Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
________________________................................................................................................................................. 4
***Fiscal Discipline DA*** ................................................................................................................................... 4
________________________................................................................................................................................. 4
***Uniquenesss*** ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Economy High Now ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Fiscal Discipline High Now .................................................................................................................................... 4
Investor Confidence High Now .............................................................................................................................. 9
Small Businesses High Now ................................................................................................................................... 9
No Dollar Dumping Now........................................................................................................................................ 9
________________________................................................................................................................................. 9
***Links*** ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
General Space Links ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Space Militarization Links .................................................................................................................................... 11
Space Debris Links ............................................................................................................................................... 12
SPS/SBSP Links ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Space Colonization Links ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Mining Links ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
International Space Station Links ......................................................................................................................... 15
Supplemental Spending Links .............................................................................................................................. 17
________________________............................................................................................................................... 17
***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Spending Kills the Economy – General ................................................................................................................ 17
Spending Leads to Unemployment ....................................................................................................................... 18
Spending Kills Investor Confidence ..................................................................................................................... 18
Spending Kills Small Business ............................................................................................................................. 18
Spending Causes Dollar Dumping ........................................................................................................................ 18
Spending Causes Crowd Out ................................................................................................................................ 20
Spending Causes Inflation .................................................................................................................................... 20
AT: Tax Hikes Solve ............................................................................................................................................ 20
AT: Spending Key to Stimulus ............................................................................................................................. 21
AT: Keynes ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
________________________............................................................................................................................... 22
***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
AT: Economy Resilient......................................................................................................................................... 22
AT: US Not Key to Global Economy ................................................................................................................... 22
Dollar Dumping Impacts....................................................................................................................................... 22
War Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Econ Turns Heg .................................................................................................................................................... 22
Econ Turns Prolif .................................................................................................................................................. 22
________________________............................................................................................................................... 22
***Military Tradeoff DA*** ................................................................................................................................ 22
________________________............................................................................................................................... 22
***Uniqueness*** ................................................................................................................................................ 22
No Military Cuts Now .......................................................................................................................................... 22
No F-35 Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Military Strong Now ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
1
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
________________________............................................................................................................................... 23
***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Spending Trades Off with Military ....................................................................................................................... 23
Spending Trades Off with F-35 ............................................................................................................................ 23
AT: Military Spending is Off the Table ................................................................................................................ 24
AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut .......................................................................................................... 25
AT: No Tradeoff ....................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
AT: NASA Has Enough Money ............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
________________________............................................................................................................................... 25
***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Military Spending Key to Heg .............................................................................................................................. 25
F-35 Key to Heg.................................................................................................................................................... 27
AT: F-35 Ineffective ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Air Power Key to Heg........................................................................................................................................... 29
Military Spending Key to the Economy ............................................................................................................... 29
[Specific Program] Key to the Economy .............................................................................................................. 30
Heg Key to Space.................................................................................................................................................. 30
________________________............................................................................................................................... 30
***NASA Tradeoff DA*** .................................................................................................................................. 30
________________________............................................................................................................................... 30
***Uniqueness*** ................................................................................................................................................ 30
No NASA Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................................. 30
No Earth Sciences Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................ 30
No Telescope Cuts Now ....................................................................................................................................... 32
________________________............................................................................................................................... 34
***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Spending Trades Off within NASA ...................................................................................................................... 34
Spending Trades Off with SLS ............................................................................................................................. 35
Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy ............................................................................................................... 39
Spending Trades Off with Earth Sciences ............................................................................................................ 39
Spending Trades Off with Telescope .................................................................................................................... 40
Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy ............................................................................................................... 41
AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut .......................................................................................................... 41
AT: No Tradeoff ....................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
AT: NASA Has Enough Money ............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
________________________............................................................................................................................... 41
***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 41
Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership .............................................................................................................. 41
Earth Sciences Key to Solve Warming ................................................................................................................. 43
Earth Sciences Key to Innovation ......................................................................................................................... 44
Telescope Key to Competitiveness ....................................................................................................................... 44
________________________............................................................................................................................... 45
***Fiscal Discipline Aff*** ................................................................................................................................. 45
________________________............................................................................................................................... 45
***Non-Uniques*** ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Economy Low Now .............................................................................................................................................. 45
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
2
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Fiscal Discipline Low Now .................................................................................................................................. 45
Investor Confidence Low Now ............................................................................................................................. 48
Small Businesses Low Now.................................................................................................................................. 48
Dollar Dumping Now ........................................................................................................................................... 48
________________________............................................................................................................................... 48
***Link Takeouts*** ........................................................................................................................................... 48
AT: Space Militarization Links ............................................................................................................................ 48
AT: Space Debris Links ........................................................................................................................................ 49
AT: SPS Links ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
AT: Space Colonization Links .............................................................................................................................. 49
________________________............................................................................................................................... 50
***Internal Link Takeouts/Turns*** ................................................................................................................... 50
AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General ........................................................................................................ 50
AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence .............................................................................................................. 50
AT: Spending Kills Small Business ...................................................................................................................... 50
AT: Spending Causes Dollar Dumping ................................................................................................................ 50
AT: Spending Causes Crowd Out ......................................................................................................................... 50
AT: Spending Raises Taxes .................................................................................................................................. 50
AT: Spending Causes Inflation ............................................................................................................................. 51
AT: Greece Analogy ............................................................................................................................................. 51
Spending Key to Stimulus .................................................................................................................................... 52
________________________............................................................................................................................... 53
***Impact Takeouts*** ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Economy Resilient ................................................................................................................................................ 53
US Not Key to Global Economy .......................................................................................................................... 53
AT: War Impacts................................................................................................................................................... 53
________________________............................................................................................................................... 53
***Military Tradeoff DA Aff*** ......................................................................................................................... 53
________________________............................................................................................................................... 53
***Non-Uniques*** ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Military Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................................ 54
[Specific Program] Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................... 55
Military Weak Now .............................................................................................................................................. 55
________________________............................................................................................................................... 55
***Internal Link Takeouts*** .............................................................................................................................. 55
Spending Trades Off with Other Stuff .................................................................................................................. 55
Military Spending Will Never be Cut ................................................................................................................... 56
[Specific Program] Will Never be Cut.................................................................................................................. 56
No Tradeoff ........................................................................................................................................................... 56
NASA Has Enough Money................................................................................................................................... 56
________________________............................................................................................................................... 56
***Impact Turns and Takeouts*** ....................................................................................................................... 56
AT: Military Spending Key to Heg ...................................................................................................................... 56
AT: F-35 Key to Heg ............................................................................................................................................ 57
AT: Military Spending Key to the Economy ........................................................................................................ 57
AT: [Specific Program] Key to the Economy....................................................................................................... 57
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
3
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Defense Cuts Good ............................................................................................................................................... 57
AT: Heg Key to Space .......................................................................................................................................... 58
________________________............................................................................................................................... 58
***NASA Tradeoff DA Aff*** ........................................................................................................................... 58
________________________............................................................................................................................... 59
***Non-Uniques*** ............................................................................................................................................. 59
NASA Cuts Now................................................................................................................................................... 59
Earth Sciences Cuts Now ...................................................................................................................................... 59
Telescope Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................................. 60
SLS Cuts Now....................................................................................................................................................... 63
________________________............................................................................................................................... 63
***Internal Link Takeouts*** .............................................................................................................................. 63
AT: Spending Trades Off within NASA .............................................................................................................. 63
AT: Spending Trades Off with [Specific Program] .............................................................................................. 63
[Specific Program] Will Never be Cut.................................................................................................................. 63
No Tradeoff ........................................................................................................................................................... 63
NASA Has Enough Money................................................................................................................................... 63
________________________............................................................................................................................... 64
***Impact Takeouts*** ........................................................................................................................................ 64
AT: NASA Spending Key to Climate ................................................................................................................... 64
AT: SLS Key......................................................................................................................................................... 64
________________________
***Fiscal Discipline DA***
________________________
***Uniquenesss***
Economy High Now
Fiscal Discipline High Now
Massive congressional cuts now
AP 7/19/11 “House bill requires spending cuts, balanced budget”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSgVWaDagIo65UBrtQfb8AVUp6ew?docId=a7bdb009b87a49a997179ba0be
d5f42b
Highlights of a Republican-written "cut, cap and balance" bill the House plans to consider Tuesday: Cuts next year's
projected $3.6 trillion in spending by $111 billion. Roughly two-thirds of cuts from department and agency budgets, onethird from automatically paid benefits, but leaves decisions to Congress about which programs would be cut. Exempts
defense, security, veterans, Medicare and Social Security. Gradually decreases, or "caps," spending over the coming decade
from 24.1 percent of the economy this year to 19.9 percent in 2021. Over the decade, that would mean about $6 trillion less
spending than President Barack Obama proposed in his most recent budget. Congress would decide details. If a cap was
exceeded, spending would automatically be cut, exempting Social Security, Medicare, military personnel, veterans and
interest due on the debt.
Large cuts are inevitable and bipartisan – public support
Cheri Jacobus 6/23/11 “Cut, cap and balance” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/cheri-jacobus/168237-cut-cap-and-balance
With the general public, the worm has turned and Americans are now more fearful of the looming European-style debt
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
4
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
crisis and dismal future the left is creating than they are of the pain of large spending cuts. A Bloomberg poll shows 76
percent of Americans think the economy is getting worse or is stagnant, and only three in 10 would reelect Obama. An
Associated Press poll shows four out of five think the economy is in bad shape and 59 percent disapprove of how Obama is
handling the economy and unemployment. And a new poll by Public Notice shows 62 percent of Americans, including 40
percent of Democrats, are worried Congress will not cut enough spending, which means people are watching what
Congress does rather closely. Fifty-one percent of Democrats say they would be more inclined to vote for a member of
Congress who raised the debt ceiling only with significant spending cuts. Similarly, 54 percent of self-identified Tea Party
supporters, 54 percent of Independents and 58 percent of Republicans share the sentiment. Women more than men believe
the debt ceiling should not be raised, along with 52 percent of Hispanic/Latino voters. So there appears to be nowhere for
Obama and congressional Democrats to hide on the issue of massive spending cuts and strict fiscal discipline when
broaching the issue of raising the debt ceiling. So what does a Democrat do with so little wiggle room? Look for Democrats
to start acting more like Republicans and embracing the Tea Party, rather than embracing the top of their own ticket with
Obama’s bottom-of-the-barrel poll numbers.
No new spending period, only massive cuts
Representative John Culberson, Republican, former governor of Texas, Tea Party Caucus, 2/14/11 “The Spending Spree is
Over” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/143833-the-spending-spree-is-over
As the debate over the budget begins, all sides must acknowledge one sad and inescapable fact: Every dollar Congress
spends is borrowed money. More specifically, each of the $2.23 trillion dollars that the Treasury takes in this fiscal year
will go directly to pay for entitlement programs and interest on our massive, spiraling debt. Worse still, the federal
government will need to borrow $105 billion to cover existing obligations before the fiscal year has even begun. The
Obama Administration's profligacy - evidenced by a $3 trillion increase in the national debt and a nearly 50% increase in
spending - has made the hole cavernous. The only way we can begin to dig ourselves out of it is to cut spending
immediately and drastically, which is exactly what House conservatives have done. In the first four weeks of the new
Republican majority, the House has cut spending by $656 billion and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal
Rogers announced the largest cut in discretionary spending in our nation's history. Compare that to the first four weeks of
the 111th Congress, when the Democrat-led House approved $682 billion of new spending. We cannot have any long term
impact on the budget without cutting mandatory spending. Social Security and Medicare together are amassing unfunded
obligations at the alarming rate of $6.5 trillion a year. The dramatic increase in the number of Social Security and Medicare
beneficiaries coupled with the simultaneous decline in the number of workers paying into Social Security, not to mention
the high unemployment rate, keeps money flowing out of the depleted Social Security Trust Fund. The path we're on is
simply unsustainable. And while there's still time to save the health care industry from shutdown due to the myopic
Obamacare law, let's reverse it and implement sensible, effective health reform. The last thing we need in a period of severe
economic contraction is massive government spending that weighs down the private sector, preventing job growth and
innovation. Repealing this destructive law would save more than $2.6 trillion. Making decisions on where and how to cut
spending is a difficult but necessary first step in a long road to financial recovery. We need to fix our broken budget process
and remove job-destroying regulations. While we continue to work on these fronts, the message has been sent. The
spending spree in Washington, D.C. is over.
Debt deal will get done even without any Republican support
Times of Oman 7/18/11 “White House Confident of Averting Debt Crisis” Library Press Display
WASHINGTON: White House budget director Jack Lew said yesterday there was still time to clinch a major deficit
reduction deal and he was confident that congressional leaders know a US debt default is not an option. State governors,
fearing the effects of the debt talks on their own credit ratings, pressured Washington to get a deal. “This is a dangerous and
equally ridiculous situation that’s playing itself out,” Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said at a National
Governors Association meeting in Salt Lake City. “It takes one sentence to solve this problem — and that’s to lift the debt
ceiling.” “It would be an embarrassment for the United States of America to default on its obligations,” said Virginia
Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican. Experts say it would be much more than an embarrassment. With time running
short, President Barack Obama and lawmakers were struggling for ways to lift the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit as an
August 2 deadline to prevent a default draws dangerously close. “I think it’s not insignificant that all the leaders understand
it would be irresponsible to get to August 2 and not extend the ability of the United States to pay its obligations,” Lew said
on CNN’s “State of the Union” programme. Lew, appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows to push Obama’s case for a
sweeping deficit reduction deal along with the debt ceiling increase, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” programme: “There’s
still time to get something big done. The president has made it clear he wants to do something substantial.” Obama’s call
for a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal snagged when Republicans in Congress rejected his demand that tax increases on the
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
5
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
wealthy be part of the plan. Congress must raise the $14.3 trillion limit on US borrowing by August 2 or the government
will run out of money to pay its bills, causing turmoil in global financial markets and potentially forcing the United States
into another recession. Lew told CNN there has been “activity and progress” in talks among Senate leaders “to make sure
that at a minimum Congress has a way to take action and avoid default on the US debt” through a plan offered by Senate
Republican leader Mitch McConnell that would clear the way for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling without
Republican help.
A new debt deal will pass
Andrew Leonard, 7/19/11, “The Senate’s Deficit Reduction Magic Trick”,
http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/tech/htww/2011/07/19/senate_deficit_reduction_plan
Be still, my beating debt ceiling heart! Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Ok., has rejoined the Gang of Six! And suddenly, a new deficit
reduction plan is emerging from the Senate, to the soundtrack of mega-hype from the likes of Politico and the Wall Street
Journal. If you haven't been following this soap opera, here's a quick recap: The "Gang of Six" is a bipartisan group of
senators who have been toiling for months to come up with a plan that can get to 60 votes. But its deliberations were
thrown awry in May, when Coburn jumped ship, declaring that negotiations were at an "impasse." But now he's back! And
on cue, the Senate has a new plan to cut $3.7 trillion over 10 years. Progressives will find all kinds of nasty things in this
plan -- cuts to Medicare and Social Security, etc. But we'll lambaste that another day: The only pertinent question right
now, with the debt ceiling deadline hurtling toward us, is how the Senate's plan addresses the key stumbling block
preventing the White House and House Republicans from making a deal: taxes. Obama has supposedly drawn a line -- no
big deal without new revenues. But the House is equally obstinate: no tax hikes, no matter how they are defined, period.
Magically, the Gang of Six's plan simultaneously raises revenue and cuts taxes! Everybody wins! From the Wall Street
Journal: A key question remains whether the plan might receive any support in the House, where Republicans have strongly
resisted any new proposal that could bring in new taxes. The gang's plan would bring in $1 trillion in new tax revenue over
10 years by narrowing several tax breaks. But Mr. Conrad said it would also lower tax rates and end the alternative
minimum tax. He said the combination of tax changes would be viewed by budget experts as a $1.5 trillion tax cut. Get
that? It raises $1 trillion in revenue, but gets scored as $1.5 trillion tax cut. Nice work! How does this magic trick work?
The key is in the phrase "end the alternative minimum tax." This is exactly the gimmick I discussed here two weeks ago:
...the Alternative Minimum Tax "offset" is the all-important fig leaf in this deal. Originally intended to prevent wealthy
Americans from claiming too many deductions on their taxes, for years the AMT has threatened to gouge progressively
bigger chunks of flesh from middle-class Americans. But "threatened" is the operative word here, because Congress keeps
patching the tax code on a regular basis to let millions of taxpayers off the hook. By applying revenue increases derived
from closing loopholes and ending tax breaks to permanently fixing the AMT, Republicans and Democrats can make a real
dent in the deficit while claiming that there has been no net increase in taxes. This is precisely the kind of thing that both
sides can declare victory on. There will be no "net" increase in tax revenues because fixing the AMT is an expensive
proposition. The Tea Party hardcore in the House may still vote no, but with people like Tom Coburn in the Senate giving
the plan their imprimatur, enough Republicans will join with Democrats to get the necessary votes for passage. Obama
has already announced his support for the plan. Next step: The Senate and the White House force it down House
Republican throats.
The ‘gang of six’ plan will raise the debt ceiling and stop spending
The Atlantic 7/20/11 “The Gang of Six Is Our Best Chance for a Debt Deal in This Congress”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-gang-of-six-is-our-best-chance-for-a-debt-deal-in-this-congress/242233/
There is a big idea out there, and it is gaining traction in the Senate. A bipartisan group of Senators known as the "Gang of
Six" released their own plan yesterday, to a group of nearly 50 senators. Despite calling for reductions in Social Security
and tax expenditures -- the sacred cows of the left and the right, respectively -- this $4 trillion plan has shown its power to
inspire. The Senate's third ranking Republican, Lamar Alexander, declared that "this is a serious, bipartisan proposal that
will help stop Washington from spending money that we don't have, and I support it." Senator John Kerry also approved,
saying "I think it could be a component of whatever the debt deal is, because I think a lot of people would feel comfortable
doing the debt if they saw this as part of the package." As one Senator reported, the Gang of 6 is hoping to transform into a
"Mob of 50." The Gang proposal would combine a deficit-reduction down payment with a process that forces
Congressional Committees to report further deficit reduction, along with comprehensive tax reform, Social Security reform,
and long-term health reform. Unlike the Reid-McConnell plan, as it stands, the Gang's approach would offer specific
instructions and tough enforcement mechanisms.The debt ceiling has been a difficult and possibly dangerous news peg for
deficit discussions. But by focusing on getting Washington to think long about the debt, it's produced a once-in-ageneration opportunity. At this moment, we could get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, reduce tax rates to their lowest
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
6
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
levels since Reagan, and still be able to put $1 trillion aside for deficit reduction. We could make Social Security
sustainably solvent, so that current and future generations can count on it to be there for them and don't have to fear to 23%
across-the-board benefit cut scheduled into current law. We could address the cost growth of Medicare and Medicaid in a
way that maintains the guaranteed benefit for those who need it but also ensures these programs don't bankrupt us.
Obama and U.S. government are serious about making cuts and reducing federal deficit. Gang of Six
plan spells out 3.7 trillion dollars in savings
Manu Raju, Reporter, 07/19/11, “Gang of Six back from the brink”, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1A5B7DC1-3E474249-832E-D25C243DD9B2
The House Republican leadership staff is reviewing the Gang of Six proposal, but has several concerns, according to aides.
They are unclear how the plan gets to $3.7 trillion in savings, and want to see a more detailed plan, the aides say. From
what they’ve seen of the plan, they Medicare and Medicaid proposals need to go further. And they’re already branding the
plan as having tax increases.
House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor both reacted cautiously to the plan, calling for deeper cuts
and with Cantor singling out the group’s goal to raise tax revenues. And groups like the Heritage Foundation on the right,
and MoveOn.org on the left, were already panning the proposal hours after it was released, underscoring the major political
hurdles ahead.
According to a copy of a summary of the Gang of Six plan, obtained by POLITICO, the group would impose a two-step
legislative process that would make $500 billion worth of cuts immediately followed by a second bill to create a “fast-track
process” that would propose a comprehensive bill aimed at dramatically restructuring tax and spending programs. The plan
calls for changes to Social Security to move on a separate track, and establishes an elaborate procedure for considering the
measures on the floor.
The $500 billion in cuts would come from a range of sources, including shifting to a new consumer price index to make
cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security. The plan would impose statutory spending caps through 2015, freeze
congressional pay and sell unused federal property.
To enact a comprehensive deficit plan, the group calls for congressional committees to report legislation within six months
that would “deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years,” the plan says.
It calls on the Finance Committee to permanently reform or replace Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate - an outdated
formula aimed at determining the amount to reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients - by $298 billion.
The Finance Committee would be instructed to deliver “real deficit savings” through simplifying the tax code and raise as
much as $1 trillion. It would do this by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29
percent. It would permanently repeal the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax. And it calls for establishing a single
corporate tax rate, between 23 percent and 29 percent, and to move to a competitive territorial tax system.
Overall, the group claims it would result in a $1.5 trillion net tax decrease.
The group punts many of the specifics to other committees, which would be asked to find savings in discretionary and
mandatory spending. This includes: $80 billion out of Armed Services; $70 billion out of Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions; $65 billion out of Homeland Security and Government Affairs; $11 billion out of Agriculture; $11 billion out of
Commerce; $6 billion out of Energy and Natural Resources. The Judiciary Committee would be asked to find savings
through medical malpractice reform.
The group spent ample time proposing ways to expedite the legislative process should there be a stalemate in committee.
If any committee cannot propose cuts, it would impose “across-the-board” cuts to programs under the panel’s jurisdiction.
It would exempt programs aimed at low-income communities.
Moreover, the group proposed a mechanism to allow other senators to move forward with deficit-cutting proposals if a
Senate committee stalled on its task. It would allow five senators from each party to push a resolution laying out how they
would achieve those cuts, and if that won 60 votes on the floor, those proposals would be added to the comprehensive bill.
To avoid gridlock, floor amendments that upset the deficit-reduction goals would be ruled out of order. Any bill that could
receive 60 votes would be held at the desk until the Senate considers the separate Social Security bill.
Once a comprehensive deficit plan has the votes, a measure aimed at ensuring 75-years of solvency of Social Security
would head to the floor. The Finance Committee would be required to recommend the Social Security changes.
Senators in the Gang of Six - Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
and Coburn - discussed the proposal with 43 senators Tuesday morning on the first floor of the Senate, after more than six
months of struggling to broker a deal.
Coburn left the group in May but suddenly rejoined after the group added $115 billion in additional health care cuts and
included the provision allowing senators to circumvent the stalled committees.
“I’m back,” Coburn told the big group Tuesday, prompting a round of applause.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
7
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
The devil, of course, will be in the details. The group will have to write the plan into legislation and try to win over a
bipartisan majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, not an easy task with two weeks before the U.S is at risk
of defaulting on its loans. The group has modeled its approach after the president’s deficit reduction commission that
proposed a report last December recommending a sweeping array of cuts worth $4 trillion.
Barack Obama continues to push deficit-reduction committee and pushes Congress to find ways to cut
and save money. New bipartisan bill comes out with results of 3.7 trillion dollars to save
Janet Hook, reporter, 7/20/11,“Obama Backs Latest Bargain”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576456042405686316.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
President Barack Obama, in a last-ditch bid for a bipartisan "grand bargain" on the budget, threw his weight Tuesday
behind a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan unveiled by six Republican and Democratic senators
The plan, which would span a decade, has scant chance of passing intact as the solution to the current debate over raising
the government's borrowing limit. Some Republicans were wary of the plan's changes in tax rules. Democrats said it would
be near impossible to draft legislative language and pass it quickly.
Still, some elements from the so-called Gang of Six senators could be incorporated into a final deal to shrink the deficit and
raise the government's $14.29 trillion debt cap by Aug. 2. That's when the Treasury Department says the government will
run out of cash to pay all its bills without an increase in borrowing authority.
Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.,Va.), one of the party's most combative conservatives, didn't dismiss the plan
out of hand. "While there are still portions that are unclear and need more detail, this bipartisan plan does seem to include
some constructive ideas to deal with our debt."
The developments come against a backdrop of a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward the debt ceiling. A new Wall
Street Journal/NBC News poll found a plurality of Americans—38%—now say the debt ceiling should be raised, while
31% say it shouldn't. A month ago, sentiment was the reverse, with 39% opposing the idea while just 28% said it should be
raised.
The senators backing the new proposal say 74% of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts and 26% from new
taxes. It would impose spending cuts and caps, and make changes in Social Security to make the program solvent over 75
years. It would direct congressional committees to reduce the deficit by specific levels in their areas of jurisdiction, likely
including major entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid.
The plan also would make big changes to the tax code. It would lower personal and corporate tax rates eliminate the
unpopular Alternative Minimum Tax and many deductions and tax breaks.
Comparing the Gang of Six plan to current law, which provides that all Bush tax cuts expire in 2012, it would cut taxes by
$1.5 trillion over 10 years, making it attractive to some Republicans.
By another commonly used Washington yardstick—one that assumes, as the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan fiscal commission
did, that Congress was certain to extend several expiring tax breaks—it would raise roughly an additional $1 trillion over
10 years, which could make it attractive to some Democrats.
Gang of Six bipartisan bill to make serious cuts in federal spending
Robert Schroeder, 7/19/11“House approves bill to raise debt ceiling”,
http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=C844CF36-B208-11E0-9236-002128049AD6
The House’s vote came on the same day that Obama cited progress in negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and lauded a
newly released Senate “Gang of Six” plan that would cut $3.7 trillion from deficits over 10 years.
The House bill was approved on a vote of 234-190.
Republicans say that they offered the plan to avoid a default by the U.S. government and that cutting and capping spending
will ensure that Washington lives within its means.
“Today, the House will vote on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act; our balanced plan to meet the president’s request for a debtlimit increase while achieving serious spending cuts, binding budget reforms, and putting in place a balanced-budget
amendment to ensure we don’t continue to kick the can down the road,” said a statement from House Majority Leader Eric
Cantor’s office before the vote on Tuesday.
The White House said the bill sets up an “unacceptable choice” between lifting the debt ceiling or passing a balanced
budget amendment that would cut Medicare and Social Security too deeply.
The Obama administration has repeatedly urged Congress to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2 or else the
government will face default on its obligations.
The plan from the Senate group known as the “Gang of Six” aims to immediately cut $500 billion in deficits; make Social
Security solvent over 75 years; and reduce marginal income tax rates, among other things.
Obama said Tuesday that he’ll urge congressional leaders to get down to business on Wednesday and craft a plan that can
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
8
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
pass both chambers of Congress in time for the Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt limit.
With “Cut, Cap and Balance” expected to fail in the Senate and never reach Obama’s desk, Senate lawmakers are also
working on a backup plan to raise the debt ceiling in addition to the newly released plan from the “Gang of Six” senators.
The backup plan, which Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid have been
crafting, would allow the debt ceiling to rise in exchange for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a decade.
The bill passed in the House Tuesday would raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion but would be accompanied by mandatory
spending cuts of $380 billion in fiscal year 2012 in addition to a balanced-budget amendment. Read a summary of the
Republican bill.
New Gang of Six plan will cut govt. spending and ensure that overall spending is reasonable in relation to
the well being of the economy
David Espo, Associated Press writer, 7/19/11 “Gang of Six Plan gains favor”, http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/jul/19/gangof-six-debt-plan-gains-favor/
Yet a few hours after Obama spoke at the White House, supporters of the newly passed House measure breathed defiance.
“Let me be clear. This is the compromise. This is the best plan out there,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, head of a
conservative group inside the House known as the Republican Study Committee.
The legislation, dubbed “Cut, Cap and Balance” by supporters and backed by Tea Party activists, would make an estimated
$111 billion in immediate reductions and ensure that overall spending declined in the future in relation to the overall
size of the economy.
It also would require both houses of Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to
the states for ratification. The amendment itself would require a supermajority vote in both houses of Congress for any
future tax raises.
With time dwindling, the day’s events did little to suggest a harmonious end was imminent in a defining clash between the
two political parties.
Senate Democrats have announced they will oppose the House passed-measure, although it could take two or three days to
reject it.
Yet there were signs that with Tuesday night’s vote behind them, House Republican leaders might pivot swiftly.
Even before the vote, Speaker John Boehner told reporters that it also was “responsible to look at what Plan B would look
like.”
And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor issued a statement saying of the Gang of Six proposal: “This bipartisan plan does
seem to include some constructive ideas to deal with our debt.”
Debate in the House was along predictable lines, and only nine Republicans opposed the bill and five Democrats supported
it on final passage.
The Gang of Six briefed other senators on the group’s plan after a seemingly quixotic quest that took months, drew disdain
at times from the leaders of both parties and appeared near failure more than once.
It calls for deficit cuts of slightly less than $4 trillion over a decade and includes steps to slow the growth of Social Security
payments, cut at least $500 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs and wring billions in savings from
programs across the face of government.
It envisions tax changes that would reduce existing breaks for a number of popular items while reducing the top income
bracket from the current 35 percent to 29 percent or less.
The tax overhaul “must be estimated to provide $1 trillion in additional revenue to meet plan targets,” according to a
summary that circulated in the Capitol.
Investor Confidence High Now
Small Businesses High Now
No Dollar Dumping Now
________________________
***Links***
General Space Links
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
9
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
NASA’s inaccurate cost estimates historically make space programs subject to underfunding and cost
overruns
GAO ’05 (2/05, “NASA’s Space Vision: Business Case for Prometheus 1 Needed to Ensure Requirements Match Available
Resources,” pg 10, 05-242)
Adding to these complexities, NASA has historically had difficulty establishing life-cycle cost estimates. In May 2004, we
reported that NASA’s basic cost-estimating processes—an important tool for managing programs—lack the discipline
needed to ensure that program estimates are reasonable.8 Specifically, we found that 10 NASA programs that we reviewed
in detail did not meet all of our cost-estimating criteria—based on criteria developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s
Software Engineering Institute. Moreover, none of the 10 programs fully met certain key criteria—including clearly
defining the program’s life cycle to establish program commitment and manage program costs, as required by NASA. In
addition, only three programs provided a breakdown of the work to be performed. Without this knowledge, we reported that
the programs’ estimated costs may be understated and thereby subject to underfunding and cost overruns, putting programs
at risk of being reduced in scope or requiring additional funding to meet their objectives. In this report we recommended
that NASA take a number of actions to improve its cost - estimating practices. NASA concurred noting that our
recommendations validated and reinforced the importance of activities underway at NASA.
