NDI 2014 – Elections Disadvantage
1NC Shells
1NC—GOP Good DA—Development
The GOP will earn a Senate majority in November midterms—a weak economy is the
most important issue for voters, but there’s still time to gain momentum for
Democrats
Dorning 6/26/14
Mike, reporter for Bloomberg News, "Obama’s Economic Rebound Doesn’t Boost Democratic Allies",
June 26 2014, www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-26/economic-rebound-seen-undercut-by-weakpay-as-vote-winner
Sluggish improvement in living standards among Democrats’ core voters threatens to hurt the party’s
candidates in this year’s congressional elections. Median household income among all Americans is still
lower than before the recession, which ended five years ago, according to economic consultant Sentier
Research. Key Democratic constituents -- blacks, Hispanics, single women and young people -- have
been especially hard-hit, and analysts say that could make them less energized about going to the polls.
The economic reality is “dampening enthusiasm among some of the voter groups Democrats need
most,” said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “To create the kind of
oomph Democrats need, you’d want back-to-back gains of 400,000 jobs a month.” Companies aren’t
coming close to that figure, adding an average of 231,000 jobs the last four months. And the economy’s
lingering weakness was underlined yesterday when the government said the gross domestic product
contracted at a 2.9 percent rate in the first three months of the year, its worst performance since the
lowest point of the recession. Even though forecasters project growth of better than 3 percent for the
rest of the year, some political damage has already been done. Dissatisfaction with President Barack
Obama, the economy and the direction of the country is burdening Democrats as control of the U.S.
Senate is at stake in the November elections, when Republicans would win the majority if they gain six
seats. ‘Folks Struggling’ Obama touched on the discontent at a town meeting today in Minneapolis,
saying “there’s still a lot of folks struggling out there,” and “we’ve seen wages and incomes sort of
flatline.” Still, he said, “on just about every economic measure, we are significantly better off than we
were when I came into office.” Though the economy isn’t as much the centerpiece of this campaign as it
was in 2012 and 2010, Americans still consider it the most important issue confronting the nation. Fortyfour percent said so in a Gallup poll taken June 5-8, compared with 68 percent in June 2012 and 57
percent the same month in 2010. Should growth strengthen over the coming months, it will give
Democrats “a little momentum going into September, November,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic
pollster. Echoing 2010 Yet disapproval of Obama’s handling of the economy is running higher than on
the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, which the president called a “shellacking” that cost his party
control of the House. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said they’re unhappy with Obama’s economic
stewardship in a June 6-9 Bloomberg National Poll compared with 51 percent in October 2010. Almost
two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. Public malaise driven by the economy works “as an
anchor to presidential approval,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. Other issues such as Obama’s
health-care law are more visible in the campaign. Health care has been mentioned in 41 percent of
television commercials this election cycle while 24 percent have mentioned unemployment or jobs,
according to data compiled by New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG. Negative Stories Still, the
economy’s impact on the election is contributing to an environment that makes it harder for the
president to move beyond negative stories such as the scandal over veterans’ hospitals, the backlash
over the Taliban prisoner exchange, and the crises in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, McInturff said. “If the
economy is booming, it can cover a lot of sins,” he said. “When you’re in this sort of economy, you get
bogged down in every story.” History is already working against the Democrats. The president’s party
typically loses seats in midterm elections, and more of the Senate seats being contested this year are
held by Democrats than Republicans, making the party vulnerable. Many of those Democratic seats are
in unfriendly territory: Six are in states that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won by
14 percentage points or more. Only one Republican senator, Maine’s Susan Collins, is running in a state
Obama won.
