even
among voters who name jobs and
the economy as the issue
they’re most concerned about, Obama leads his
would-be Republican rivals. Democrats say they are more likely to vote for him now than they did
last year, and he maintains a huge reserve of goodwill: Three-quarters of Americans continue to like the president
personally — 59 percent strongly so.
Jobs numbers will swing upwards – we control predictive UQ
POLITICO, 3-6-12 – 5 questions for Obama,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73640_Page4.html
Republicans have never forgotten the administration’s prediction that the stimulus would push
unemployment back below 8 percent — and the GOP attacked from the high ground when the rate hovered between 9 percent
and 10 percent for much of the past three years. But the U.S. economy is chugging slowly uphill, defying predictions
that Europe’s debt crisis would derail the recovery, and the unemployment rate currently sits at an improved, though still ugly, 8.3 percent. If
he’s smart, Obama will avoid numerical predictions — but anything he says is likely to be viewed as a marker, and Republicans will hammer him
if the economy falls short of his prediction. Maury Harris,
chief U.S. economist at the bank UBS, projects
unemployment will end the year at 7.8 percent because of increased bank lending, fewer layoffs by
state and local governments and baby boomers leaving the workforce by retiring.
a2 Women
Female voters are breaking strongly for Obama
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html
Democrats say they are more likely to vote for him now than they did last year, and he maintains a huge reserve of goodwill: Three-quarters of
Americans continue to like the president personally — 59 percent strongly so. While
Democrats lost women voters in the
2010 midterm election, Obama now carries them by 12 percentage points against a generic Republican.
Among white women, Obama leads Romney 51 percent to 45 percent. It’s a strong base to build from , according to Lake. “Both a
combination of the president’s positives and the Republicans’ negatives have brought women back in
very strong form ,” said Lake.
**Elections – Obama Loses
Obama L – 2ac
Obama will lose – Romney controls the economy and enthusiasm
Murray, 4-19 – Mark, NBC News Senior Political Editor, NBC/WSJ poll: Obama leads Romney by six
points, but Republican ahead on economy,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/19/11291546-nbcwsj-poll-obama-leads-romney-bysix-points-but-republican-ahead-on-economy?lite
But the poll also shows that the president’s biggest weakness – the economy – is also Romney’s strength. And
with Republicans beginning to rally around the former Massachusetts governor and with the GOP especially
enthusiastic about November’s election, the race has the potential to be close, the NBC/WSJ pollsters say.
Related: NBC/WSJ poll: Romney's image improves but remains a net-negative President Barack Obama; Republican presidential candidate Mitt
Romney. “You are projecting a very, very close campaign,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey
with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “It is going to look like 2004 or 2000,” Hart added, referring to George W. Bush’s extremely narrow
victories in those two presidential contests. “There
are plenty of things that suggest it has a long, long way to go.”
That’s the controlling issue
Zogby, 4-25-12 – John, Senior Advisor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, best-selling author, founded the polling firm Zogby International, 8.0 May Be Obama's Lucky
Number, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2012/04/25/8-0-may-be-obamas-luckynumber/.
Those may be arbitrary numbers, and a voter’s personal job situation and that of his community may mean more than that of the nation.
However, that
poll gives us a guide to how perceptions of the economy, and most important the direction it is
impact the election. With the current official rate at 8.2%, Obama is looking good. Perhaps not coincidentally, the
RealClearPolitics.com average of polls has Obama leading Mitt Romney, 47.5%-44.4%, or right at the plurality predicted by last year’s poll.
heading, will
If a USA Today survey of what it calls “50 top economists” is accurate, a polling majority could be within sight for Obama. According to the
paper, “economists think job growth for the rest of the year will be about 20% stronger than they did after Christmas.” Yes, predictions by
economists can have what we pollsters call a high margin of error. Plus there are dissenters among economists. In the short term, some
fear rising gas prices and question whether an unusually warm winter/spring may have inflated seasonal job growth. Others look
longer term and see little change in personal debt and uncertainty about fiscal policies in both Europe
and Washington. Then there is the issue of the “the real jobless rate,” which includes the unemployed who may be left out of the official
number, notably people who have stopped looking for work. Some claim that rate is more than two points higher than the official number.
Whether it is perception or reality, an improving economy is very much a factor in the rise of Obama’s
approval rating and his standing against Romney. That’s most important in swing states , where there is hard
evidence of a better economy. Manufacturing is on the upswing in Ohio and Michigan, and increased tourism is giving some relief to
unemployment rates in Arizona, Nevada and Florida. Economic gains are making it harder for Romney to build momentum. For every statement
about robust party support for Romney and optimism he will win, there are also reported rumblings among GOP insiders that Romney is a weak
candidate with little chance of ousting Obama. No one seems at all eager to be Romney’s running mate. That may be the usual posturing and
lowering of expectations by those who don’t want to look like losers when someone else gets tapped. Or perhaps this Jon Stewart Daily Show
piece accurately satirizes a field in which all the most talked about choices appear to be begging Romney to choose someone else. Being
number two on a losing ticket is not a path to future political success. Pessimism about Romney assumes continued good economic news and
no new events that put Obama in a bad light. We all know what happens to those who assume. Timing would seem to be everything. So what
happens if
the jobless rate dips under 8% in September, but jumps in October? That seems like a nightmare for
Team Obama , and could be if the race is Bush v. Gore close. Otherwise, late breaking bad news may not be as strong a predictor as
economic growth over the first three quarters or the incumbent’s approval rating heading into the last few months of the campaign.
It’s a referendum on Obama – Romney can win even if he loses the PR battle
Kuhn, 4-26-12 – David Paul, Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics, The Square Can Win,
RCP,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_square_can_win__romney_obama_2012_sq
uare_america_stiff_silent_majority_nixon_113965.html
In 1972, a young aide named Patrick Buchanan suggested that Richard Nixon frame the presidential campaign as "square America" vs.
"radical America." The square won 49 states. Pundits tend to describe Mitt Romney's vanilla disposition as a
liability. The Washington Post recently asked, "Why does Mitt Romney seem so stiff?" But there's a more practical question: How much does it
matter? Stiffs
can become president, even in this television age. During the 1988 campaign, George H.W. Bush asked reporters,
“What’s wrong with being a boring kind of guy?" The answer came on Election Day. Americans backed the boring guy. Today, pundits
mythologize Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” personality. But Clinton owed his presidency far more to the
recession and Ross Perot than his softer side. Barack Obama certainly does not lead with his heart. Joe Biden is the
more Clintonian pol. But Biden was lucky to be number two on that ticket. Back in 1972, Nixon didn’t merely campaign for
“square America.” He was intrinsically square. His second-grade teacher recalled that little Dick Nixon came to school every day wearing a white
starched shirt and long sleeves. That square went on to win one of the largest landslides in American history. So we watch as this latest square
seeks the presidency. Romney does navigate a stage as if the hanger is still inside his shirt. But Al Gore won the popular vote despite his
starched demeanor. Romney exudes 1950s man. Ronald Reagan did too. Even Reagan’s pompadour recalled the “good old
days.” Romney’s perpetually coiffed hair may as well. In 1996, a Knight-Ridder poll found that Americans -- including a plurality of men, women,
liberals and conservatives -- saw the 1950s as the best decade to live and raise children in. Romney’s disposition could evoke this rose-colored
memory. He’s more Ward Cleaver than Don Draper. Reporters favor an anecdote about this stiff man. Romney often recites, or sings, lines of
“America the Beautiful” at rallies. These occasions may be awkward. They can also serve as cultural traps. In presidential politics, it’s better to
be criticized for effusive patriotism than to be aligned with the critics. H.W. Bush took on a fondness for flags, and their factories, during the
1988 campaign. He doggedly pummeled Michael Dukakis for his veto of a bill mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Some
reporters scoffed. But it helped keep Dukakis on his heels. Politicians must
run as themselves. The art is to turn
weakness into strength. Romney can campaign as a serious man for serious times. Would Romney be a stronger candidate if he were
emotive? Yes. That’s also true for the current president. Every four years, we exaggerate the importance of charisma. Re-election
campaigns are largely referendums on the incumbent and the political environment (see Sean Trende’s smart
explanation). The challenger has to meet a competence threshold. Not compassion. The candidate perceived as more caring often loses.
Reagan and both Bushes were perceived as less empathetic than their opponents. Republicans won five of those six elections. Romney’s
conservative scruples may also prove an asset. The United States is one of the most socially
conservative Western nations. Gallup has regularly found, over the past decade, that about eight in 10 Americans rate the “overall
state” of moral values in this country as “only fair” or “poor.” Americans may look at Romney and see a square. But, in terms of facial features,
voters associate squares with leadership. Social scientists have found that people gravitate to the faces of politicians who exude competence
above all else, including attractiveness. As Slate’s Libby Copeland wrote in January, summarizing the findings, “The competent face shape is
masculine but approachable, with a square jaw, high cheekbones, and large eyes. When people say Romney just looks presidential, this is the
image they’re summoning.” Romney’s True Problem It’s a mistake to equate Romney’s square demeanor with his plutocratic demeanor. The
latter is a serious problem. Nixon exuded stiff. But it was working stiff. And Nixon brilliantly understood the power of grunt imagery. “I got a
couple of letters of commendation. But I was just there when the bombs were falling,” he said of his wartime service during his Checkers
speech. Romney could never give that speech. “I keep waiting for Mitt to say, ‘Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?’ ” Rick Perry joked at
the Gridiron dinner. Romney speaks awkwardly about his wealth and class. His rich gaffes personify the negative stereotype of the ultra-rich
Republican. H.W. Bush did as well. But the unemployment rate bobbed in the mid-fives in 1988. Romney’s Wall Street resume only further
estranges him from Main Street. It helps Democrats frame 2012 as also about Romney. Americans will elect squares. But there is a particular
American allergy to snobbery and elitism. This is why the son of a president campaigned as a regular fella, more W than Bush. It’s why, in 1840,
Whig William Henry Harrison framed himself as a humble backwoodsman. Harrison actually grew up in a palatial Virginia estate and was the
son of a signatory to the Declaration of Independence. Americans wanted, even then, to elect a people’s candidate. The patrician candidate can
win voters’ favor. Yet most privileged sons who become president have formative stories to tell. Romney doesn't. There’s no war story. No
storybook triumph. No great obstacle overcome. His business experience includes job growth and downsizing. He’s not the all-American
industrial executive his father was. And Romney’s best emotional bridge to voters is closed to him. George W. Bush’s religiosity helped voters
see the soul in the man. But Romney’s Mormonism gives him pause, and polls show his concerns are not unfounded. Romney cannot
compensate by simply mimicking Nixon’s 1972 strategy. There is no contemporary cultural frame that resonates like “acid, abortion and
amnesty.” Instead, he can run on competence vs. incompetence. It de-personalizes the attack. Independents do not share conservatives’ distain
for Obama. Thus, Romney must bear-hug. His
best tactic is to portray Obama as a good man but not the best man
for the job, or up to the job. And Romney seems to understand that. “I think he’s a nice person, I just don't think we
can afford him any longer,” Romney said in a recent speech. The GOP presumptive nominee, therefore, need not match
Obama’s aplomb -- let alone Reagan’s stage presence. Many presidents could not. He does not need to talk about his iPod playlist or sink
three-pointers to win. He may be the underdog. But six in 10 Americans say the nation is on the wrong track.