Space launch costs are high and rising
Spaceflight Now ’11 (“Rising launch costs could curtail NASA science missions,” 4/4/11, pg online @
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/04launchcosts/)
A previous NLS contract expired last year and held provisions for heavily discounted rocket costs due to projections of a
more robust U.S. commercial launch services market when it was signed in 2000. "The expectation at that time was there
was a large commercial market," Cline said. "That did not materialize. As opposed to government being a secondary
customer buying on the margin, government became the primary customer." With government as the anchor customer,
marginal launch costs for NASA and the Air Force are on the rise. "Rocket costs are going crazy and mostly up," said
Steve Squyres, a respected planetary scientist and chair of a panel of researchers that issued recommendations in March for
NASA to address the possibility of a declining budget matched against rising launch prices. Squyres led the National
Research Council's planetary science decadal survey, an independent report ranking a slate of robotic solar system missions
for the next 10 years. "Launch vehicle costs are high," Squyres said. "They're growing. They're growing in a somewhat
volatile and unpreditable fashion. They're becoming an increasingly large fraction of the cost of planetary missions, which
is a trend we view with some alarm."
Launch costs are expensive - $10,000 per pound
Gabriele ’07 (Thomas Paul Gabriele Jr, Captain, USAF, 3/07, “Active Control of a Thin Deformable In-Plane Actuated Mirror,”
pg online @ https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?moduleid=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe670c0822a153&mode=user&action=lresearch&objectid=3acbac26-86d8-4b4a-8765-b0fdc0fba152)
Traditional large glass mirrors are not a viable option for space applications because their rigidity limits the mirror diameter
which can be placed on orbit. Capabilities of current generation launch vehicles are limited to approximately four meters.
Moreover, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, launch costs currently average around $10,000
per pound for a geostationary launch. These costs, coupled with the large areal density of glass, make traditional optics in
space costly [38].
Space launches historically costly
Radford ’11 (Tim Radford, freelance journalist, 6/30/11, “NASA’s costly space ride,” pg online @
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/30/nasas-costly-space-ride)
The investment in each launch was colossal. The solid rocket boosters alone burn fuel at the rate of 5,000kg a second at
each launch and the temperatures inside the shuttle's main engine get high enough to make iron boil. And the vessel had to
take with it everything humans might need to survive in space, every time. But reusable did not mean cheap. Every flight
into space involved stress and abrasion as the machine tore through the air on the way up, and then went from sub-zero
temperatures in orbit to more than 1,500C as it hit the atmosphere on the way down. As the fleet aged, the pit stops became
longer and launches less frequent. Two scientists at the University of Colorado calculated an average cost for each launch
of $1.2bn. Nasa – begetter and guardian of the International Space Station, the Hubble space telescope and the yet to be
launched James Webb space telescope – already has more financial demands than it can meet. President Obama cancelled
plans for a new manned mission to the moon; the long-promised manned mission to Mars now looks very distant. Once
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
10
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Atlantis returns, it will join its fellow survivors Discovery and Endeavour as US museum exhibits. And when the crew
aboard the ISS need any more tea and sugar, or fuel and fresh air, these will be delivered by a Russian robot Progress cargo
vehicle, or a European Space Agency automated transfer vehicle, neither of which is reusable. For years to come, the only
carrier available to get people to and from the space station will be the Russian Soyuz, descendant of a line launched in
1966. The space shuttle broke all records; but in the end it all but broke Nasa.
Launch costs for any future plans are rising-bad financial environment
Space News ’10 (12/16/10, “Rising Costs Cast Shadow on NASA Planetary Program,” pg online @
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101216-costs-cloud-planetary-program.html)
While 2011 is expected to be a banner year for NASA’s planetary science program with three missions scheduled for
launch, future initiatives are threatened by budget uncertainties and a dramatic spike in the price of launch vehicles,
according to an agency official. “This is a really difficult financial environment,” Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary
science, said Dec. 15 at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union here. Rides into orbit for NASA’s 2011 planetary
missions, the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), the Juno mission to Jupiter and the Moon-bound Gravity Recovery and
Interior Laboratory (GRAIL), were purchased under the first NASA Launch Services contract. That contract, which does
not include specific quantities of rockets to be purchased or delivery dates, sets prices for launch vehicles and related
services for NASA’s planetary, Earth observing, exploration and scientific satellites. In September, NASA awarded a
second set of Launch Services contracts to Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Orbital Sciences Corp. of
Dulles, Va., Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and United Launch Alliance of Littleton,
Colo. Prices in the second NASA Launch Services contract round are “significantly higher” than the prices in the first,
Green said. He declined to be specific. “We are surprised at how extensive those cost increases are,” he said. “You start to
wonder where we go from here. How do we get out of low Earth orbit on a regular basis?”
Economic downturn makes spending more on space impossible
LA Times ’11 (5/9/11, “Space: If you have the money, we have a program,” pg online @
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/05/money-for-space-programs.html)
Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with space and our space program. Supporters love the triumphs, the
soaring inspiration of it all. Opponents argue: With so many problems here on Earth, why are we wasting money on space?
Now, throw in the worst economic downturn in decades and you get this: With so many problems here on Earth, and the
fact we're so deeply in debt, why waste money on space? Just how tight have things become? Heck, we don't even have
enough money to keep searching for ET. Last week, in "SETI Institute's search for extraterrestrial life hits a budgetary
black hole," Times staff writer Louis Sahagun reported that the guys sitting in Northern California listening for signals from
other life in the universe are about out of money. Congress gave up and cut off funding in 1993, but private sources have
kept the project running. Now? Well, it looks like it's mothball city: In mid-April, [Tom] Pierson [the institute's chief
executive officer] delivered the bad news to stakeholders, just as the array was being prepared to survey more than 50
recently discovered planets beyond our solar system that astronomers believe may be habitable. Darn, just when we were
this close. So, 50 years after Alan Shepard put America back in the space race, we don't even have the $2.5 million a year
it takes to listen for fellow inhabitants of the galaxy, much less travel there. And Rodriguez thinks Americans are ready to
spend really big bucks on space travel? No, here's where we really are: Like so much of what's going on in the real world,
space is about to become a playground for the rich.
Space Militarization Links
Space Militarization ineffective: Could require 20 + years and over $200 billion
Greg Grant, 11/8/07, staff writer for governmentexecutive.com, “Report questions cost effectiveness of space weapons”,
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/110807g1.htm
Putting weapons in space to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the United States or to destroy enemy satellites would be
a poor investment, particularly when compared with ground-based weapons designed to do the same thing, according to a
new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think tank. The report, "Arming the
Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons," examined a
number of potential space-based weapons systems, many of which remain largely theoretical, and attempted to quantify the
costs of such systems and the likelihood that they would actually work. It acknowledged the difficulty of assessing space
weapons, since most of the information on them is highly classified. But based on available information, the report
concluded that a constellation of such weapons presents enormous costs, technological challenges, potential risk of
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
11
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
escalation of an arms race in space, and is of questionable effectiveness. The most widely discussed option, stemming from
the Reagan-era Star Wars missile defense proposal, is to build a constellation of satellites that would fire either missiles or
lasers at incoming ballistic missiles. Considering the technological leaps required, particularly for a space-based laser, the
report considered it unlikely that such a system could be built within 20 years. If the technology hurdles were overcome, the
costs to build such a system could approach $200 billion.
Space Militarization will exceed military budget
William D. Hartung, 7/12/05, guest columnist for Seattle Pi, “Weapons in space put the world at risk”,
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Weapons-in-space-put-the-world-at-risk-1178161.php
In addition to the threats to U.S. security and our economy from sparking an arms race in space, the whole process would
be extremely costly. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, launching an adequate number of Space-Based
Interceptors to achieve total global coverage in a missile defense role could cost up to $60 billion over a decade's time.
Space-Based Interceptors can also be adapted to work as anti-satellite weapons, although the numbers needed to reach an
initial capability would be much smaller. And a Council on Foreign Relations study group estimates that placing just 40
rods in space for the "Rods from God" program would cost more than $8 billion. Given all the other space weapons projects
on the drawing board, a concerted effort to weaponize space could eventually exceed the $100 billion-plus already spent on
the missile defense program, which has been plagued by delays and technical difficulties from its inception. Witness the
fact that in the last two major missile defense tests, the interceptor missile did not even make it out of its silo. Launching
and maintaining hundreds or thousands of weapons in the harsh environment of space would pose its own technical
obstacles, some of which may not be readily overcome. The better way to go would be to act now to establish some rules of
the road for space-faring nations. The Henry L. Stimson Center has developed a model code of conduct for space that
includes no flight-testing or deployment of space weapons, minimizing space debris that can destroy satellites and
cooperating on space traffic management. The time to act on these ideas is now, while the United States still maintains
unparalleled dominance in space.
Space Weapons are too Costly an Investment Considering their Low Survivability and High Risk
Clay 07 (James Clay. Senior Software Engineer at United Space Alliance "Protecting Safe Access to Space: Lessons from the First
50 Years of Space Security." Space Policy. Vol. 23 (November 2007): 199-205. page 203 , TA)
As implied above, another factor that has affected the prospects of space's weaponization has been the extremely high costs
involved. The root of this problem lies in the great expense of placing any objects into space, but it is exacerbated by the
fact that orbiting objects are difficult to maintain and modernize, particularly if there are changes in technical capabilities
and/or targeting information. But perhaps the most damaging factor in regard to cost is the fact that orbital physics require
that any militarily significant constellation of interceptors placed in space must be deployed in considerable numbers, given
the "absentee problem"--i.e., the fact that a harmful attack could be undertaken by an adversary at an "inconvenient" time in
the orbit of any defensive system. One recent report, for example, has estimated that for a constellation of space-based
weapons for use in "global strikes" against ground targets within 45 min, the requirement is for nearly 50 individual
interceptors to cover even a limited swath of the Earth's land mass.12 The report concludes that "acquiring the capability to
attack a ground target within 45 minutes would be many tens of times more costly if done from space than from the
ground". Of course, for an anti-ASAT system, the requirements are much higher, since an hour could mean the difference
between defense and irrelevance. For this reason, the start of any arms race in space will involve extremely high costs. In
addition, the deployment of such systems puts assets in space on hair-trigger alert, creating serious risks of
misidentification of targets. Such events could lead to the destruction of property, inadvertent loss of life, or accidental war.
Space Debris Links
Cleaning up space debris is cost ineffective
Julie Beck, 11/29/10, staff writer for PopScience, “Russia Invests $2 Billion To Clean Up Space Debris”,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/russia-invests-2-billion-clean-space-debris
Hare-brained schemes for cleaning up space debris have been batted around for some time, but Russia has finally put some
money down on a real project. Russia’s space corporation, Energia, is going to invest $2 billion to build a space pod to fly
around and knock the junk out of orbit and out of our way. Hopefully it will burn up in the atmosphere, or land in the
ocean, and not rain down on Chinese villagers. This pod could help reopen orbits that are currently inaccessible to future
spacecraft due to the amount of shredded metal and empty hulls of dead satellites floating around. Using an ion drive, it
will gently nudge these useless scraps out of orbit. Energia plans to have completed testing on the pod, which will have a
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
12
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
nuclear power core, by 2020, and have it in service no later than three years after. It will have a lifespan of about 15 years,
enough time to make a significant dent in our space debris problem. Energia is also working on developing an “interceptor”
spacecraft using similar technology. This craft would be able to derail any incoming comets or other outer-space projectiles
that might be hurtling towards Earth, and change their trajectory just enough that they miss us.
SPS/SBSP Links
Solar Powered Satellites will inevitably be cost ineffective
National Space Society, October 2007, “Space Solar Power: Limitless Clean Energy From Space”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight
in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions
problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities
of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is
literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space
solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar
power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used
on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power
transmission can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet. High development cost. Yes, space solar power
development costs will be very large, although much smaller than American military presence in the Persian Gulf or the
costs of global warming, climate change, or carbon sequestration. The cost of space solar power development always needs
to be compared to the cost of not developing space solar power.
Cost of Solar Powered Satellites would exceed any other system of production
Kevin Chao and James Chang, 2/20/08, contributors to Design4Development.com, “The Power of Power”,
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/Solar+Power+Satellites
Perhaps one of the greatest downfalls of the SPS system would be cost. In the range of 80 billion dollars, the costs of this
system far exceed any of the other systems of production. Even the fact that the technology offers benefits far into the
future would seem unreasonable in terms of cost. In comparing SPS to the two systems that generate most of the world’s
power, nuclear and coal, the cost of SPS drastically outweighs. Take nuclear power for example. A typical reactor costs
approximately 5 billion to build, a mere 20th of a SPS without taking into account, the base stations. Fossil fuels account
for 65% of the world’s energy production and are even cheaper due to its availability and flexibility with regards to use. It
would seem then, that currently established means of energy production are capable enough of handling the power needs of
any developing nations. Yet with any growing society, energy demands are expected to rise and without stable energy
sources, demand will exceed supply and costs will begin to rise. It is then that in terms of cost and sustainability, the true
benefit of the SPS system begins to outweigh those monetary costs in the long run. Fossil fuels currently are highly
available and consequently, the cost of this fuel is dramatically cheaper than that of any other power source.
Space-Based Solar Power cost ineffective compared to other alternatives
Tony Martin, Richard Varvill, and Alan Bond, September 2008, writers for Reaction Engines Ltd., “Solar Power Satellites and
Spaceplanes-The SKYLON Initiative”, pg. 20
From the data in Table 2 it can be seen that the performance characteristics of SKYLON are very similar to the capabilities
set out by the SBSP Study Group. Only one system is developed, rather than two design-independent systems. The
development and production costs were derived using Reaction Engines internal costing models which give similar
estimates to TRANSCOST, and are baseline costs without assuming any reduction for “cost engineering”. The total
SKYLON development cost ($21,700M) is much lower than the SBSP Study Group Gen 1 and 1.5 systems ($75,000M).
The production cost per vehicle is also much lower (40%). A properly implemented SKYLON launch infrastructure is
capable of at least 10,000 flights per year with a worldwide fleet of 100 vehicles. This implies an average vehicle
turnaround time of 3.65 days, which when combined with the Initial Operational Capability of 2 days, leaves ample
downtime for maintenance, etc. These figures are very modest compared to typical airline models.
Space-Based Solar Power could potentially cost over 2 trillion yen ($25 billion), take over 15 years to fully
develop
Yomiuri Shibum, 2/24/11, Japanese magazine, “Space-based solar power set for 1st test”,
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
13
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
http://www.ecodeonline.com/blog/?p=92
Jan. 22–A team of scientists from several organizations will begin tests this spring on a space-based power generation
technology using satellites, it was learned Saturday. The technology would start by generating electricity from sunlight in
space, convert the power into microwaves and then send it to Earth, the team said. The planned test will attempt to convert
a strong electric current into microwaves and transmit them 10 meters away in a simulated outer space environment at
Kyoto University. The group comprises scientists from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Mitsubishi Electric
Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., IHI Corp. and Kyoto University. A successful test would likely accelerate the goal
of putting a space-based power generation system into practical use by 2025. Space-based solar power generation, which is
10 times more efficient than earthbound generation, would be a major step forward in terms of fulfilling energy needs, as
the strength of sunlight in space is about twice that on Earth, and there are four or five times the hours of sunlight due to the
absence of clouds. Mitsubishi Electric has proposed what it calls the Solarbird project, in which 40 relatively small 200meter solar power generating satellites would be launched. This could produce 1 million kilowatts of electricity, equivalent
to a nuclear power plant. The Solarbird system would collect sunlight using reflecting mirrors fitted onto satellites in
geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the equator. After the electricity is generated, it would be converted into
microwaves and transmitted to Earth. The microwaves–to be sent as harmless radio waves–would be received at ground
stations 3 kilometers in diameter and placed on the sea or in sunny desert areas, and then converted back into electricity.
The key to making the system practical hinges on the efficient conversion of electricity into microwaves. The experiment
will be conducted in a room that does not reflect electromagnetic waves to mimic the conditions of space. If the team
succeeds in converting a strong electrical current into microwaves and transmitting them about 10 meters, it will then start
work on reducing the weight of the power generation equipment and improving the transmission technology. The team
hopes to launch a trial satellite sometime after 2016. It is estimated that implementing a workable space-based solar power
generation system will cost about 2 trillion yen.
Space Colonization Links
Space Colonization is inordinately expensive
Al Globus, 4/29/11, works for NASA Astrobiology, “Space Settlement Basics”, http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html
Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and operate. For
example, the current cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20 million. To enable large scale space
tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude.
Space tourism has launch requirements similar to space settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing
technology my be necessary to enable space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per
pound for operational vehicles. One candidate for a major improvement in manufacturing technology is molecular
nanotechnology. An important branch of nanotechnology is concerned with developing diamonoid mechanosynthesis. This
means building things out of diamond-like materials, placing each atom at a precise location (ignoring thermal motion).
Diamond is 69 times stronger than titanium for the same weight and is much stiffer. If spacecraft were made of diamonoid
materials rather than aluminum, they could be much lighter allowing more payload. For an excellent analysis applying
nanotechnology to space development, see McKendree 1995 Diamond mechanosythesis may enable a radical transportation
system that could allow millions of people to go to orbit each year -- an orbital tower.
Space Colonization is cost ineffective
HumansFuture, 2010, Future of Human Evolution Website, “Space Colonization”,
http://www.humansfuture.org/space_colonization_economics.php.htm
At the present time there is not a viable purely economic argument in favor of space exploration. With the cost of sending
just one kilogram into orbit at around $10,000, access to space remains within the realm of governmental control. The cost
of launching an object into space has not decreased since Apollo 11 went to the moon in 1969, and the cost of launching the
space shuttle remains at a whopping $400 million a flight. This effectively allows governments (along with their associated
bureaucracy and political chains) to control the space agenda, completely shutting out the private interests of capable,
forward-thinking individuals and organizations. It is our opinion that the only way to make interstellar space travel a reality
this century is through the introduction of competitive market forces to drive the cost of launch down to a fraction of
current levels. This means, of course, the privatization of space.
Mining Links
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
14
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Effective Space Mine System would Cost $2 Billion
Kosiak 07 ( Steven M. Kosiak, Steven M. Kosiak is Director of Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments. Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons.
. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, October 31, 2007. page 61, TA)
The cost of developing and procuring space mines is difficult to estimate. Among other things, this is because the space
mines could vary substantially in terms of size and sophistication. Based on historical cost relationships between satellite
weight and costs, however, and assuming average system complexity, a reasonable estimate is that space mines in the 10100 kilogram class would cost an average of some $5–25 million to acquire. Assuming, consistent with the above
discussion of SBI ASAT requirements, that the US military would want to be capable of targeting 10-100 enemy satellites,
total acquisition costs for such a system would be projected to range from some $100–500 million for 10 space mines, to
perhaps $500 million to $2 billion for 100 space mines. Development costs might account for as much as half of total
acquisition costs in the case of a 10-satellite purchase, and 15 percent of those costs in the case of a 100-satellite buy.
Mining in space is extremely expensive due to high transportation costs, technological challenges
Gerlach 2005 (Charles, CEO Gerlach Space Systems, “Profitability Exploiting Near-Earth Object Resources.” 2005 International
Space Development Conference, National Space Society, Washington DC, May 19-22 2005, http://abundantplanet.org/files/SpaceAst-Profitably-Exploiting-NEO-Gerlach-2005.pdf, p 1-2)
Technology issues present many of the greatest challenges to successfully and economically executing an asteroid mining
mission. The prohibitively high costs of sending astronauts and potentially long communications delays require that all
operations be highly automated. Automated machinery must work perfectly; even minor failures can cause mission failure.
However, terrestrial mining experience with automation has generally been poor, and operations will be complex and hard
on equipment. New equipment will have to be developed and integrated. To handle industrial quantities of materials,
bench-top processes are not sufficient. Developing industrial mining and refining processes will ultimately hinge on
deployment of actual working equipment to learn what works and what does not. These systems will be different from
those used in traditional robotic space science missions that essentially consist of one-of-a-kind instrument collections
designed for generating very specific types of scientific data. Little research and development has been undertaken into the
capabilities required for NEO mining. In 1999, Zealey, Sonter, and a team at the University of Wollongong Department of
Engineering Physics in Australia, worked to create a “reasonably realistic design” for an asteroid drill that could one day
allow spacecraft to extract volatiles from a comet. One aspect of this research required Zealey and Sonter to attempt to
create low density comet core simulants on which to perform mining experiments. The drill design was to include a
penetrator with a thermal tip and explosive functionality that could bore, melt, and blast through cometary materials. It
would also include a “cold finger” that would sit at the surface and collect steam created by the penetrator.
International Space Station Links
NASA is still searching for ways to have cost-effective ISS experiments
Kelly Rae Chi, 7/24/07, freelance science and technology journalist for TheScientist Magazine, “NIH In Space? NASA-NIH
discuss life science experiments on the International Space Station”, http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/53389/
NASA has committed to covering the costs of operation on the ISS after construction is completed, an estimated $1.5
billion per year, and does not plan to charge a fee for station use. Three NASA crewmembers man the space station now,
and the number could increase to six by 2009, said Bill Gerstenmaier, administrator of space operations at NASA, in a June
25 press teleconference. Experiments would be controlled robotically or by the NASA personnel, said Mark Uhran, an
administrator of the ISS, in the teleconference. The U.S. portion of the ISS is scheduled for completion by 2010 and about
half of this area, which amounts to 10 refrigerator-sized racks in a pressurized laboratory and several sites in the
unpressurized environment, could be available for public and private use. The NIH has not told NASA how much space it
might want, but so far has expressed interest in the pressurized section, Uhran told The Scientist. NIH researchers would
pay for their own research as well as transporting the experiments to the ISS. Stephen Katz, director of the National
Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, who is spearheading the agreement, declined to estimate how
much such research would cost the NIH. Finding cost-effective ways to transport experiments to the station remains a ratelimiting step for success, according to a NASA report to Congress issued in May. NASA is working with a new U.S.
commercial orbital transportation service to determine possible costs, according to the report.
Asteroid Detection Links
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
15
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Asteroid detection is too costly
Borenstein ’07 (Seth Borenstein, Science writer at the Associated Press, 3/5/07, “NASA can’t pay for killer asteroid hunt,” pg
online @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17473059/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-cant-pay-killer-asteroid-hunt/ )
NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding nearly all the asteroids that might pose a devastating hit to Earth,
but there isn't enough money to pay for the task so it won't get done. The cost to find at least 90 percent of the 20,000
potentially hazardous asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a report NASA will release
later this week. The report was previewed Monday at a Planetary Defense Conference in Washington.
Lack of funding for asteroid detection due to high costs
Daily Planet Media ’07 (“Billion Dollars to Track Deadly Asteroids,” pg online @
http://www.dailyplanetmedia.com/more_stories.php?id=4470&mode=10)
The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) wants an international asteroid defense agency that can organize a proper
mission to counter possible asteroid threats. The NRC says the planet's current lack of readiness to deal with giant space
rocks flying at it is a major concern. Current sky surveys will not be able to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects that are
460 feet (140 m) or larger by 2020, as the U.S. Congress instructed NASA in 2005 to ensure they could due to a lack of
funding. An asteroid-hunting space telescope could go a long way toward playing catch-up and reaching the survey goal by
2022, but at the hefty cost of more than $1 billion.
Asteroid detection too expensive, not enough funds now
NASA Report to Congress ‘07 (3/07, “Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Analysis of Alternatives,” pg online @
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report2007.html)
Currently, NASA carries out the "Spaceguard Survey" to find NEOs greater than 1 kilometer in diameter, and this program
is currently budgeted at $4.1 million per year for FY 2006 through FY 2012. We also have benefited from knowledge
gained in our Discovery space mission series, such as the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR), Deep Impact, and
Stardust missions that have expanded our knowledge of near-Earth asteroids and comets. Participation by NASA in
international collaborations such as Japan's Hayabusa mission to the NEO "Itokawa" also greatly benefited our
understanding of these objects. NASA's Dawn mission, expected to launch in June 2007, will increase our understanding of
the two largest known main belt asteroids, Ceres and Vesta, between the planets Mars and Jupiter. NASA conducts survey
programs on many celestial objects - the existing Spaceguard program for NEOs, surveys for Kuiper Belt Objects, the
search for extra-solar planets, and other objects of interest such as black holes to understand the origins of our universe. Our
Discovery mission series in planetary science may offer additional opportunities in the future beyond our current survey
efforts. NASA recommends that the program continue as currently planned, and we will also take advantage of
opportunities using potential dual-use telescopes and spacecraft - and partner with other agencies as feasible - to attempt to
achieve the legislated goal within 15 years. However, due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new
program at this time.
DSCOVR/Triana Links
Congress unwilling to fund DSCOVR – too expensive
Brinton ’11 (Turner Brinton, staff writer for Space News, 7/12/11, “House Panel Denies Funding for Pair of NOAA Satellite
Projects,” pg online @ http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110718-house-panel-denies-funding-for-dscovr-cosmic-2-missions.html)
In its 2011 budget request, NOAA sought $9.5 million to ready the long-shelved DSCOVR spacecraft for launch and $3.7
million to initiate development of COSMIC-2. Congress was unable to pass any of the 12 traditional federal spending bills
for 2011 and instead passed an all-in-one spending bill that held most federal spending to 2010 levels. Funding was
generally not provided for so-called new start programs such as DSCOVR and COSMIC-2. DSCOVR was originally
outfitted with two climate sensors — a camera and a reflected solar radiance sensor — that would continuously monitor the
Earth from the first Lagrange point some 1.6 million kilometers from Earth. The spacecraft was almost ready for launch in
2001 when the mission was abruptly canceled and put into storage at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
Md. NOAA in 2008 funded a study to determine whether the spacecraft could take over for NASA’s aging Advanced
Composition Explorer, said Robert Smith, NASA’s DSCOVR project manager. The Advanced Composition Explorer since
1997 has provided advance warning of coronal mass ejections and other solar events that have the potential to harm
satellites and disrupt radio frequency communications. The satellite was designed to operate for only five years. If funds to
refurbish DSCOVR are provided, the plan is to launch the satellite in January 2014, Smith said in a July 7 interview. The
total cost to refurbish the satellite and prepare it for launch is between $63 million and $65 million, NOAA spokesman John
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
16
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Leslie said in a July 7 email. The Air Force, which is keenly interested in the space weather data DSCOVR would provide,
agreed to pay for the satellite’s launch vehicle. The service requested $135 million for this purpose in 2012, but a defense
spending bill passed July 8 by the House Appropriations Committee did not include this funding. The Air Force planned to
allow new entrants such as Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to compete for the launch,
government and industry sources said.
Solar Flares Links
Efforts to protect against solar flares are expensive - $300 million
Vastag ’11 (Brian Vastag, science reporter at the Washington Post, 6/21/11, “Sunburst could bea big blow,” Washington Post, pg
online @ lexisnexis)
Leaders do acknowledge that huge solar flares are a serious issue, one the industry is addressing. But "the idea of 130
million people out of power for 10 years is an overstatement," said Gerry Cauley, president of the North American Electric
Reliability Corp., or NERC. In 2007, Congress gave NERC the power to make rules for electric utilities to prevent
blackouts like the one that left an estimated 50 million people in the Midwest, the Northeast and Ontario without power for
up to four days in August 2003. (That outage was caused not by a solar flare but by high demand and a tree that fell on a
power line; a cascading failure knocked some 100 power plants offline.) "The potential is there for damage to equipment
and possibly even outages," Cauley added. "But the grid itself is very resilient." The grid's weak spots In 1989, the grid got
its most severe solar test, and sections did not fare well. A solar storm one-tenth the strength of the 1859 event triggered a
cascade of failures in Quebec in just 90 seconds. Several million people went without power for nine to 12 hours, causing
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. In South Africa, the storm destroyed huge transformers. Each the size of a house
and costing several million dollars, transformers are the grid's weak spots. They boost the voltage of electricity for
transmission along high-voltage lines, but they also absorb extra loads coming down those lines. During the 1989 event,
two of South Africa's transformers overheated and fried during the storm, while nine more failed within a year, said Mark
Lauby, a vice president at NERC. Legislation under consideration in the House would force utility companies to protect
350 critical transformers from a massive solar storm. Under the bill, called the SHIELD Act, the one-time cost of $100
million to $300 million would be passed on to customers. Last year the bill passed in the House unanimously, only to stall
in the Senate.
Supplemental Spending Links
________________________
***Internal Links***
Spending Kills the Economy – General
US deficit spending hurts the global economy
Chris Kitze, writer for the Market Oracle, ’11 (March 10 2011, “Signs of Impending Doom for Global Economy 2011,”
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26811.html)
Meanwhile, the United States is also covered in a sea of red ink and the economic situation in the largest economy on earth
continues to deteriorate rapidly. It is as if the entire world financial system has caught a virus that it just can't shake, and
now it looks like another massive wave of financial disaster could be about to strike. Does the global economy have enough
strength to weather a major oil crisis in 2011? How much debt can the largest nations in North America and Europe take on
before the entire system collapses under the weight? Will 2011 be a repeat of 2008 or are we going to be able to get through
the rest of the year okay? Only time will tell. But it is quickly becoming clear that we are reaching a tipping point. If the
price of oil keeps going up, all hopes for any kind of an "economic recovery" will be completely wiped out. But if the globe
does experience another economic slowdown, it could potentially turn the simmering sovereign debt crisis into an absolute
nightmare. The U.S. and most nations in Europe are having a very difficult time servicing their debts and they desperately
need tax revenues to increase. If another major economic downturn causes tax revenues to go down again it could unleash
absolute chaos on world financial markets. The global economy is more interconnected than ever, and so a major crisis in
one area of the world can have a cascading effect on the rest of the globe. Just as we saw back in 2008, if financial disaster
strikes nobody is going to escape completely unscathed.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
17
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Spending Leads to Unemployment
Lack of fiscal discipline hurts the economy – sustains unemployment and perpetuates recession
Paul J. Sullivan, Professor at Georgetown University, 6/20 (Al Arabiya News – Washington, 6/20/2011, “Frightening profligacy,
poor fiscal discipline, disputatious democracy and uncertain leadership in the United States,”
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/20/153996.html)
Much of the fiscal indiscipline in many countries is due to the political invertebracy of many in the political leadership. The
profligacy of the past is catching up with the present and could have deep repercussions in the future. The time for
leadership, fiscal courage, and some hard thinking and choices is now. Otherwise, the financial crisis of the 2000s could
seem quite mild compared to the brewing economic troubles out there.