Increasing ocean development is popular with the public—the plan highlights the
interconnection between a “blue economy” and wellbeing
Bugel 12
Jamie, Annual Plant Specialist at Merrifield Garden Center, "What is the Blue Economy?: Healthy Oceans
as an Economic Driver", June 29 2012, publictrustproject.org/blog/environment/2012/what-is-the-blueeconomy-healthy-oceans-as-an-economic-driver/
The Center for American Progress (CAP) has introduced a new project, The Foundations of a Blue Economy, to promote strong and sustainable
ocean industries. Led by Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy, the project will focus on sustainable fisheries, renewable energy, tourism
and recreation, and coastal restoration. A
blue economy, as conceived by CAP, centers on the value that healthy oceans
provide to the welfare of all Americans. This value is difficult to quantify, because it encapsulates not only the
financial impact of marine jobs, but also the biological, cultural, and spiritual importance of oceans and
coastal areas. “From an employment perspective we have good salary data, but in other areas the results are more environmentally
sensitive and harder to quantify. For example, what are our fisheries capable of producing if they are rebuilt to sustainable levels?” Michael
Conathan asked earlier this week at the project’s launch event in Washington D.C. At the event, a
panel of distinguished guests
discussed the strengths and challenges of building a blue economy. Panelists included Jane Lubchenco, Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans, Miranda Ballentine, director of sustainability for Wal-Mart, and Jim Moriarty, CEO of Surfrider Foundation.
The panel was moderated by Eric Roston, sustainability editor at Bloomberg News. The panelists agreed that
the intangible
impacts of the oceans are often hard for the public to understand. It can take a crisis like the Deepwater
Horizon oil disaster for people to realize how relevant the ocean is to their lives. “One of the things that
became strikingly obvious during Deepwater Horizon was just how dependent communities were on the
health of the Gulf. Those were striking lessons,” Dr. Lubchenco said. The disaster drove home the “how
interconnected coastal communities and their economies, and psychological health and wellbeing are to
a healthy ocean,” she continued. Those connections, she argued, are critical when engaging people on the importance of healthy,
sustainable marine environments. “People love the coast, people love seafood,” she said. It’s the job of ocean advocates and
communicators “to provide information that helps them make smart decisions.” That information must be based on sound science, the
panelists stressed. Miranda Ballentine told the audience that Wal-Mart relies on sound science to instruct its buyers and make decisions about
suppliers. But she added that sound science doesn’t always exist, and that Wal-Mart is committed to working with scientists to develop better,
clearer information that looks at the “life cycle of the product.” Wal-Mart has a goal of 100 percent sustainably certified seafood; Ballentine
says the company is now at 76 percent. A whopping 85 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. “There is not enough seafood
caught or farmed in the U.S. to supply all the demand,” Dr. Lubchenco noted. NOAA has a strong focus on developing sustainable aquaculture.
“We have strongly regulated fisheries, and that’s not true of many other parts of the world. We don’t always know the social or economic or
environmental conditions under which [foreign] fish were caught,” she added. Three
billion people around the world depend
on seafood as their primary source of protein. In 2008, Americans consumed 16 pounds of fish per
person. Even more significant, more than half of all Americans now live in coastal watershed counties.
The complex impacts of the oceans on their lives are difficult to quantify. Jim Moriarty, of the Surfrider Foundation,
works with surfers and beach-combers who are impassioned by ocean issues. “Something in their life shifts,” he says. “They go down to the
beach and it’s different. They’ve noticed a slow motion decline. They
realize that there’s a problem here and they need to
engage.” Personally, Moriarty said, “I’m sick of surfing in trash. The farther you go away from the civilized world, the worse it is.” Perhaps
it’s those passionate people, together with sound science, that will change minds. As hard as it is to put a price
tag on the oceans and their impacts, CAP’s Blue Economy project aims to do just that. At the Public Trust Project, we’re eager to see what they
come up with. It’s an innovative approach: a focus on the value that healthy oceans provide to society, not just the combined worth of
resources extracted from them.