Americans’ distrust of politicians is at historic levels. This public is crying for competence more than
compassion. So the stiff can win as that competent man. And he should welcome the association with “square America.”
Obama does not want to be seen as attacking that America. The left has already learned that a
“silent majority” can also make
presidents. As Theodore White wrote of the 1960 campaign, “Predictions of a Kennedy sweep based on crowd response ignored an
enormous political truth: that quiet people vote, too.”
Obama L – 1ar**
Zogby says Obama will lose on the economy, which controls all other factors – default
Neg –
Several economic factors build momentum for Romney
Newsmax, 4-26 – Economy Works In Favor of Romney, http://www.newsmax.com/US/economyelection-romney-obama/2012/04/26/id/437184
With the economy still struggling to sustain its rebound from the recession, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney has an issue giving him a clear advantage over President Barack Obama. Indeed, “the economy gives
Romney his best chance of defeating Obama,” according to The Hill. It sees three economic factors as most
important for the campaign — employment, housing, and the European debt crisis. Unemployment remains
at an elevated level of 8.2 percent, with payrolls increasing only 120,000 in March. Housing also is still weak, with the latest
numbers showing prices fell 2.5 percent in February from a year earlier. And rising Spanish bond yields have investors worried about Europe
again. All
that is good news for Romney and bad news for Obama, and there may be more of it on the way.
housing
market may be near a bottom. But a vigorous rebound is unlikely this year. “House prices, based on data through
Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi doesn’t see the jobless rate falling below eight percent by election day Nov. 6. The
February, continue to decline, but at a decreasing rate,” Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic, told The Hill. “The deceleration in the
pace of decline is a first step toward ultimately growing again.” The
turmoil in Europe has led to volatility in U.S.
financial markets, which also represents a problem for Obama. “Strains in global financial markets continue to pose
significant downside risks to the economic outlook,” the Federal Reserve said in a report Wednesday.
Defer to Zogby
Huffington Post, ’12 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby.
John Zogby, former president and CEO of Zogby International, remains by all accounts the hottest pollster in the United States today. "All hail
Zogby, the maverick predictor who beat us all," proclaimed the Washington Post in November 1996 after
Zogby alone called that
presidential election with pinpoint accuracy. In the recent razor-thin 2000 elections, daily national tracking polls conducted by
Zogby International in the last few weeks foretold a tightening of the race for president while nearly all other polling firms projected an easy
victory for Gov. George W. Bush. Zogby International instead was the first to observe the gap closing significantly between Bush and VicePresident Al Gore in the waning hours of the election. In his post election 2000 review, the acclaimed Godfrey Sperling, columnist for the
Christian Science Monitor called John Zogby "Champion Pollster." "In 1996, John Zogby came within one-tenth of 1 percent of the presidential
result - the best performance turned in by any of the pollsters. This year Mr. Zogby was the first pollster I heard being cited on TV as finding
that Gore was pulling out slightly, by 2 percent, ahead of Mr. Bush. But when I talked to Zogby a few days ago, he was elated with how close he
had come this year to predicting the final outcome - and rightly so." Zogby continued to rank in the top tier in 2004 both in the nationwide polls
for Reuters and in the 20 states that he polled. Since 1996,
Zogby has polled for Reuters News Agency, the largest news
agency in the world, and in 2000 polled for NBC News, the network news watched by most Americans. His
clients also include MSNBC, the New York Post, Fox News, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Gannett News Service, Houston Chronicle, Miami
Herald, Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Albany Times Union, the Buffalo News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Cincinnati Post, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, the Toledo Blade, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, the Syracuse Herald, and nearly every daily
newspaper in New York State, as well as television stations throughout the U.S. He
has been praised as "the most accurate
pollster" (Seattle Post Intelligencer, Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA Today), "respected" and "pioneering" (Albany Times Union),
"the pace setter in the polling business" (New York Post), and "the big winner in 1996" (Campaigns and Elections, L. Brent Bozell,
and the O'Leary/Kamber Report). Zogby regularly appears on all three nightly network news programs plus NBC's "Today Show," ABC's "Good
Morning America" and is a frequent guest for Fox News and MSNBC special programs, along with CNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." He
also is a regular political commentator for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation. He has been spoofed
on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and the Late Show with David Letterman. He has been
profiled in the New Yorker, Fortune Magazine, Inc., and Investors' Business Daily.
2004
appearance on The Daily Show
The highpoint of his life was his
October 28,
with Jon Stewart. His analytical expertise has been published on the opinion pages of the
New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday and the Boston
Globe. Following his correct call in the 1997 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the Houston Chronicle exclaimed, "and the winner again is John
Zogby." Mary Matalin, host of her own national radio show, calls Zogby
the "prince of pollsters," and Barry Farber has declared
has also distinguished himself in Canada where he alone called the popular vote
victory of the Liberals over the Parti Quebecois in the Quebec election of 1998. He was the first pollster to see a victory for Vicente Fox in the
2000 Mexican election, and triumphed in the 2001 Israeli election being the only pollster to call the 26-point margin victory of
defense minister, Ariel Sharon. Zogby further distinguished himself by polling the Iran Presidential election closer than even the Iran
News Agency. Zogby holds degrees in history from Le Moyne College and Syracuse University. He has taught history and political
science at the State University of New York, Utica College, and at Hamilton College's Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center. In addition he is a
him "America's Pollmaster General." He
member of the Board of Trustees of Le Moyne College. He received the distinguished Alumni Award in June 2000. A frequent lecturer and
panelist, he is listed with Leading Authorities and the Capitol Speakers Bureau in Washington, DC and the National Speakers' Bureau, in Chicago.
He continues to lecture all over the world. He
also serves on the Advisory Council for Bio-Technology for the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He has polled, researched and consulted for a wide spectrum of business media, government, and
political groups including Coca Cola, Microsoft, CISCO Systems, Philip Morris, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, MCI, Reuters America, and
the United States Census Bureau since 1984. Zogby
continues to poll extensively throughout the world - at last
count in 62 countries. Zogby has polled and conducted focus groups throughout the United States. He has polled in Canada, Brazil,
Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Korea, along with the Middle East. He is married to Kathleen Zogby, a special education teacher,
and has three sons, Jonathan, Benjamin, and Jeremy.
We control the only relevant factor – the economy – it’ll deliver victory to Romney
Memoli, 4-20 – Michael, 5 things the early polls tell us about the Obama-Romney matchup, Chicago
Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-la-pn-what-the-obama-romney-polls-tellus-about-race-20120418,0,2821916.story
For starters, you may not be surprised to learn that it's expected to be a close race. The top line numbers -- that is, the head-tohead matchup between the Democratic incumbent and his likely GOP challenger -- range from a 9-point lead for Obama (CNN/Opinion
Research Corporation) to a 5-point advantage for Romney (Gallup). The
latest poll of the bunch, from NBC News and the Wall Street
Obama ahead 49% to 43%. A composite of recent polls from Real Clear Politics gives Obama, on average, a nearly 3-point
lead. Those early numbers are getting most of the attention, but the campaigns are more interested in what the deeper
data show. And while each survey has a different overall result, there are areas of consensus among them that point to
the candidates' main strengths and weaknesses, and the nature of the November electorate. 1. Republicans are rallying ...
Journal, puts
slowly: Given how many Republican candidates laid claim to the frontrunner mantle at various points of the primary battle, it is noteworthy
that the party's base seems to be quickly accepting the fact that Romney is the one they must support if they are to defeat President Obama. A
Pew Research Center poll showed that 88% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters say they will support Romney this fall.
Despite conventional wisdom that suggested Romney was weakest among the more conservative elements of the party, Pew found that they
were more likely to be certain of their support for him now, by a margin of 82% compared to only 66% of moderate and liberal Republicans
who were certain. A CBS/New York Times poll found that 54% of Republican primary voters now say they want Romney to lead them into the
fall campaign -- not an overwhelming majority, but a significant jump from a March poll that found only 30% felt that way then. Romney's
favorable rating, still historically low for a major party nominee at this time, is nonetheless improving now that Republicans' internal sniping is
subsiding. Among all voters, CNN's poll showed his personal favorable rating jumped from 37% in March to 44% in April. A Washington
Post/ABC News poll saw less of a bounce so far, though, with his favorable rating still at just 35%. What's really motivating Republicans is their
hostility to Obama. Among registered general election voters who said they would support Romney, 63% said their vote was one against
Obama while 35% said it was a vote for Romney. 2. It's the economy, stupid: Never
mind the dust-up over Hilary Rosen’s comments,
Ted Nugent’s rant, or anything involving dogs. The overwhelming concern of voters at this point is a
serious one: the state of the economy. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 53% of voters said jobs and the economy was the
most important issue when thinking about their choice in the election. They showed the race as 47% to 43% for Obama overall. But
45% of voters said Romney was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared to 43% who said Obama was. It was the only issue where
Romney led. That may explain why the president does not have a more significant lead given how well he scores against Romney on some key
questions.
Obama is behind on the most important issues
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Republican poll analysis: Warning signs for both parties, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73306
Most races with an incumbent running for reelection are about the incumbent and this data clearly indicates that President Obama will face
significant challenges in making his case with voters for four more years. While the President does enjoy majority approval on both his overall
job approval rating (53% approve) and his personal approval rating (74% approve), The
President is still upside down with those
voters who feel strongly about the job he is doing and he continues to struggle on the issues that
concern voters the most. On the issue matrix, seventy percent (70%) of voters select a pocketbook issue
as their top concern, including the economy (23%), jobs (20%), and government spending/deficit (15%). When voters are
asked their assessment of President Obama on these specific pocketbook issues, he fares poorly. A majority
of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy (51% disapprove). A majority of voters disapprove of his
handling of jobs (50% disapprove), and a majority of voters disapprove of his handling of the federal budget
and spending (59% disapprove). In addition, continuing a trend seen on the last Battleground, a majority of
voters (51%) disapprove of the job that the President is doing dealing with Congress. However, a strong majority
of Democrats (74%) approve of the job that the President is doing dealing with Congress. His base is clearly pleased with the increasingly
confrontational rhetoric and behavior that the President has shown towards Congress, particularly the House of Representatives. However, the
remainder of the electorate is not pleased with these maneuverings. The President will continue to have to choose between feeding the
passions of his base through executive fiats that circumvent Congress and the type of steady governing that the rest of the electorate wants.