The effects of not getting things in order could spread far beyond the gates of Athens or the beltway of Washington. It is,
however, not too late to get moving on the solutions and the tough decisions.
I have an odd sense of foreboding mixed with cautious optimism about the US. In the past the US has worked its way out of
very difficult times. One can think of the Great Depression and other deep recessions in its past going back even to the start
of the country. One can also see a lot of strength in the inventiveness and entrepreneurial nature of the US. It is a powerful
economy and society with many very hard working people.
However, this situation seems fundamentally different than in difficult times in the past because the culture of discipline,
and especially fiscal discipline, and the society’s and governments views toward debts have changed – even since the 1980s
– considerably.
If anyone is struggling to figure out why the US unemployment rate will likely remain high for some time to come, and it
could take many years to get back down to 5 to 6 percent unemployment rates, then look to the government, household and
other debts that are drags on the economy.
Also, debt is what got the US economy and a good part of the rest of the world economy into the difficult positions they
have been in recent years.
Let’s hope our leaders in business, government, thought leaders in society, and others can do the right things on time, and
the US economy, and by implication much of the rest of the world economy, can get back on track before the next
economic storms hammer so many lives once again.
Spending Kills Investor Confidence
Massive spending increases hurts investor confidence
The Bank for International Settlements, organization of central banks, 6/26 (June 26th 2011, “Overview of the economic chapters,”
http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2011e_ov.htm)
Over the past year, the global economy has continued to improve. In emerging markets, growth has been strong, and
advanced economies have been moving towards a self-sustaining recovery. But it would be a mistake for policymakers to
relax. From our vantage point, numerous legacies and lessons of the financial crisis require attention. In many advanced
economies, high debt levels still burden households as well as financial and non-financial institutions, and the consolidation
of fiscal accounts has barely started. International financial imbalances are re-emerging. Highly accommodative monetary
policies are fast becoming a threat to price stability. Financial reforms have yet to be completed and fully implemented.
And the data frameworks that should serve as an early warning system for financial stress remain underdeveloped. These
are the challenges we examine in this year's Annual Report. Interrelated imbalances made pre-crisis growth in several
advanced countries unsustainable. Rapidly increasing debt and asset prices resulted in bloated housing and financial sectors.
The boom also masked serious longterm fiscal vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could trigger the next crisis. We
should make no mistake here: the market turbulence surrounding the fiscal crises in Greece, Ireland and Portugal would
pale beside the devastation that would follow a loss of investor confidence in the sovereign debt of a major economy.
Addressing overindebtedness, private as well as public, is the key to building a solid foundation for high, balanced real
growth and a stable financial system. That means both driving up private saving and taking substantial action now to reduce
deficits in the countries that were at the core of the crisis.
Spending Kills Small Business
Spending Causes Dollar Dumping
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
18
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Increased spending causes credit downgrade – kills dollar leadership and hurts US
The Washington Post, News Source, 4/19 (April 19th 2011, “U.S. credit rating downgrade: the Armageddon scenario,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-economy/post/us-ratings-downgrade-the-armageddonscenario/2011/04/19/AFnE0n5D_blog.html)
A credit rating downgrade for the United States would spell even more financial trouble for the U.S. government,
hampering its ability to borrow money as investors demand higher yields to make up for the increased risk. That would
cause its national debt to balloon further and increase the need to hike taxes or make even more painful cuts in spending.
But the real Armageddon scenario would occur when the impact of a sovereign downgrade hit the rest of the U.S. economy.
The U.S. “risks eroding its standing at the core of the global monetary system,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and cochief investment officer at PIMCO, wrote in a commentary piece for the Financial Times. Pension funds and investment
trusts that are bound by covenant to invest only in AAA-rated debt could be forced to dump U.S. holdings. Banks that do
the bulk of their business in the U.S. could themselves face downgrades. Eventually, the dollar could lose its status as the
world’s reserve currency. The ripple effects of Standard & Poors’ decision to downgrade its outlook for the U.S. were
already spreading on Monday. The agency also downgraded its outlook for five AAA-rated U.S. insurance groups: Knights
of Columbus, New York Life Insurance, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association
of America and United Services Automobile Association. In downgrading their outlook from stable to negative, S&P noted
that these companies are “constrained by the U.S. sovereign credit rating because their businesses and assets are highly
concentrated in the U.S.” S&P analyst David Zuber and his colleagues wrote that they took into account “direct and indirect
sovereign risks—such as the impact of macroeconomic volatility, currency devaluation, asset impairment, and investment
portfolio deterioration.” How likely is this nightmare scenario to happen? There are 19 sovereigns rated AAA by the S&P.
Of those, only the United States has a negative outlook. There are a number of countries that have lost AAA ratings over
the past 20 years—including Canada, Denmark, Finland and Sweden—but they ended up regaining them. Goldman Sachs
analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a research note on Tuesday that while he agrees with S&P that the “current trajectory of
fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long-term” and that the U.S. “already appears to be on the edge of AAA territory,”
he has a somewhat more optimistic view of the U.S. situation over the next few years and assumes that some fiscal
tightening is likely to occur.
Deficit spending makes default more likely – impact is catastrophic
The Los Angeles Times, News Source, 6/2 (June 2nd 2011, “Moody's warns of U.S. credit rating downgrade if no debt ceiling deal
comes soon,” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/06/moodys-warns-it-could-downgrade-us-credit-rating-if-no-dealcomes-soon-on-debt-ceiling.html)
Moody's Investors Service warned Thursday that it could downgrade the U.S. government's AAA credit rating if there is no
progress in the next six weeks on a deal to raise the nation's $14.29-trillion debt ceiling. The credit rating agency said it saw
a "very small but rising risk of a short-lived default" by the government on its obligations to holders of Treasury bonds and
other debt. The nation reached the debt ceiling May 16. But the Treasury Department has been juggling some finances to
keep the government from default as President Obama negotiates over significant spending cuts that congressional
Republicans have made a condition to any increase in the debt ceiling. Those "extraordinary measures" will run out Aug. 2,
the Treasury said. Moody's said that although it "expected political wrangling" in Washington, "the degree of entrenchment
into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations." "The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the
odds of a short-lived default," Moody's said. "If this situation remains unchanged in coming weeks, Moody's will place the
rating under review." A meeting at the White House on Wednesday between Obama and House Republicans failed to make
any progress. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Thursday met with the large House freshman class -- many of
which are Tea Party supporters opposed to increasing the debt limit -- to make the case that a U.S. default would be
catastrophic to the economy. Moody's said "if progress in negotiations is not evident by the middle of July" it would place
the U.S. credit rating on review for possible downgrade because of the risk of a short default. Moody's probably would
downgrade the rating to AA shortly after such a default occurred. If default were avoided and a deal struck, the rating
probably would not be reduced, Moody's said. "Any loss to bondholders would likely be minimal or nonexistent, as
Moody's anticipates that a default would be cured quickly," Moody's said. Thursday's warning came after another leading
credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, last month lowered its outlook for the U.S. to "negative" because of the lack of
progress on its large debt and budget deficit. S&P kept the U.S. at a AAA rating, but the downgrade to the outlook meant
that there was at least a 33% chance the rating would be lowered in the next two years. Moody's said Thursday it had kept a
stable outlook on the U.S. credit rating because it assumed there would be "meaningful progress" over the next 18 months
in dealing with the nation's increasing debt. But that outlook could change to negative if there was no deal to address the
deficit as part of the debt-ceiling negotiations, the agency said. The U.S. would probably keep its AAA rating if a default is
avoided, but "whether the outlook on the rating would be stable or negative would depend on whether the outcome of the
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
19
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
negotiations included meaningful progress toward substantial and credible long-term deficit reduction," Moody's said.
Spending Causes Crowd Out
Spending Causes Inflation
AT: Tax Hikes Solve
High taxes crush small businesses and kill jobs
The Essene, a Daily Kos Community Site, ‘9 (July 16th 2009, “A Universal Tax to Pay for Universal Health Care,”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/16/754259/-A-Universal-Tax-to-Pay-for-Universal-Health-Care)
However, the high income tax surtax is not painless for the middle class. Its cost will fall principally on those small family
businesses that create 80% of our jobs, and the middle class already suffers from a desperate shortage of jobs. Politicians
can be sure that the middle class will notice a jobless recovery, assuming recovery can even begin. Almost all small
businesses have "pass-through treatment" where the owners include the business income in their federal income tax returns
and then pay tax on it, whether they receive cash or not. Thus, family and other small businesses pay tax not at corporate
rates, but at individual rates. Small business owners, therefore, have to pay the surtax or any tax increase in marginal rates
on their business income whether they spend the money or reinvest it in their businesses, leaving the owners with less
capital to expand or hire. On the other hand, big international corporations pay nothing more in tax, leaving small
businesses at a competitive disadvantage and unable to raise prices to offset the increased tax.
Republicans will oppose any tax increase – it’s their dogma
Albert R. Hurt, Executive Editor for Bloomberg News, 7/17/11, “Republicans’ Idealogy Dooms Deal on U.S. Debt”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/us/18iht-letter18.html
WASHINGTON — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in the heat of the high-level budget deliberations, told Republicans
that their intransigence over taxes was a matter of ideology, not economics. It’s also about coalitions and contributors.
Congressional Republicans rejected a grand-bargain deficit reduction plan that would have slashed spending, including on
entitlements, while raising revenue. Raising taxes, charged Republicans like the House majority leader, Representative Eric
Cantor of Virginia, would be a job killer in a struggling economy. Mr. Cantor pulled the rug out from the efforts of a fellow
Republican, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, and President Barack Obama to strike a historic deal. It was about
politics, not jobs. Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton engineered big tax increases that were followed by
robust economic gains. Politically, however, tax cuts are the glue that holds together the Republican coalition. It used to be
anti-Communism until the Berlin Wall came down. There’s still a divide on social issues, and even a number of antiabortion or anti-gay rights Republicans don’t consider these questions priorities. With the wars in Afghanistan and Libya,
it’s tough to distinguish between the foreign policy positions of conservatives and those of liberals. There is no such
confusion when it comes to taxes. With enforcers like the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist looking over their shoulders,
Republican politicians know that if they even entertain the idea of higher taxes, they throw away any national ambitions,
may be threatened in a primary, and, if in a position of leadership, face a revolt from the rank and file.
No tax raises – Norquisit’s anti-tax pledge
Jason Hanna, 7/15/11, “Politicians’ pledges show interest groups’ sway”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/14/pledges.interest.groups/
Some political analysts watching the debt ceiling talks in Washington lament that the no-tax-hike pledge signed by most
congressional Republicans may prevent a grand compromise in which tax increases accompany spending cuts. To the man
who leads the interest group behind the pledge, that's pretty much the idea.Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax
Reform -- the group whose oppose-all-tax-increases vow was signed by 235 House members and 41 senators, almost all of
them Republicans -- said the pledge is doing what it's supposed to: preventing what he says are mistakes of 1982 and 1990,
namely agreeing to tax increases and watching promised spending cuts evaporate."When you take the pledge, it ends the
constant badgering of people asking you to raise taxes here, there and everywhere," said Norquist, whose group wants to
shrink the federal government and believes any new revenue would enable continued government growth. "Once you keep
putting a tax increase on the table, spending cuts disappear." "If someone says that this makes it difficult to make a big
budget deal (with tax increases), that's the point," he said. "... The only reason that (President Barack) Obama is even
talking spending restraints is because of this pledge."
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
20
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Tax hikes won’t happen – Republican refusal
CNN 6/29/11 Deirdre Walsh, Xuan Thai, and Kate Bolduan, “Republicans reject president’s call to include tax revenues in debt
deal” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/republicans-reject-presidents-call-to-include-tax-revenues-in-debt-deal/
Republican congressional leaders Wednesday rejected President Barack Obama's call to include tax revenues as part of a
deal to raise the debt ceiling. Obama said at a White House press conference Wednesday that he's already made concessions
to significantly cut spending for government programs. In return, he said, Republicans should now accept proposals to end
corporate tax subsidies, such as those given to oil and gas companies or tax breaks for hedge fund managers. The president
tried to label Republicans as more interested in protecting special interests than getting a deal done before the U.S. defaults
on its financial obligations later this summer. He singled out one tax break that gives corporations a deduction for buying
company planes. "You'll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You'll just have to pay a little more." Obama said. But
House Speaker John Boehner flatly dismissed any proposal that would add revenues to a debt limit agreement. "The
president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House," Boehner
said in a written statement. Boehner repeated his position that any deal to up the nation's borrowing authority must include
spending cuts greater than the amount the debt limit is raised, reforms to control spending over the long term and be "free
from tax hikes." "The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process," Boehner stated.
AT: Spending Key to Stimulus
Cutting spending creates a better stimulus than raising spending
A. Adrianson, the Heritage Foundation, ’10 (September 16th 2010, "Spending Cuts Are Good for the Economy,"
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/spending-cuts-are-good-for-the-economy/)
Reducing budget deficits by cutting government spending has a stronger record of economic stimulus than either reducing
the deficit with tax increases or increasing government spending. That’s what Harvard economists Albert Alesina and
Silvia Ardagna have found in their recent research. They examined 107 instances of large reductions (at least 1.5 percent in
one year) in budget deficits as well as 91 instances of large increases (over 1.5 percent in one year) in budget deficits over
the past 40 years. They found that when an economy expands following deficit reduction, spending cuts were the largest
part of the adjustment. At the same time, when recessions followed deficit reduction, tax increases were the predominant
policy. The authors also found that when budget deficits increased, tax cuts had a more expansionary impact on the
economy than spending increases.
AT: Keynes
Their authors are wrong – Keynesian economics is too outdated
Jason Bradley, former military member, ‘11 (June 27th 2011, “Keynesians Are both Wrong and Dangerous,”
http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/06/27/keynesians-are-both-wrong-and-dangerous/)
The Keynesian school of thought on the economy is that of the potential instability of the private sector and the
undependability of the market driven self-adjustment factor. Keynes during his day said that in times of depression (or deep
recessions) the government should focus entirely on spending by injecting the national economy with lots of cash. So the
task was simple: spend more on goods and services thereby shifting aggregate demand in the other direction and presto we
are out of the recession. However, Keynes put forth these thoughts during the Great Depression. In which inflation was not
a threat, prices were falling, and unemployment was reaching 25 percent. Since the goal was to get the national economy
back to full employment, the only model used for analysis was the aggregate demand curve in relation to real GDP gaps.
There was no need to study aggregate supply and aggregate demand, prices and real job growth because he was only
interested in what market participants would buy during the depression if the economy was producing at full capacity. So a
new model called the Keynesian Cross was coined which basically focuses on the differences in total spending to the value
of total output. It doesn’t account for true distinctions for price levels and real output, i.e., real job growth. An increase in
aggregate demand effects real output and prices but doesn’t always translate to a dollar-for-dollar improvement in real
GDP. Again, and to his defense, Keynes’ ideas were during the Great Depression — falling prices, etc., — this is not the
Great Depression, so when supply and demand increases so do prices. As a result we still stay short of full employment,
consumer spending stays down, wages become relatively low, the economy fails to rebound and possibly falls back into
recession.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
21
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
________________________
***Impacts***
AT: Economy Resilient
AT: US Not Key to Global Economy
Dollar Dumping Impacts
War Impacts
Econ Turns Heg
Econ Turns Prolif
________________________
***Military Tradeoff DA***
________________________
***Uniqueness***
No Military Cuts Now
Military spending is increasing, no risk of DOD cuts now
Donna Cassata 7/8/11, Associated Press, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43688283/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill
that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. The strong bipartisan embrace of the measure came as White
House and congressional negotiators face an Aug. 2 deadline on agreeing to trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts and
raising the borrowing limit so the U.S. does not default on debt payments. While House Republican leaders agreed to slash
billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy
efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account
beginning Oct. 1 Concerns about undermining national security, cutting military dollars at a time of war and losing defense
jobs back home trumped fiscal discipline in the House. Only 12 Republicans and 75 Democrats opposed the overall bill.
"In the midst of a serious discussion about our nation's debt crisis, House Republicans demonstrated responsible leadership
that sets priorities and does not jeopardize our national security interests and our nation's ongoing military efforts," Rep.
Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said in a statement. But Rep. Barney Frank, DMass, scoffed at the suggestion that "everything is on the table" in budget negotiations between the Obama administration
and congressional leaders. "The military budget is not on the table," he said. "The military is at the table, and it is eating
everybody else's lunch." The bill would provide $530 billion to the Pentagon and $119 billion to cover the costs of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would provide a 1.6 percent increase in pay and buy various warships, aircraft and
weapons, including a C-17 cargo plane that the Pentagon did not request but is good news for the Boeing production line in
Long Beach, Calif. During three days of debate, the House easily turned back several efforts to cut military spending,
including amendments by Frank on the Democratic side and and tea party-backed freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.
No defense cuts in sight – house divided
Alexander 06/23 (David Alexander, Staff writer for newsdaily.com, 2011/06/23, White House criticizes House defense spending
bill, http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre75m803-us-usa-budget-defense/, TA)
WASHINGTON, June 23, 2011 (Reuters) — The Obama administration sharply criticized a $649 billion defense spending
bill in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday as lawmakers began debating next year's Pentagon
funding, including the war in Afghanistan. The White House said in a policy statement it strongly opposed elements of the
defense appropriations bill in the House because of proposed spending cuts and restrictions on the handling of Guantanamo
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
22
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
detainees. "If a bill is presented to the president that undermines his ability as commander-in-chief or includes ideological
or political policy riders, the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto," the statement said. The White House
raised its concerns as the House began debating the bill to set levels for most military spending for the 2012 fiscal year
beginning in October. The measure was expected to face a large number of amendments, including a move to halt U.S.
participation in the NATO-led campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi by barring any spending on the effort.
With President Barack Obama struggling to reduce the nation's $1.4 trillion deficit, war-weary lawmakers facing cuts to
social programs used the debate to press the administration to end the war more quickly and cut defense spending more
deeply. The current House measure cuts Obama's spending request by $8.9 billion. "As we spend over $2 billion a week on
this decade-long war, critical programs, like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, food stamps and
Medicare are on the chopping block. Enough is enough. There is no military solution in Afghanistan," said Representative
Barbara Lee, who pledged to seek an amendment to end funding for the Afghan war. Representative Alcee Hastings said
the United States needed a "lean and powerful" military but "we also have great needs in this country and we cannot
continue to slash funding for essential programs here at home in favor of ever-increasing funding for wars abroad." The
appropriations bill is a long way from final passage. The Senate's version of the bill is still in committee. Whatever version
is ultimately passed by the House would have to be reconciled with a bill adopted by the Democratic-led Senate before it
would go to Obama for his signature.
No F-35 Cuts Now
F35 passing now but on the chopping block
Bennet 7/13 (John T. Bennett, staff writer for TheHill,07/13/11, Pentagon tells Congress of new $771 million F-35 cost spike,
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/171327-pentagon-tells-congress-of-new-771-million-f-35-cost-spike)
Pentagon officials have asked Congress to let them shift $264 million from other accounts to begin paying for new F-35
program cost overruns totaling nearly three times that much. Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John
McCain (R-Ariz.) raised eyebrows Tuesday when he posted this on Twitter: "Congress notified that first F-35 jets have cost
overruns of $771M." McCain, long a critic of the Lockheed Martin-led program, and one of the Senate's most outspoken
and blunt members let his feelings about the new cost spikes be known in the same tweet. "Outrageous! Pentagon asking
for $264M downpayment now. Disgraceful," he tweeted. A McCain aide, in an email Wednesday, said the $771 million
overrun covers the first 28 F-35s the Pentagon is buying. The Pentagon informed lawmakers on Monday of a need to move
monies within its budget for a $264 million "downpayment," as the aide called it, via a reprogramming request sent last
month, the aide said. Lockheed defended the F-35 program via its official Twitter account. "The F-35 team is focused on
reducing costs of the jets and is showing significant improvement in key areas," it said. But McCain took issue with that
phrasing. He responded, "@lockheedmartin To most observers, a $771M cost overrun for 28 F-35s doesn’t qualify as
"significant improvement." Taxpayers deserve better." The F-35 program is the most expensive in Pentagon history, and is
being developed for three U.S. military services and eight American allies. But it has a long history of developmental
problems that have triggered lengthy schedule delays and pricey cost spikes. The Pentagon is planning to buy over 2,400
models at a cost of $382 billion -- far more costly than first projected. Defense experts agree that the program will be on
many "cut lists" as Washington attempts to fix its broken finances -- at least until it conquers its remaining technical
demons.
Military Strong Now
________________________
***Internal Links***
Spending Trades Off with Military
Spending Trades Off with F-35
F35 on the chopping block
Farmham 7/19 ( Alan Farnham, Pentagon Budget Cuts: Who Loses, Who Wins? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/400-billiondefense-cuts-kill-weapons-programs-hurt/story?id=14083111, TA)
Production lines for all the following military aircraft are already set to close: C-17 (Long Beach, Calif.); C-130 (Marietta,
Ga) and F-18 (Seattle, Wash.). Also under attack: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Lockheed Martin at sites that
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
23
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
include Fort Worth, Texas. The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, it became even more expensive in July
when additional costs of $771 million were announced, earning the censure of Sen. John McCain, a long-term critic of the
program. The Congressional Budget Office has proposed cutting the F-35 program altogether, which it says would produce
a savings of $27 billion over the next five years and $260 billion longer-term. CBO recommends that the Pentagon, instead
of continuing with the F-35, upgrade F-16s and F/A-18s to give them some of the costlier plane's capabilities. Other CBO
recommendations include such unspectacular but cost-effective changes as consolidating into one entity the three
duplicative systems of military commissaries and retail stores that now serve current and retired military. Gordon England,
a former secretary of the Navy and former deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush, advised Panetta in New
York Times op-ed piece to "resist the temptation to quickly kill procurement programs" or to make "proportional cuts to
programs across the board." He suggests the new Secretary instead find savings by sharing weapon development costs with
U.S. allies. "Manufacturing equipment for the American and foreign militaries simultaneously saves Washington money
because more units are produced and overhead costs are shared," he says. Further, it could create "thousands of American
jobs."
The F-35 is vulnerable to cuts
Cassata 11 ( Donna Cassata, AP's political editor, Apr 13, 2011, Spending Cuts Bill Hits Defense and Foreign Aid,
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/13/spending-cuts-bill-hits-defense-and-foreign-aid/, TA)
House GOP freshmen led the charge to cancel $450 million for a second engine for the nearly 2,500 F-35 fighters the Navy,
Air Force and Marine Corps plan to buy and fly over the next 40 years. Neither Obama nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates
wanted the second engine, with Gates telling Congress that it required an additional $3 billion to develop and that spending
such money "in a time of economic distress" was a waste. But Boehner and other House GOP leaders backed the extra
engine built by General Electric and Rolls Royce in Ohio and Indiana.
F35 cuts possible – leaving the air force vulnerable
Martin 10 (David Martin, David Martin is CBS News' National Security Correspondent. December 2, 2010,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/01/eveningnews/main7107869.shtml, TA)
The Challenge: The challenge is to build 2,500 radar-evading stealth fighters - at $382 billion the country's single most
expensive weapons program - without breaking the pentagon bank. "We obviously have a huge investment in this aircraft,"
Defense Secretary Gates said on Aug. 31, 2009. "It is the heart of the future of tactical combat aviation for our services, so
the importance of this program can hardly be overstated." CBS Evening News Series: "Tough Choices" The Air Force,
Navy and Marines are all counting on the F-35. But it is already four years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over
budget, a fact that prompted Gates to fire the program manager. "Progress and performance on the F-35 over the past two
years has not been what it should be," Gates said in February of this year. It's a tough choice," said Winslow T. Wheeler of
the Center for Defense Information. "He banks the ranch on the F-35 and it failed him." The Choice: The choice suggested
by the Deficit Reduction Commission is to kill the short take-off and landing version of the F-35 being built for the Marine
Corps, saving an estimated $17.6 billion between now and 2015. Then, cut the number of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy
in half, saving $9.5 billion. Tough Choices: The F-35 The F-35 fighter is America's single most expensive weapons
program. Should the government keep it, or cut it? Keep itCut itVOTEView Results "Doing that would save $27.1 billion
over five years, but it would also leave the services having to depend on current-generation fighters. Not stealthy, these
current fighters are becoming increasingly vulnerable to modern air defenses. Buying fewer F-35s would also increase the
cost of each airplane. "If you reduce the buy-down to a few hundred for the Air Force and a few hundred for the Navy,"
Wheeler said, "we're going to be paying well in excess of $250 million per copy for this airplane." The F-35 is too big to
fail, but without making some tough choices it is also too expensive to afford.
AT: Military Spending is Off the Table
Defense cuts are on the table – putting national security at risk
Lochhead 11 (Carolyn Lochhead, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington bureau chief. She has been a DC correspondent for
the Chronicle since 1991. February 07, 2011
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-07/news/27105642_1_defense-budget-defense-spending-defense-cuts/2, TA)
Leading conservative defense experts have begun to ask how much is enough. Kori Schake, a former Bush administration
national security official, called the debt "the major threat to American security." "While I don't think defense should be the
only thing cut," Schake said, "defense should make a contribution to the broader national goal of solvency." The new
budget plan that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., issued Thursday slashes domestic spending but
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
24
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
allows defense spending to rise $8 billion this year. Still, that is half the amount Obama requested. Outside groups are
calling for much bigger savings of $1 trillion over a decade. Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, first
proposed cuts that size last summer but had few takers. Since then, the president's bipartisan deficit commission and the
Domenici-Rivlin study called for similar $1 trillion-range cuts. Even cuts this size would preserve massive U.S. military
superiority, Adams said. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy for the libertarian Cato Institute, argued for scaling
back the global military mission, such as bases in Germany and Japan and nuclear arsenals that were aimed against the
Soviets. Frank said current budgets support "intervention in the affairs of other countries" and are "irrelevant to our own
security." Since the November election, GOP leaders have shifted course on defense cuts, saying they are on the table. But
Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
said he would "oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or jeopardize our national security." Conservative voices
A group of conservative leaders influential in the Tea Party movement, including former House Majority Leader Dick
Armey of Freedom Works and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, wrote to GOP leaders in December saying it
was "outrageous" to say reducing military spending to Bush-era levels is insufficiently pro-military.
Politicians are willing to cut the defense budget
RILEY '11 (Staff writer for CNN Money Global Authority on economic and fiscal policies “Pentagon budget: Time to cut” April
21 2011) <http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/economy/pentagon_budget/index.htm >
In the final days of the 2011 budget debate, lawmakers gave the Pentagon a small boost, while they slashed funding for
almost every other government agency. But the Pentagon wanted tens of billions more. Still, lawmakers refused to pony up,
a sign that Washington's budget cutting ambition might soon creep into the defense budget. Since 2001, defense spending
has just about doubled, rising to almost $700 billion in 2010. That is more than half of the discretionary budget and about
20% of the entire federal budget. A few months ago, budget experts stood alone, clamoring for steep reductions in military
spending to help put the nation back on a sustainable path. Most politicians, however, displayed no such appetite. Now
cracks in the armor are starting to emerge. Last week, President Obama backtracked on his earlier budget and outlined a
new plan that would cut security spending by $400 billion by 2023."It's a meaningful cut, but not catastrophic," said
Gordon Adams, a professor at American University's School of International Service and a former Clinton administration
budget official who specialized in defense spending. The impact of that cut is likely to be blunted because it includes the
entire national security apparatus, including parts of the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy
AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
________________________
***Impacts***
Military Spending Key to Heg
Defense cuts to our overstretched military would be catastrophic - hegemony and national security
Schoen 11 (Douglas Schoen is a political strategist, January 08, 2011, The Risky Rush to Cut Defense Spending,
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/08/the-risky-rush-to-cut-defense-spending.html, TA)
As we begin a new year, the United States is at a major crossroads in foreign policy. The end of 2010 saw North Korea’s
assault on the disputed Yeonpyeong Island, the revelation that Pyongyang had developed a secret, highly sophisticated
uranium enrichment plant with 2,000 centrifuges, and, of course, the massive WikiLeaks dump that jeopardized diplomacy
around the world. These incidents are just a few highlights of the foreign policy complications the U.S. must deal with, in
addition to the ongoing challenges to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, prevent al Qaeda threats from around the globe, and
fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet for mostly good and some bad reasons, all the discussion back at home is about
how to reduce defense spending, without giving any serious attention to what we need to do to maintain the strongest
possible defense to meet the myriad challenges before us. The country faces a soaring federal deficit, out-of-control
government spending, and mandates from the American electorate to reduce spending, cut the deficit, and balance the
budget. As the next Congress implements spending cuts to accomplish the latter, it is almost certain that the defense budget
will be a prime candidate for cuts, as defense spending now constitutes about 19 percent of the federal budget and more
than half of all U.S. discretionary spending. Moreover, the election of a number of new Republican members of Congress
who have a profound skepticism of defense will increase pressure across the board to reduce our level of expenditures at
precisely a time when our challenges, at the very least, are getting more complicated. The United States’ defense is
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
25
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
overstretched as it attempts to fight two wars, terrorism, and dangerous nuclear development. We are facing a national
crisis, as we must figure out how to maintain a strong defense while trying to reduce defense spending. The bottom line is
that we know that cuts in defense are coming, but if those cuts are too substantial and without real thought to the full
international picture, we run a grave risk to our well-being as a nation. We could compromise our position as a world leader
and would potentially even undermine the capability of our armed forces. Presently, neither the “elite” nor the general
public has figured out how to make cuts without jeopardizing security and our place as a world leader. Voters support
sweeping cuts of federal spending and believe that defense can be cut, as there is no sense that the U.S. is at risk in a way
that requires more defense spending. In polling I conducted earlier this month, almost half, 47 percent, say federal spending
should be cut by 20 percent, and 36 percent say federal spending should be cut by at least 5 percent. The area of federal
spending voters say should be cut first is defense. Twenty-nine percent say they would reduce national security spending in
order to cut government spending, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Further, my recent poll shows that
voters favor decreasing defense spending rather than increasing it to fund the war in Afghanistan, 44 percent to 21 percent.