A Republican majority in the Senate would overturn Obama’s EPA regulations
Wallbank 6/5/14
Derek, Bloomberg, "Republicans Can’t Block EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules, Says Hoyer", June 5 2014,
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/republicans-can-t-block-epa-s-greenhouse-gas-ruleshoyer.html
Democrats in Congress will be able to keep Republicans from overturning the Obama administration’s
rules to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, said second-ranking House Democrat Steny Hoyer.¶ “The overwhelming majority of
our party is going to support it and the Senate’s not going to pass a repeal,” Hoyer of Maryland said in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg
News reporters and editors in New York. Democrats control the Senate 55-45.¶ “Nor will the president sign it,” Hoyer said. “And if
it got to him, we’d sustain his veto.”¶ The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule, proposed June 2, seeks to reduce carbon emissions from
power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels. The reduction would be equal to eliminating carbon pollution from two-thirds of all
cars and trucks in the U.S.¶ Republicans
in Congress oppose the plan, saying it would cost jobs and raise
electricity prices. A number of Democrats from energy-producing states have expressed concern about
the proposed rules or said they want to see changes.¶ House Republican leaders are considering
whether to push legislation to reject the emissions rules or try to block the EPA from spending money to
implement them.¶ The House voted in August 2013 to allow either chamber of Congress to veto major U.S. rulemaking, including
emissions rules. Democrats held their defections to just six lawmakers who voted with Republicans to pass the bill.¶ Energy Dollars¶ Hoyer
knows Democrats
may have to contend with one of their own -- Nick Rahall ofWest Virginia -- proposing
legislation to block the rules.¶ “We may lose some; the coal states are very concerned about coal,” he said,
though he predicted losses of Democratic votes would be limited.¶ U.S. energy companies have increased giving to
Republicans over Democrats ahead of the November election, betting that a Republican-led Senate
would be more resistant to regulations that may harm energy producers. Republicans need to gain a net
six seats to take majority control of the Senate.¶ Coal-industry political action committees have given 93 percent of
contributions to Republicans in the 2013-2014 election cycle so far, compared with 68 percent in 2010. Oil and gas company PACs gave 83
percent of donations to Republicans, while electric utilities gave 63 percent to members of the party.¶ Blocking Standards¶ Senate
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he plans to introduce legislation to block the EPA
standards.
EPA regulations would collapse the economy
-jobs
-electricity costs
-lowering incomes
-threatened power grid
Inhofe 5/31/14
Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change",
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/31/jim-inhofe-climate-change/9732121/
Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President Obama and his
administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority behind.¶ President Obama's
announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points about the theory of man-made
climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to share about his aggressive new
Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force existing power plants to regulate carbon
emissions and will set the stage for states to create cap-and-trade systems in order to regulate these
plants.¶ What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost
Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the president is once again looking to do through
regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm
of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities.¶ On May 27, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants
would result in an average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of
$289 billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion.¶ These numbers are
just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the reliability
and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the
unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee witness, Marvin Fertel,
president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations are "shutting down the
backbone of our electricity system."¶ Other inexpensive domestic energy producers, many of whom had to fill
the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that these regulations will force them to
close their operations in the next few years. What happens for areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in
future years?¶ It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March 12, show that the majority of Americans are least
interested in climate change policy issues when compared to other, more important issues like the
economy, job creation and even available and affordable energy.¶ That the president is willing to follow
through on climate change policies, despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real
motivation behind his actions: pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and
others, earlier this year when he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate
change a priority. With each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises.¶
The Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics
with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his proposal will
provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in American history. The
big question is how the American people will respond and that decision can only be made by them at
the polls this November.
History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflict—radical terrorist
groups and tension over shared energy resources could unintentionally result in a preemptive nuclear strike
Mathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council, in 2009 [Mathew,
PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer,
member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the
Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to
be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample
Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may
be
more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the
lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic
societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League
of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as
much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could
grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change
would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even
as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s
appeal will decline if economic growth
continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in
2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within
their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent
collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic
outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any
economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.
Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the
region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons,
and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that
existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of
low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close
proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an
impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight
times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over
resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neomercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their
future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders
deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the
survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical
implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and
India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns
inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities
could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for
multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle
East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within
and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
1NC—GOP Good DA—Exploration
The GOP will earn a Senate majority in November midterms—a weak economy is the
most important issue for voters, but there’s still time to gain momentum for
Democrats
Dorning 6/26/14
Mike, reporter for Bloomberg News, "Obama’s Economic Rebound Doesn’t Boost Democratic Allies",
June 26 2014, www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-26/economic-rebound-seen-undercut-by-weakpay-as-vote-winner
Sluggish improvement in living standards among Democrats’ core voters threatens to hurt the party’s
candidates in this year’s congressional elections. Median household income among all Americans is still
lower than before the recession, which ended five years ago, according to economic consultant Sentier
Research. Key Democratic constituents -- blacks, Hispanics, single women and young people -- have
been especially hard-hit, and analysts say that could make them less energized about going to the polls.