Multiple 1ar
Obama will lose – missile defense, health care and gas prices
Parnes, 3-31 – Amy, GOP points to stumbles as signs of Obama's 2012 vulnerabilities, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/219351-gop-points-to-stumbles-as-signs-of-obamasvulnerabilities.
Republicans say President Obama's stumbles this week expose his vulnerabilities heading into the general election. They
argue Obama’s hot-mic comment to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about his “flexibility” on missile defense
after the election — paired with the rough treatment his health law received at the Supreme Court — prove
the president is on shaky ground with voters. “I think the activity this week shows us that Obama is vulnerable heading into
November,” said Kirsten Kukowski, a press secretary for the Republican National Committee. “His signature legislation, ObamaCare, is in danger
of getting overturned by the court, and there is a narrative building that Obama will say and do anything to get reelected, even if it means
keeping Americans in the dark on important foreign policy with Russia.” The unscripted moment between Obama and Medvedev on Monday
created an instant talking point for Republicans, and the RNC was quick to pounce, releasing a video that ominously asked: “What else is on
Obama’s agenda after the election that he isn’t telling you?” The president emphasized to Medvedev that this year is his “last election,” a
comment that played into Republican fears that Obama would make a sharp turn to the left during a second term, when he would be free from
the constraints of running for office. RNC officials said they played up Obama’s “flexibility” comments in fundraising solicitations that were well
received by donors. “[Obama] really helped us this week,” one RNC official said. “We’re getting a lot of mileage out of this. Anything like what
we able to do this week [to target Obama] is our goal.” The
White House struggled all week to contain the
aftershocks of Obama’s comments and the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Both subjects — along with the rising price of
gas — dominated briefings with reporters at the White House and put aides on the defensive.
Afghanistan 1ar
Afghanistan is an uncontrollable loss
The Hill, 3-13-12 – “Rising gas prices, Afghanistan first big test for Team Obama in 2012 race,”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/215903-gas-prices-afghanistan-big-test-for-team-obama.
Rising gas prices and troubles
in Afghanistan have jolted the White House, giving President Obama and his
aides their first big test of the campaign season. Obama has seen his poll numbers fall despite an improving national
economy and the long GOP primary, and the
recent news has shifted the spotlight from the Republican
presidential fight to his handling of both foreign policy and the economy. For Team Obama, that raises the
uncomfortable possibility that the 2012 election will be more of a referendum on Obama’s tenure than a
choice between the president and the GOP’s standard-bearer. Senior administration officials remain confident Obama will win
reelection in the fall, but the dipping poll numbers and sudden problems on the domestic and international stages have been rattling. “If the
election were held today, I think we’d win,” said one administration official. “But with gas prices and Afghanistan not going away anytime soon,
it’s a little worrisome, mostly because they’re out of our control.” Senior administration officials remain confident Obama will win reelection in
the fall, but the dipping poll numbers and sudden problems on the domestic and international stages have been rattling. “If the election were
held today, I think we’d win,” said one administration official. “But with gas prices and Afghanistan
not going away anytime
soon , it’s a little worrisome, mostly because they’re out of our control.” Obama and Democrats have exuded confidence in
recent weeks, given the improving economy and the pounding the GOP candidates have taken in their primary fight. But the president’s
approval ratings suggest this fall’s election will be razor-close regardless of who wins the GOP contest. A New York Times/CBS News poll
released late Monday showed that Obama’s approval rating had fallen to 41 percent. Only 20 percent of those surveyed said they are better off
now than they were four years ago, a finding that highlights the need for the White House to make the election a choice between two
candidates, and not a referendum on the incumbent. A separate Washington Post poll released Monday found that 46 percent approve of the
way Obama is handling his job, compared to 50 percent who disapprove. While Obama still led GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and
Rick Santorum in head-to-head matchups, his advantage had shrunk in the Post poll, in large part because of voter dissatisfaction with higher
gas prices. Only 26 percent of voters in that poll approved of Obama’s handling of gas prices, which averaged $3.80 per gallon on Tuesday,
according to AAA. Foreign policy has been a strong point for Obama ever since the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden, but several
troubling incidents in Afghanistan have raised serious questions about the administration’s strategy for ending that war. The White House has
sought to deal with both issues by putting Obama before the public. The president has given three speeches on his energy policy in the last few
weeks, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar came to the White House briefing room on Monday to talk up Obama’s efforts to increase U.S. energy
production. On Tuesday, Obama offered public remarks about the alleged killing of more than a dozen Afghan civilians by a rogue U.S. soldier, a
massacre that has shaken confidence in the mission. Obama sought to reassure Americans — many of whom feel the United States has
overstayed its welcome in Afghanistan — that a drawdown in the war zone is in the works. “Make no mistake, we have a strategy that will allow
us to responsibly wind down this war,” Obama said during brief remarks in the Rose Garden. “We’re steadily transitioning to the Afghans, who
are moving into the lead, and that’s going to allow us to bring our troops home.” While he said there is “no question that we face a difficult
challenge in Afghanistan,” Obama expressed confidence that the United States “can continue the work of meeting our objectives, protecting
our country and responsibly bringing this war to a close.” Senior administration officials acknowledge that the two issues are challenging and at
least somewhat out of their control. A host of factors contributes to global oil prices, and the
U.S. mission in Afghanistan is partly
dependent on the actions of the Afghan government and partners in NATO.
Enthusiasm Gap 1ar
Enthusiasm gap
Mak, 3-1-12 – Tim, “USA Today/Gallup poll: Republicans more excited to vote,” POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73485.html#ixzz1nsvDUV9X
Republicans hold an enthusiasm advantage over Democrats, as a majority of them say they are “more enthusiastic than
usual about voting” for president, according to a new poll Thursday. Among registered Republicans and independents who lean
Republican, 53 percent say they are excited to vote this year, compared with 45 percent of Democrats who
feel the same way, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll. The enthusiasm gap has widened recently . In December 2011,
Republicans had a 5-percentage-point advantage on this measure (49 percent to 44 percent). It now stands at 8 percentage points. Further,
Republicans are more excited to vote now than they were in February 2008, when Mike Huckabee and John McCain were dueling it out in that
electoral cycle’s primaries. At that time, only 44 percent said they were more excited than usual about voting. Among all Americans, 47 percent
say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, compared with 42 percent who say they are less enthusiastic. “The
question is
important because, in the last several presidential and midterm elections , the party whose rank-andfile members showed the most enthusiasm about voting toward the end of the campaign either gained congressional
seats or won the presidency,” writes Gallup. The USA Today/Gallup poll was conducted Feb. 16-19, with a sample of 1,014 adults and a
margin of sampling error of at plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Low turnout is because voters assume Romney has already locked it up – they’ll turn
out in November
POLITICO, 3-6-12 – 5 questions for Obama,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73640_Page4.html
This is a lingering narrative, one that began in Iowa and has continued through much of the cycle so far— the reduced
number of voters in some of the primaries and caucuses. A number of analysts have suggested it’s
clear evidence of an enthusiasm gap — an idea that seems true in some states but not in others. To some extent, comparing
state-to-state voting numbers from four years ago is apples to oranges. There is a range of factors that
can influence turnout in each state — for instance, down-ballot measures in Florida in 2008 were widely acknowledged to have
played a role in juicing the numbers of voters that turned out. There were no such turnout-generators this time in the Sunshine State. And
even if voters don’t come out for a primary in which, polls show, most Republicans believe Romney is the
ultimate nominee, they may view things differently once there is a head-to-head race with President
Barack
Obama in the fall. Still, the turnout will be eyed closely in places like Ohio, where early voting is at about a third of the levels
from 2008, and where in-fighting among top Republicans is believed to have turned off some voters.
Gas Prices 1ar
Economy and gas prices – that’s the key issue & we control momentum
Lee, 3-12-12 – MJ, POLITICO, Poll: Most say Obama tanking on gas,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73875.html.
Almost two-thirds of Americans , 65 percent, said they disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is dealing
with rising prices at the pump, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds. Only 26 percent – the president’s lowest rating in the
poll — said they approve of his handling of gas prices, while a majority, 52 percent, said they “strongly” disapprove. The news comes as a
survey over the weekend found that gas prices jumped 12 cents during the past two weeks, with the average price for a gallon of self-serve
regular increasing to $3.81, as CNN reported. And despite
a February jobs report that showed the economy added 227,000 jobs,
the new poll shows Obama’s negative ratings on the pivotal 2012 issue has risen to 59 percent since
a month ago. Half of Americans gave the president very low ratings — a jump of 9 percentage points
and the highest figure yet
disapproval rating is 50 percent,
in a Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama’s
showing a downward trend
approval rating is 46 percent and his
from the 50 percent approval he enjoyed in February.
Gas prices and foreign policy – we control RECENCY and MOMENTUM
Haberman, 3-12-12 – Maggie, POLITICO, CBS/NYT poll: Obama's approval ratings upside-down, hits
new low, http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/cbsnyt-poll-obamas-approvalratings-upsidedown-117211.html.
The CBS/NYTimes poll shows President Obama's approval rating underwater, having taken a dive in
recent weeks: At a time of rising gas prices, heightened talk of war with Iran and setbacks in Afghanistan, Mr.
Obama’s approval rating dropped substantially in recent weeks, the poll found, with 41 percent of respondents
expressing approval of the job he is doing and 47 percent saying they disapprove — a dangerous position for any incumbent seeking reelection. The poll provides a statistical reminder of how unsettled and unpredictable this year’s political landscape remains. Just one month
ago, Mr. Obama reached a critical benchmark by winning approval from 50 percent of Times/CBS News poll respondents, his re-election
prospects lifting along with confidence that the nation was finally emerging from the aftermath of the Great Recession. Mr. Obama’s approval
numbers measure his performance against expectations. But elections are choices between candidates, and on that score, he showed greater
resilience in the poll. In a hypothetical matchup against his most likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama had a 47 percent to 44
percent advantage, a statistical dead heat given the poll’s margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points. Against Rick Santorum, the
president held a slight advantage, winning 48 percent to 44 percent. In both cases, Mr. Obama’s lead was down slightly from last month. The
numbers are similar to the dip his approval took in an ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier today, and the slippage is seen in lower-income
households, and in relation to the economy and foreign policy, an issue that's been in the news of late. The poll reflects a moment in the race,
and a number of economic indicators have been in the president's favor in recent weeks, prompting Santorum to openly mull the prospect of a
national security election. But as the Times notes, the
president's reelection hopes, while better, are still fragile
given the
environment.