But while Americans want to decrease federal spending and particularly defense spending, they also want the U.S. to play a
leadership role in the world. Fifty-eight percent say the United States has the responsibility to be a leader of the world,
while 34 percent say the U.S. should not try to be a leader of the world, according to my poll data. A look at opinions
among elites and policy makers shows that they also lack an agreement about how defense spending should be cut. The
consensus that has emerged at the elite level among Democrats on the left, Republicans on the right, and those in the center
is that defense spending should be cut. The Democrats have always been hostile toward the military and prefer cutting
defense spending to entitlements. Conservative Republicans and Tea Party advocates are skeptical of foreign incursions and
are also willing to cut defense. The center’s embrace of cutting defense spending is largely a result of Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates. In 2009, Gates called for a significant reduction in weapons systems as part of his 2010 Defense Department
budget, which amounted to $300 billion in savings. Last year, Gates advocated for personnel-related cuts by calling for
sweeping cuts in defense contractors and a freeze on the growing number of senior leadership positions and written reports.
Additionally, he proposed eliminating the Joint Forces Command in Virginia. Gates, however, views these cuts as a
redeployment of resources rather than a reduction of defense spending. He does not support an overall reduction of the
defense budget—he believes that the money saved from these cuts should be used more intelligently for alternate, highpriority needs. Meanwhile, Erskine Bowles, co-head of the federal deficit-reduction commission established by the White
House, supports Gates’ proposed defense cuts but believes that they should be permanent as part of the reduction of overall
federal spending. In the commission’s proposal to cut spending and reduce the deficit, it identifies $200 billion in
discretionary spending cuts by 2015, with half the savings coming from reductions to Pentagon spending. Of the $100
billion proposed defense cuts, $28 billion would come from the overhead savings Secretary Gates has promised, assuming
that these savings would be used to reduce spending rather than be used in other defense areas. Twenty billion dollars
would come from reducing procurement by 15 percent and $9.2 billion would come from freezing noncombat military pay
at 2011 for three years. Gates has called the commission’s proposed defense cuts “catastrophic” and says they would hurt
our defense significantly. Obama has endorsed Gates’ defense cuts and will likely endorse the deficit commission’s
proposed spending cuts in some form. But Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the
U.S. nuclear arsenal, which is responsive to the bipartisan Perry-Schlesinger commission, which advocated this year for an
immediate upgrade of our nuclear armaments. This would add substantially and unpredictably to defense costs going
forward, even though there is no sense of how this money would be appropriated by Congress. Such conflicting opinions
and actions only add to the confusion surrounding this issue.
Defense cuts would be massive – jeopardizing security needs
Hellman 10 (Christopher Hellman, military policy analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Senior
Research Analyst at the Center for Defense Information, Jul 15, 2010, Pentagon Spending on the Chopping Block,
http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/at-long-last-pentagon-spending-on-the-chopping-block, TA)
The Task Force’s report proposes cuts such as reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,000 and cutting the
number of submarines and missiles which carry them; cutting the total number of active duty members of the Army and
Marine Corps to 50,000 below their levels before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; cutting certain weapons programs
including the Joint Strike Fighter, the V-22 “Osprey” tilt-rotor aircraft, and the total number of Navy aircraft carriers; and
reforming the Pentagon’s health care and compensation systems. As one might expect, reaction to the Task Force Report
has been mixed, with traditional Pentagon supporters attacking it for being poorly timed, given that the nation is at war, and
claiming it will lead us toward a military ill-prepared to meet our nation’s security needs. Meanwhile, moderates and fiscal
conservatives view it as a responsible way to make defense cuts in a time of severe budget austerity. Those who have spent
years arguing that military spending is a drain on more important domestic priorities welcome it as a step towards a more
common sense approach to military budgeting.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
26
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
F-35 Key to Heg
The F-35 revolutionizes our air force
Pike 7/7 (John Pike, one of the world's leading experts on defense, space and intelligence policy, is Director of GlobalSecurity.org,
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Lightning II, 07-07-2011, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm, TA)
For much of the free world's military forces, the F-35 represents the future- a new family of affordable, stealthy combat
aircraft designed to meet the twenty-first-century requirements of the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as the
United Kingdom's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. The program is truly international in its scope and participation: Italy,
the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Australia, and Norway recently joined the F-35's system development and
demonstration (SDD) phase. All SDD partners will be active in the F-35's development process and stand to gain
economically from the program. The JSF aircraft design has three variants: conventional takeoff and landing variant for the
Air Force, aircraft carrier-suitable variant for the Navy, and short takeoff and vertical landing variant for the Marine Corps,
the United Kingdom, and the Air Force. These aircraft are intended to replace aging fighter and attack aircraft currently in
the inventory. Historically, the 1970s saw development and production of many outstanding aircraft which comprise much
of today's U.S. fighter inventory. The combination of service-life exhaustion and escalating threats will require all three
services to slowly retire their current fighter aircraft. The British Royal Air Force Harriers and Royal Navy Sea Harriers aircraft that first flew more than 30 years ago - are encountering similar problems. The F-35 JSF will affordably replace the
aging fleets, while also supporting the existing and expanding roles and requirements of F-35 JSF customers. The Air
Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F- 16 Falcon and A-10
Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a
short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B. The Marines want new aircraft to replace their AV-8B
Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British want to replace Sea Harriers and GR.7 Tornado fighters. The Navy's F-35C
version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier
versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will
be: Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements Eight times more effective than legacy fighters
in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional
Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air
Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less
tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint The program's objective is to develop and deploy a
technically superior and affordable fleet of aircraft that support the warfighter in performing a wide range of missions in a
variety of theaters. The single-seat, single-engine aircraft is being designed to be self-sufficient or part of a multisystem and
multiservice operation, and to rapidly transition between air-to-surface and air-to-air missions while still airborne. To
achieve its mission, the JSF will incorporate low observable technologies, defensive avionics, advanced onboard and
offboard sensor fusion, and internal and external weapons. Plans call for the F-35 to be the world's premier strike aircraft
through 2040. It will provide air- to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter. The plane will allow the
Air Force forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy and Marine variants will be the first
deployment of an "all-aspect" stealth airplane. The goals for the F-35 are ambitious: to be a single-pilot, survivable, firstday-of-the-war combat fighter with a precision, all-weather strike capability that uses a wide variety of air-to-surface and
air-to-air weapons- and that defends itself in a dogfight. The F-35 program emphasizes low unit-flyaway cost and radically
reduced life-cycle costs, while meeting a wide range of operational requirements. The stretch in combat radius means that
the pilot can operate with reduced dependence on air refueling and can have significantly greater time on station for close
air support or combat air patrol missions. Survivability, a cornerstone of F-35 design, is enhanced foremost by the aircraft's
radar-evading properties. Stealth capability, available for the first time in a multirole fighter, will minimize the threat to the
pilot during operations in heavily defended areas. The aircraft also is configured with advanced countermeasures to reduce
the effectiveness of enemy defenses. Integral to the aircraft's low-observable equation is the large internal-weapons bay.
When stealth is not required, the F-35 also can carry wingtip air-to-air missiles and up to 15,000 pounds of external
ordnance mounted on underwing pylons. A pneumatically powered ordnance-release system replaces the traditional
cartridge-powered equipment. This new design greatly reduces maintenance requirements. The internal 25 mm cannon will
enable pilots to engage targets from higher altitudes and longer range. The F-35's mission systems are designed to return the
pilot to the role of tactician and to increase combat effectiveness dramatically. Next-generation sensors will provide the
pilot coherent and fused information from a variety of onboard and off-board systems. Sophisticated data links will connect
the aircraft to both ground-combat elements and airborne platforms. In addition to fighter-to-fighter data links, the F-35 will
be equipped with satellite-communications capability for both transmitting and receiving. The aircraft's onboard sensor
suite is optimized to locate, identify, and destroy movable or moving ground targets under adverse weather conditions. This
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
27
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
all-weather capability is achieved with the aircraft's advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar built by Northrop
Grumman. The AESA enables simultaneous air-to-ground and air-to-air operations. It can track moving ground targets and
display them on a radar-generated terrain image, enabling precise target location relative to terrain features. These
instruments, coupled with off-board sensors, will make the F-35 capable of all-weather close air support under the most
demanding conditions. An internally mounted electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) is installed in the nose of the F-35,
enhancing both air-to-ground and air-to-air capabilities. The EOTS will provide long-range, high-resolution targetinginfrared imagery; laser-target designation; and battle-damage-assessment capability. This system will provide pinpoint
weapons-delivery accuracy for close air support and deep-strike missions. A distributed-aperture-infrared sensor system
will provide full spherical infrared coverage around the aircraft. In addition to providing warnings of missile launches,
information from the system can be displayed on the pilot's helmet visor, permitting the pilot to see "through" the airplane's
structure in all directions, and eliminating the need for night-vision goggles. This system will dramatically increase the
ability of the F-35 to conduct any type of mission at night. The F-35 team is crafting an exceptionally lethal, survivable, and
supportable next-generation strike aircraft. Compared with the aircraft it will replace, the F-35 will provide significant
improvements in range, payload, lethality, survivability, and mission effectiveness. Uniting stealth with advanced mission
systems and high maneuverability, the F-35 will bring revolutionary twenty-first-century capabilities to the battle space.
F-35 key to hegemony – cuts would endanger national security
Mather 11 (Don Mather, ( I need to find quals, all I know so far is this guy is a veteran ) June 16, 2011, Reducing our air power
and hurting the the local economy, http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times_news/opinion/letters_to_editor/reducingour-air-power-and-hurting-the-the-local-economy/article_9f47972e-5c99-5956-bf60-78bc908e83c2.html, TA)
Air superiority has been the keystone in America's defense strategy since WWII, and here in the Keystone State, we have
the opportunity to make sure that we maintain that superiority well into the 21st Century. With our current fighter fleet
rapidly aging, production on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be ramping up, not slowing down. The plane is primed to
be the centerpiece of our next-generation fighter fleet and will give our Navy, Air Force and Marines the ability to respond
to today's military challenges. The F-35 is the most advanced fighter ever produced and will secure America's continued air
dominance. Unfortunately, some in Congress who are looking to cut corners are threatening the program and putting our
national security and Pennsylvania jobs in jeopardy. As veterans, we know all too well the importance of air cover and a
well-equipped, well-maintained fighter fleet. For decades, the knowledge alone that American planes can respond quickly
and decisively has kept enemies at bay and saved untold lives. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking on our current fleet of
fighter planes, many of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s. With countries like China and Russia producing ever
more advanced fighters, it is important that the F-35 is delivered to our Armed Forces. When the next major conflict arises,
we need to make sure the F-35 is there to support, protect and defend our men and women in uniform. Beyond its strategic
military importance, the F-35 provides economic stability to our country and our state, where many components for the
plane are being manufactured. Here in Pennsylvania, we have several companies acting as major suppliers for the F-35,
producing essential components. These components represent just a fraction of the cutting-edge technology going into each
and every F-35 — technology that creates jobs and economic investment in our manufacturing sector. More than 1,000
direct and indirect jobs are supported through F-35 production. Shockingly, some in Congress are looking to delay
production and reduce the number of planes ordered, all while artificially extending the life of our aging fleet. This
shortsighted move will put men and women in danger. Reducing the number of F-35s we invest in also means less
investment into a sector that provides much needed jobs. Now is not the time to waver on this essential new tool in our air
combat arsenal. To protect our men and women abroad, as well as our workers here at home, we need to make sure the F35 is fully funded, fully supported and ready to take to the air when it is needed.
AT: F-35 Ineffective
Critics of the F-35 are uninformed and unqualified
Majumdar 08 (Dave Majumdar, Staff Writer at Defense News, 07 November 2008, New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the
U.S. Fleet, http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html, TA)
Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35
simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been
briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said
referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around
the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement
to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future. The JSF accomplishes this feat by relying on
its incredible suite of sensors, its stealthy airframe, and a surprising level of agility. The F-35 is not only equipped with the
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
28
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA), which according to Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon
Beesley, is the most advanced fighter radar system in the world, but also a host of other sensors. The radar can track an
enormous numbers of targets in the air at phenomenal ranges while simultaneously operating air to ground modes, Beesley
said. Complementing the radar, the F-35's airframe is also lined with antennas that gather vast amounts of electronic
information from the jets surroundings. The system allows the fighter to target and identify the electronic emissions of
hostile radars in the air or on the ground with startling precision, Beesley said. The data gathered from these sensors allows
the aircraft to track, identify and attack the sources of these signals without giving away the F-35s' position. Furthermore,
the F-35 has two separate types of infrared sensors that allow the jet to track targets passively. The Distributed Aperture
System (DAS) is a system of cameras that feeds an infrared image of the planes' surrounding to the pilots' helmet, Beesley
explained. The computer fuses the images from the six cameras and merges the images into a single seamless picture that
allows the pilot to see 360 degrees around the aircraft, including through the cockpit floor and indeed the pilots' own body.
The DAS also acts as a missile warning system (MWS) that alerts the pilot to incoming missiles. The second infrared
sensor, called the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), allows the aircraft to target, track, and identify object in the air
or on the ground at long ranges and high resolutions, Beesley said.
Air Power Key to Heg
Next generation Air power key to Heg - deterrence, defending allies, and power projection
Goure 10 (Daniel Goure, Ph.D. Dr Goure has held senior positions Department of Defense, spent two years in the U.S. Government
as the director of the Office of Strategic Competitiveness in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director, International
Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, directed analyses of emerging security issues with a special
emphasis on U.S. military capabilities in the next century, served as a senior analyst on national security and defense issues with the
Center for Naval Analyses, April 23, 2010, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/say-goodbye-to-us-air-dominance----and-perhaps-tovictory-in-the-next-war?a=1&c=1171, TA)
Some militaries are defeated in battle; others lose the war before the firing even begins. For example, it is the general
consensus among military historians that the French military lost in World War Two before the first German panzer had
crossed the frontier. A combination of preparing to fight the last war, inadequate investment in modern air and ground
power, the wrong organization and French politics basically ensured that Germany would defeat France. The United States
may be replicating the French experience. Rather than maintaining control of the high ground and with it control of the
initiative in future conflicts, the U.S. Air Force is choosing to just get by. In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine,
the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz made the following startling statement: “To handle multiplying
missions without more people, the Air Force won’t be able to do all its assigned tasks as comprehensively as it once did,
and will be aiming instead for simple sufficiency in areas where it’s been accustomed to dominance.” This is akin to the
head of the French Air Force saying in the late 1930s that he was willing to cede air superiority to the Luftwaffe. In
essence, the Air Force (like the other services) is being worn down by a political leadership that does not know how to limit
its international commitments or to limit its employment of the military instrument of national power. The Secretary of
Defense has made plain his desire to employ the other instruments of national power, particularly diplomatic and economic,
in ways that would take some of the strain off the Department of Defense. He has even offered up resources, something
almost unheard of in Washington but necessary as a bribe to the other departments and agencies to pull more weight. Yet,
whether it is the war against Al Qaeda, the security of vital U.S. overseas interests or assistance to earthquake-ravaged
Haiti, it is the U.S. military that continues to carry the burden. The U.S. Air Force is faced with a series of challenges in the
next several decades that could well undermine the ability of the United States to deter aggression, defend key allies and
interests or project power into vital regions. First, there are the growing anti-access and air denial threats, including that to
U.S. systems. Second is the development of fourth and almost fifth-generation aircraft by potential adversaries. Third is the
growing capability and interest of rogue regimes to disperse, conceal and bury critical assets. Finally, there is the effort by
current and future adversaries to use complex and inaccessible terrain such as cities, mountains and jungles as their primary
defense against ground attack leaving the U.S. with no way to access the enemy except through the air. So how is the Air
Force responding to the greatest set of challenges to its ability to dominate the aerospace environment and deliver precision
effects where, when and as needed? According to the Chief of Staff it is with “calibrated ambition -- reaching for only those
systems that are urgently needed, and with high confidence of near-term success.” While not saying so directly, even when
pressed on the question of the F-22 versus the F-35, the Chief’s words imply a willingness to cede at least a measure of air
dominance to potential adversaries such as Russia and China.
Military Spending Key to the Economy
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
29
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
[Specific Program] Key to the Economy
Heg Key to Space
________________________
***NASA Tradeoff DA***
________________________
***Uniqueness***
No NASA Cuts Now
Current NASA cuts will be restored
John Timmer, 7/8/11, http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/hubbles-successor-may-be-casualty-of-governmentcutbacks.ars
Instead of a budget increase, the House Appropriations Committee is now considering a 2012 budget that would see
NASA's budget drop by $1.6 billion next year; the Obama administration had requested a slight increase. The proposed
budget would explicitly kill the JWST, leaving NASA without a new, updated observatory for the indefinite future. This
budget is still a long way from becoming law, so there's a chance that the funding will be restored during future
negotiations. But given the large number of programs that appear to be on the chopping block, a billion dollar commitment
to NASA seems like the JWST's most significant hurdle yet.
U.S. government continues to be leader in space spending
Reuters, 4/9/08 “Global space spending up 11 percent to $251 billion”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-spaceeconomy-idUSN0836688320080409
More than half of global space economic activity stemmed from purchases of commercial satellite-based products and
services. Another 25 percent came from U.S. government spending, according to The Space Report 2008 released by the
Space Foundation, a Colorado Springs, Colorado, nonprofit advocacy group.
Activity in two commercial satellite services, television and the U.S.-funded Global Positioning System navigation tool,
expanded the quickest, the 116-page report said.
"All sectors of space continue to grow despite economic woes in many countries," said Marty Hauser, who heads research
and analysis for the group. "The space economy appears to be poised for steady growth in coming years."
The United States accounted for 81 percent of global government space spending, said the report, citing "available
information."
No Earth Sciences Cuts Now
NASA’s Earth Science missions has funding, but fragile
Brinton 11, Turner, Space News Staff, 3/7/11, http://www.space.com/11050-white-house-nasa-earth-science-cuts.html
While NASA’s Earth Science Division fared better in the president’s 2012 budget proposal than other parts of the agency,
the division stands to receive some $1.7 billion less between 2010 and 2015 than forecast just last year. That spending
plan, which called for giving Earth science a growing share of a NASA budget expected to surpass $20 billion within four
years, included enough funding to build and launch all four top-tier decadal survey missions by the end of 2017. The
NASA budget plan unveiled Feb. 14 puts last year’s growth plans on hold. The agency’s overall spending would be frozen
at $18.7 billion, and Earth science, after receiving a $400 million boost for 2012, would remain flat at $1.8 billion through
at least 2016. Adding to NASA’s budget woes, the president’s 2011 budget was never enacted, leaving the agency and the
rest of the federal government funded at typically lower 2010 levels under stopgap spending measures, the latest of which
expires March 4. Richard Anthes, president of the Boulder, Colo.-based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
and a co-chairman of the committee that produced the Earth science decadal survey, said he was disappointed to learn
CLARREO and DESDynI have been indefinitely deferred. But he said tabling the two missions is preferable to requiring
every Earth science mission to make due with less. “They’ve decided to basically reduce the funding greatly to these two
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
30
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
missions and put them on the side of the road,” Anthes said in a Feb. 25 interview. “I think that strategy at least makes
sense. If you don’t have enough money to do everything, cancel some of them or put some of them on indefinite hold and
continue making good progress on the others.”.
NASA’s Earth Science missions gaining funding now
Piltz 10, senior associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2/2/10,
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/02/president-obama%E2%80%99s-fy2011-budget-has-21-funding-increase-for-usgcrpclimate-science-research/
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) budget includes a bold new investment in climate science.
NASA’s Earth science program conducts first-of-a-kind demonstration flights of sensors in air and space in an effort to
foster scientific understanding of the Earth system and to improve the ability to forecast climate change and natural
disasters. The President has directed NASA to accelerate the development of new satellites that the National Research
Council recommended as Earth science priorities, in addition to flying several research satellites currently in development,
conducting a campaign to monitor changes in polar ice sheets, and pursuing enhancements to climate models. NASA will
also develop and fly a replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), a mission designed to identify global
carbon sources and sinks that was lost when its launch vehicle failed in 2009. NASA’s Earth science program conducts
first-of-a-kind demonstration flights of sensors in air and space in an effort to foster scientific understanding of the Earth
system and to improve the ability to forecast climate change and natural disasters. The Budget accelerates the development
of new satellites the National Research Council recommended as Earth Science priorities. The Budget also supports several
research satellites currently in development, a campaign to monitor changes in polar ice sheets, and enhancements to
climate models. In addition, the Budget provides funds for NASA to develop and fly a replacement for the Orbiting Climate
Observatory, a mission designed to identify global carbon sources and sinks that was lost when its launch vehicle failed in
2009.
Earth Science missions gaining funding now
Piltz 10, senior associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2/2/10,
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/02/president-obama%E2%80%99s-fy2011-budget-has-21-funding-increase-for-usgcrpclimate-science-research/
Alongside major new investments in clean energy development, President Obama’s FY2011 Budget proposes $2.56 billion
in funding for climate and global change research conducted under the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
umbrella. This $439 increase over the FY2010 level brings climate research funding to a level higher than under any
previous administration dating back to 1989. Climate Change Research and Development is described in the Analytical
Perspectives volume of the President’s Budget, on page 342 of the Research and Development section: “The Budget
proposes $2.6 billion for the USGCRP, which integrates Federal research and solutions for climate and global change. The
2011 Budget supports scientific research and applications to support the goals set forth in the program’s strategic plan.
These activities can be grouped under the following areas: improve our knowledge of Earth’s past and present climate
variability and change; improve our understanding of natural and human forces of climate change; improve our capability
to model and predict future conditions and impacts; assess the Nation’s vulnerability to current and anticipated impacts of
climate change; and improve the Nation’s ability to respond to climate change by providing climate information and
decision support tools that are useful to policy makers and the general public.”
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
31
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
NASA’s Earth Science missions slowly gaining funding from new budget cuts.
Geospatial
World
11,
world’s
largest
geospatial
technical
resource,
6/8/11,
http://www.geospatialworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22378%3Anasa-increasing-earth-science-researchbudget&catid=72%3Abusiness-market-survey-research&Itemid=1
Washington DC, US: Euroconsult along with the consulting firm Omnis announced the findings of a study foreseeing a
significant shift in NASA spending toward Earth science and R and D programmes and away from legacy spaceflight
activities. According to the report "NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016," NASA's budget, which will remain flat at
around USD 18.7 billion for the next five years, will also be characterised by significant shifts from space operations to
technology development and science. With the shift in budget authority, NASA Centres focused on Earth observation,
space technology, and aeronautics will see increases in funding, while those involved in human spaceflight will see major
funding reductions. Indeed, the termination of the space shuttle programme will lead to a budget cut over USD 1 billion for
space operations, resulting in a 21 percent budget cut for the Johnson Space Center. Overall, the agency's budget for R and
D will account for about 50 percent of all NASA spending. "Budget allocation across Centres will vary greatly," said Steve
Bochinger, President of Euroconsult North America. "As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from Shuttle
operations to Human Exploration Capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the budget will be redirected to a range of
technology development programs. Likewise, as NASA shifts its science mission focus away from space science to Earth
science, the science budget will be redistributed among centres."
NASA’s Earth Science has plenty of money now
Courtland 9, associate editor at IEEE Spectrum, 5/8/09, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17097-earth-science-gets-boost-innasa-budget.html
The White House would like to boost NASA's Earth science activities by $1.2 billion over five years, according to a 2010
budget request announced on Thursday. According to the request, the agency's earth observation programme would outstrip
that of its planetary science division by late 2013. Under the president's budget, NASA would receive $4.5 billion in 2010
for science, a $26 million decline from 2009 funding levels passed by Congress. But the agency's science directorate also
received a $400 million boost in an economic stimulus package passed earlier this year. The longer-term projections in the
science budget also include an increase. "We're very pleased with this budget," Ed Weiler, the associate administrator for
the agency's science mission directorate, told reporters on Thursday. Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, the
agency would get some $1.2 billion more for science, including stimulus money. "Over those five years, we're seeing an
extra $1.2 billion over the budget we had last year. This increase is entirely in the earth science arena," Weiler told
reporters. According to the request, funding for NASA's earth science programme would increase to $1.65 billion
beginning in late 2013. At that point the programme would outstrip NASA's planetary science programme in funding,
receiving an extra $17 million in fiscal year 2014. The boost will help accelerate the schedules of two Earth-observing
satellite missions by one year, Weiler said. The Soil Moisture Active and Passive mission, which measures soil moisture
levels globally, would launch as early as 2013. ICESat-II, which will track changes in ice cover at the poles, could launch
as early as 2014. Both missions were identified as priorities in an independent 2007 report.
No Telescope Cuts Now
Empirics prove talks of slashing are just posturing and rhetoric—the telescope is almost finished and
enriches human spirit
Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to
communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where
he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught
science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next
Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT)
It's not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has
sucked in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very
existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial
Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. But that just makes the cancellation of the
Webb seem worse. "It's a double whammy," says Natalie Batalha, a high-ranking member of the science team for the
Kepler probe, the spectacularly successful planet-hunting mission that's been delivering discovery after discovery since its
2009 launch. "The whole community has sacrificed to fund [the James Webb Space Telescope]. Everyone was unhappy,
but we all knew how valuable it would be. And now you have Congress talking about canceling it." (See "Kepler Telescope
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
32
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Finds Swarm of New Worlds.") What makes the Webb so valuable is, first of all, its huge light-gathering mirror — more
than 21 ft. (6.4 m) across, compared with Hubble's 7.8 ft. (2.4 m). It's so big that the mirror can't go up as a single piece of
glass. Instead, it's made of 18 smaller mirrors that will unfold in space to form a mosaic. Since fainter objects are also
generally older and more distant, the Webb will be able to study galaxies, dust clouds, and cosmic processes at the earliest
stages of the history of the universe. Better yet, unlike the Hubble telescope, the Webb is designed to see mostly in infrared
light — the kind emitted not only by distant galaxies but also by planets. The telescope won't be able to take pictures of
earthlike planets at distant stars — they're too faint and too close to their stars, even for the Webb — but it can pick out
bigger planets and give astronomers a sense of what they're made of and how they formed. (See "Deep Space Photos:
Hubble's Greatest Hits.") Beyond that, scientists have already made enormous progress on the project, not only on
manufacturing the mirrors for the Webb but also in developing electronic cameras to take maximum advantage of those
mirrors — the same sort of technology that lets the Hubble take such fantastic images and do such extraordinary science.
After so much money has been sunk into the work, it would be insane, say scientists, to throw it all away. Certainly,
Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super
Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The
reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is
now a vast, $2 billion doughnut-shaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. (Watch TIME's video "Herschel:
The Telescope for Invisible Stars.") Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can
argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and
accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that
there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider
over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be
available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes;
so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to. On the other hand, even the budget cutters in Congress would probably agree
that it's a good thing for America to be the world's leader in science and technology. And they might even agree, if pressed,
that plenty of things are worth doing simply because they enrich the human spirit. Back in 1969, the Cornell particle
physicist Robert Wilson went before Congress to testify in favor of building an earlier generation of accelerator. How, a
Senator asked him, would this project help improve the security of the country? "It has nothing to do directly with
defending our country," answered Wilson, "except to make it worth defending."