The economic reality is “dampening enthusiasm among some of the voter groups Democrats need
most,” said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “To create the kind of
oomph Democrats need, you’d want back-to-back gains of 400,000 jobs a month.” Companies aren’t
coming close to that figure, adding an average of 231,000 jobs the last four months. And the economy’s
lingering weakness was underlined yesterday when the government said the gross domestic product
contracted at a 2.9 percent rate in the first three months of the year, its worst performance since the
lowest point of the recession. Even though forecasters project growth of better than 3 percent for the
rest of the year, some political damage has already been done. Dissatisfaction with President Barack
Obama, the economy and the direction of the country is burdening Democrats as control of the U.S.
Senate is at stake in the November elections, when Republicans would win the majority if they gain six
seats. ‘Folks Struggling’ Obama touched on the discontent at a town meeting today in Minneapolis,
saying “there’s still a lot of folks struggling out there,” and “we’ve seen wages and incomes sort of
flatline.” Still, he said, “on just about every economic measure, we are significantly better off than we
were when I came into office.” Though the economy isn’t as much the centerpiece of this campaign as it
was in 2012 and 2010, Americans still consider it the most important issue confronting the nation. Fortyfour percent said so in a Gallup poll taken June 5-8, compared with 68 percent in June 2012 and 57
percent the same month in 2010. Should growth strengthen over the coming months, it will give
Democrats “a little momentum going into September, November,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic
pollster. Echoing 2010 Yet disapproval of Obama’s handling of the economy is running higher than on
the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, which the president called a “shellacking” that cost his party
control of the House. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said they’re unhappy with Obama’s economic
stewardship in a June 6-9 Bloomberg National Poll compared with 51 percent in October 2010. Almost
two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. Public malaise driven by the economy works “as an
anchor to presidential approval,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. Other issues such as Obama’s
health-care law are more visible in the campaign. Health care has been mentioned in 41 percent of
television commercials this election cycle while 24 percent have mentioned unemployment or jobs,
according to data compiled by New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG. Negative Stories Still, the
economy’s impact on the election is contributing to an environment that makes it harder for the
president to move beyond negative stories such as the scandal over veterans’ hospitals, the backlash
over the Taliban prisoner exchange, and the crises in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, McInturff said. “If the
economy is booming, it can cover a lot of sins,” he said. “When you’re in this sort of economy, you get
bogged down in every story.” History is already working against the Democrats. The president’s party
typically loses seats in midterm elections, and more of the Senate seats being contested this year are
held by Democrats than Republicans, making the party vulnerable. Many of those Democratic seats are
in unfriendly territory: Six are in states that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won by
14 percentage points or more. Only one Republican senator, Maine’s Susan Collins, is running in a state
Obama won.