Even if Obama doesn’t initially get the blame voters will lose patience
POLITICO, 3-6-12 – 5 questions for Obama,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73640_Page4.html
So far, voters seem to recognize that Obama can’t personally increase the amount of crude flowing
through the Strait of Hormuz, but patience will be in short supply as gas drains an ever-increasing percentage
of American paychecks — more than erasing the modest payroll tax cut he scrapped for at the start of the
year.
Gas prices doom Obama – they also tank the economy
CSM, 2-21-12 – High gas prices: How big a problem for Obama?,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0221/High-gas-prices-How-big-a-problemfor-Obama.
When it comes to gas prices, President Obama is probably watching them rise with just as much consternation as people who are tanking up
every day. . The reason: The
higher the price, the more unpopular a president, studies have found. In fact, the
last five times gas prices have spiked, the incumbent party has lost the presidential election. “If the
rising price of gasoline persists, as some analysts think it will, it is bound to affect [Mr. Obama’s] popularity,” says
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. The five elections where gas prices may have had
an impact were in 1976, when Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter; in 1980, when Mr. Carter lost to Ronald Reagan; in 1992, when George H.W.
Bush lost to Bill Clinton; in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush; and in 2008, when John McCain lost to Obama. On Tuesday, the national
average price of gasoline was $3.57 a gallon, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report. That’s up 6 cents from a week ago and 19 cents from
a month ago. Also on
Tuesday, the price of oil in the United States rose by about $2.50 a barrel, to some $106 a
barrel. Oil markets have become increasingly nervous about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
For every sustained rise of $1 in the price of a barrel of crude oil, the price of gas rises 2.4 cents a gallon at the pump. For Obama, the risk of
rising gasoline prices is even more immediate than Election Day. If the costs continue to rise, they could
adversely affect the
economy. “The way it works is when we hit $4 a gallon, it starts to have an impact on consumer behavior. It’s like a
psychological trigger, an inflection point,” says Dennis Jacobe, chief economist at Gallup in Washington. “If the price goes past $4 a gallon, that
will slow the economy.”
A slowing economy could be a big detriment for Obama , Mr. Sabato says. “The economic
recovery is fragile enough,” he says. “There has been nothing but bad times in his administration. A slowdown reduces the incentive to reelect
him.” The actual impact, Mr. Jacobe says, will depend in part on the direction and speed of gas prices, since consumers “react to what they
expect the changes to be.” As higher prices sink in for consumers, they start to cut back on discretionary spending. This ripples through the
economy, with retailers cutting their orders and businesses becoming more conservative in their spending.
Studies prove rising gas prices will swing key battleground states
NPR, 2-21-12 – Could Higher Gas Pump Prices Leave Obama Running On Empty?,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/21/147207760/could-higher-gas-pump-prices-leaveobama-running-on-empty.
This question has been studied by economists as well, as you might expect. Christopher Decker and Mark Wohar at the University
of Nebraska asked the question if higher prices for petroleum products raises the chances of the incumbent party losing in states where it
won previously? They found a correlation, especially in states that were big industrial consumers of oil. An
excerpt: "In answering the question of whether or not energy prices impact state's proclivity to vote
against the incumbent party's presidential election bid, the answer appears to be a qualified, "yes". The
results indicate that overall there is little evidence that increases in petroleum product prices impact the probability of the incumbent party
losing a state in (an) election (it) previously carried. "However, if one focuses attention on those states that are primarily energy consuming
(due to a significant industrial sector,) then we do indeed find that the probability of the incumbent party losing a state previously carried
increases with increases in petroleum product prices. Worth
noting is that several battleground states would be
those with energy-intensive manufacturing sectors including Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. So it would seem, all things being equal, Obama's campaign staffers do have reason for concern though just how worried they
should be is unclear.
Key Metrics 1ar
We control the key metrics
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html
The POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted from Feb. 19–22 by
The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. The nationwide telephone survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1
percentage points. Despite his improved standing, Obama remains under water on the three issues most
important to voters : 51 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy , 50 percent on jobs and
59 percent on government spending and the budget deficit.
Obama loses – we control all 7 key pieces of data
Empirics – ’12 v ’08
Latinos WomenWhites Youngn’s
Seniors Independents Economy
Kondracke, 1-19-12 – Morton, Exec Editor @ Roll Call, “With Help From Foes, Obama Is off the Mat,
Roll Call,”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_81/with_help_from_foes_obama_off_the_mat_truman_strategy211582-1.html.
At the moment, Obama is running about even with Romney in national polls — but significantly behind his own 2008
performance among key demographic groups. The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Obama with a statistically
insignificant lead of 46.5 percent to 45.3 percent over Romney. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll gives Romney a 2point lead, reversing a 3-point Obama lead in December. CNN shows Obama with a 2-point lead. A much-discussed paper by Ruy Teixeira
and John Halpin of the liberal Center for American Progress indicated that demographic changes in key battleground states — chiefly growth in
young voters and Latinos — would tilt the 2012 playing field toward Obama. There’s no question that Obama should profit among Latinos from
Romney’s hard-line immigration views — topped by his close alignment with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who wrote model
legislation that served as the basis for measures passed into law in Arizona and Alabama that cracked down on illegal immigrants. Still, the
latest Gallup poll shows Obama’s
2008 exit polls. Obama
approval rating among Latinos is only 56 percent, down from 67 percent in
won 55 percent of support among women in 2008, but he’s currently at 48 percent.
Among whites , he’s down from 43 percent to 36 percent. Among voters aged 18-29 , he’s down from 66
percent to
53 percent. Obama got just 45 percent support among seniors in 2008; he’s now down to 40
percent approval. And,
crucially , among independent voters , he’s dropped from 52 percent to 42 percent.
Independent voters clearly are dismayed that Obama has failed to fulfill his major campaign promise:
to unite “red” and “blue” America to get the country’s problems solved. According to the Washington Post poll, 52 percent of voters say Obama
has accomplished either “not much” (25 percent) or “little or nothing” (27 percent), while 47 percent say he’s accomplished “a great deal” (12
percent) or “a good amount” (35 percent). Of
those who think he’s accomplished little or nothing — presumably, mainly
independents and Republicans — Obama gets the blame by a whopping 56 percent to 18 percent. Obama is trying to
convince the electorate that he saved America from plunging into a second Great Depression and is succeeding in triggering a recovery, albeit a
slow one. Improving unemployment numbers will help.
Any renewed downturn — even if it’s the result of trouble in
Europe — will hurt.
Empirics, swing states, demographics, gas prices, unemployment and health care
Washington Times, 2-22-12 – Obama's re-election hopes heading in wrong direction,
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/general-factotum/2012/feb/22/obamas-reelection-hopes-heading-wrong-direction/
Gallup's Daily Tracking Poll shows the President's approval ratings slipping again. If we are to take the Democrats' line
of reasoning, it spells doom for him in November . Just last week they were crowing about his improved numbers when he got to
a whopping 50% approval rating. No modern president has been re-elected with upside down ratings since
Richard Nixon in 1972. But Barack Obama campaigned on change, and so he's determined to buck history. Of course the latest slippage
doesn't mean much in itself, except to demonstrate that his uptick was not all that significant. The fact is that the sitting president does not
have the support of the majority of voters. That's not good for him. This column has predicted major defeat for Obama since August of last
year. Since then, not much has changed to alter the prognosis. Three
major themes are operating against Obama. First is
the map. Swing states that the president won in 2008 will almost certainly go red in 2012, and they
have more electors now: Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado. A Republican
might even put Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania into play. Second are the demographics crucial to Obama's win
last election. His campaign has already written off blue-collar whites; if Romney is the GOP nominee he will siphon off women
and Hispanics, who have started to turn against the President. Young people aren't as young anymore, and it turns out
that four years of job hunting wears off some of HOPE's luster. Finally, the GOP has learned its lesson about
campaigning with kid gloves. The candidates have already shown a penchant for hitting Obama hard,
particularly Gingrich and Romney. The mainstream media's affinity for the president is so transparent that it can't abet Obama without turning
off fair-minded undecided voters. So Obama enjoyed a tiny spike in approval during one of the most bloody rival primary seasons in memory. It
is a sad state of affairs for the chief executive when the only time he can get his numbers up is when he is so far out of the news cycle. Super
Tuesday will likely put an end to the President's respite. Once that happens, a united Republican Party will train their fire on Obama, and they
have ammunition to spare. Gas
prices are on the rise. No legislative issues remain that play into the president's favor.
Unemployment may be headed north as workers declare themselves part of the labor force once again. The Middle East is
getting hot, and Obama seems as ambiguous as ever. The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments over President Obama's
signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. As voters see their healthcare premiums go up, and as they consider the judgment of
the man who made endless promises that have been systematically broken, Obama will hemorrhage support . The coming
nine months are not looking good for the president. Gallup tells the tale now.
Quals 1ar
Obama loses – best polls and empirics
WILLIAMS, 1-2 – “Embattled Obama faces fight to retain Oval Office,” The Western Mail, LexisNexis
AMERICA goes to the polls this year with Barack Obama facing an uphill struggle to retain the White House keys. As
the clock ticks towards election day on November 6 the incumbent must turn around his re-election hopes amid
uncertain economic conditions. Mr Obama's popularity at home has ebbed since becoming president and the country is
struggling to keep its fragile economic recovery on course. But many believe that an against-the-odds victory is within
his grasp, aided by a potentially weak Republican challenger. The political environment, and Mr Obama's place in it, is far removed from that of
2008 when the then 47-year-old first-time senator was elected on a wave of enthusiasm. Much of that enthusiasm has
dissipated
in the intervening years. Mr Obama's approval ratings have been low throughout 2011, dipping below the 40%
mark in mid-August. They have picked up a little of late, but he still languishes in the low 40s. No post-war president seeking
re-election has bounced back from figures that low this late on . Over the Christmas/New Year period before being
granted a second term, George W Bush had an approval rating of 63%, while Bill Clinton was on 51% as the Times
Square ball dropped to usher in his re-election year. A further delve into statistics does little to instil Obama
supporters with much hope.
a2 Momentum
Momentum doesn’t mean success – he’s still badly underperforming
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html
A third of Americans believe the country is on the right track — disconcertingly low for a president
eight months before an election . Yet that figure is twice the number who believed it in November.
a2 Primary Data
A split primary says NOTHING about the final outcome
POLITICO, 2-27-12 – Republican poll analysis: Warning signs for both parties, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73306
The impact of this contested primary is also seen on the presidential ballots where Barack Obama has
pushed his ballot support over 50% and now holds a nine-point lead over Romney (52%- 43%) and a ten-point lead over
Santorum (53%-43%) – with the key point being that the President is now running ahead of the generic ballot by four-points for the first time
nothing
in this latest Battleground poll data is totally unexpected for this stage of a presidential election cycle,
and certainly not predictive of the eventual outcome. The warning signs are flashing for Republicans, however, and it is
and the two Republican candidates are running behind the generic ballot (which is 49% Obama and 44% for the Republican). Again,
certainly a phase of the campaign that Republicans need to bring to an end sooner as opposed to later.
a2 Prolonged GOP Fight
Romney can weather the long economic cycle – Obama can’t
McDuffee, 2-22-12 – Allen, Political blogger for Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/franklin-graham-on-obama-and-religionobamas-fundraising-woes-and-more-am-briefing/2012/02/22/gIQAPqxBTR_blog.html.