Uniqueness goes neg—Hubble was 3 times over budget and still got done—Webb is too important
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
TURNER: Well, I think the Webb is the successor, as you said, to the Hubble Space Telescope. And in every dimension,
it's a quantum leap: seven times the collecting area. It will be a million miles from Earth at L2, which is a much better
observing site. It will go in the infrared. And the importance of the infrared is the most interesting things in the universe
have their light in the infrared, so distant objects where it's red-shifted, cool things that are forming like planetary systems,
and also things that are shrouded by dust, you can see through the dust in the infrared. And so the science goals of the
James Webb Space Telescope are to look at the first stars and galaxies, to watch galaxies being assembled from their
individual parts, stars and dark matter and so on and so forth, image planets and perhaps find evidence for water on the
planets and watch the birth of stars and planetary systems. I think in one short statement, you know, Hubble revolutionized
astronomy, and I think the Webb telescope has just as much or even more potential. FLATOW: Ron, wasn't the Hubble
over budget, too? COWEN: Yes, it was, by - it was I think maybe triple what its original budget was, something like
that. And, I mean, you know, it just seems to me this is what - actually, I was speaking to Alan Boss this morning, who is
the - he's chair of a subcommittee that advises NASA. And what he's saying is that, you know, okay, if you want to punish
NASA, well, this is not like a trip to the woodshed, this is like a trip to the guillotine and that, you know to kill the whole
mission doesn't, I think, make sense. There have been a lot of cost overruns, and, you see there's a lot of pressures. In the
article I wrote in April for Science News, even when this mission was first proposed something like 15 years ago, people
were afraid to say how much it would really cost. And Mike Griffin, who is a former administrator of NASA, said, you
know, it's a game of you lie, and I'll swear to it. But Congress is, in a way, part of this game because if the mission perhaps
- if the actual budget was stated in the first place for how much it would really cost, they may - people fear at least that they
would say no, forget about it, we'll never do something for $5 billion or $6.5 billion. TURNER: Maybe I could put that in
perspective a little. So this is a very, very ambitious project. And about a year ago, Senator Mikulski was worried about
how the project was proceeding. And I think what started the sequence of events that led to what the House did last week
was this report that came out, led by Casani, the Casani reporter, the independent cost review panel. And basically what
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
33
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
they said was this project is going to cost at least $1.5 billion more than one thought. So that would put it closer to $7
billion. That it has been mismanaged, but money has not been wasted. So the real issue is what Ron was saying, is that the
mismanagement was headquarters and Goddard kind of playing footsy and not being honest with the real cost or the
schedule. And, you know, to again put it in perspective, right now it's about 75 percent done. An analogy I heard the other
day, it's as if you're putting together an airplane or a car, and you've ordered parts from around the world, and you get a
report that all the parts are made, and all that we have left to do is to assemble it. So we've got most of the pieces together,
and now is the time to assemble it. More than half of the money has been spent. There are no technical hurdles. I should
have said that. The Casani panel said there are no technical hurdles. This is very, very ambitious, but they have surmounted
the technical hurdles. They just need more money to get this done. Now, given the current situation with our budget - and
this is something I'm not qualified to comment on because I'm a scientist and very excited about this, this country has real
budgetary problems. And the question is: Who are we really punishing if we cancel this project, where we spent close to $4
billion, and there's only, you know, $3 billion left to spend? Who are we punishing? Is that teaching NASA a lesson, or are
we being pennywise and pound foolish? COWEN: I think the problem also is that each year that this mission is delayed and this is also what the Casani report said - it's going to cost more money and more money and more money. And the fear
is that it will cost so much if you don't give it the funding it needs now that if it didn't - if it wouldn't get launched in 2022
or something, it wouldn't get launched at all because it would be that much more costly. And that was the problem all along
because it was originally set for launch in 2010 or 2011, and each year that it didn't get the money it needed, it cost more
and more money. You have to keep personnel together and everything, and it just cost more. FLATOW: But is there not
something to the point that if there were - if everybody was playing this game of what it really cost, and there was, I'll use
the word deception early on because we were winking and nodding to each other about what the real cost of it should be,
isn't there some justification in saying, you know, you guys should have been up front with us, and we could have made a
decision then on this? TURNER: Well, let me comment on that. I think most - what NASA really does is rocket science,
and it's not building widgets. It's really pushing the edge of what is possible. And for the most part, NASA projects are on
schedule and on budget. And every once in a while - and we're talking about two of the examples today, the Hubble and the
James Webb - NASA does a project where you're really literally reaching for the stars, and you are taking a giant leap
forward. And, you know, again, Hubble I think was over by more than what Ron said, and it just changed, fundamentally
changed astronomy, added to American pride, and it convulsed NASA. And so I think the big dilemma is, how do you deal
with these big projects that are going to produce game-changers, where you really reach maybe a little beyond your grasp to
try to do something really, really big? And how do you wall that off and prevent it from causing larger problems? And I
think the number one lesson from this report from a year ago is at the very least, you always have to be up front, that if
you're hiding the true schedule and cost, that's not going to serve anyone well. And I think that's a very important lesson to
learn. I think people were shocked a year ago that the number, the additional amount of money was so large. And so I think
that's a very, very important lesson. But I would not want NASA not to try to reach for the stars because NASA is us. And
when we do things like the Hubble, and when we do things like the James Webb, no other nation can do that, and great
nations like ours do great things, and the Hubble and the Webb I think are examples of that.
________________________
***Internal Links***
Spending Trades Off within NASA
Funding would trade off within NASA’s budget
Dan Leone, 7/11/11, “House Budget Bill Would Leave it to NASA To Apportion Bulks of Cuts”
WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers who voted last week to kill NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope as part of a broader
effort to roll back federal spending to pre-2008 levels would leave it to the space agency to decide how to apportion the
bulk of a deep top-line budget cut, according to a congressional report obtained by Space News. The House Appropriations
commerce, justice, science subcommittee approved a 2012 spending bill July 7 that would give NASA $16.8 billion, or
$1.6 billion less than it received for 2011 and nearly $2 billion less than the White House requested for the agency for next
year. The legislation, which is scheduled to be taken up July 13 by the full House Appropriations Committee, spelled out
specific spending levels for NASA’s nine major budget accounts and a handful of programs, including the Webb telescope.
While appropriators traditionally detail the numerous additions and subtractions they make to an agency’s budget in lenghty
reports accompanying the spending bills, this year the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science committee opted to
leave it to NASA to make many of the line-item cuts. “Rather than including a detailed table showing the recommended
levels for each individual project and activity proposed in the budget request, the Committee has chosen to provide a table
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
34
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
that focuses more generally at the theme and program level with a limited amount of additional detail,” the House
Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee wrote in the report accompanying its 2012 appropriations bill.
“This will permit NASA some discretion to allocate available funds according to the most urgent priorities and needs.”
Spending Trades Off with SLS
New “heavy lifter” rocket will be funded now, but uncertainty makes it the first to go with cuts—also key
to US leadership
Krueger 7/19 (Curtis Krueger, Times Staff Writer July 19, 2011 “After the space shuttle, uncertainty on where NASA is going
next” http://www.tampabay.com/news/science/space/article1181162.ece JT)
After the space shuttle Atlantis lands on Thursday, NASA wants to blast ahead with ambitious new plans for space
entrepreneurs, orbiting telescopes and a journey to Mars. But here's the problem: NASA is preparing to unveil its design for
a big, new expensive rocket at the very time that the country's leaders are staring each other down over a national debt
crisis. NASA also is pouring hundreds of millions into private companies that are creating their own amazing spaceships,
but with uncertain congressional support. And the next big space telescope — the one that could make Hubble look like a
10-year-old car on the lot — has gotten so late and over-budget that a U.S. House committee recommended killing it.
"(NASA Administrator) Charles Bolden and his colleagues are between an asteroid and an icy body," said Bill Nye,
executive director of the Planetary Society, referring to the debate over designs of the big rocket. "They have this mandate
to create this rocket with no place to go." It all adds up to great uncertainty about what NASA plans to do next. For 30
years, American astronauts flew on space shuttles. Shuttle crews helped build the International Space Station and deployed
the Hubble Space Telescope. But the program also was criticized by those who said it used a huge share of NASA's budget
without making equally large scientific accomplishments. Now NASA takes a new direction, laid out by the White House
and financed by Congress. For human space flight (as opposed to unmanned scientific missions), the agency essentially has
a two-part plan: • Spur development of the commercial space industry, including companies that are currently designing
and building their own spacecraft. Some of these companies plan to take astronauts to the International Space Station for
NASA. Some plan to take paying tourists into orbit. • Take astronauts farther into "deep space" than humans have ever
gone — such as to an asteroid or Mars. NASA is designing a new rocket dubbed the "heavy lifter" for this job, and a space
capsule that would ride on top. Along with these projects, NASA plans to continue staffing the International Space Station,
using it for years to come for scientific research. Until NASA succeeds in fostering the next generation of spaceships, the
United States will pay Russia about $63 million per flight to take American astronauts to the station. The transition is not
going smoothly. Nye, who became famous as television's "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and who now heads the proexploration Planetary Society, hammers against the heavy lift rocket idea because, he says, it has no clear mission. He's not
the only one calling it a rocket to nowhere. Suggesting this rocket is designed more by politicians than engineers, he calls it
the "Senate Launch System" — a play on its official name, the "Space Launch System." The heavy lifter is designed to be
able to go different places in the solar system, but this is too mushy for people like Nye, who says a rocket should be
designed for a more specific and important scientific mission — such as sending astronauts to Mars to seek evidence of life.
"Where did we come from and are we alone?" he said. NASA should focus on deep issues like this, which "can only be
answered with space exploration." On the other hand, U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, a Republican who represents part of the Space
Coast, strongly supports the heavy lift rocket as a way to restore U.S. leadership in space exploration. But even he says
NASA's statements about the plan are too vague. "They've said they want to land on an asteroid sometime. Maybe do some
Mars exploration sometime. I mean there's no clear mission," Posey said. Former astronaut Winston Scott, a dean at the
Florida Institute of Technology, supports the heavy lifter and capsule, but says he would like to hear President Barack
Obama make a stronger endorsement of the plan. "I would hope that he would be very, very definite: We will be on Mars
by such and such a date," he said. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a key player on congressional space matters, said people who call
the heavy lifter a rocket to nowhere "don't know what they're talking about." He said the rocket is designed to evolve,
making use of technologies that haven't yet been devised but that will be needed before attempting a journey to Mars. He
acknowledged the funding situation is challenging and said the House went about "whacking the budget" by voting to cut
more than $1-billion from NASA, including a deep cut to the commercial space plans. But he also said NASA has enlisted
outside financial experts who can give a clear view of the heavy lifter's future costs. He said some of the House's cuts
would be restored. Now that Atlantis is about to make its last landing, former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman said he
knows some people are saying "that the end of the space shuttle means the end of space flight. And I'm looking at it as
exactly the opposite." Reisman works for SpaceX, the company that designed and built its own space capsule, launched it
into orbit and retrieved it from the Pacific Ocean. That's just the beginning, he said. He likes to think about a time when
"people will be able to take their vacations on Mars rather than on Hawaii. … The potential really exists for a really
exciting golden age of space flight."
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
35
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
*The SLS (Space Launch System) will be funded now but is a target for future cuts—transparency of
design and delay concerns
Foust 7/18 (Jeff Foust is the editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space
Politics and NewSpace Journal weblogs. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and do not
represent the official positions of any organization or company, including the Futron Corporation, the author’s employer. July 18,
2011 “Heavy-lift limbo” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1886/1 JT)
The situation involving the Space Launch System (SLS)—the heavy-lift launch vehicle Congress directed NASA to
develop in last year’s NASA authorization act—is curious, to say the least. In the eyes of supporters of the SLS,
particularly on Capitol Hill, NASA has been dragging its heels on making a formal decision for months, raising the ire of
some members, who have even threatened subpoenas and investigations for the delay. And yet, there’s little doubt about
exactly what that design, a not-so-distant relative of the now-cancelled Ares 5, will be—the only question is when exactly
that design will become official. Meanwhile, funding for the SLS is one issue that has been subject to little debate. While
House appropriators recently made major cuts in the administration’s budget proposal for NASA, including a controversial
decision to provide no money for the James Webb Space Telescope, an appropriations bill would give NASA all that it
asked for, and even a little more, for SLS. But as the debate swirls about the utility of the SLS in an ever more
conservative fiscal environment, some wonder if that’s money well spent. How soon is “soon”? For the last several weeks,
NASA had indicated that an announcement about the SLS design would come “soon”, without being more specific. For
example, at a speech at the National Press Club on July 1, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said that “we’re nearing a
decision” on the SLS and “we’ll announce that soon.” In an online chat four days later, Bolden reiterated that “we’ll be
making an announcement soon”, adding that since “this is one of the most important and most expensive decisions we will
make for the next decade… I want to make sure we get it right.” “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,”
Garver said of the SLS. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer.” During those previous
several weeks, the educated guesses of those in the space community following the SLS saga was that NASA would
announce a decision around the time of the final shuttle launch, scheduled for July 8. That timing made some sense from a
public relations standpoint: it would be an opportunity to grab the public’s attention, which had been focused on the end of
the Space Shuttle program, and inform them about the agency’s future plans for exploration. But as the days counted down
to the final shuttle launch, it looked increasingly unlikely that NASA would time such an announcement to the shuttle
launch. In a couple of press briefings at the Kennedy Space Center on July 7, the day before the launch, NASA deputy
administrator Lori Garver offered a revised timeline. “We are very close to selecting a design for the rocket,” she said at
one briefing about NASA’s work on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), the crewed spacecraft that will be launched
by the SLS. However, she said that the decision was pending some final cost evaluations, including an independent cost
review. “We still hope to be able to announce, I think, by the end of the summer,” she said. That timeline did not sit well
with members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Last month they had scheduled a hearing on the
SLS for July 12, with Bolden as the sole witness, on the assumption that NASA would have made their decision public by
then. Instead, the hearing went forward without a formal decision—and no shortage of disappointment and frustration from
committee members. “Indications that we had received from NASA throughout the spring clearly suggested that a decision
would have been rendered prior to today. Sadly, such is not the case,” Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the committee chairman,
said in his opening statement. “General Bolden, the fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS, and the supporting
documents that the invitation letter requests, represents almost an insult to this committee and the Congress.” Hall made it
clear he assumed the problem was not with Bolden himself but officials at the White House, in particular the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), but Bolden would bear the brunt of the criticism. “We’ve run out of patience,” Hall said.
Bolden, in his testimony, did provide some new details about the decision-making process for the SLS. He said on June
20th he signed off on a specific design “that our experts believe is the best technical path forward for SLS.” That decision,
though, is not the final step. “That was an important step but not a final decision,” he said. That design is now undergoing
both an internal cost review and an independent one, the latter being performed by Booz Allen Hamilton, to determine if
that design is cost effective. “It would be irresponsible to proceed further until at least we have good estimates,” he said.
“This will likely be the most important decision I make as NASA administrator, and I want to get it right.” While hoping to
make that decision by the end of the summer, “the absolute need to make sure our SLS program fits within our overall
budget constraints suggests it may take longer.” “General Bolden, the fact that we do not have a final decision on the SLS,
and the supporting documents that the invitation letter requests, represents almost an insult to this committee and the
Congress,” said Rep. Hall. While Bolden declined to describe the elements of that design, various reports, such as by
Aviation Week last month, have indicated that it will be largely a shuttle-derived design, using solid rocket motors attached
to a core stage derived from the shuttle’s external tank and fitted with as many as five Space Shuttle Main Engines
(SSMEs); the upper stage would use the J-2X engine that had been under development for Constellation. That would be
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
36
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
similar to the baseline concept NASA submitted to Congress in a preliminary report in January. Bolden, in his testimony,
also confirmed earlier reports that some elements of the SLS will eventually be open to competition. The solid rocket
motors will be used for SLS initially, he said, “until we can hold a competition, which I’ve directed we try to do as soon as
possible, where all comers can compete,” including, specifically, liquid oxygen (LOX)/RP-1 systems. “It’s going to be full
and open competition, if I can do what I would like to do.” After the hearing, some members of Congress continued to
press NASA for more details about the SLS design even as the cost studies are ongoing. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (RTX), one of the key authors of last year’s authorization bill, asked the White House a press conference Thursday to allow
NASA to release those technical details. “Senator [Bill] Nelson and I are urging that the OMB let the decision be made
public so the contractors at NASA will stay in place—that will be the most efficient way for the taxpayers of our country,”
she said in a prepared statement. Hutchison added that she and Nelson had apparently already seen the SLS design Bolden
had approved, and liked it. “They have done a very good job,” she said. “Senator Nelson and I have seen the design and we
know that it is a great design. It is exactly what we asked for last year in Congress and we now have the capsule that is
going to take the astronauts and the launch vehicle we have to get going.” Schedule and cost While one House committee
was debating the status of the SLS in one hearing Tuesday, House appropriators Wednesday had little difficulty funding the
program when they took up a spending bill that includes NASA. That bill would provide NASA with $16.8 billion in fiscal
year 2012, down from the nearly $18.5 billion it received this fiscal year and the more than $18.7 billion in the agency’s
2012 budget request. Despite the cuts, though, SLS came though unscathed: appropriators gave the program $1.985 billion
for 2012, slightly more than the administration’s request of $1.8 billion. (Both, though, were below the authorized level of
$2.65 billion from last year’s authorization act.) “We are providing NASA funding above the request for America’s next
generation exploration system,” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement at a markup of the spending bill by the full committee July 13,
in about the only discussion in the several-hour-long session about SLS funding. “Senator Nelson and I have seen the
design and we know that it is a great design,” said Sen. Hutchison of the SLS. “It is exactly what we asked for last year in
Congress and we now have the capsule that is going to take the astronauts and the launch vehicle we have to get going.”
Other NASA programs did not fare as well, with most of the attention going to the committee’s decision to defund JWST.
The report accompanying the appropriations bill explained that the JWST’s growing cost—Wolf said at Wednesday’s
markup that the GAO has now estimated the cost of the telescope to be as high as $7.8 to $8 billion—and schedule delays
led appropriators to use it to send a message to NASA. “The Committee believes that this step will ultimately benefit
NASA by setting a cost discipline example for other projects and by relieving the enormous pressure that JWST was
placing on NASA’s ability to pursue other science missions.” An effort to restore at least partial funding for the telescope
by transferring $200 million from NASA’s Cross Agency Support account was quickly defeated by the committee
Wednesday, which rejected it on a voice vote. It’s unlikely, though, that supporters of JWST will give up, with indications
that they will seek to restore funding on the House floor as well as in the Senate. In either case, the SLS’s relatively healthy
budget could make it a tempting target. The SLS’s sluggish schedule could also open the program up to future cuts. While
the 2010 authorization act mandates that the vehicle be ready to fly by the end 2016 (at least in an interim version that can
place 70–100 tons into orbit, rather than the final version that can loft at least 130 tons) Bolden said at Tuesday’s hearing
NASA was planning an initial 2017 test flight of SLS, which would launch an uncrewed Orion MPCV beyond Earth
orbit—perhaps out to the Moon—and back to test the capsule’s reentry systems. “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch
vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program,” Bolden said. “No, you don’t have a human exploration program,”
countered Rohrabacher. It would be several years after this test, though, before the SLS could launch a crewed Orion,
though. “We’re still talking late this decade, early ’20s before we have a human-rated vehicle,” Bolden said. That, as one
committee member noted, puts into jeopardy one proposed mission of the SLS and MPCV: to serve as a backup for
commercial crew providers for accessing the International Space Station, as ISS operations could end as soon as 2020 (but
could be extended well into the decade depending on interest and the technical condition of the station.) One member of the
House Science Committee went so far as to question whether money intended for SLS might be better spent on other,
more pressing issues. “If we spend all of our money on a huge vehicle that may or may not be absolutely necessary, the
money won’t be there for what is the modern version of the Hubble telescope,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). This
led to a back and forth with Bolden. “If I don’t build a heavy-lift launch vehicle, we don’t have an exploration program,”
the NASA administrator said. “No, you don’t have a human exploration program,” countered Rohrabacher. “I’m a big fan
of human exploration,” Bolden replied. Rohrabacher was unswayed by Bolden’s argument about the critical nature of the
SLS. He argued that he would rather see money spent on space telescopes or even cleanup of space debris in Earth orbit. By
instead funding long-term exploration programs like SLS, he said, “we are then chasing after goals that are so far in the
distance that we are cutting out the things that we can do today.” Rohrabacher, at least publically, appeared to be in the
minority about the focus on SLS over alternative missions. The SLS may yet end up with most or all of the proposed
funding when the 2012 budget cycle is wrapped up (which may be many months from now, if 2011 is any guide), and later
this summer, or shortly thereafter, we may know what exactly the SLS will look like. However, the future of a heavy-lift
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
37
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
rocket proposed by Congress and accepted by NASA last year is still far from certain.
Congressmen are uneasy about delays in the SLS—that makes it the candidate for cuts
Mohney 7/18 (Doug Mohney is a contributing editor for TMCnet and a 20-year veteran of the ICT space July 18, 2011
“Satellite Technology Feature Article” http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/198087-post-shuttle-congress-turns-up-heatnasa-new.htm JT)
Last week, NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. was grilled on Capitol Hill on the status of the Space Launch
System (SLS), the new two-stage heavy-lift rocket and deemed one of two key hardware pieces to explore beyond low
Earth orbit. Bolden attributed delays in finalizing plans to cost reviews by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and Booz Allen Hamilton (News - Alert), but at least one congressman has threatened to hold an investigation on delays.
Senators from several states have since joined in to call for faster movement on the rocket program. Testifying before the
House Science and Technology Committee on July 12, Bolden said NASA is exploring "strategic approaches" for building
SLS that would be adaptable to "modifications in annual funding" while still making significant progress towards a final
design. An independent "Sanity check" on cost assessment and schedule from Booze Allen Hamilton is expected to be
delivered in late July to early August. The first SLS mission flight could take place in late 2017, according to Bolden's
testimony, but this date doesn't match with the NASA Authorization Act. Signed in the fall of 2010 by President Obama,
the Act put in a goal of reaching operational capability no later than December 31, 2016. Representative Ralph Hall (RTX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, noted that NASA has already slipped behind
on delivering the program according to the Act. NASA was supposed to provide Congress with decisions on crew vehicle
selection and launch system design by January 9, 2011. Instead, Congress got a preliminary report from NASA on January
15 and "hopes" by NASA to finalize acquisition decisions as early as the Spring of 2011 along with an IOU for a follow-on
report. Hall called the lack of a final decision and documents "an insult to Congress" and a failure that "reflects poorly on
the Administration and its space program." The House Committee "reserves the right” to start an investigation of the
delays. A day after the House hearings, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Bill Nelson (D-FL) held a news
conference to toss in their two cents on the SLS delays. "We are trying to get NASA to tell everyone exactly what the
design is because the design does meet the standards of the law that was passed last year and signed into law by the
president," said Hutchinson in a statement released by her office. "But the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is
holding up that announcement. Senator Nelson and I are urging that the OMB let the decision be made public so the
contractors at NASA will stay in place - that will be the most efficient way for the taxpayers of our country. We also want
to know why they are delaying so much when they've already massaged the numbers once in NASA, actually two or three
times." Stay tuned -- if NASA misses another self-imposed deadline, there will be a lot of unhappy Congressmen asking
more pointed questions.
SLS is on the chopping blocks—key to US space exploration and would lead to colonization (solves
colonization affs)
Florida Today 11 (6-28-11 “NASA gives Senate panel documents on heavy-lift rocket”
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201106280108/NEWS02/106280312 JT)
WASHINGTON — The deadline Monday passed without a threatened Senate subpoena being issued for NASA documents
about development of its next heavy-lift rocket. "The agency is working to respond to the Senate commerce committee
request and compiling the records requested," NASA spokesman J.D. Harrington said Monday. Democratic Sen. Jay
Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate science committee, and the committee's top Republican, Kay Bailey
Hutchison of Texas, threatened on Wednesday to subpoena documents they want about the rocket if NASA didn't provide
them by 6 p.m. Monday. Development of a heavy-lift rocket was key to a congressional compromise in October supporting
both that program and development of commercial rockets to ferry people to the International Space Station in place of the
canceled return-to-the-moon Constellation program. But lawmakers have been disappointed in the amount of documents
that NASA has provided about how it will pursue the heavy-lift rocket, which is competing for budget dollars with
commercial rockets. And there have been concerns that NASA isn't adequately pursuing this policy goal. NASA
Administrator Charles Bolden wrote lawmakers Thursday that the agency had provided hundreds of pages of contract
documents and that agency staffers are in regular contact with committee staffers. Senators and their staffers are reviewing
the documents NASA has provided and no subpoena was issued Monday. Lawmakers agreed to a blueprint for $10.8
billion over three years to build a heavy-lift vehicle by 2016. But in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, President Barack Obama
proposed spending only $2.8 billion on heavy lift, rather than the $4 billion envisioned by Congress. Obama has proposed
spending $850 million developing commercial rockets, rather than the $500 million envisioned in the congressional
compromise. Harrington said NASA is working aggressively to implement the congressional policy for a heavy-lift rocket,
aimed at furthering the agency's deep-space exploration goals. He cited the selection of the crew capsule and the
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
38
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
announcement of a precursor mission to an asteroid, which could eventually lead to a human visit, as examples
Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy
[NOTE: To prove uniqueness for this, read the “telescope cuts now” evidence in the aff section]
NASA spending trades off with dark energy research
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
FLATOW: There are people who say that this telescope was taking up too much of NASA's budget, other science suffering
because this is so expensive. How do you answer that, Michael or Ron? COWEN: I mean, I think that's - I mean, it is taken
off - has taken off 40 percent of NASA's astrophysics budget, and there are other missions that seem to be in jeopardy like
one that is proposed to look for dark energy, this mysterious stuff that is making the universe expand faster and faster and
has been called the biggest puzzle in physics in the - over the past century. But I mean, it is also true if you kill this mission
now, the James Webb, there won't be a future flagship mission that NASA will have. I think there is so much potential,
personally, to make new discoveries, the fact that 75 percent of it has been completed. What I think has to be done is to
make sure that the next game-changing telescope after this, that there are things in place that this mistake won't happen a
third time. And it's not clear, to me, with all the pressures from Congress. I don't know if they're making it any easier.
They're - punishing is not actually going to solve the overarching problem here, in my opinion. Punishing... TURNER:
Yeah. I think you raised an important point, Ira, which is that when the Webb bleeds, the rest of the astrophysics program
hemorrhages. And that is a serious problem because if this is completed it will put great stress on the rest of the budget.
And just to illustrate this, I probably will never use the James Webb Space Telescope, but I'm Mr. Dark Energy and the
project that Ron was talking about, I think, could very well get postponed or squeezed out by the James Webb Space
Telescope, and so that is a problem.
Spending Trades Off with Earth Sciences
Additional Spending on NASA space programs trades off with Earth Science development
Berger 5, Deputy Editor at Space News and Associate Editor at Inside Washington Publishers, 5/2/05,http://www.space.com/1028nasa-exploration-focus-blamed-earth-science-cuts.html
House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) expressed alarm over recent budget cuts and delays in
NASA's Earth science program that a recent National Research Council report attributed to the U.S. space agency's shift in
focus toward lunar and Mars exploration. "This report has to be a red flag for all of us," Boehlert said during an April 26
hearing examining how Earth science programs fare in NASA's 2006 budget request. "We need to stop, examine what's
happening, and make sure that the fiscal 2006 budget for NASA - whatever its top-level number - includes adequate
funding to keep Earth science moving forward for the foreseeable future." NASA merged its Earth science and space
science programs into a single organization, the Science Mission Directorate, in 2004 and no longer maintains separate
budgets for the two activities. But according to a House Science Committee analysis of NASA's budget request, of the
$5.47 billion included for the Science Mission Directorate, only $1.36 billion would be spent on Earth science activities, a
drop of 8 percent below the 2005 level and 12 percent less than the 2004 level. Earth science spending would continue to
decline in 2007, NASA projections show, even as overall science funding would grow by $500 million. "At NASA, the
vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget that no
longer supports already-approved missions and programs of high scientific and societal relevance," the report states.
"Opportunities to discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished as mission after mission is canceled, descoped, or
delayed because of budget cutbacks, which appear to be largely the result of new obligations to support flight programs that
are part of the Administration's vision for space exploration."
Spending on Space exploration cuts into climate and earth science studies
Foust 11, aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. He is the editor and publisher of The Space Review and has written for
Astronomy Now, 2/9/11, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/09/human-spaceflight-versus-earth-sciences/
There are a number of issues with the letter. They claim that NASA spent “over a billion dollars” on “studying global
warming/climate change” in FY2010. The agency got about $1.4 billion for all Earth sciences research in FY10, according
to agency budget documents. There’s no breakout for how much of that went specifically to climate change research,
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
39
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
though. The letter also claims that the “lion share” of NASA’s share of stimulus funding went to climate change studies. In
fact, only about a third of the agency’s stimulus funding, $325 million, went to Earth sciences programs, to accelerate
development of Earth science spacecraft. Human spaceflight got even more: $400 million, including $50 million for the
CCDev program. And their claim that NASA’s core mission is human spaceflight is not supported by other documents,
ranging from the National Aeronautics and Space Act from 1958 to the latest NASA authorization act, which declared that
NASA “is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science,
aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration” and that “NASA plays a critical role through its ability to provide data
on solar output, sea level rise, atmospheric and ocean temperature, ozone depletion, air pollution, and observation of human
and environment relationships”. A bigger issue, though, is that this letter may be indicative of a bigger battle some in
Congress want to wage between human spaceflight and Earth science. Some members have openly expressed their
skepticism about the validity of climate change research, questioning either the existence of global warming or the role of
human activities in causing climate change. The letter to appropriators makes no judgment on the quality of validity of such
research, only NASA’s role in supporting it, but some might see that unspoken argument there. For example, one of the
letter’s signers, Rep. Brooks, said last week in regards to NASA funding that there would be “hearings soon on global
warming” by the House science committee without going into more details. An attack on Earth sciences funding to support
human spaceflight could create or reinvigorate opponents of human spaceflight programs, reminiscent of previous debates
between human spaceflight and robotic space exploration advocates—a battle that the agency presumably would want to
avoid.
Spending Trades Off with Telescope
The James Webb Telescope is on the chopping block
Chamberlain 7/13 (Kenneth Chamberlain is a staff writer. July 13, 2011 “House Panel Slates Hubble Successor for Elimination
in NASA Budget” http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/house-panel-slates-hubble-successor-for-elimination-in-nasa-budget-20110713 JT)
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope may be on the budget chopping block this week, and astronomers are more than a
little unhappy. Designed to be the successor to the enormously successful but aging Hubble Space Telescope, the Webb
telescope was tentatively scheduled to launch in 2018. Work on it so far has cost $3 billion, but it's eventually expected to
cost $6.8 billion, making it an attractive target for budget trimmers. The planned appropriation for NASA by the House
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee eliminates funding for the Webb telescope. The full
committee on Wednesday approved the subcommittee's recommendation. The telescope "is billions of dollars over budget
and plagued by poor management," the subcommittee wrote in its overview of the legislation for funding NASA and a host
of other agencies. Astronomers disagree. Such a cut "would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves while simultaneously
undercutting the critical effort to utilize American engineering and ingenuity to expand human knowledge," the American
Astronomical Society complained. "The United States's position as the leader in astronomy, space science, and spaceflight
is directly threatened by this proposal." The Webb telescope sees in the infrared spectrum, and it is expected to be able to
image objects that were created just after the Big Bang gave birth to the universe. Hubble has been able to see back in time
to just 200 million years after the Big Bang. Webb is designed to see even farther back in space and time than that. The
telescope isn't the only pawn in play as the Obama administration proposals get hacked by the Republican-led committee
(PDF).
Webb Space Telescope is targeted for cuts
Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to
communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where
he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught
science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next
Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT)
It was fun while it lasted. Last week, a House subcommittee proposed to kill off funding for the James Webb Space
Telescope. The new instrument — which would orbit the sun just a little farther out than the Earth — is the heir apparent to
the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's flagship space-science project. Some kind of second act was always seen as a good
idea, but the folks on the Hill have a right to be exasperated with the way this one is turning out: the Webb, originally
proposed in the mid-1990s under the name the Next Generation Space Telescope, was supposed to launch by 2007 and cost
about $500 million. But it's gotten progressively more expensive, less powerful and further behind schedule. An
independent review board reported last November that the poorly managed Webb (uninspiringly renamed after a former
NASA administrator) could end up costing up to $6.8 billion and wouldn't launch until 2015 at the earliest. With the
Republican-dominated House determined to slash spending everywhere it can, the Webb is a nice, juicy target. It's
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
40
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked
in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science.
Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy
JWST bad—trades off with dark energy programs
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
FLATOW: There are people who say that this telescope was taking up too much of NASA's budget, other science suffering
because this is so expensive. How do you answer that, Michael or Ron? COWEN: I mean, I think that's - I mean, it is taken
off - has taken off 40 percent of NASA's astrophysics budget, and there are other missions that seem to be in jeopardy
like one that is proposed to look for dark energy, this mysterious stuff that is making the universe expand faster and faster
and has been called the biggest puzzle in physics in the - over the past century. But I mean, it is also true if you kill this
mission now, the James Webb, there won't be a future flagship mission that NASA will have. I think there is so much
potential, personally, to make new discoveries, the fact that 75 percent of it has been completed. What I think has to be
done is to make sure that the next game-changing telescope after this, that there are things in place that this mistake won't
happen a third time. And it's not clear, to me, with all the pressures from Congress. I don't know if they're making it any
easier. They're - punishing is not actually going to solve the overarching problem here, in my opinion. Punishing...
TURNER: Yeah. I think you raised an important point, Ira, which is that when the Webb bleeds, the rest of the astrophysics
program hemorrhages. And that is a serious problem because if this is completed it will put great stress on the rest of the
budget. And just to illustrate this, I probably will never use the James Webb Space Telescope, but I'm Mr. Dark Energy
and the project that Ron was talking about, I think, could very well get postponed or squeezed out by the James Webb
Space Telescope, and so that is a problem.
AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
________________________
***Impacts***
Dark Energy Key to Science Leadership
Loss of the dark energy program collapses US science leadership—cedes itself to the EU*
Overbye 11 (Dennis Overbye is a science correspondent for The New York Times. He joined The Times in 1998, and was the
deputy science editor until 2001. He was a writer and editor on the staffs of Discover (1980-1985) and Sky and Telescope (19761980). His articles have appeared in wide variety of magazines, including Wired, Time and the New York Times Magazine. Mr.
Overbye was born in Seattle and studied physics at M.I.T. and astronomy at U.C.L.A. January 4, 2011“Quest for Dark Energy May
Fade to Black” lexis nexis JT)
What happens to a dark energy dream deferred?
An ambitious $1.6 billion spacecraft that would investigate the mysterious force that is apparently accelerating the
expansion of the universe -- and search out planets around other stars, to boot -- might have to be postponed for a decade,
NASA says, because of cost overruns and mismanagement on a separate project, the James Webb Space Telescope. The
news has dismayed many American astronomers, who worry they will wind up playing second fiddle to their European
counterparts in what they say is the deepest mystery in the universe. ''How many things can we do in our lifetime that will
excite a generation of scientists?'' asked Saul Perlmutter, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley, who is
one of dark energy's discoverers. There is a sense, he said, ''that we're starting to give up leadership in these important
areas in fundamental physics.'' Last summer, after 10 years of debate and interagency wrangling, a prestigious committee
from the National Academy of Sciences gave highest priority among big space projects in the coming decade to a satellite
telescope that would take precise measure of dark energy, as it is known, and also look for planets beyond our solar system.
The proposed project goes by the slightly unwieldy acronym Wfirst, for Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope. The
Academy's report was ambushed by NASA's announcement in November that the successor to the Hubble, the James Webb
Space Telescope, which had been scheduled for a 2014 launching, would require at least another $1.6 billion and several
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
41
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
more years to finish, pushing the next big mission to 2022 at the very earliest. The Webb will search out the first stars and
galaxies to have formed in the universe, but is not designed for dark energy. To take up the slack until 2025 -- or whenever
the American mission can finally fly -- the space agency has proposed buying a 20 percent share in a European dark-energy
mission known as Euclid that could fly as soon as 2018. In return, NASA would ask for a similar investment by Europe in
Wfirst. But, said Dr. Perlmutter, ''most of us think it is hard to imagine if we do Euclid now that we will do a dark-energy
mission then.'' Alan P. Boss of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who heads a committee that advises NASA on
astrophysics, said: ''If Euclid goes ahead, they're going to own the field. There's no way the U.S. can stop them.'' Last
month, the American astronomers' worries about falling behind seemed to be validated by a second Academy panel
convened to consider the Euclid option. The panelists pointed out that part of the reason that Wfirst had been given such
high priority was that it could be launched sooner rather than later. The panel urged NASA to stay the course or to explore
merging Wfirst and Euclid in a joint operation. Everybody agrees that nothing is cast in stone yet. Euclid must survive a
bake-off with two other projects before it is approved by the European Space Agency, or E.S.A. Not until then, European
astronomers say, will they be able to talk about changes to the project. NASA has not said how it plans to get the $1.6
billion it needs to finish the Webb telescope, and thus how much will be left for other projects this decade. Some of the
answers will be in the 2012 NASA budget due next month. ''Fitting the E.S.A. and NASA processes together at this stage
would be a challenge, but the scientific benefits are clear,'' according to the new report by the Academy, which was
delivered in December. Jon Morse, director of astrophysics at NASA headquarters, said in an interview that NASA was
committed to carrying out the recommendations of the original Academy survey that endorsed Wfirst. It is the ''sense of
Congress,'' he said, that the Academy ''should guide NASA science programs.'' Asked about worries that Euclid could give
the Europeans a big leg up in dark-energy work, Dr. Morse said, ''The Europeans have developed a significant capability for
doing their own missions.'' ''The scientific return for their investment has been outstanding,'' Dr. Morse said, adding that
European astronomers are looking for ''frontier scientific discoveries'' to make. Dark energy certainly counts as
frontier science. The discovery a decade ago that the universe is speeding up, in defiance of common sense or cosmic
gravity, has thrown into doubt notions about the fate of the universe and of life within it, not to mention gravity and even
the nature of the laws of physics. It is as if, when you dropped your car keys, they shot up to the ceiling. Physicists have
one ready-made explanation for this behavior, but it is a cure that many of them think is worse than the disease: a fudge
factor invented by Einstein in 1917 called the cosmological constant. He suggested, and quantum theory has subsequently
confirmed, that empty space could exert a repulsive force, blowing things apart. But the best calculations predict an effect
10 to the exponent of 120 times greater than what astronomers have measured, causing physicists to metaphorically tear
their hair out and mutter about multiple universes. The astronomers who made this discovery were using the exploding stars
known as Type 1a supernovae as cosmic distance markers to track the expansion rate of the universe. Since then, other
tools have emerged by which astronomers can also gauge dark energy by how it retards the growth of galaxies and other
structures in the universe. So far the observations are consistent with it being Einstein's constant, but not definitive; more
precise measurements, many of which can only be done from space, are needed. Dr. Perlmutter, who works in the
Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, proposed a dark energy mission known as SNAP
(Supernova Acceleration Probe) in 1999. In 2003, the White House asked the Energy Department to partner with NASA on
the project, which became known as JDEM, for Joint Dark Energy Mission, and a call went out for competing proposals.
But NASA and the Energy Department found it hard to collaborate, and several rounds of meetings and committees went
nowhere. ''Maybe we shouldn't have tried to ride two horses,'' Dr. Perlmutter said. In 2008, NASA and the Energy
Department budgeted $600 million, not including launching costs, for a mission, but a working group of dark-energy
scientists could not come up with a design that would fit in the budget. Feeling that the blessing of the National Academy
of Sciences was needed to proceed with a more expensive project, Dr. Morse submitted a couple of versions of the dark
energy mission to the Academy panel -- also known as Astro2010 -- that was charged with setting priorities for the
astronomical community for the next decade. Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories, who led one of the panel's
subcommittees, noticed that three of the submitted projects -- including dark energy, a search for planets around other stars,
dubbed exoplanets, and a survey of infrared radiation from the heavens -- all required the same hardware. He proposed
combining them into a larger mission (''putting more eggs into the basket,'' in Dr. Perlmutter's words), in a project that
could launch around 2020. That larger mission they dubbed Wfirst. ''It looked then and it still looks to me like a good deal,''
said Roger Blandford of Stanford, an astrophysicist and the chairman of the Astro2010 panel. Meanwhile, the European
Space Agency had also made dark energy a priority. Last February, the Europeans sent NASA a letter offering the
Americans a 20 percent piece of Euclid and two slots on the mission's science team. American astronomers were
ambivalent. Joining Euclid would divert resources from their own mission, thus delaying it. In September NASA's advisory
committee on astrophysics, which is led by Dr. Boss of the Carnegie Institution, concluded that Euclid could spend three or
four years ''skimming the cream off the dark energy pail'' before Wfirst got into the sky. Both Dr. Boss's council and yet
another committee, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, which counsels the National Science
Foundation and Energy Department as well as NASA, concluded that joining Euclid was not in keeping with the original
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
42
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Academy recommendations. By the time the second Academy panel reported in December, the news about the Webb
telescope's problems had made everything worse. The Webb, which was the highest Academy priority 10 years ago and has
already cost $5 billion, could not be launched any earlier than 2015 and would probably be even later, because of NASA's
inability to correctly estimate how long it would take to do things like test the telescope. How much of the $2.2 billion that
NASA was to have available for new astrophysics missions this decade will be left once Webb is taken care of is anybody's
guess. On top of that, NASA faces what Dr. Morse calls ''an evolved difficult fiscal environment,'' with Republicans bent
on reducing the federal budget taking over the House of Representatives. Some astronomers said they felt ambushed by
NASA and Dr. Morse, who briefed the Astro2010 panel during its two years of deliberations. ''He didn't know? He should
be fired,'' said Dr. Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories. Dr. Morse said he understood and shared his colleagues'
frustration. But said he had warned the panel all along that its plans could be upset by the Webb, which has always been
known to have problems. ''The community,'' he said, referring to the Astro2010 panel, ''did the best job they could with
what they were given. The fiscal constraints are far worse now than we could imagine a year ago.'' Or, as Michael Turner, a
cosmologist at the University of Chicago and a member of Astro2010, put it, ''We're in a terrible mess.'' In December,
NASA solicited proposals from astronomers who want to join Euclid and named a team that will begin meeting in February
to begin planning Wfirst. One problem with Euclid from the Academy point of view is that it does not include observations
of supernovae, the technique by which dark energy was discovered. Nor does the United States play a leadership role. Dr.
Boss, however, speaking personally, said he worried that those recommendations were out of date with new realities -budget and otherwise -- and that following them could keep the United States out of what might be the only dark-energy
mission for some time. ''It's time for some creative thought,'' he said. ''The European Union is producing more papers per
year than the U.S.,'' Dr. Boss went on. ''They passed us a year ago and are doing quite well.''
Dark energy research increase US tech
NASA 11 (NASA HQ July 15, 2011 “NASA Solicitation: Research Opportunities in Fundamental Physics”
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37721 JT)
Fundamental physics is standing at the precipice of dramatic discoveries. Last century's major scientific insights
represented by the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics are known to be mutually incompatible. The lack
of a theory to unify all natural forces including gravity indicates the incompleteness of the Standard Model and General
Relativity. In addition, there is clear evidence for dark energy and dark matter from astrophysical observations. While
NASA's Science Mission Directorate plans to study dark matter and dark energy through observational means, and to seek
clues to when General Relativity might fail through studies of physics in the strong gravity environment near black holes,
the establishment of new physical understanding beyond current known theories remains elusive. Nonetheless, the new
physics is expected to lead to breakdowns of the well-established theories with verifiable experimental consequences.
Recent technology advancement in optical clocks, atom interferometers and Bose Einstein Condensates has demonstrated a
radical improvement in measurement precision, putting experimentalists within striking range of reaching the experimental
sensitivity where breakdown of these theories may occur and important new discoveries made. It is clear that laboratory
physics can contribute greatly to this quest for new physics in the 21st century by utilizing carefully conceived experiments
with unprecedented resolution on the ISS, such as the planned ESA SOC, QWEP and ACES projects.
Earth Sciences Key to Solve Warming
NASA’s Earth Science missions key to solve global warming
Mandia 11, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences Department at Suffolk County
Community College, 3/7/11, http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/loss-of-glory-what-it-means-for-climate-and-future-ofnasa/
What is NASA’s role in climate science? NASA Earth Science missions are a critical part of climate science. Space is the
only way to get truly global observations of the Earth and its climate system: from equator to pole, from the U.S. to China.
Those observations include everything from the atmosphere to the oceans to the ice sheets to polar sea ice to land cover
including vegetation and snow. They include the energy we receive from the sun as well as the solar energy we reflect back
to space and the thermal energy we emit to space to shed the solar heat that we absorb. Climate is an interlinked global
system including all of these key parts. Looking at just one or even a few of them typically leads to large uncertainties and
low scientific confidence. NASA has led the world in global climate science since the advent of the Earth Observing
System that started in 1990: the first attempt at a global Earth observing system. Ironically it was the deficit federal budgets
of the mid 1990s that reduced the effort to about 1/3 of its original plan. What we have now are pieces of that system that
have lived well beyond their design life. For example, the Aqua spacecraft was launched in 2002, designed for a 5yr
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
43
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
mission life, and was originally supposed to have 3 copies launched on 5 year intervals to achieve a continuous climate
record over at least 15 years. Only 1 spacecraft was ever built and launched, and has now been operating successfully for
about 9 years on orbit. A follow on mission called NPP is finally planned for launch the end of this year. But there is no
climate observing system in the same sense that there is a weather observing system. NASA is doing the best it can with the
limited resources it has. There are no backups. Should NASA be doing climate science? The National Aeronautics and
Space Act established the agency in 1958. In the Space Act, the first objective of the agency was listed as “the expansion of
human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.” Earth science has been a key part of
NASA’s mission throughout its history. The need for that mission today is more critical than it was in 1958. When the
Space Act was written, we had little idea of potential climate change issues. The Keeling record of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere was just starting in Hawaii. The Keeling record was not the first carbon dioxide observation: but it was the first
with the high accuracy over a long time period needed for climate change research. Many people confuse weather with
climate. Why can’t weather satellites be used for climate data? In general they lack the high accuracy needed for climate
change. Weather accuracy is 1 or 2 degrees in temperature, while climate accuracy is a tenth of a degree: a factor of ten
more difficult. In the end, climate observations have requirements that are typically ten times more accurate than weather,
and require 10 times as many variables to be observed. In the U.S. we have a dozen agencies that contribute to climate
science and are coordinated using the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). NASA resources are the largest
contributor to the USGCRP of all the agencies, but none of the agencies has climate as its highest priority. This results in a
“curse of the commons” situation where none of the agencies can really lead the development of a climate observing
system. Each does the best it can within its limited scope and resources.
Earth Sciences Key to Innovation
Earth sciences are key to jobs/innovation
Hutchison 7/19 (Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior U.S. Senator from Texas July 19, 2011 Next chapter of space exploration
must carry on NASA’s proud legacy http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/atascocita/opinion/article_71df9802-059e-5ef8-8745d02d7938cfa6.html JT)
During the past 40 years, NASA scientists and engineers have pioneered more than 6,300 technologies that are now
commonly used in our day-to-day lives. These technological breakthroughs have led to long-distance telecommunications,
as well as satellites that aid in national security efforts, GPS systems, and television programming. Other scientific
advances have not only improved our quality of life but have also resulted in medical breakthroughs that save lives every
day, such as the technology used in CAT scanners, MRIs, and pacemakers, just to name a few. The contributions our space
program has made to science, our national security, and our economy illustrate why we can't abdicate our leadership role
in the world. Ultimately, Space program-stimulated scientific advances create innovations and breakthroughs that create
jobs, improve competitiveness, and boost quality of life. One way to advance those objectives is to extend and expand our
commitment to fully utilize the US National Laboratory aboard the International Space Station, and ensure it is effectively
maintained and used for broad scientific and engineering research. We also must continue to encourage important NASA
programs in Space Science, Earth Science, fundamental aeronautics research, and education if we want to see job and
industry growth.
Telescope Key to Competitiveness
The telescope is key to US science competitiveness
Martins 7/18 (Robyn Martins, Times-Reporter contributor 7-18-2011 “Don't cut telescope funding”
http://www.timesreporter.com/opinion/columnists/x1797069354/Dont-cut-telescope-funding JT)
Save the telescope! Save the telescope! If I had the wherewithal and could march around the Capitol, I’d be shouting these
very words while stomping around in my noisiest shoes and waving a big sign in support of what we are about to lose. A
House subcommittee recently has voted to discontinue funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and I believe
that’s a shortsighted decision that will cost us dearly in something more significant than upfront dollars. The telescope in
question is the successor to the Hubble telescope, and it will employ new technology to reveal to us parts of the universe
that have been previously invisible. Once launched, it will orbit one million miles from Earth; and its main mirror, which
has just been polished, will collect seven times the amount of light collected by the Hubble. The largest telescope ever to be
launched into space, the JWST will detect infrared radiation, which is essential for capturing images of distant objects we
have yet to see — supernovae, black holes, evolving galaxies, the birth of distant stars and new solar systems. Michael
Collins, member of the Gemini 10 and Apollo 11 teams, said, “It’s human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
44
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Exploration is not a choice, really; it’s an imperative.” This telescope has the potential to enrich mankind with new insight
and to help us satisfy our very nature. To date, the United States has taken the lead on the project, but beginning with the
first planning sessions in 1996, more than 15 countries have signed on, enlisting scientists and engineers around the globe
to develop technologies, manufacture highly refined parts and assemble and test the finish product. High-tech jobs have
been created for this project, and the scientific benefits from it will be immeasurable for generations to come. Hands-on
work began on the telescope in 2004, and now 75 percent of the project has been completed, and the majority of the cost
has been paid, which was no small bill. The project was first judged to cost $3.5 billion but has come in at closer to $5
billion, and estimates suggest as much as $1.5 billion may still be needed to bring us to launch date scheduled later this
decade. And there lies the issue at hand. In the interest of frugality, we are now declaring this technological marvel an
extravagance and scrapping it to save $1.5 billion. For what we spend waging war in Afghanistan in a matter of days, we’re
willing to relinquish our role as a global leader in science and technology; and we’re set to forgo discoveries beyond our
wildest dreams — to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. If we were having this conversation before work on the project
had begun, I could accept deciding to hold off until we bring down the deficit and begin generating greater revenue. But we
aren’t. We’re having it when we’re in the homestretch, and what we’re saying now is “let’s just throw it all away.” In a
statement defending the JWST, the American Astronomical Society said, “The whole Nation can rightly take pride in the
engineering and scientific accomplishment that the completion and launch of such instruments represents. We are the only
nation that could lead such an effort; we should not shirk from completing the project when the most difficult engineering
challenges have already been overcome.” In short, we talk up our role as global leaders in science and technology, yet we
cut ourselves off at the knees just when we have the opportunity to put monumental deeds behind our words. Our leaders
tell us it’s time to make difficult choices in setting our national priorities. They’re right, but I’m envisioning a nation in
which we look only downward, putting our noses to the grindstone without inspiration, without hope for greater things,
without the triumphant achievements we know can be ours. Now, more than ever, we need to keep our eyes up and our
arms stretched toward the stars, instead of dragging our knuckles on the ground as we scrap everything but the bare
essentials. The curiosity of our children, the future of our scientific development and our very nature depends on it. It’s an
imperative.
Impact—JWST is key to American tech dominance, jobs, and jump starting public interest
Pachal 7/14 (Peter Pachal is PCMag's News Director and has been covering consumer technology in print and online for more than
a decade. He holds degrees in journalism and engineering. July 14, 2011“Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb
Telescope” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp JT)
"The proposal... to terminate the James Webb Space Telescope would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves," said the
American Astronomical Society in a statement. "Such a proposal threatens American leadership in the fields of
astrophysics and advanced space technology while likely eliminating hundreds, if not thousands, of high-tech jobs." One of
the engineers who worked on components for the Webb, Sarah Kendrew, wrote in a blog post for the Guardian, "For
scientists, its loss will slow progress in understanding the physics that governs the universe at a time when huge advances
are within our reach. Engineers, who have successfully completed many aspects of the observatory, will see more than a
decade of work go to waste. The public will lose the opportunity to marvel once again at the amazing place that is our
universe: the thousands of planets that populate our own galaxy, the places where new suns are born, the first galaxies at the
dawn of time."
________________________
***Fiscal Discipline Aff***
________________________
***Non-Uniques***
Economy Low Now
Fiscal Discipline Low Now
Default Inevitable
Debt default inevitable – Investment Banker
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
45
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Shai Ahmed, Associate Producer at CNBC and graduate of the London School of Economics in Political Science, 7/15/11, “US
Default Inevitable: Fund Manager” http://www.cnbc.com/id/43721270/US_Default_Inevitable_Fund_Manager
A U.S. default isn't a matter of "if" but "when," David Murrin, chief investment officer at Emergent Asset Management,
told CNBC. "It's inevitable that the U.S. will default—it's essentially an empire which is overextended and in decline—and
that its financial system will go with it," he said. The question is: Does the U.S. default when it is forced to by the outside
world, probably the Chinese, or does it take the option to default on its own terms in such a way that it may have a strategic
advantage, Murrin said. Republicans and Democrats are currently locked in a debate on how to cut the U.S. budget deficit,
and on whether the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling should be raised. Both parties need to come to a consensus by Aug. 2,
otherwise the country will be in a state of technical default. In his book "Breaking the Code of History," Murrin argues that
the balance of power has shifted away from the West, with America as the superpower, towards the East, led by China. He
believes the U.S. cannot afford to compete with the rise of Eastern powers. "It's very simple, its (America's) empire system,
its financial system is in decline, we've seen very little growth for over a decade apart from financial engineering and
leveraging, which ultimately caused the debt crisis of 2008," Murrin said. He argues that emerging markets have a distinct
advantage over more mature economies through demographics, working dynamics, and the ability to create fundamental
economic growth. This imbalance inevitably pushes developed markets towards default.
AT: Gang of Six Plan Solves Fiscal Discipline
The plan won’t make it through before the deadline
CNN 7/20/11, Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen, http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/20/debt.talks/
Top administration and congressional officials are expected Wednesday to focus on a new bipartisan $3.7 trillion debt
reduction plan -- the latest effort to avoid a potentially catastrophic default next month on the federal government's financial
obligations. President Barack Obama offered strong praise for the initiative Tuesday, calling it "broadly consistent" with his
approach to the debt ceiling crisis because it mixes tax changes, entitlement reforms and spending reductions. Senate
Democratic leaders, however, expressed skepticism they will be able to increase the debt limit and pass the plan -- drafted
by the chamber's "Gang of Six" -- by the August 2 deadline.
The “Gang of Six” plan will fail, House GOP won’t support it
Jay Bookman 7/20/11, Atlanta Journal Constitution, “’Gang of Six’ Plan Meaningless without GOP House”
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/07/20/gang-of-six-plan-meaningless-without-gophouse/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
A sense of relief washed over Washington Tuesday after the bipartisan Gang of Six — a group that includes Saxby
Chambliss of Georgia — announced it had come to agreement on a major deficit-reduction package. Their announcement
was greeted by many as if a path out of the wilderness had been found. President Obama spoke favorably of the plan,
calling it “broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on here in the White House.” Senators of both parties
expressed support for the plan, at least in broad terms. “One of the 25 Republicans who heard the Gang of Six’s proposal
for a grand bargain on debt reduction was Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who ranks third in the GOP leadership. He
said he was impressed both with the plan and with the three Republican gang members who helped draft it. “Senators
[Mike] Crapo, [Tom] Coburn and Chambliss are three of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus, and if
they study something for six months, tell me it’s good for the country, that means a lot to me.” Many other conservative
Republicans senators showered similar praise on the Gang of Six proposal. They did so despite the fact that most
Republicans for months have opposed using any increased tax revenues to bring down deficits. Coburn said this plan puts
tax revenues back on the table. “There’s no question, revenues — enhanced revenues — are part of this plan, and we think
it’ll be about $1 trillion,” he said.” But that’s the problem, isn’t it. Sensible, responsible people understand that the deficit
has to be addressed by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. Politically, that’s how a deal can be cut. And
mathematically, it simply isn’t possible to achieve deficit cuts of the size required without approaching the problem from
both ends, by raising revenue and cutting spending. However, sensible, responsible people are not running the show in the
U.S. House of Representatives. While Crapo, Coburn and Chambliss may be three of the more conservative Republicans in
the Senate, in the eyes of their colleagues in the House they are mere RINOs. As a sign of their continued fidelity to
foolishness, House Republicans spent yesterday passing their extreme “Cut, Cap and Balance Plan.” The good news is that
nine GOP congressmen voted against the bill. The bad news is that most if not all of those nine — including GOP
presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Georgia’s Paul Broun — voted against it because in the end, it would raise
the debt ceiling. In other words, it wasn’t extreme enough. “The president has said now for once he wants a balanced
approach,” Speaker John Boehner said after the vote. “Well, guess what. In ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ he does get a balanced
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
46
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
approach. He gets his increase in the debt limit of $2.4 trillion. What we get are real cuts in spending and real reforms in
place that’ll make sure that this problem never, ever happens again.” Note that Boehner continues to frame the debt limit
increase as a goal that Obama wants and that Boehner is willing to grant him under the right conditions, rather than an
absolute necessity for the country as a whole. It’s crazy talk. Meanwhile, out there in BaseLand, the drumbeat for
Armageddon grows louder. For example, at redstate.com, the Gang of Six plan is derided as “the Gangrene Plan” because
“it will slowly, but surely, rot away the nation.” “What’s going to happen now is the Senate will tell the House that its plan
cannot pass. House Republicans must now continue to hold the freaking line. They must not waiver. They must understand
that now that their plan is passed and that it allows the debt ceiling to be raised, the House GOP’s hand strengthens every
day closer to August 2nd. And if this debacle goes past August 2nd, the House GOP is in charge as long as it holds the
freaking line.”
Even if the ‘gang of six’ plan does pass, it won’t fix our spending woes
David S. Addington, 7/19/11 VP of Domestic Economic Polity at the Heritage Foundation, former Chief Adviser to Vice
President Dick Cheney, “Gang of Six: Promises, Promises” http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/19/gang-of-six-promises-promises/
A group of U.S. Senators called the Gang of Six has cobbled together the third Senate-originated half-baked idea this week
that would lead to hiking the debt limit. All three Senate approaches — the McConnell Plan, the McConnell-Reid “Just
Borrow More” Plan, and now the Gang of Six “Maybe Later in the Year” Plan — have one thing in common: procedural
gimmicks that promise Congress will do in the future what it won’t do now to control spending. The time has passed for
procedural gimmickry — Congress should cut spending and cut it now. The Gang of Six circulated a plan that has Congress
enact a law now whose principal elements (1) make unspecified spending cuts and unspecified tax increases to yield a $500
billion reduction in the federal deficit, and (2) impose spending caps on discretionary spending, but not on Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that are the main cause of out-of-control spending. Then the Gang of Six
promises — an unenforceable promise — that some time in the next six months Congress will enact a second law with all
kinds of Christmas presents for everybody. As an imaginary present for Republicans, for example, the Gang of Six
promises to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, drop the top individual tax rate to 29 percent, and drop the corporate
tax rate to 29 percent. And, as an imaginary present for the Democrats, the second law would have what appears to be a
$3.4 trillion tax hike over the next 10 years, so the size of government can just keep on growing. Of course, enactment of
the second law is just a promise, or, in the case of the huge tax hike, a threat.
The new bill won’t pass – balanced budget amendment too unpopular
Voice of America 7/19/11 “Vote nears as Possible US Default Creeds Closer” http://blogs.voanews.com/breakingnews/2011/07/19/vote-nears-as-possible-us-default-creeps-closer/
U.S. lawmakers are preparing to vote on a bill to slash the country's spending and raise the debt limit, although this version
of the legislation has little chance of resolving a high-stakes political standoff. Tuesday's vote in the Republican-led
U.S. House of Representatives would cut more than $100 billion from the federal budget next year in exchange for raising
the country's borrowing limit. The so-called Cut, Cap and Balance Act would also impose strict limits on future spending,
and calls for amending the U.S. Constitution to ban the government from spending more money than it takes in. Lawmakers
and the president have until August 2 – two weeks – to resolve their differences. If they fail, the U.S. may start defaulting
on some of its financial obligations. Top U.S. officials and some economists have warned a default would have catastrophic
consequences, possibly throwing the United States back into recession. But despite backing from the Republican Party's
Tea Party faction and other fiscally conservative groups, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is likely to meet with stiff resistance
in the Democrat-controlled Senate. And the White House has said President Barack Obama would veto the bill if it got
through.
Both the “Gang of Six” plan and the “cut, cap, and balance” plan will fail
Corbett B. Daly, 7/20/11, “Gang of Six plan gets boost in House” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080991503544.html
A bipartisan plan to cut the deficit over the long-term got a boost in the House of Representatives within hours after a more
conservative plan with no chance of becoming law was approved by the chamber. The so-called "Gang of Six" proposal,
which could reduce the deficit by about $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, emerged in the Senate as a possible alternative
way to raise the amount of money the U.S. can legally borrow by August 2. Most economists, including Federal Reserve
Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the Obama administration have warned of economic calamity if the $14.3 trillion debt
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
47
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
ceiling is not raised in less than two weeks. Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to come to
a larger agreement that would reduce the deficit going forward. But that deal has been elusive as the two sides dug in their
heels. Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee urged House Speaker John
Boehner to schedule a vote on the Senate plan, details of which are still to be determined. "We applaud this effort and ask
that you provide the opportunity to vote on this proposal as part of any request for an increase in the debt ceiling before the
Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline," Wolf and Cooper wrote in the letter dated Tuesday. "The Gang of Six plan is bitter medicine
and, while not perfect, could restore our fiscal health," Wolf and Cooper wrote, "there is never a convenient time to make
tough decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be." President Obama on
Tuesday offered praise for the Senate proposal, telling reporters that he thinks "we're now seeing a potential for a bipartisan
consensus." The proposal, backed by seven senators (one joined the original half dozen), still faces an uphill climb in the
House, where conservative Tea Party members who want to shrink the size of government are opposed to anything that
would bring more money into government coffers to balance the budget. Roughly $1 trillion of the savings in the Gang of
Six plan would come from new tax revenue. The House on Tuesday approved their "cut, cap and balance" plan by a vote of
234 to 190. That vote, however, was mostly symbolic: because any spending cuts would be contingent on the passage of a
constitutional amendment, the bill would require approval from two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of
Representatives. In the Democrat-dominated Senate, achieving that support is likely impossible.