Is this why Obama has turned to the Super PAC: “The Obama campaign is falling seriously behind its fundraising
goals, and must begin to rely on wealthy donors who have already maxed out on their personal contributions. In
January, from all donors, the president’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, together,
raised $29 million. That is far ahead of the Republicans, to be sure, but it is far behind the $36 million that the
Obama campaign, alone, raised at this point in 2008.” (AEI)
___**Misc Aff UQ**___
Postal Reform – 2ac
Won’t pass and vote’s inevitable
Roll Call, 3-27-12 – Humberto Sanchez, “Senate Agrees to Debate Energy Policy,”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_116/Senate-Agrees-to-Debate-Energy-Policy-213425-1.html
Reid also had scheduled a vote on whether to take up a postal reform bill. But Democrats are expected to
vote against the postal bill to continue the energy debate and take it up another time . That vote is likely to
come as early as today.
Energy Subs – 2ac
Energy subsidy legislation won’t pass the Senate – vote count
Roll Call, 3-27-12 – Humberto Sanchez, “Senate Agrees to Debate Energy Policy,”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_116/Senate-Agrees-to-Debate-Energy-Policy-213425-1.html
Democrats initially expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle, but many
Republicans sided with the majority in a 92-4 vote that paves the way for debate on a Democratic measure that
would repeal tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies and extend 19 renewable energy tax subsidies. Despite the about-face
from Republicans, the debate will likely be contentious and attract a raft of amendments , including proposals
designed to score political points.
The Senate is still unlikely to pass the bill , but both sides feel they have winning energy
arguments that will resonate with voters, who are paying an average of almost $4 a gallon at the pump.
GOP blocks it
Roll Call, 3-27-12 – Humberto Sanchez, “Senate Agrees to Debate Energy Policy,”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_116/Senate-Agrees-to-Debate-Energy-Policy-213425-1.html
Republicans, who will continue to oppose the bill and may attempt to filibuster it before a vote on final
passage, believe that Democratic ideas all too often involve raising taxes, which they argue will simply be passed on to consumers as even
higher energy prices. “If they had their way, gas prices would be even higher,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the
floor, adding that he thinks Democrats are “out of touch” with the American people on the issue. “How does this help the
American people now?” McConnell asked rhetorically. “Of course it doesn’t.”
Energy Subs – 1ar
Default Neg on vote count – it’s the most objective standard – our Roll Call ev says the
Senate will fall short of 60 votes – default to empirics
The Hill, 3-22 – Senate to vote on bill killing oil tax breaks, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2wire/217701-senate-slated-to-vote-on-bill-killing-oil-tax-breaks-monday
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a procedural vote Monday on legislation to repeal billions of
dollars in tax breaks for the largest oil companies. A Senate Democratic aide told The Hill that Reid filed cloture on the bill,
authored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Thursday, setting up a procedural vote on Monday at 5:30 p.m.. The legislation faces
major hurdles to passage , but will nonetheless rally many Senate Democrats, who have made killing the tax breaks a top political
priority amid soaring gas prices. Reid said earlier in the week that a vote on the Menendez bill would be coming, "very soon." But he did not
schedule a vote until Thursday. The legislation eliminates a slew of oil industry tax deductions for major integrated oil companies, using the
savings to finance the extension of key renewable energy tax credits. Democrats have tried to eliminate oil company tax breaks before, but
failed. A similar measure fell eight votes short of the 60 votes needed for passage last year . President Obama
has ramped up pressure on Congress to slash oil industry tax breaks, amid indications that rising gas prices are hurting his reelection bid. “The
current members of the Flat Earth Society in Congress would rather see us continue to provide $4 billion -- $4 billion -- in tax subsidies, tax
giveaways, to the oil companies; $4 billion to an industry that is making record profits,” Obama said Wednesday during a speech in Boulder
City, Nev. “Every time you fill up the pump, they're making money. They are doing just fine. They're not having any problems,” he said.
Corporation Tax 2ac UQ
Won’t pass – elections, partisanship and Obama is lollygagging
Koebler, 3-8-12 – Jason, Top CEOs Criticize Government Inaction on Corporate Tax Code: A coalition of
business leaders releases a set of reforms they say will stimulate the economy, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns201203081144usnewsusnwr201203070307jobsmar08,0,4681719.story.
A powerful group of CEOs called on Congress and President Obama on Wednesday to enact sweeping reforms to
improve the economy and create jobs, criticizing legislators and the administration for lollygagging on corporate tax
reform. Despite improving job numbers and declining unemployment, CEOs from Business Roundtable, a coalition representing companies
with more than $6 trillion in annual revenues, described the recovery as tenuous at best. [See political cartoons about the economy] "Despite
hopeful signs of economic recovery and some public policy progress ... America remains mired in a deep jobs crisis," Jim McNerney, president of
the Boeing Co., said at a press conference in Washington Wednesday. A Business Roundtable plan announced at the press conference seeks to
cut America's corporate tax rate from nearly 40 percent to the international average of 25 percent and move America to a territorial tax
system, where earnings abroad are taxed only in those countries. "A modern, streamlined, and fiscally responsible tax system will create a more
competitive business environment that attracts new investment and supports strong economic growth and job creation," said Bob McDonald,
chairman of Procter & Gamble. Tuesday evening, President Obama expressed a willingness to work with companies that brought jobs to
America, and has proposed a plan that would cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent. He said he'd work with businesses to "reform our tax
system so that we are rewarding companies that are investing here in the United States, making sure that we are able to cut our tax rate here
but also broaden the base," but said the
process will likely be painful. "Anybody who has been involved in tax
discussions in any legislature, but especially Congress, knows that it's like pulling teeth ." No one knows
that better than the CEOs, who criticized Washington's inability to get things done and blamed
the upcoming elections and a
partisan divide for putting the economy in jeopardy. "America's political system is, at best, moving at
a slow crawl ," McNerney said. Other countries "are not waiting until after the November elections to
make meaningful policy changes, and we shouldn't either." [Why Job Growth Might Mean High Unemployment] McDonald was
perhaps even more blunt, saying the organization's message to Washington is "simple and straightforward: Get your house in order and get
started on the task right now." Independent analysts say the uncertainty surrounding the corporate tax code has likely kept businesses from
hiring as many workers as they should. Profit increases since 2009 and the highest revenues since 2006 have led to hiring increases in recent
months, but not as many as some would have hoped. "If businesses don't know what'll happen with their taxes in the next year, they're not
going to make major investments," says Libby Bierman, an analyst at Sageworks, a financial analysis firm. "Most of their money is put towards
[hiring] people, and that's one investment they're going to be cautious with."
The CBO and Obama kill it
Hufbauer, 3-13-12 – Gary, Why foreign leaders love the U.S. tax system, UPI,
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2012/03/13/Outside-View-Why-foreignleaders-love-the-US-tax-system/UPI-51091331634600/
Other countries sensibly exempt profits earned outside their borders from home country taxation. This
approach, known as "territorial taxation," has become the world norm but Uncle Sam marches out of step. The combination of low corporate
tax rates plus territorial taxation creates a powerful lure for factories and research-and-development centers. The combo acts as a magnet for
drawing corporate headquarters to cities such as Toronto, Frankfurt, London and Hong Kong -- but not to New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. In
fact, it has gotten to the point where young companies looking to establish headquarters frequently insist on anywhere but the United States.
Large corporations, defined as those employing more than 500 people, provide jobs for more than 30 percent of U.S. workers. They pay 50
percent higher wages on average and provide 10 percent more working hours per week compared with smaller businesses. U.S. companies that
employ more than 5,000 people finance more than two-thirds of private-sector R&D. Size matters: it ensures that companies have the
resources to create new products and make and sell them on a global scale. These ingredients not only deliver U.S. leadership in sectors ranging
from aircraft to energy to information technology to medicine and more, they also deliver high pay and secure jobs to millions of American
workers. But America cannot rest on its past industrial glories. In a world defined by competition, a nation's gross domestic product counts right
alongside military strength. Unfortunately, since 2008, the
United States has slipped from first to fifth in annual
competitiveness rankings. While other nations have reformed their tax structures to attract major
corporations, the Obama administration continually toys with ideas for raising taxes on the largest and most
successful U.S. firms. One recurring proposal with congressional sponsorship would sharply increase taxes on U.S. oil and natural gas
companies, giving a leg up to foreign companies, like the Spanish energy firm operating just 60 miles off the Florida coast in Cuban waters.
Other proposals would handicap a range of U.S. companies in a variety of tax traps. Fortunately,
most lawmakers recognize
that the U.S. corporate tax system is a walking disaster. A reform chorus is calling for a cut in the federal corporate tax
rate to 25 percent and a tax rate capped at 8 percent on profits returned from abroad. Unfortunately -- and despite powerful
evidence -- the Congressional Budget Office ignores the growth effects of these proposals and applies
static analysis to score them as revenue losers. In an era of deficits and debt, those CBO scores are a
sure killer to sensible reforms .
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2012/03/13/Outside-View-Why-foreign-leaders-love-the-US-taxsystem/UPI-51091331634600/#ixzz1pDxztoUo
The oil lobby blocks it
Joseph, 2-23-12 – Andrew, Obama's Tax Reform Gets Chilly Reception from Big Oil, National Journal
Online, http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/02/obama-taxreform-plan-gets-cold.php
[American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Jack] Gerard told National Journal that Obama's plan includes the same recycled policies
he has proposed in the past and continues to pick winners and losers in the energy space. He referenced the
administration's call to specifically repeal oil and gas tax breaks and make permanent tax credits for the wind
industry. "That's not tax reform, that's tax discrimination," Gerard said. "What he should have [proposed] is if you produce
energy, here's what the tax code looks like, here's the cost you recover, here's the cost you don't recover, and everyone is playing by the same
rule." Gerard continued: "If he'll make his tax proposals industry-neutral so the impact on other industries is the same as it is on the oil and gas
industry, that would encourage us and make us feel more comfortable to sit down and begin to work this out." API also immediately blasted
out an e-mail advisory for a press teleconference on Thursday, in which Gerard
will try to shift the focus from the
administration's tax-reform plan back to high gasoline prices, an economic reality that politicians can
little control but for which they take much heat . He said that by repealing tax breaks for the industry, it will subsequently
raise production costs for companies, and eventually make gas prices higher.
Corporation Tax UQ 1ar
Lobbies block any EFFECTIVE legislation
Borosage, 2-23-12 – President, Institute for America's Future, The President's Corporate Tax Reform
Message: Say What? Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/thepresidents-corporate_b_1296091.html?ref=politics
The Obama "framework" is premised on an illusion that has universal favor in Washington. Our tax code is riddled with
loopholes and exemptions. Therefore, we should lower rates, eliminate the loopholes and have a more efficient, fairer, simpler tax code.
Sounds great, but this is largely a scam . Any such reform gets rid of some corporate loopholes but not
the corporate lobbies . The rates come down, and after a few years of campaign contributions, intense lobbying, and
loopholes come back . This game was run before in the mid-eighties with the
oft-lauded bipartisan Reagan tax reforms, championed by the sainted Senator Bill Bradley. Tax rates were lowered, particularly
independent expenditures, the
on the top end, and loopholes were closed. Now the tax code is once more riddled with loopholes, but the rates haven't gone back up.
Billionaires are paying lower tax rates than their chauffeurs. So a new movement is building for -- you guessed it -- lowering the tax rates in
exchange for closing loopholes. Reminds me of Lucy repeatedly holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick and pulling it away at the last
moment. We laughed as he literally fell for it every time. On "tax reform," we are equal suckers, but it's no laughing matter. And, as
illustrated by the Obama "framework," loopholes are always with us. Most tax breaks or exemptions reflect
someone's policy preferences or some corporate lobby's profit motives. Obama, for example, would make tax advantages for research and
development, clean energy and domestic manufacturing permanent. He'd reduce the tax breaks and subsidies offered to the oil companies -now racking up the most profits in the history of the world. These are priorities that most progressives would support. But they don't lead to a
simple tax code -- and they only open the bidding. Any
actual tax reform that gained bipartisan support would be
riddled with a lot more exemptions than these.
Corporation Tax 2ac PC Not Key
Your DA ain’t no DA – Obama’s corporate tax framework is just a “message”
document
Borosage, 2-23-12 – President, Institute for America's Future, The President's Corporate Tax Reform
Message: Say What? Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/thepresidents-corporate_b_1296091.html?ref=politics
The Obama administration released a "framework" for corporate tax reform yesterday, proposing to lower corporate tax
rates, and pay for that by closing various corporate tax loopholes. The "framework" isn't really a corporate tax reform
proposal. It is a message document , framed in a bitterly partisan election year when no reforms are
about to take place . So what is the message? The president wants to show that he's sensitive to business
complaints about the complicated tax code with the highest nominal rates in the industrial world, outraged at the loopholes and scams
built into the code, committed to providing incentives for businesses to create jobs here at home, and stout in opposing more corporate tax
cuts unlike his Republican opponents. But
has become. The
a brief look at the framework shows how truly limited and conservative our debate
corporation lobby has won the fight before it has begun by defining the terms of the debate.
Corporation Tax 2ac ! D
It fails – doesn’t solve the econ, jobs or competitiveness
Borosage, 2-23-12 – President, Institute for America's Future, The President's Corporate Tax Reform
Message: Say What? Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/thepresidents-corporate_b_1296091.html?ref=politics
The prime message is that the framework is designed to be "revenue neutral," budget-speak meaning the
corporations will not be asked to pay more to help address America's large investment and budget
deficits. At a time when the most vulnerable in society -- seniors on Medicare and Social Security, the poor in need of home heating aid, the
disabled on Medicaid -- are being called on for "shared sacrifice," the corporations get a pass. Why? American corporations are
sitting on literally trillions in profits. Corporations provided only about 7.9% of government receipts in FY2011, down from 11% in
the prosperous 1990s. Corporate tax avoidance is notorious, with dozens of the Fortune 500 managing to pay no taxes at all in different years.
The effective tax rate US corporations pay is lower than the average of the industrial nations. Moreover, corporations are among the largest
beneficiaries of government spending. They use the roads, sewers, communications and other basic infrastructure provided by government.
They profit from the public education and training that provide them with workers willing and able to learn. They gain immense benefits from
federally funded research and development. They rely on government to provide and enforce the legal framework for doing business. They
depend on the U.S. military to protect trade lanes and overseas investments. And this doesn't even begin to count the entire industries that are
largely creatures of government procurement and subsidies -- from defense contractors to drug companies to hospital complexes to nuclear
power plants and more. And the largest, and arguably most destructive
deficit Americans now face is the investment deficit in areas
vital to our future -- and vital to corporate competitiveness. Our infrastructure is so decrepit that it is not only a competitive
burden; it is dangerous to our health. Our education system fails to give poor kids a fair start in life. College grows unaffordable for more and
more working families. Any sensible progressive corporate tax reform should shut down loopholes and tax dodges AND provide greater
revenue to the federal government to help pay for the investments we need and address the deficits we face. Taxing
some of the
trillions that corporations are sitting on and putting the money to work modernizing our
infrastructure will generate more jobs, more growth and more competitive advantage than allowing
the companies to sit on the money. This is an argument that we should have. The president has decided to pas s.
Clean Energy – 2ac
The budget is just rhetoric – no votes come until November
The Economist, 2-13-12 – The phony war,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/barack-obamasbudget?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/thephonywar.
TAKEN at face value, Barack Obama’s latest budget is a bold combination of fiscal rectitude, populist tax increases and
industrial policy-lite: tax breaks for manufacturers, more money for community colleges, and a dollop of money for infrastructure. Do not
take it at face value . A president’s budget has always been hostage to whatever Congress is in a mood to grant. In the last three years,
however, the gap between aspiration and reality has become so large as to be almost surreal. Mr Obama promises to cut the deficit by $3.8
trillion over the next decade. Of that, $1.4 trillion comes from raising taxes on the wealthy. Most of this he has asked for since his first budget,
in 2009, when he proposed eliminating George W. Bush’s tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 and capping their deductions. This
year, he adds a hefty new charge: repealing preferential rates on dividend income for the wealthy, which raises $206 billion over 10 years. His
proposal to shut down all sorts of tax breaks for multinationals and slap banks with a crisis fee return, once again, to the budget, along with a
handful of populist new measures such as “removing tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas” (worth $90m over 10 years). Such tax increase
went nowhere when Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With Republicans in charge of the House and
able to filibuster almost anything in the Senate, the odds any of these tax proposals will pass this year are close to nil. Much
of his
purported spending reduction is accounting legerdemain: he claims to save more than $800 billion from drawing down
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most of that was never going to be spent anyway. His cuts to Medicare and Medicaid consist almost
entirely of squeezing health-care providers; benefits and beneficiaries are spared. There are painful cuts to discretionary spending excluding
defence: it sinks from 3.1% of GDP in fiscal 2012 to 1.7% in 2022. Those cuts, however, were forced on him by budget deals last year, and it’s
not clear how the federal government is supposed to fulfill so many of its responsibilities, from running the courts to fighting forest fires, on a
starvation diet. Mr Obama did omit nearly $1 trillion of further cuts set to begin next year under last year’s budget deal (the “sequester”); he
argued his budget provides a wiser alternative. The
gap between rhetoric and reality shows up plainly in the bottom
line. In 2009, Mr Obama laid out a plan that would lower the budget deficit to 3.5% of GDP by this year; he now reckons it will be 8.5%
instead. The national debt was supposed to peak as a share of GDP at 67% last year; he now figures it will peak next year, at a much higher 78%.
There are two reasons Mr Obama’s budgets have become irrelevant, one good and one bad. The first, good reason is that since 2008 balancing
the budget has simply had to take a back seat to averting economic collapse. Nominal GDP this year will be 6%, or almost $1
trillion, smaller than Mr Obama projected three years ago. That miss alone explains some of the worsening in the deficit and debt ratios. The
remainder is largely down to explicit decisions to delay tax increases and spending cuts. The resulting red ink is not pretty but plainly better
than applying a fiscal vice at a time when monetary policymakers are running out of ideas for stimulating demand. The second, bad reason is
that the parties are deeply polarised, largely over Republicans’ refusal to consider tax increases on a scale that Democrats consider meaningful.
The result of these two forces is that fiscal policy only gets made when it absolutely must, usually in late-night white knuckle negotiating
sessions with a sword hanging over the heads of both parties: the expiration of Mr Bush’s tax cuts in December, 2010; a government shutdown
in April, 2011; and a near-default last August. Mr
Obama’s advisers know how little the budget matters . As they went
through the motions of explaining it today, they noted that big initiatives, such as corporate tax reform and the Buffett rule minimum tax for
millionaires, are not part of it; they will come later as part of a broader reform proposal. Bigger changes to entitlements would likewise be part
of a “grand bargain” between Republicans and Democrats and Mr Obama was not about to share his negotiating position with reporters.
Administration officials, like the Republicans, know the real fight comes after November , when the
battle for the White House is over and several big deadlines loom. Chief among these are the expiration of Mr Bush’s
tax cuts and the sequester. No one knows how that crunch will be avoided, and reading Mr Obama’s budget leaves one none the wiser.
He won’t spend capital on it
Buchanan, 2-16-12 – Neil, The Obama Budget Proposal: Credit Where It's Due, Criticism Where It's
Necessary, Dorf on Law, Lexis.
While I continue to disagree with that view of history, I
have to wonder what the point of political capital is if it is not
to be spent. Obama's budget represents a statement of principles and aspirations. If this is all we are
willing to hope for, then it is difficult not to see the last three years as an even bigger waste than it already seemed to be.