Obstinate Repubicans will only vote for the “cut, cap, and balance” proposal
The State Column 7/19/11 “Gang of Six debt plan receives criticism from Sen. Jim DeMint”
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/gang-of-six-debt-plan-receives-criticism-from-sen-jim-demint/
South Carolina U.S. Senator Jim DeMint slammed a proposed debt plan put forth by the bipartisan group of U.S. senators
Tuesday, saying President Obama is supporting the plan because Republicans have put forth an alternative plan. “I don’t
know enough about the Gang of Six proposal, but I do know the only reason the president is stepping up and saying he
might support this is that Republicans are now on the offense with a plan that would increase the debt limit in a way that
Moody’s and S&P would recognize as credible long-term deficit reduction,” Mr. DeMint said Tuesday on Fox Business
Network. The South Carolina Republican made the comment just hours before the Republican-controlled House voted in
favor of passing the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ bill. The bill would cut total spending by $111 billion in the upcoming year,
capping total federal spending and limiting spending at 22.5 percent of GDP over the next decade until locking in at 19.9
percent of GDP in 2021. The Senate has said it will not vote on the measure and President Obama vowed Tuesday to veto
the proposal. Mr. DeMint said the proposal represented a major step in the right direction and said Republicans should
continue to remain steadfast in their opposition of revenue increases put forth by President Obama. “There is only one
proposal that actually is written that will be voted on, and that is the ‘cut, cap and balance’ proposal,” Mr. DeMint said.
Investor Confidence Low Now
Small Businesses Low Now
Dollar Dumping Now
________________________
***Link Takeouts***
AT: Space Militarization Links
The costs of space weaponization are often overstated
Brian C. Ruhm, April 2003, researcher for the U.S. Air Force, “Finding the Middle Ground: The U.S. Air Force, Space
Weaponization, and Arms Control”, pg. 29
Additional considerations also suggest that concerns regarding the net cost of space weapons could be overstated. Space
weapons such as CAVs or orbital bombardment systems employing precision conventional or kinetic strike weapons might
render unnecessary whole classes of strategic nuclear systems.4 Replacing US strategic nuclear forces with conventional
space surrogates would have two beneficial effects in terms of costs. First, it would help to dissuade other countries from
pursing a nuclear capability and thus reduce the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat against which the US needs to
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
48
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
defend.5 Second, the promise of conventional space weapons as a more effective and useful deterrent force may
substantially reduce the likelihood of even smaller, regional wars.
AT: Space Debris Links
The costs of cleaning up space debris are likely to be under $10 million; New technology will also be very
effective, reducing costs even more
Dr. Craig Smith and Dr. Ben Greene, 7/19/10, PhD’s and Co-Chief Executive Officers at Creative Technology Solutions, “EOS
to Build World’s First Automated Space Debris Tracker”,
http://www.eostech.com/documents/announcements/ASX_announcement_ASRP_Grant_19072010.pdf
Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited (ASX “EOS”) has been awarded a $4.04 million grant from the Australian Space
Research Program (“ASRP”) to develop the world’s first automated, high-precision, laser-based, space debris tracking
system. Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr announced the award on 14 July 2010. “Australia has a proud history in
space science and research. The ASRP helps us expand our already important role in international partnerships,” Senator
Carr said. “Modern space science and exploration is all about countries working together, and Australia has a great
reputation in collaborating and leading new space research.” The grant was awarded to a consortium led by EOS subsidiary,
EOS Space Systems Pty Limited, and which includes the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australian
National University, and Global Near Space Services Inc [USA]. The consortium will apply the grant towards the estimated
$9 million cost of enhancing EOS’ current space debris tracking capabilities at Mount Stromlo to meet current and future
space debris tracking requirements. The project will be led by EOS Space Systems, whose Chief Executive Craig Smith
said: “Current space surveillance and tracking systems cannot determine orbits in space with sufficient accuracy to costeffectively mitigate collisions between satellites and space debris. This project will demonstrate responsive, high precision
laser and optical tracking of space debris, improved space situational awareness for key space assets, and fully remote and
automated operation of a high performance laser tracking system.” “These new features, to be demonstrated from 2012, can
significantly reduce the cost of providing debris protection to satellites, and will ease the integration of the capability into
the operational processes of key users.”
AT: SPS Links
The costs of alternative energy sources are skyrocketing; Solar powered satellites are becoming the most
cost-efficient energy source
Alex Canizares, 9/8/2000 (2k), staff writer for cyberdelix.net, “Solar Satellites Will Power Earth, Scientists Say”,
http://www.cyberdelix.net/adminz/41eedc7b_9792_225285.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (States News Service) – Solar-powered satellites will become a major energy source by 2030,
scientists testified at a congressional hearing Thursday, helping to reduce reliance on dwindling fuel supplies. With fuel
supplies projected to fall and energy costs reaching historic highs, using satellites to transmit energy to provide electricity
used to heat homes and run appliances is becoming technologically viable, scientists told the House Science subcommittee
on space and aeronautics. Electric energy use is projected to grow 75 percent worldwide by 2020, and oil production will
slow due to depleting reserves after 2015, said Ralph H. Nansen, president of Solar Space Industries. "Space solar power
can solve these problems," Nansen said. "The time is now right for their development to begin." A roadmap John C.
Mankins, manager of Advanced Concepts Studies at NASA, said the space agency is laying out a "roadmap" to develop
satellite- powered energy using several technologies in the works. High-voltage solar panels that could handle sunlight
during 99 percent of a 24-hour day, wireless transmitters that can beam large amounts of microwave energy, and an
"inflatable radiator" to absorb heat in space, are all under development, Mankins said. Relaying power from ground stations
to satellites and back to ground stations at another location is another, perhaps more readily available, application, Mankins
said. A complete solar power satellite system to produce enough energy to be economically viable may not emerge until
2025 to 2035, he said. The idea of transmitting solar energy from space to earth first emerged in the 1960s, but research
efforts failed to gain ground until 1995, when NASA and other scientists began studying the idea more carefully using
better technology. NASA spends $22 million annually on the research. The next step, Nansen said, is building a ground test
program to integrate various technologies, including 20 to 50 kilowatt solar arrays, antennas to transmit energy, and
distribution grids, that would essentially transmit energy across a 1 to 5 kilometer range on the ground.
AT: Space Colonization Links
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
49
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
The evolution of our market makes space colonization affordable; And, space colonization will create
jobs, stimulate economy
W.H. Siegfried, 2003, respected author in support of space colonization, “Space Colonization-Benefits for the World”,
http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf
A complete list of potential world benefits from Space Colonization is lengthy, even when confined to technological items.
Included are access to space resources that include quantities of almost every resource we have on Earth except fossil fuels;
an improved understanding of the complex systems that comprise our climate; conducting experiments in chemistry,
biology, physiology, and even sociology that cannot be conducted here on Earth; and developing new technologies for use
on Earth. All are the bounty of Space Colonization. There are also many sociological benefits of Space Colonization. We
must remember that such an endeavor cannot be implemented by one any agency or single government. A world policy
would be needed. In the United States, the combined efforts of NASA, DOE, DOI, DOT, DOC, and others would be
focused in addition to our broad industrial base and the commercial world. It should be noted that the eventual space
tourism market (tapping in to the world annual $3,400 billion market or the United States $120 billion per year “adventure
travel” market) (Reichert, 1999) will not be based on the work of isolated government agencies but, rather, evolve from a
synergistic combination of government, travel industry, hotel chains, civil engineering, and, yes, a modified version of
industry as we know it today. The change in emphasis from our present single-objective missions to a broadband Space
Colonization infrastructure will create employment here on Earth and in space for millions of people and will profoundly
change our daily life on Earth. This venue, initiated by short suborbital followed by short orbital and then orbital hotel stays
(Collins, 2000) has already begun with brief visits to the ISS. Once systems evolve that can reduce the cost of a “space
ticket” to some $10,000 to $50,000 US, the market will grow. Fig 2 is typical of studies on space tourism passengers that
could be expected vs. costs of the trip.
________________________
***Internal Link Takeouts/Turns***
AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General
AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence
AT: Spending Kills Small Business
AT: Spending Causes Dollar Dumping
AT: Spending Causes Crowd Out
AT: Spending Raises Taxes
Tax increases inevitable – it’s simple arithmetic
David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, 7/12/11 NYT, “Why Taxes Will Rise in the End”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/business/economy/why-taxes-will-rise-in-the-end-david-leonhardt.html
Polls show that most Americans are opposed to raising the federal debt ceiling. Even when the Pew Research Center
included the consequences in its question — a national default that would damage the economy — slightly more people
were against raising the ceiling than were for it. How could this be? Above all, I think it reflects a desire to return to the
good old days. Not so long ago, nobody was talking about tax increases or Medicare cuts, and the federal budget seemed to
be in fine shape. If only we could get back to the past — get spending under control, as the cliché goes — we’d be O.K.
The debt ceiling, with its harsh finality, offers the chance. Unfortunately, this nostalgic view depends on a
misunderstanding of the budget. It imagines a budget in which the United States indefinitely has the world’s highest
medical costs, its largest military, an aging population and, nonetheless, taxes that are among the world’s lowest.
Economists have a name for that combination: a free lunch. Free lunchism is ultimately the problem with the no-new-taxes
pledge that so many politicians have adopted. A refusal to raise taxes, no matter how principled, cannot take us back to the
good old days. It would instead lead to a very different American society. For taxes to remain where they are, Washington
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
50
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
would need to end Medicare as we know it, end Social Security as we know it, severely shrink the military — or do some
combination of the above. “We cannot repeat the past when it comes to the federal budget,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, recently wrote. “The aging of our population and the rising cost of health
care have changed the backdrop for federal budget policy in a fundamental way.” The most important part of the recent
Republican budget plan, written by Representative Paul Ryan, was that it acknowledged this reality (in its details, if not its
packaging). It called for no tax increases. To make the numbers come close to adding up, the plan also called for
eliminating the current Medicare and replacing it with a system in which the elderly would buy less generous private
insurance plans. Such is the price of no new taxes. Early indications are that Americans don’t like Mr. Ryan’s plan all that
much. In upstate New York this spring, a Democrat won a typically Republican House district by campaigning relentlessly
against the plan. National polls show huge majorities favor keeping Medicare and Social Security in som7ething
approaching their current form — much larger majorities, tellingly, than oppose an increase in the debt ceiling. In the near
term, Congressional Republicans have decided to play down the Ryan plan. Most continue to oppose new taxes, without
going so far as to explain the consequences. They will have little trouble sticking to that position through the current debt
ceiling fight, because the deficit does not need to be solved immediately. Eventually, though, drawing up a credible deficit
plan with neither Ryan-like cuts nor higher taxes will be impossible. And you can already see the start of a potential
Republican compromise. It revolves around raising taxes, on net, by shrinking corporate or individual loopholes. The
country’s highest-ranking Republican, John Boehner, the speaker of the House, signaled his openness to such a deal last
week. (Mr. Boehner abandoned the deal under pressure from Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican and a
Tea Party ally.)
Taxes will inevitably have to rise
Ezra Klein, 7/13/11 Washington Post, “Why Taxes will rise” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-taxes-willrise/2011/07/11/gIQARWffCI_blog.html
In Tuesday’s column on taxes and subsequent posts, I’ve focused mainly on historical tax rates. Revenues right now are
less than 15 percent of GDP — a 50-year low, and well below the 19+% that historically accompanies balanced budgets.
But more important than where the budget has been is where it’s going. And the answer, due to the baby boomers, is up.
Right now, about 13 percent of the country is 65 or older. By 2030, when the last of the baby boomers retire, that’ll be up to
18 percent. That means fewer workers and more retirees. And that means federal spending will go up as a percent of GDP,
at least unless you have some way to keep all those retirees in the workforce or decide they don’t get Social Security and
Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office runs a calculation in which they split the rise in health-care costs into two
parts: “excess cost growth,” which is basically how much faster health-care spending grows than everything else, and
“aging,” which is the growth in federal spending on health care because more old people means more people depending on
federal benefits. In the long-run, excess cost growth is the real problem. But over the next 25 years, aging is a much bigger
deal. In 2035, it’ll mean federal spending has to rise by 3.5 percentage points — and that’s just for health care, and it’s
assuming we manage to get cost growth completely under control this year. So this is a very optimistic, very incomplete
calculation, but let’s run it anyway. Between 1980 and 2007, federal spending averaged about 21 percent of GDP. Add 3.5
percentage points and you get 24.5 percent of GDP. So in a world where we slap a tight lid over the growth in health-care
costs, where our efforts to control costs work beyond our wildest dreams, taxes are going to have to equal something near
to 24.5 percent of GDP. Perhaps we’ll go through a period of real austerity and we’ll make very tough choices and we’ll cut
an impressive four percentage points of GDP from federal spending. Fine. Now we’re at 20.5 percent of GDP. Taxes are
still going up. The reality is that we’re going to have higher taxes in the coming years, and beyond that, we’re going to have
higher taxes than we’ve traditionally had during periods in which taxes were relatively high. That’s not because Democrats
want higher taxes, nor because Republicans are poor negotiators. It’s because the country’s demographics will change. If
you want to draw some further policy conclusions out of this, I’d say it underscores the reasons liberals should worry about
debt, as it shows how easy it would be for spending on the old to squeeze out all sorts of investments in the young and
supports for the poor, and why conservatives should get serious about what sort of tax increases they would find most
acceptable, as taxes are going to go up one way or the other. But you could also stop short of all that. The real point here is
we’re moving to an age mix that’s going to require higher spending and that’s going to mean higher taxes. There’s really no
way around it.
AT: Spending Causes Inflation
AT: Greece Analogy
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
51
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
No debt crisis escalation – dollar is the world’s reserve currency
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 3/25 (Seeking Alpha, “Paul Krugman Is Wrong: The
United States Could Not End Up Like Greece,” 3/25/2011, http://seekingalpha.com/article/260141-paul-krugman-is-wrong-theunited-states-could-not-end-up-like-greece)
Actually this is not right for the simple reason that the United States has its own currency. This is important because even in
the worst case scenario, where the deficit in United States spirals out of control, the crisis would not take the form of the
crisis in Greece. Greece is like the state of Ohio. If Ohio has to borrow, it has no choice but to persuade investors to buy its
debt. Unless Greece leaves the euro (an option that it probably should be considering, at least to improve its bargaining
position), it must pay the rate of interest demanded by private investors or meet the conditions imposed by the European
Union/IMF as part of a bailout. However, because the United States has its own currency it would always have the option
to buy its own debt. The Federal Reserve Board could in principle buy an unlimited amount of debt simply by printing
more money. This could lead to a serious problem with inflation, but it would not put us in the Greek situation of having to
go hat in hand before the bond vigilantes. This distinction is important for two reasons. First, the public should be aware
that the Fed makes many of the most important political decisions affecting the economy. For example, if the Fed refused to
buy the government's debt even though interest rates had soared, this would be a very important political decision on the
Fed's part to deliberately leave the country at the mercy of the bond market vigilantes. This could be argued as good
economic policy, but it is important that the public realize that such a decision would be deliberate policy, not an
unalterable economic fact. The other reason why the specifics are important is because it provides a clearer framing of the
nature of the potential problem created by the debt. The deficit hawks want us to believe that we could lose the confidence
of private investors at any moment, therefore we cannot delay making the big cuts to Social Security and Medicare they are
demanding. However if we have a clear view of the mechanisms involved, it is easy to see that there is zero truth to the
deficit hawks' story. Suppose that the bond market vigilantes went wild tomorrow and demanded a 10 percent interest rate
on 10-year Treasury bonds, even as there was no change in the fundamentals of the U.S. economy. In this situation, the Fed
could simply step in and buy whatever bonds were needed to finance the budget deficit. Does anyone believe that this
would lead to inflation in the current economic situation? If so, then we should probably have the Fed step in and buy huge
amounts of debt even if the bond market vigilantes don't go on the warpath because the economy would benefit enormously
from a somewhat higher rate of inflation. This would reduce the real interest rate that firms and individuals pay to borrow
and also alleviate the debt burden faced by tens of millions of homeowners following the collapse of the housing bubble.
The other part of the story is that the dollar would likely fall in this scenario. The deficit hawks warn us of a plunging dollar
as part of their nightmare scenario. In fact, if we ever want to get more balanced trade and stop the borrowing from China
that the deficit hawks complain about, then we need the dollar to fall. This is the mechanism for adjusting trade imbalances
in a system of floating exchange rates. The United States borrows from China because of our trade deficit, not our budget
deficit. This also puts the deficit hawks' nightmere story in a clearer perspective. Ostensibly, the Obama administration has
been pleading with China's government to raise the value of its currency by 15 to 20 percent against the dollar. Can anyone
believe that China would suddenly let the yuan rise by 40 percent, 50 percent, or even 60 percent against the dollar? Will
the euro rise to be equal to 2 or even 3 dollars per euro? This story is absurd on its face. The U.S. market for imports from
these countries would vanish and our exports would suddenly be hyper-competitive in their home markets. As long as we
maintain a reasonably healthy industrial base (yes, we still have one), our trading partners have more to fear from a free fall
of the dollar than we do. In short, this another case of an empty water pistol pointed at our head. The deficit hawks want to
scare us with Greece in order to push their agenda of cutting Social Security, Medicare and other programs that benefit the
poor and middle class. This is part of their larger agenda for upward redistribution of income. We should be careful to not
give their story one iota of credibility more than it deserves. By implying that the United States could ever be Greece,
Krugman commits this sin.
Spending Key to Stimulus
U.S. economy needs more spending to create jobs. 2008 stimulus simply cut taxes and more recent
stimulus packages have not actually spent money. Spending money creates jobs and saves the economy,
not cutting govt. programs and losing more jobs
Paul Krugman, NYT OP-ED Columnist, 7/10/11, “No We Can’t? Or Won’t?”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This gets things exactly wrong. The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and
should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party
that benefits from the economy’s weakness. But political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
52
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Our failure to create jobs is a choice, not a necessity — a choice rationalized by an ever-shifting set of excuses.
Excuse No. 1: Just around the corner, there’s a rainbow in the sky.
Remember “green shoots”? Remember the “summer of recovery”? Policy makers keep declaring that the economy is on the
mend — and Lucy keeps snatching the football away. Yet these delusions of recovery have been an excuse for doing
nothing as the jobs crisis festers.
Excuse No. 2: Fear the bond market.
Two years ago The Wall Street Journal declared that interest rates on United States debt would soon soar unless
Washington stopped trying to fight the economic slump. Ever since, warnings about the imminent attack of the “bond
vigilantes” have been used to attack any spending on job creation.
But basic economics said that rates would stay low as long as the economy was depressed — and basic economics was
right. The interest rate on 10-year bonds was 3.7 percent when The Wall Street Journal issued that warning; at the end of
last week it was 3.03 percent.
How have the usual suspects responded? By inventing their own reality. Last week, Representative Paul Ryan, the man
behind the G.O.P. plan to dismantle Medicare, declared that we must slash government spending to “take pressure off the
interest rates” — the same pressure, I suppose, that has pushed those rates to near-record lows.
Excuse No. 3: It’s the workers’ fault.
Unemployment soared during the financial crisis and its aftermath. So it seems bizarre to argue that the real problem lies
with the workers — that the millions of Americans who were working four years ago but aren’t working now somehow
lack the skills the economy needs.
Yet that’s what you hear from many pundits these days: high unemployment is “structural,” they say, and requires longterm solutions (which means, in practice, doing nothing).
Well, if there really was a mismatch between the workers we have and the workers we need, workers who do have the right
skills, and are therefore able to find jobs, should be getting big wage increases. They aren’t. In fact, average wages actually
fell last month.
Excuse No. 4: We tried to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work.
Everybody knows that President Obama tried to stimulate the economy with a huge increase in government spending, and
that it didn’t work. But what everyone knows is wrong.
Think about it: Where are the big public works projects? Where are the armies of government workers? There are actually
half a million fewer government employees now than there were when Mr. Obama took office.
So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to
distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t
the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: some of us warned from the
beginning that tax cuts would be ineffective and that the proposed spending was woefully inadequate. And so it proved.
It’s also worth noting that in another area where government could make a big difference — help for troubled homeowners
— almost nothing has been done. The Obama administration’s program of mortgage relief has gone nowhere: of $46 billion
allotted to help families stay in their homes, less than $2 billion has actually been spent.
So let’s summarize: The economy isn’t fixing itself. Nor are there real obstacles to government action: both the bond
vigilantes and structural unemployment exist only in the imaginations of pundits. And if stimulus seems to have failed, it’s
because it was never actually tried.
________________________
***Impact Takeouts***
Economy Resilient
US Not Key to Global Economy
AT: War Impacts
________________________
***Military Tradeoff DA Aff***
________________________
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
53
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
***Non-Uniques***
Military Cuts Now
Defense cuts inevitable
FRANCIS '10 (Professional Writer for the CSMONITOR June 28 2010) <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.Francis/2010/0628/Cuts-to-US-defense-budget-look-inevitable >
It's bigger than Wal-Mart, employs more people than the United States Post Office, and far outspends all its competitors.
It's the US Department of Defense. Next year, though, budget cutters in Congress and the White House will probably begin
cutting it down to size in order to slash America's outsize budget deficit. There are related reasons: The US war effort in
Iraq is winding down; President Obama may start pulling out of Afghanistan; NATO allies are moving to slash their
military outlays. Most of all, budget cutters can't afford to ignore an area as vast as defense. The need for serious deficit
reduction and a loss of political support for high defense spending make cuts inevitable, says Gordon Adams, a defense
expert at American University. If budget deficits aren't seriously tackled, US spending on interest on the national debt will
exceed its defense budget by fiscal 2018, says Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments. He predicts large defense cuts within three years. It won't be easy. With 2.25 million full-time civilian and
military personnel (not including part-time Guard and Reserve members) and thousands of contracts with firms, the
Defense Department is a major economic engine for hundreds of communities and enjoys huge political clout. Nonetheless,
major defense cuts have happened before. Between 1989 and 1993, the active defense force shrank from 2.2 million to 1.5
million and civilian personnel slimmed down from 1.04 million to 700,000, Mr. Adams notes. With the end of the cold war,
and by congressional budget cuts, defense spending fell 26 percent in constant dollars between 1985 and 1993 – presided
over by none other than Dick Cheney, then Defense secretary, who prided himself on having ended more than 100 military
acquisition programs. Today, defense expenditures amount to about 4.9 percent of US gross domestic product, the nation's
total output of goods and services. That's well above the less than 2 percent of GDP spent by such allies as Canada,
Germany, Britain, and France. The latest news suggests more cuts by allies are ahead. Add in what Homeland Security,
Veterans Affairs, and the Energy departments spend on defense and total US military spending will reach $861 billion in
fiscal 2011, Mr. Harrison calculates, exceeding that of all other nations combined. Already, defense outlays in Iraq are
falling. The number of American military personnel in Iraq has fallen from a peak of 170,000 a couple of years ago to
86,000 now and perhaps 50,000 by Sept. 1. The number of bases and facilities there has been cut by nearly half since
peaking at 370 in 2008. Military spending in Iraq has dropped by half – from $90.6 billion in 2009 to an expected $43.4
billion in fiscal 2011. By the end of next year, the US hopes to have only a training-size force there. By contrast, operations
in Afghanistan are still growing, with some 94,000 US troops expected on the ground by late August or September. Costs
are climbing rapidly – from $51 billion in 2009 to $110 billion projected for fiscal 2011.But Adams suspects that before
Mr. Obama faces reelection in 2012 he will move toward ending the Afghanistan mission. "The politics are devastating,"
Adams says. Employment at the Defense Department probably won't shrink to the levels at Wal-Mart (1.4 million) or the
post office (599,000). But a difficult switch from guns to butter – or guns to deficit reduction – is about to get under way.
HEG DECLINE MAKES CUTS IN THE DOD INEVITABLE
DREYFUSS '11 (Investigative Journalist for the Nation “Reality Check: Budget Cuts Inevitable at the Department of Defense”
Jun 27th 2011) <http://www.thenation.com/blog/161662/reality-check-budget-cuts-inevitable-department-defense >
There’s an inevitability to the coming decline of US power and influence worldwide, as the American economy shrinks
relative to the economic power of other countries, as America’s allies in places like Egypt strike out on their own, and as
the size of the US military declines because the United States can no longer afford to spend upwards of $700 billion on
defense. Still, there are those who believe that the United States must maintain, and even increase its spending at the
Pentagon, even as more and more Republicans are prepared to throw the military under the bus to save money. Take, for
instance, Fred Hiatt of theWashington Post, who pens an op-ed in today’s paper titled: “What’s happened to America’s
leadership role?” Hiatt, a reliable hawk who’s helped steer the Post into indefensibly pro-defense positions, including
support for the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, accuses President Obama of surrendering the US leadership role by refusing
to take the lead in battling Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and by backing a modest drawdown in Afghanistan:“Obama has said
it is a strategic imperative to fight the Taliban to a standstill and train an Afghan army that can keep the nation at peace. But
then how can it make sense to set a withdrawal schedule irrespective of whether those goals are achieved? The message,
again, is that domestic considerations take precedence over global responsibilities.”More worryingly, Hiatt attacks Obama
for his semi-isolationist comment, during his Afghan policy address last week, in which Obama declared: “America, it is
time to focus on nation-building here at home.” If only that were true: if only the president was really committed to an
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
54
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
industrial policy at home, enhancing America’s competitiveness by investing massively in education, job training, R&D,
infrastructure and so on. But to my mind, getting our troops out of Afghanistan, albeit at a turtle’s pace, is better than
nothing. But it’s too much for Hiatt. The Post editor goes on to berate the Republicans for being willing, too, like Obama,
to cut military spending. And Hiatt criticizes Obama on the same score:“At home [Obama] pocketed $400 billion in budget
cuts offered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and then demanded $400 billion more over 10 years. Those cuts may be
achievable without harming U.S. leadership, but Obama doesn’t know that to be true. By setting the fiscal target, and
having the Pentagon adjust strategy accordingly, he sends a message that deficit reduction matters most.”On page 1,
interestingly enough, the Post reports that in the current (now stalled) budget talks, the GOP is ready to slash spending at
the DOD, though by how much isn’t clear. But the article’s lede reads:“As President Obama prepares to meet Monday with
Senate leaders to try to restart talks about the swollen national debt, some Republicans see a potential path to compromise:
significant cuts in military spending.”Hiatt claims that the rest of the world is eternally grateful to the United States for
making the world safe, including its ability to use its military power to maintain “open and safe sea lanes,” although China
and other countries dependent on the Middle East for energy might not agree. Indeed, in an accompanying unsigned
editorial that sounds very much like it, too, was written by Hiatt, the Post urges Obama to get tough with China over
Beijing’s claim to sovereignty in the South China Sea—the very same “sea lanes” that Hiatt says the world is so happy
about having the United States exercise its military dominance! Says the imperial-sounding editorial:“[China’s] menacing
language makes clear why the United States needs to exert its influence. Up to one-third of global trade passes through the
South China Sea, so preserving freedom of navigation is a ‘national interest,’ as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
put it last year. As important is checking China’s impulse to bully its neighbors, including not only friendly but weak
democracies such as the Philippines but also Japan, which has its own maritime disputes with Beijing.“The Obama
administration has made gestures in this direction. In addition to Ms. Clinton’s statement—which she repeated last week—
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pledged recently that ‘five years from now the United States’ influence’ in Asia will be
‘as strong if not stronger than it is today.’ After meeting with Mr. del Rosario, Ms. Clinton said the United States was
committed to the defense of the Philippines and to providing it with weapons, though she would not comment on the U.S.
response to a potential attack by China in the South China Sea.”I have news for the Post, and for ex–Secretary of Defense
Gates. Five years from now, US influence in Asia will far less than it is today. Not only that, but China and Vietnam are
quietly negotiating a deal over who owns what in the South China Sea, without needing to call in the United States.