More evidence
Ryan, 2-13-12 – Senate minority leader: President's budget is 'dead on arrival', The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/210329-mcconnell-obama-budget-a-charade-andcampaign-document.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded to President Obama's newly released budget Monday, dubbing it "a charade" and
"campaign document" that even lacked support from congressional Democrats. "Today President Obama released a budget that isn’t really a
budget at all," said McConnell. "It’s a campaign document." “So this is a charade, this is a charade,” he added later in his floor speech in
suggesting his counterpart, Majority Leader Harry
Reid
(D-Nev.),
would not call up the plan
“The inconvenient truth that President Obama and his own top advisers don’t want to admit is
anywhere
due to lack of Democratic support.
that this budget isn’t going
because the president’s own party doesn’t want to have anything to do with it," said McConnell. "Indeed, the Democratic
majority leader here in the Senate has already declared it dead on arrival."
High Speed Rail – 2ac
The budget is irrelevant – no fights or push until November
The Economist, 2-13-12 – The phony war,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/barack-obamasbudget?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/thephonywar.
TAKEN at face value, Barack Obama’s latest budget is a bold combination of fiscal rectitude, populist tax increases and
industrial policy-lite: tax breaks for manufacturers, more money for community colleges, and a dollop of money for infrastructure. Do not
take it at face value . A president’s budget has always been hostage to whatever Congress is in a mood to grant. In the last three years,
however, the gap between aspiration and reality has become so large as to be almost surreal. Mr Obama promises to cut the deficit by $3.8
trillion over the next decade. Of that, $1.4 trillion comes from raising taxes on the wealthy. Most of this he has asked for since his first budget,
in 2009, when he proposed eliminating George W. Bush’s tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 and capping their deductions. This
year, he adds a hefty new charge: repealing preferential rates on dividend income for the wealthy, which raises $206 billion over 10 years. His
proposal to shut down all sorts of tax breaks for multinationals and slap banks with a crisis fee return, once again, to the budget, along with a
handful of populist new measures such as “removing tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas” (worth $90m over 10 years). Such tax increase
went nowhere when Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With Republicans in charge of the House and
able to filibuster almost anything in the Senate, the odds any of these tax proposals will pass this year are close to nil. Much
of his
purported spending reduction is accounting legerdemain: he claims to save more than $800 billion from drawing down
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most of that was never going to be spent anyway. His cuts to Medicare and Medicaid consist almost
entirely of squeezing health-care providers; benefits and beneficiaries are spared. There are painful cuts to discretionary spending excluding
defence: it sinks from 3.1% of GDP in fiscal 2012 to 1.7% in 2022. Those cuts, however, were forced on him by budget deals last year, and it’s
not clear how the federal government is supposed to fulfill so many of its responsibilities, from running the courts to fighting forest fires, on a
starvation diet. Mr Obama did omit nearly $1 trillion of further cuts set to begin next year under last year’s budget deal (the “sequester”); he
argued his budget provides a wiser alternative. The
gap between rhetoric and reality shows up plainly in the bottom
line. In 2009, Mr Obama laid out a plan that would lower the budget deficit to 3.5% of GDP by this year; he now reckons it will be 8.5%
instead. The national debt was supposed to peak as a share of GDP at 67% last year; he now figures it will peak next year, at a much higher 78%.
There are two reasons Mr Obama’s budgets have become irrelevant, one good and one bad. The first, good reason is that since 2008 balancing
the budget has simply had to take a back seat to averting economic collapse. Nominal GDP this year will be 6%, or almost $1
trillion, smaller than Mr Obama projected three years ago. That miss alone explains some of the worsening in the deficit and debt ratios. The
remainder is largely down to explicit decisions to delay tax increases and spending cuts. The resulting red ink is not pretty but plainly better
than applying a fiscal vice at a time when monetary policymakers are running out of ideas for stimulating demand. The second, bad reason is
that the parties are deeply polarised, largely over Republicans’ refusal to consider tax increases on a scale that Democrats consider meaningful.
The result of these two forces is that fiscal policy only gets made when it absolutely must, usually in late-night white knuckle negotiating
sessions with a sword hanging over the heads of both parties: the expiration of Mr Bush’s tax cuts in December, 2010; a government shutdown
in April, 2011; and a near-default last August. Mr
Obama’s advisers know how little the budget matters . As they went
through the motions of explaining it today, they noted that big initiatives, such as corporate tax reform and the Buffett rule minimum tax for
millionaires, are not part of it; they will come later as part of a broader reform proposal. Bigger changes to entitlements would likewise be part
of a “grand bargain” between Republicans and Democrats and Mr Obama was not about to share his negotiating position with reporters.
Administration officials, like the Republicans, know the real fight comes after November , when the
battle for the White House is over and several big deadlines loom. Chief among these are the expiration of Mr Bush’s
tax cuts and the sequester. No one knows how that crunch will be avoided, and reading Mr Obama’s budget leaves one none the wiser.
He won’t spend capital on it
Buchanan, 2-16-12 – Neil, The Obama Budget Proposal: Credit Where It's Due, Criticism Where It's
Necessary, Dorf on Law, Lexis.
While I continue to disagree with that view of history, I
have to wonder what the point of political capital is if it is not
to be spent. Obama's budget represents a statement of principles and aspirations. If this is all we are
willing to hope for, then it is difficult not to see the last three years as an even bigger waste than it already seemed to be.
Obama’s PC blocks the deal – prefer specificity, he’s a terrible ambassador
Schweizter, 2-16-12 – Lisa Schweitzer is an associate professor at the Price School of Public Policy at
the University of Southern California. She specializes in transit policy. POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72987_Page2.html#ixzz1mta9GVUE
Enter the House bill, which would spend $260 billion over five years for road and bridge projects and other transportation programs. If the
administration didn’t want to grapple with the political risk of raising gas tax revenues three years ago, it had to expect that the things that it
favors but others don’t value — like transit — could get the ax. And if there’s one thing the House bill makes clear, it’s that not
everyone
shares the Obama administration’s urban transportation priorities. No wonder. LaHood and President Barack
Obama have been terrible ambassadors for their urban transportation visions. Unlike previous transportation
secretaries, who discreetly played politics, LaHood has acted like a big-city mayor, not the head of a national agency. He has
constantly advocated urban-friendly transport modes like mass transit. LaHood, in one of his first moves, announced that highway spending
should be “balanced” with spending on transit, walking and biking projects. In other words, take money from highway projects. But neither
LaHood nor Obama bothered to explain why, exactly, there should be any such spending shift with
money that comes largely from automobile drivers. The administration has instead been deploying gauzy buzzwords like
“livability” — declaring that driving is bad, while transit, walking and biking are good.
The budget is just talk – no vote coming
Ryan, 2-13-12 – Senate minority leader: President's budget is 'dead on arrival', The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/210329-mcconnell-obama-budget-a-charade-andcampaign-document.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded to President Obama's newly released budget Monday, dubbing it "a charade" and
"campaign document" that even lacked support from congressional Democrats. "Today President Obama released a budget that isn’t really a
budget at all," said McConnell. "It’s a campaign document." “So this is a charade, this is a charade,” he added later in his floor speech in
suggesting his counterpart, Majority Leader Harry
Reid
(D-Nev.),
would not call up the plan
“The inconvenient truth that President Obama and his own top advisers don’t want to admit is
anywhere
due to lack of Democratic support.
that this budget isn’t going
because the president’s own party doesn’t want to have anything to do with it," said McConnell. "Indeed, the Democratic
majority leader here in the Senate has already declared it dead on arrival."
Buffett Rule – 2ac UQ
It passed – now it’s just posturing
Bendavid, 4-16 – Naftali, 'Buffett Rule' Tax Plan Fails in a Senate Test Vote , WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348221678464912.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj.
The Senate on Monday blocked the so-called Buffett Rule, a measure designed to ensure that high earners pay at least 30% in
federal income tax, on a near-party-line vote highlighting the split over a key element of President Barack Obama's election-year message. The
measure drew 51 votes, with 45 opposed, short of the 60 votes needed to advance . Sen. Mark Pryor of
Arkansas was the only Democrat to oppose the measure; Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to support it. The vote came
three days before the House is due to vote on a Republican proposal to cut small-business taxes by 20%. Together,
the moves show
that both parties are eager to use tax policy to advance their arguments ahead of the fall election, with
both shaping easy-to-understand proposals that the other side derides as simplistic and ineffective.
Buffett Rule – ! D
It doesn’t effect anything – too little revenue
Reich, 4-11 – Robert, Why the Buffett Rule Sets the Bar Too Low, Wall St Pit,
http://wallstreetpit.com/91024-why-the-buffett-rule-sets-the-bar-too-low.
In fact, given these realities, the Buffett Rule sets the bar too low . For most Americans, wages and benefits are declining
(adjusted for inflation), net worth has been plummeting (their only asset is their homes), and the public services they rely on have been
disappearing. For the top, it’s just the opposite: Their incomes are rising, their stock-market portfolios have been growing, and a growing
portion of their earnings has been subject to a capital-gains tax of just 15 percent. The
Buffett Rule would generate only
about $47 billion in extra revenues over the next decade, according to congressional estimates. Why not restore top
rates to what they were before 1980, and match the capital-gains rate to the income-tax rate?
NSS Thumper – UK/Swing 2ac
Cameron’s visit and fundraising trigger the link
Shear, 3-11-12 – Michael, Obama a Frequent Flier to 2012 Swing States, NYT,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/obama-a-frequent-flier-to-2012-swing-states/
If there is one thing a president has to do in an election year, it is to find a way to balance official
duties with campaign travel. Too much focus on official duties can make an incumbent look isolated and aloof. Too much electioneering
risks exposing the president to attacks that he is losing focus on the nation’s problems. President Obama will confront just that
challenge in the coming days as he hosts a world leader and then travels to South Korea — cramming
donor events and re-election rallies in between. His Republican rivals have already accused him of holding too many fundraisers and playing too much golf.
NSS Thumper – UK 1ar
Obama’s got demanding dates with Cameron
Shear, 3-11-12 – Michael, Obama a Frequent Flier to 2012 Swing States, NYT,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/obama-a-frequent-flier-to-2012-swing-states/
Swing State Diplomacy
Perhaps the best example of Mr. Obama’s balancing act will occur on Tuesday when the president welcomes Prime Minister David
Cameron of Britain for a two-day state visit. Their first event? A quick trip on Tuesday to watch the opening games of the N.C.A.A.
men’s college basketball tournament. The tournament just happens to be in Dayton, Ohio — perhaps the most important swing state in the
country. On Wednesday morning, the papers and television stations in Dayton will be filled with images of Mr. Obama the sports fan sitting
with Mr. Cameron at the games. That is a good thing for his campaign, and probably not bad for relations with the United States’ closest ally,
either. Mr. Obama
is sure to be criticized by his Republican rivals for the taxpayer-financed trip, which,
they will note, seems all too convenient. On Wednesday, he will play host to Mr. Cameron for a more
traditional state dinner back at the White House.