[Specific Program] Cuts Now
Military Weak Now
________________________
***Internal Link Takeouts***
Spending Trades Off with Other Stuff
Military pay will be cut, not weapons systems
GI KOREA ’11 (KOREAN NEWS POST ON FOREIGN POLITICS AND U.S MILITARY July 1st 2011) <
http://rokdrop.com/2011/07/01/congress-looks-to-cut-change-us-military-retirement/>
Here is something that ROK Head, JoeC pointed out in an earlier comment that should have its own posting to discuss:
Congress and the White House are discussing two proposed cuts in military retired pay as part of negotiations over the U.S.
national debt limit, but finding an agreement is proving difficult, according to an article by Army Times.One cut would
annually lower the calculated cost-of-living adjustment by an average of one-quarter of a percentage point, which could
apply to military and federal civilian retirees, disabled veterans and survivors.The change would save $24 billion over 10
years, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the release said.The second option
involves replacing the current system in which a servicemember is eligible for benefits after 20 years of service with a new
plan that could provide some retirement benefits for as few as five years of service — with payments not starting until at
least age 60 for any servicemembers who do not retire on a full military disability, the article said. [Stars & Stripes]As far
as the COLA adjustment for military retirees I really wouldn’t have a problem with it if the reduction in benefits was
something that all government employees were facing. Maybe other government employees are facing retirement benefit
cuts, but I sure haven’t seen anything in the media about it. It just seems that a large portion of the budget crisis in
Washington, DC is trying to be rectified on the back of the military without touching anyone else. There should be shared
sacrifice across the entire spectrum of government. Anyone else feeling the same way? As far as the military retirement
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
55
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
change if you read the rest of the article this is something that is not going to save the government hardly any money until
well into the future. I have said this before but the way I look at it is if Congress and the White House thinks the military
benefits are too high and a drain on the federal budget, than why don’t they advocate for cuts in benefits for the entire
government civilian workforce who nearly every single one I work with makes more money than I do? By the way
remember that while the government in Washington is busy trying to take retirement benefits from US servicemembers
these same people are busy buying military equipment that the Pentagon has repeatedly says it does not want
Military Spending Will Never be Cut
[Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
No Tradeoff
NASA Has Enough Money
________________________
***Impact Turns and Takeouts***
AT: Military Spending Key to Heg
CUTS IN MILITARY BUDGET WON'T THREATEN NATIONAL SECURITY
BRANNEN '11 (Federal Times writer “Budget cuts won't harm national security, Panetta says” June 9th 2011)
<http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110609/DEPARTMENTS01/106090301/ >
Leon Panetta, nominated to become the next defense secretary, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday
that the government does not need to choose between fiscal discipline and a strong national defense. The $400 billion cut to
the security budget over 10 years called for by President Obama will not pose a risk to national security, he said during his
confirmation hearing. He acknowledged that some tough choices would have to be made, but Panetta said the country could
maintain the strongest military in the world while also reining in defense spending. Panetta said he did not know how much
of the $400 billion would come from the Pentagon. The security budget includes funding for the State Department, the
intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Agency for
International Development and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy. The chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Panetta to find out and report to Congress. "We need to know
that," he said.In considering Panetta's suitability as the next defense secretary, several senators highlighted his experience
managing budgets as a skill that the Pentagon needs today.Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California, was
director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the Clinton administration. He is now director of the
CIA.Panetta's service at OMB is "invaluable" because he "understands the inner workings of the budget process and
because he shaped the decisions that helped achieve the budget surpluses of the late 1990s," Levin said.The hope is that
Panetta's budget background will help the Pentagon make responsible budget cuts that contribute to the president's debt
reduction efforts, as well as get soaring weapon costs under control.Panetta told the Senate panel that he intends to
accelerate the Pentagon's efforts to achieve a full financial audit."We should be able to audit that department," he said. The
Pentagon has never completed a full audit and does not plan on being able to do so before 2017."One of the first things I'm
going to do is see if we can improve on that timetable," Panetta said.The Pentagon is currently conducting a
"Comprehensive Review," called for by the president to help determine what should be cut to meet the $400 billion target.
In Panetta's written responses submitted to the Senate panel before the hearing, he noted that the review would be
completed by the fall."If we are going to manage costs, I believe everything must be on the table," Panetta said in response
to the advance policy questions. "It may be appropriate to conduct a comprehensive review of the military pay and benefits
structure to determine where costs can be contained."Military health care and other entitlement programs included in the
Pentagon's budget are currently growing faster than inflation. In a few years, military health care is expected to exceed 10
percent of the overall defense budget.As for other entitlement programs, it may "also be appropriate to review the military
retirement system for needed changes and efficiencies," Panetta said.As for weapon programs, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., asked Panetta specifically about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive
program.Variants of the F-35 fighter jet are scheduled to replace aircraft in the Air Force, Navy and the Marine Corps.
Recently, the F-35 was estimated to cost $380 billion over its lifetime, but the Pentagon has said it is working to re-baseline
the program.The country cannot afford an aircraft that doubles or triples from its original cost, McCain said."I support
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
56
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
DoD's current effort to focus on and reduce F-35 sustainment costs," Panetta said. "If confirmed, I will review the overall
program's status and health."
AT: F-35 Key to Heg
The F-35 sucks – multiple warrants
Majumdar 08 (Dave Majumdar, Staff Writer at Defense News, 07 November 2008, New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the
U.S. Fleet, http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html, TA)
In recent weeks a number of highly critical reports and editorials have surfaced from both defense think tanks and the
media. Critics such as Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey of the Center for Defense Information malign the aircraft as an
underpowered, overweight monstrosity that will be easy prey for the latest generation of threat aircraft such as the Russian
built Su-35BM that are being proliferated around the world. Sprey and Wheeler argued in a editorial published on Sept. 10,
that the F-35 which weighs in "at 49,500 lb air-to-air take-off weight, with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, will be a
significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter." Additionally, the two analysts suggest that the F-35
"with just 460 sq ft (43 m2) of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps variants, will have a wing-loading of 108 lbs
per square foot." Sprey and Wheeler argue that the F-35 is "actually less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F105 ‘Lead Sled' that got wiped out over North Vietnam" during the Vietnam conflict. The two critics dismiss the aircrafts'
advanced stealth and avionics almost in their entirety, pointing to the downing of an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter during
the 1999 Kosovo air campaign as evidence to support their views. Wheeler and Sprey also assert that the aircraft will be
unable to perform the vital role of close air support (CAS) — striking the enemy on the ground in direct support of ground
troops. They argue that the aircraft "is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to
withstand ground fire" and lacks the endurance to meet the requirements of the close air support mission. Further the two
academics assert that the aircraft is under armed with only two 2000 lbs Joint Direct Attack Munitions(JDAM) and two
medium range air to air radar guided AIM-120 missiles in a full air to ground stealth configuration. While both Wheeler
and Sprey are respected academics, other attacks on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program have come from less reputable
sources. In the Australian media, the JSF was assailed by allegations that the fighters were "clubbed like baby seals" during
a table top war-game held in Hawaii by the U.S. Pacific Command. Later, when the source of the report was revealed to be
an erroneous backup slide for a RAND Corporation presentation, RAND not only disavowed the slide in question, but also
issued a strong denial that the report was ever designed to be a detailed simulation of the capabilities of any warplanemuch less the F-35. However, the damage to the public perception remains
AT: Military Spending Key to the Economy
AT: [Specific Program] Key to the Economy
Defense Cuts Good
Military cuts benefits US leadership
Athey 11 (Jean Athey is the coordinator of Peace Action Montgomery County, Maryland, and the secretary of the Peace Action
National Board of Directors, June 2nd, 2011, http://masspeaceaction.org/1261, TA)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is barnstorming the country to make the case for high defense spending. He recently said,
“As we make the tough choices needed to put this country’s finances in order . . . there will undoubtedly be calls . . . for us
to sharply reduce our international commitments and the size and capabilities of our military,” which Gates thinks would be
a very bad idea. He suggests that any cuts to the military budget should be based on a strategic review, in which we decide
what it is we want to do and thus how large and how expensive a military we need. Yes—let’s have a strategic review, an
honest one, conducted in public and not given to obfuscation, a public debate in which we as a nation decide, clearly and
unambiguously, what we want our international role to be and the trade-offs we are willing to accept for that role. In his
May 23 speech, Gates said that the goals of the U.S. military are “to sustain alliances, to protect trade routes and energy
supplies, and to deter would-be adversaries”—in other words, to police the world. This is a different mission from defense
or national security. U.S. citizens have never explicitly endorsed the role of global hegemon, and as part of a strategic
review, they might like to reflect on how much it costs. Every U.S. citizen pays about $3,000 per year for military
spending, approximately four and a half times more than the citizens of any other country in the world. Other NATO
countries spend an average of just over $500 per capita, with Russia slightly over $500 and China around $50. The amount
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
57
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
of our taxes that goes to military spending has almost doubled in constant dollars over the last decade. In total spending,
although the U.S. FY2012 U.S. military budget is now being debated in Congress, it is expected to rise over one percent to
some $820 billion (now to include the two current wars previously funded by supplementals). China ranks second, with an
estimated total of $120 billion. Actually, the figure above underestimates U.S. military spending, since so much of that is
spread throughout the government and is not found in the Pentagon budget. Many analysts believe that the true amount of
U.S. military spending even now exceeds $1 trillion annually. To what extent can our economy sustain this unprecedented
level of military spending, and do Americans really want to assume the expense of policing the world? Former president
Dwight D. Eisenhower, a military man himself, clearly understood the trade-offs. In his first State of the Union Address,
Eisenhower said, “Our problem is to achieve adequate military strength within the limits of endurable strain upon our
economy. To amass military power without regard to our economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind
of disaster by inviting another.” Eisenhower knew that national strength and military power are not the same things at all,
and that in fact, excessive military spending can quickly destroy a nation. “There is no way in which a country can satisfy
the craving for absolute security,” Eisenhower said, “but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to
reach that illusory goal through arms alone.” On May 25, Gates warned that with a smaller budget, the military “will be
able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things.” Yes, and that is just the point. If the military had had less money at
its disposal, perhaps we could have avoided the disastrous war in Iraq, the decade-long war in Afghanistan, and now, a new
and undeclared war in Libya. And if we had back the money already spent on those wars plus the out-year costs, estimated
at $4 to $6 trillion by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz, we would not today be worrying about the national debt.
Rather than trying to police the world in a time of great economic insecurity, if given a choice, Americans might well opt
for a policy of military restraint as our international role, in which we substitute extensive economic and cultural
engagement for force as the default mode. Many people believe that such a policy would make us safer, not more
vulnerable. Military analyst Benjamin H. Friedman, for example, writes that, “A force reduction strategy . . . would reduce
the possibility of fighting unnecessary wars, limit the number of countries that build up their military to balance U.S.
forces, remove an impetus for nuclear weapons proliferation and prevent foreign peoples from resenting us for occupying
their countries.”
Defense cuts will benefit defense
Gurney 10 (Matt Gurney is assistant editor, comment and a member of the National Post editorial board. Matt Gurney: America's
military goes on the chopping block, May 10, 2010, http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/10/mattgurney-america-s-military-goes-on-the-chopping-block.aspx, TA)
Republicans and defence hawks will have a field day with this. They've been warning for years that the Democrats want to
gut America's defences, and now can claim to have proof. Will the cuts proposed by Gates amount to "gutting"? It's
impossible to say, but it's unlikely — Congressmen need to get re-elected and will zealously defend any defence contractors
in their districts whilst simultaneously boosting their own national security credentials. But certainly, some big-ticket
expenditures will join further production of F-22 stealth fighters on the chopping block. (Indeed, Gates is already in the
midst of a very public spat with the Navy over the future size of the American carrier fleet — Gates thinks 10 ought to be
enough, but the Navy is adamant that only 11 will do.) Such cuts have been coming for a while. NASA has already been
virtually shut down so it was only a matter of time until the military came under the axe. The cuts, if done properly, might
not be harmful — military history has shown again and again that top-of-the-line weapons get more and more expensive
and less effective. Primitive firearms easily overwhelmed the expensive, cumbersome armour worn by medieval knights.
Machine guns could wipe out whole battalions of infantry. In modern times, enormous battle tanks can be knocked out by
RPGs wielded by an insurgent, high-tech choppers fall victim to shoulder-fired missiles and multi-billion-dollar aircraft
carriers fear a swarm of cruise missiles worth a measly few million. And South Korea recently lost an advanced warship,
almost certainly to a torpedo fired by the far less advanced North Korean fleet. If Gates' reforms create a more agile,
flexible military, America might benefit. If the axe is wielded indiscriminately and with an eye only towards reining in
America's chronic deficits, that would be very bad news for the Free World. National Post Read more:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/10/matt-gurney-america-s-military-goes-on-thechopping-block.aspx#ixzz1SZ07RG45
AT: Heg Key to Space
________________________
***NASA Tradeoff DA Aff***
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
58
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
________________________
***Non-Uniques***
NASA Cuts Now
Massive cuts in NASA’s budget across the board
Zach Rosenberg, 6/7/11, “US House Appropriations cuts NASA Budget,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/06/359215/us-house-appropriations-cuts-nasa-budget.html
The House Appropriations Committee, which dictates how the government spends money, has released a draft of the
commerce, justice and science appropriations bill cutting NASA's FY 2012 budget by $1.6 billion. The proposed budget
includes overall cuts from FY 2011 in NASA science ($431m cut), exploration ($152m cut) and operations ($1.4b cut).
House Appropriations makes cuts from NASA and NOAA
PR Newswire, (press release), 7/12 (7/12/11, " AIA Concerned by NASA, NOAA Cuts ", http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/aia-concerned-by-nasa-noaa-cuts-125446723.html
The Aerospace Industries Association is concerned about the substantial cuts being made to the budgets of NASA and
NOAA in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science markup of the fiscal year 2012
appropriations bill.
"We recognize that tough economic times call for tough choices," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey.
"However, cutting NASA and NOAA this deeply threatens American leadership in space and impairs our ability to make
life-saving weather predictions."
The subcommittee's markup cuts NASA's space programs by 10 percent from the President's request and nearly 13 percent
from the NASA authorization passed last October. AIA acknowledges that many NASA mission areas were adequately
supported—but some suffered draconian cuts. Given the current fiscal environment, AIA believes the $18.7 billion in
funding proposed by the President provides the minimum required for these important programs. AIA supports
appropriations reflecting the policy priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 as closely as possible and opposes
the termination of programs contrary to the priorities of the Authorization Act.
With the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA must be adequately funded to continue our visible national
commitment to space exploration, science, aeronautics and technology leadership—something that 58 percent of Americans
recently polled by the Pew Research Center supported.
"Each ride to the space station that NASA buys from Russia is the annual equivalent of 1000 American aerospace jobs,"
Blakey said. "We should be paying Americans instead of Russians."
In addition, NOAA would get $1 billion less than the President's request—an 18 percent cut in a year when storms have
already taken hundreds of lives and shown the need for accurate forecasts. Our public safety, national security and
economic recovery argues for fully funding NOAA to get observing programs back on track and mitigate any loss in
coverage due to aging systems.
Appropriations committee agrees to cut NASA budget by 2 billion
Florida Today 7/11 (7/11/11, " Our views: Reject NASA cuts (July 12) ",
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110712/OPINION/110711014/Our-views-Reject-NASA-cuts-July-12-)
The committee voted to cut its budget to $16.8 billion, a 9 percent reduction that would badly hurt efforts to get private
rockets flying around 2015 from Cape Canaveral, a program that holds the most promise to return Americans into orbit on
U.S. launchers soon.
The funding level is $1.6 billion below last year and $1.9 billion below the president’s request.
The cuts would also kill the troubled James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A recent
FLORIDA TODAY investigation showed the project was $5.2 billion over budget and years behind schedule.
Earth Sciences Cuts Now
No Earth Science
Kintisch 7/15 (Eli Kintisch 15 July 2011House Appropriators Propose Big Cuts to Earth Sciences
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/07/house-appropriators-propose-big-.html?ref=hp JT)
Deep cuts in earth science budgets for several U.S. agencies are in store next year under a proposed budget that awaits a
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
59
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
vote by the House of Representatives. Under the plan drafted by the commerce, justice, and science subcommittee and
approved Wednesday by the full appropriations committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
would receive a $100 million cut below its current $4.5 billion budget. The plan also includes a $100 million less for
NASA’s $1.7 billion earth science budget than the agency has proposed. Climate programs at the U.S. Geological Survey,
meanwhile, are also under the knife under a different proposed spending bill. “There are a number of areas in this bill that,
under different circumstances, I would have preferred to fund at different levels,” subcommittee chair Frank Wolf (R-VA)
said at a hearing last week when his panel marked up the $50.2 billion spending bill. “However, the House-passed budget
resolution established our allocation and, accordingly, this subcommittee produced a strong bill with strategic investments
in national security, job creation, and science.” For NOAA, “it’s the same problem they’ve had for the last 5 years—how do
they ramp up the satellite programs without affecting the rest of their operations,” said lobbyist Kevin Wheeler of Ocean
Leadership in Washington, D.C. The proposed $100 million cut comes at the same time the committee endorsed a big
increase for satellite systems that provide remote sensing for the planet. The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), which
received $472 million this fiscal year, would get an increase of $429 million, for a total of $901 million. But that increase
would be taken from other NOAA programs. The Obama Administration had asked for $1.06 billion for NOAA’s share of
the JPSS program in 2012. NOAA has not released details on how its $4.5 billion budget for 2011 has been allocated. So
the proposed House cuts to specific programs can only be compared with 2010 levels. According to an analysis by Ocean
Conservancy, a D.C. nonprofit organization, the bill would cut ocean research by 44% compared with 2010 and
nonresearch ocean and fisheries programs by roughly 30%. “It doesn’t help that the ocean doesn’t have a congressman,”
says spokesperson Timothy McHugh of Ocean Conservancy. Despite the large increase for JPSS, considered a crucial tool
for maintaining long-lasting climate and environmental research records, oceanographer Antonio Busalacchi says not
funding JPSS for the full 2011 “only serves to drag out the funding profile for JPSS, which will cost the country more in
total program costs while seriously jeopardizing the nation's operational capability for continuous weather monitoring and
prediction.” Busalacchi, director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, run jointly by the University of
Maryland, College Park, and NASA, was co-author on an influential 2007 report by the National Academies on earth
remote sensing. The cut to the earth science program at NASA is part of a proposed $16.8 billion budget for NASA as a
whole, $1.6 billion below the current year budget. The bill protects funding for human space flight, including a crew
vehicle and launch system. "While the Committee supports Earth Science functions, this area has rapidly grown over the
past few fiscal years, and the current constrained fiscal environment simply cannot sustain the spending patterns envisioned
by NASA in this field," said committee members in a report. That statement “ is very misleading, as it does not take into
account the years of neglect and declining budgets for NASA Earth Science during the previous Administration,” says
Busalacchi. “Coupled with considerably increased costs for access to space,” he adds, “this cut, plus the wording to protect
specific missions, leaves NASA with very little flexibility to maintain a balanced approach to earth system science.”
Telescope Cuts Now
House makes major cuts in NASA and stops funding for James Webb Telescope
Space Review 7/18 (Jeff Foust, 7/18/11, " Heavy-lift limbo ", http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1886/1)
Meanwhile, funding for the SLS is one issue that has been subject to little debate. While House appropriators recently made
major cuts in the administration’s budget proposal for NASA, including a controversial decision to provide no money for
the James Webb Space Telescope, an appropriations bill would give NASA all that it asked for, and even a little more, for
SLS. But as the debate swirls about the utility of the SLS in an ever more conservative fiscal environment, some wonder if
that’s money well spent. How soon is “soon”?
Cuts will kill James Webb Telescope
Florida Today 7/11 (7/11/11, " Our views: Reject NASA cuts (July 12) ",
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110712/OPINION/110711014/Our-views-Reject-NASA-cuts-July-12-)
The funding level is $1.6 billion below last year and $1.9 billion below the president’s request.
The cuts would also kill the troubled James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A recent
FLORIDA TODAY investigation showed the project was $5.2 billion over budget and years behind schedule. Deep cuts in
earth science budgets for several U.S. agencies are in store next year under a proposed budget that awaits a vote by the
House of Representatives. Under the plan drafted by the commerce, justice, and science subcommittee and approved
Wednesday by the full appropriations committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would
receive a $100 million cut below its current $4.5 billion budget. The plan also includes a $100 million less for NASA’s $1.7
billion earth science budget than the agency has proposed. Climate programs at the U.S. Geological Survey, meanwhile, are
also under the knife under a different proposed spending bill.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
60
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
James Webb Telescope will inevitably be cut
Ganssle 11, member of NASA's Super Problem Resolution Team, 7/11/11http://www.eetimes.com/discussion/other/4217731/Thedeath-of-the-JWST
According to a press release from the U.S. House Committee on Approriations and the online Space Daily, the US House
of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science has voted to kill the James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST). Apparently the JWST, like so many other government programs, is far over budget and schedule.
Unlike so many other government programs, a year ago the program passed the technical part of a huge design review,
signaling that the design is sound. The Subcommittee’s recommendations are just that, but they carry significant weight,
and the thinking is that the JWST will likely be scrubbed.
James Webb Telescope will be canceled anyway
Atkinson 11, senior analyst at Aite Group, 7/6/11 http://www.universetoday.com/87265/proposed-nasa-budget-bill-would-canceljames-webb-space-telescope/
The US House Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee has proposed a NASA spending bill that would put NASA’s
budget at pre-2008 levels and cancel the $6.5 billion James Webb Space Telescope. Space News reports that the proposal
would cut $1.6 billion from NASA’s current budget, which is nearly $2 billion less than President Obama’s 2012 budget
request for NASA, giving the space agency just $16.8 billion to work with. This news is not sitting well with scientists and
researchers, with one astrophysicist saying this move could “kill US space science for decades.” Dr. C. Megan Urry,
Director of the Yale Center for Astronomy & Astrophysics and the Chair of the Yale Physics Department said she has
already written her congressmen and representatives to stand against this bill, “for the good of science, STEM education,
and the nation.” “I think this is an extremely serious situation,” Urry told Universe Today, “and I think the James Webb
Telescope is an extraordinarily important mission. It was recommended in the 2000 Decadal Survey and was strongly
endorsed in the 2010 Decadal Survey, so the science community has supported this mission for a long time.” The
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) quickly responded with a statement objecting to the axing
of JWST, saying “Over the past year, NASA managers and the science community have undertaken a concerted effort to
establish a budget and technology plan that allows the launch of JWST by 2018. The proposal by the Congress to terminate
the program comes at a time when these efforts are coming to fruition.” The press release that came out along with the
draft states that that the bill terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope because it is “billions of dollars over
budget and plagued by poor management.”
The telescope is gone—voted out and efforts to save it fail
Pachal 7/14 (Peter Pachal is PCMag's News Director and has been covering consumer technology in print and online for more than
a decade. He holds degrees in journalism and engineering. July 14, 2011“Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb
Telescope” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp JT)
The James Webb space telescope, the successor to Hubble, just came one step closer to being thrown in the trash bin over
budget cuts. Yesterday the House Committee on Appropriations approved a plan to slash NASA's budget for next year and
explicitly kill the project. The House and Senate still need to vote on the measure before it becomes law, but it's not
looking good for expensive Webb. The cost of developing the telescope has ballooned over the years as NASA has had to
invent whole new technologies in order to make it work properly. Unlike the Hubble, the Webb will be much further from
Earth in order to shield itself from infrared radiation, and its systems will need to function at extremely cold temperatures.
Adapting to those conditions has proved pricey for NASA. It's already spent $3 billion on the Webb, and the total cost is
projected to be about $6.8 billion (it was initially budgeted at $1.6 billion total). However, once launched and put into
place, the Webb will be so far from Earth that it will be impossible to service, so subsequent costs would involve only
operating the telescope and analyzing its data (estimated at $1 billion over 10 years). On Tuesday, NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden made an appeal to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee to save the Webb. "I have tried to
explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far greater than we got from
Hubble," Discovery News reported Bolden as saying. "I would only say that for about the same cost as Hubble in real-year
dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." His words apparently had little effect. Neither did an attempt to restore
partial funding of the Webb with a eleventh-hour amendment from Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. The
Republican-dominated committee shot down the measure with a voice vote, Nature reported. As the Webb edges closer to
oblivion, scientists have voiced concern over the termination of the project, saying that the discoveries it could reveal will
be well worth the cost.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
61
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
Transparency is the problem—the telescope is too uncertain
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
And I think somehow - I think Ron put his finger on it, fencing it off, more transparency and honesty upfront, I think
that probably was the biggest problem, not knowing how big a problem this was going to be because NASA is us and we
want - we are a great nation, and we want to do these game changers.
No hope for the telescope—republican dominated house will slash Webb
Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to
communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where
he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught
science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next
Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT)
It was fun while it lasted. Last week, a House subcommittee proposed to kill off funding for the James Webb Space
Telescope. The new instrument — which would orbit the sun just a little farther out than the Earth — is the heir apparent to
the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's flagship space-science project. Some kind of second act was always seen as a good
idea, but the folks on the Hill have a right to be exasperated with the way this one is turning out: the Webb, originally
proposed in the mid-1990s under the name the Next Generation Space Telescope, was supposed to launch by 2007 and cost
about $500 million. But it's gotten progressively more expensive, less powerful and further behind schedule. An
independent review board reported last November that the poorly managed Webb (uninspiringly renamed after a former
NASA administrator) could end up costing up to $6.8 billion and wouldn't launch until 2015 at the earliest. With the
Republican-dominated House determined to slash spending everywhere it can, the Webb is a nice, juicy target. It's
not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked
in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very
existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial
Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. But that just makes the cancellation of the
Webb seem worse. "It's a double whammy," says Natalie Batalha, a high-ranking member of the science team for the
Kepler probe, the spectacularly successful planet-hunting mission that's been delivering discovery after discovery since its
2009 launch. "The whole community has sacrificed to fund [the James Webb Space Telescope]. Everyone was unhappy,
but we all knew how valuable it would be. And now you have Congress talking about canceling it." (See "Kepler Telescope
Finds Swarm of New Worlds.") What makes the Webb so valuable is, first of all, its huge light-gathering mirror — more
than 21 ft. (6.4 m) across, compared with Hubble's 7.8 ft. (2.4 m). It's so big that the mirror can't go up as a single piece of
glass. Instead, it's made of 18 smaller mirrors that will unfold in space to form a mosaic. Since fainter objects are also
generally older and more distant, the Webb will be able to study galaxies, dust clouds, and cosmic processes at the earliest
stages of the history of the universe. Better yet, unlike the Hubble telescope, the Webb is designed to see mostly in infrared
light — the kind emitted not only by distant galaxies but also by planets. The telescope won't be able to take pictures of
earthlike planets at distant stars — they're too faint and too close to their stars, even for the Webb — but it can pick out
bigger planets and give astronomers a sense of what they're made of and how they formed. (See "Deep Space Photos:
Hubble's Greatest Hits.") Beyond that, scientists have already made enormous progress on the project, not only on
manufacturing the mirrors for the Webb but also in developing electronic cameras to take maximum advantage of those
mirrors — the same sort of technology that lets the Hubble take such fantastic images and do such extraordinary science.
After so much money has been sunk into the work, it would be insane, say scientists, to throw it all away. Certainly,
Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super
Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The
reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is
now a vast, $2 billion doughnut-shaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. (Watch TIME's video "Herschel:
The Telescope for Invisible Stars.") Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can
argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and
accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that
there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider
over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be
available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes;
so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
62
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
All attempts have failed to restore the telescope
O'Neill 7/13 (Ian O’Neill is Space Producer for Discovery Channel’s Discovery News Website. He’s also a trained astrophysicist.
Jul 13, 2011 “James Webb Space Telescope Closer to the Axe” http://news.discovery.com/space/james-webb-space-telescope-closer-to-the-axe110714.html JT)
This could be considered "strike two" for the deeply troubled James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Last week, the House
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee made the recommendation that the advanced infrared space
telescope -- and Hubble's replacement -- be cancelled. On Wednesday, the full House Science, Space and Technology
Committee has approved the subcommittee's plan. Hubble WATCH VIDEOS: Hubble is always seeing the cosmos in a
new light. Browse the next big Hubble scoop in the Discovery News Hubble video playlist. ANALYSIS: Eroding NASA
Science: Space Telescope Scrapped? Although the project isn't dead yet, the 2012 budget still needs to be voted on by the
House an the Senate, but things are looking grim. Despite a last minute appeal to the House Science, Space and
Technology Committee by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Tuesday, the Republican-dominated committee were
unmoved. "I have tried to explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far
greater than we got from Hubble," Bolden told the committee members. "I would only say that for about the same cost as
Hubble in real-year dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." Also, in a last-ditch attempt on Wednesday to breathe
life into the project, Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California whose district covers NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. in
Pasadena, Calif., tried to insert an amendment that would have partially restored funding, redirecting $200 million from
NASA's account for Cross Agency Support. The amendment was shot down by a voice vote. $3 billion has already been
sunk into the project and components for the space telescope are undergoing space-readiness tests. Unfortunately, the
projected 6.8 billion final price tag -- plus mismanagement troubles -- has attracted budget-cutting lawmakers. Should
JWST be cancelled, the $3 billion already invested will be lost. Seems like quite a big waste for NASA's already grossly
underfunded budget, doesn't it? The scientific returns on the JWST would be incalculable; but to politicians, science takes a
distant second to budget cutting and political points scoring. So what can we do apart from keep our fingers crossed that
funding will magically appear? Contact your Representative to keep the pressure applied to keep JWST alive, lawmakers
have yet to nail the project's coffin shut with a final vote.
SLS Cuts Now
No SLS—the White House doesn’t want it
7/20 (Lee Roop, The Huntsville Times The Huntsville Times July 20, 2011 Obama administration defends delay approving new
heavy-lift rocket plan http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/07/obama_administration_defends_d.html JT)
Former NASA administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, a persistent critic of the Obama administration, said in Sunday's story, "In
my opinion, NASA's SLS program is stalled because the White House doesn't really want to do it." Griffin, who led NASA
during the administration of former President George W. Bush, is now an eminent scholar at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. "You will recall that SLS is derogatorily referenced by some as the 'Senate Launch System,'" Griffin said. "That
is because the Congress forced it upon the executive branch. The fact that it is the right thing for NASA to do is irrelevant;
the White House doesn't want to do it, and they will do everything possible to prevent it from occurring."
________________________
***Internal Link Takeouts***
AT: Spending Trades Off within NASA
AT: Spending Trades Off with [Specific Program]
[Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
No Tradeoff
NASA Has Enough Money
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
63
Document1
DDI 2011-2
1
________________________
***Impact Takeouts***
AT: NASA Spending Key to Climate
AT: SLS Key
Private companies can do rockets better than SLS and SLS trades off with better items
Boyle interviewing Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX 7/14 (2011 “SpaceX chief sets his sights on Mars”
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/14/7078446-spacex-chief-sets-his-sights-on-mars JT)
Q: Do you think NASA has the right vision for spaceflight? The idea is that space station resupply in low Earth orbit would
be left to commercial ventures, freeing NASA up to develop the heavy-lift Space Launch System for exploration beyond
Earth orbit. Some people have wondered whether the Space Launch System is really going to be necessary.
A: Personally, my view is that space transport overall should be much more of a private-public partnership, and that applies
to heavy lift as well. The best use of NASA's resources is to focus on the unique scientific instruments and payloads that
are truly one-off items. That's actually how it works right now for Earth-observing and space science missions. They launch
the spacecraft primarily on United Launch Alliance rockets, a Delta or an Atlas. If it's a probe to Mars, or to the asteroid
belt, or it's a weather satellite, it'll go up on a United Launch Alliance rocket. Obviously, in the future, they'll go up on our
vehicles as well. I think that works pretty well, and I think it makes sense to extend that model to all sizes of rockets.
Last printed 3/10/2016 7:35:00 PM
64