NSS Thumper – Swing 1ar
Obama will travel to TONS of states now
Shear, 3-11-12 – Michael, Obama a Frequent Flier to 2012 Swing States, NYT,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/obama-a-frequent-flier-to-2012-swing-states/
Once Mr. Cameron leaves, Mr. Obama will take the opportunity for a couple of true campaign events as
he looks for re-election cash in Chicago and Atlanta. Most of Mr. Obama’s travel this year has conveniently combined
official business with trips to states that he would like to win in the fall. Since January, Mr. Obama has flown to Iowa, Arizona, Nevada,
Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire and North Carolina. All were official trips in which the president talked about his
economic plans, toured factories and prodded Republicans in Congress to act on his proposals. But they are also among the states that will be
critical for Mr. Obama in November. The speeches he gives in those places — like the fiery one he delivered on Feb. 28 to the United Auto
Workers in the nation’s capital — serve as much to rouse voters as they do to outline his economic policies.
NSS UQ – 2ac
NSS will fail now – no consensus and North Korea will buck the deal
Deen, 3-17-12 – Nuclear summit comes amid rising threats, Asia Times,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NC17Dg01.html.
Dr M V Ramana, a physicist at the Nuclear Futures Laboratory and the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University
in New Jersey, said: "I hope this summit manages to focus some attention on the urgent issues of nuclear safety and
security. Unfortunately , I don't think we have any grounds for optimism ." With a few honorable exceptions, he
said, the response of most governments and heads of state to the Fukushima nuclear accident that followed an earthquake and
tsunami last March has been the continued pursuit of business as usual in their plans for nuclear construction and
operation, with no real reflection about the broader implications of the accidents. "The general view promulgated by nuclear establishments,
and reproduced by governments, is that while Japan might have had an accident, their own nuclear plants are fully immune to accidents," he
said. "This view is not conducive to either safety or security," said Ramana, author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India
and a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials and the science and security board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The
first nuclear-security summit was held in Washington, DC, in 2010, while the United Nations hosted a high-level meeting of world leaders to
discuss the same subject in September 2011. The
second security summit in Seoul will take place in the wake of
last month's announcement by North Korea that it is willing to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and
long-range missile launches in exchange for US food aid. Dr Rebecca Johnson, vice-chairwoman of the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, is skeptical of the North Korean assurance. "This is the third
time in 20 years that the despotic North Korean leadership has offered nuclear restraint and access for
IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors in return for food," she said. So while all should welcome the chance
that has opened up, the United States and other participants (China, Japan, Russia and North and South Korea) in the
six-party talks on the North's nuclear program are understandably cautious not to claim this as a major
breakthrough.
NSS UQ – NoKo 1ar
North Korea is an unpredictable wild card
Deen, 3-17-12 – Nuclear summit comes amid rising threats, Asia Times,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NC17Dg01.html.
The potential wild card this time is Kim Jong-eun, successor to his father and grandfather but an unknown political
quantity, she added. Does he have the will and authority to begin a process of change in North Korea, or
is he just emulating his father in dangling inspections in order to relieve domestic pressure in his hungry,
underdeveloped country? asked Johnson, who is also executive director and co-founder of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy.
She said North
Korea was undergoing an inevitable transition after the sudden death of Kim Jong-il. "That offers
potential for positive change or destabilization. Only time will tell if this is the beginning of the end for North
Korea's provocative nuclear program, with its exhibitionistic nuclear tests and displays of weapons-grade plutonium," she said. If so, Johnson
said, then Kim Jong-eun's offer will prove to be an important first step, provided that Washington and Seoul can respond constructively.
"Even so,
it is likely that this will be a wary courtship, with many missteps and jumps in the wrong
direction , but with the hope that North Korea can be encouraged to keep moving toward de-nuclearization and disarmament," she said.
NSS PC Not K – 2ac
Obama doesn’t need PC – it’s a ONE DAY trip and he can deal
Shear, 3-11-12 – Michael, Obama a Frequent Flier to 2012 Swing States, NYT,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/obama-a-frequent-flier-to-2012-swing-states/
Among the riskiest things that a president can do when he is running for re-election is to leave the country. Yet being president
requires travel abroad, and Mr. Obama is headed to South Korea in a couple of weeks. He will attend a nuclear security
summit meeting, but it will be a quick trip . Mr. Obama will be there just a little more than a day or so and
then head back. Mr. Obama was a globetrotter in his first two years in office, traveling all over the world (though
some of the trips were delayed because of debates in Congress over health care and taxes). This year, the president is likely to
curtail his overseas trips , hoping to avoid criticism from voters or his Republican rivals. One piece of good fortune? The
annual NATO summit meeting and Group of 8 meeting of world leaders will take place in the United States
this year.
NSS PC Not K – 1ar
PC isn’t key or strained – Obama has time to watch the NCAA games…
Shear, 3-11-12 – Michael, Obama a Frequent Flier to 2012 Swing States, NYT,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/obama-a-frequent-flier-to-2012-swing-states/
Swing State Diplomacy
Perhaps the best example of Mr. Obama’s balancing act will occur on Tuesday when the president welcomes Prime Minister David
Cameron of Britain for a two-day state visit. Their first event? A quick trip on Tuesday to watch the opening games of
the
N.C.A.A.
men’s college basketball tournament. The tournament just happens to be in Dayton, Ohio — perhaps the most important
swing state in the country. On Wednesday morning, the papers and television stations in Dayton will be filled with images of Mr. Obama the
sports fan sitting with Mr. Cameron at the games. That is a good thing for his campaign, and probably not bad for relations with the United
States’ closest ally, either. Mr. Obama is sure to be criticized by his Republican rivals for the taxpayer-financed trip, which, they will note, seems
all too convenient. On Wednesday, he will play host to Mr. Cameron for a more traditional state dinner back at the White House.
NSS I/L D – 2ac
Even the best case outcome doesn’t solve
Brill & Luongo, 3-15-12 – Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N.
Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material
Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization, Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger, NYT
Op Eds, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html.
Obama’s initiative in launching the nuclear security summit process in Washington in 2010 helped focus high-level attention
on nuclear security issues. Unfortunately, the actions produced by the 2010 Washington Summit and that are
planned for the upcoming Seoul Summit are voluntary actions that are useful, but not sufficient to
create an effective global nuclear security regime. The world cannot afford to wait for the patchwork
of nuclear security arrangements to fail before they are strengthened. Instead, we need a system based on a global
framework convention on nuclear security that would fill the gaps in existing voluntary arrangements. This framework convention would
commit states to an effective standard of nuclear security practices, incorporate relevant existing international agreements, and give the
I.A.E.A. the mandate to support nuclear security by evaluating whether states are meeting their nuclear security obligations and providing
assistance to those states that need help in doing so. Nuclear terrorism is a real and present danger for all states, not just a few. Preventing it is
an achievable goal. The
current focus on nuclear security through voluntary actions, however, is not
commensurate with either the risk or consequences of nuclear terrorism. This must be rectified. If the Seoul
Nuclear Security Summit makes this a priority, there can be an effective global nuclear security regime in place before this decade ends.
NSS I/L D – 1ar
The most recent GAO study suggests you be highly skeptical of the Summit
Rockwell, 3-15-12 – Mark, Specific details and accurate accounting still needed in nuclear security
effort, says GAO, Government Security News,
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/25846?c=cbrne_detection.
The worldwide effort by the U.S. to lock-down potentially dangerous loose nuclear material is worthwhile,
said a government watchdog report, but it still lacks some key particulars . In a report released on March 14, only weeks away from
an upcoming international nuclear security summit in Seoul, South Korea, the Government Accountability Office said President
Obama’s four-year initiative still lacks specific details about how it will be implemented. The president launched the program in 2009. It
aims to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide within four years. The leaders of 47 nations endorsed the effort at the last Nuclear
Security Summit in 2010. The next summit is March 26-27 in Seoul, where the work so far will be evaluated and new goals set. The GAO report
called the president’s initiative “worthwhile,” but re-iterated its concern first voiced in 2010 that the government-wide lacked specific details
about how it will be implemented. It said
key details, including its overall estimated cost , time frame for
completion of work, and scope of planned work, remain unclear . In 2010 , GAO recommended, among other
things, that NSC lead the interagency development of a more detailed implementation plan for the initiative. NSC did not comment on GAO’s
recommendations, said GAO. The
agency noted substantial obstacles ahead for the program’s ability to account for
and evaluate the security of U.S. nuclear material overseas. GAO said in September 2011, that federal agencies can’t fully account for U.S.
material overseas that is subject to nuclear cooperation agreements. It also said those agreements don’t contain specific access rights that
opens the door for agencies to monitor and evaluate the physical security of U.S. nuclear material overseas. The agency also said it found the
agencies responsible for reviewing foreign partners’ security aren’t doing it systematically and suggested Congress consider directing DOE and
NRC to fully account for U.S. weapon-usable nuclear materials overseas leveraging the Atomic Energy Act to require access rights allowing the
United States to verify adequate protection of U.S. nuclear materials if future agreements cannot be negotiated to include such rights. In
addition to nuclear materials, the upcoming summit is set to address security of radiological sources and material that could be used to make a
dirty bomb. Based on preliminary results from ongoing work on federal efforts to secure radiological sources in U.S. hospitals and medical
facilities, GAO said it found that NRC’s security controls for hospitals and medical facilities don’t give specific steps to protect their radiological
sources and that medical facilities have implemented the controls in a patchwork of way. That
patchwork, it said, could leave
some facilities more vulnerable than others. DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), it said, has established a
voluntary program to upgrade the security of domestic facilities that have radiological sources. According to GAO, NNSA has made progress in
securing domestic radiological sources, but some facilities have declined NNSA’s assistance, including hospitals located in high-risk urban areas.
NSS Impact D – 2ac
They misunderstand actors and motives – no chance the summit solves
Deen, 3-17-12 – Nuclear summit comes amid rising threats, Asia Times,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NC17Dg01.html.
Meanwhile, studies have shown that the primary drivers for states' leaders to acquire or renounce
(or refrain from) nuclear
weapons are domestic politics , even if the rhetoric is couched in security
justifications. Such is the voodoo power assigned to nuclear weapons for power projection and
deterrence that insecure leaders will seek to develop or hang on to them regardless of the costs ,
Johnson said. "For
them, it's about nuclear weapons as symbols of power even if their use would be politically
or militarily suicidal ," she said.