Ocean exploration is popular—federal spending on scientific research has
overwhelming public support
Bowen et al 13
Ray M., Chairman, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University and Visiting Distinguished Professor, Rice
University, along with Esin Gulari, Mark R. Abbott, Dan E. Arvizu, Bonnie Bassler, Camilla P. Benbow,
National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Science and Engineering Indicators 2012", last
updated Feb 13 2013,
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/seind12.pdf?utm_source=SSTI+Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=67
757af5a2-Week_of_January_18_20121_19_2012&utm_medium=email
Federal Funding of Scientific Research U.S. public opinion consistently and strongly supports federal
spending on basic research. Since 1985, NSF surveys have asked Americans whether, "even if it brings no
immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and
should be supported by the federal government." In 2010, 82% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement;
14% disagreed. Agreement with this statement has ranged from a low of 76% in 1992 to a high of 87% in
2006 (figure 7-12; appendix tables 7-24 and 7-25). The 2009 Pew Research Center Survey found that nearly three-quarters of
Americans express support for federal spending on S&E. Asked whether government investments
"usually pay off in the long run," or are "not worth it," 73% said spending on basic scientific research
"usually pays off in the long run"; 74% said the same about engineering and technology. Furthermore, six in ten Americans said
"government investment in research is essential for scientific progress," 29% said "private investment will ensure
that enough scientific progress is made, even without govern- ment investment," and the remainder gave no response. Another
indicator, the proportion of Americans who thought the government was spending too little on
scientific research, increased from 1981 to 2006, fluctuating between 29% and 34% in the 1980s, between 30% and 37% in
the 1990s, and between 34% and 41% in the 2000s. In 2010, 36% of respondents said government spending on scientific research was "too
little," 47% said it was "about right," and 12% said it was "too much" (figures 7-13 and 7-14; appendix table 7-26). Support for increased
government spending is greater for a number of other program areas, with the highest support for spending on education (74%). About
six
in ten Americans say government should spend more on developing alternative energy sources (61%),
assistance to the poor (61%), health (58%), and environmental protection (57%). Support for increased spending in other
areas is lower. Support for increased spending on scientific research (36%) is roughly comparable to that for spending on improving mass
transportation (40%) and parks and recreation (32%). Still, based
on the proportion of the U.S. population favoring
increased spending, scientific research garners more support than spending in national defense (25%),
space exploration (16%), and assistance to foreign countries (8%).31
A Republican majority in the Senate would overturn Obama’s EPA regulations
Wallbank 6/5/14
Derek, Bloomberg, "Republicans Can’t Block EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules, Says Hoyer", June 5 2014,
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/republicans-can-t-block-epa-s-greenhouse-gas-ruleshoyer.html
Democrats in Congress will be able to keep Republicans from overturning the Obama administration’s
rules to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, said second-ranking House Democrat Steny Hoyer.¶ “The overwhelming majority of
our party is going to support it and the Senate’s not going to pass a repeal,” Hoyer of Maryland said in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg
News reporters and editors in New York. Democrats control the Senate 55-45.¶ “Nor will the president sign it,” Hoyer said. “And if
it got to him, we’d sustain his veto.”¶ The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule, proposed June 2, seeks to reduce carbon emissions from
power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels. The reduction would be equal to eliminating carbon pollution from two-thirds of all
cars and trucks in the U.S.¶ Republicans
in Congress oppose the plan, saying it would cost jobs and raise
electricity prices. A number of Democrats from energy-producing states have expressed concern about
the proposed rules or said they want to see changes.¶ House Republican leaders are considering
whether to push legislation to reject the emissions rules or try to block the EPA from spending money to
implement them.¶ The House voted in August 2013 to allow either chamber of Congress to veto major U.S. rulemaking, including
emissions rules. Democrats held their defections to just six lawmakers who voted with Republicans to pass the bill.¶ Energy Dollars¶ Hoyer
knows Democrats
may have to contend with one of their own -- Nick Rahall ofWest Virginia -- proposing
legislation to block the rules.¶ “We may lose some; the coal states are very concerned about coal,” he said,
though he predicted losses of Democratic votes would be limited.¶ U.S. energy companies have increased giving to
Republicans over Democrats ahead of the November election, betting that a Republican-led Senate
would be more resistant to regulations that may harm energy producers. Republicans need to gain a net
six seats to take majority control of the Senate.¶ Coal-industry political action committees have given 93 percent of
contributions to Republicans in the 2013-2014 election cycle so far, compared with 68 percent in 2010. Oil and gas company PACs gave 83
percent of donations to Republicans, while electric utilities gave 63 percent to members of the party.¶ Blocking Standards¶ Senate
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he plans to introduce legislation to block the EPA
standards.
EPA regulations would collapse the economy
-jobs
-electricity costs
-lowering incomes
-threatened power grid
Inhofe 5/31/14
Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change",
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/31/jim-inhofe-climate-change/9732121/
Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President Obama and his
administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority behind.¶ President Obama's
announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points about the theory of man-made
climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to share about his aggressive new
Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force existing power plants to regulate carbon
emissions and will set the stage for states to create cap-and-trade systems in order to regulate these
plants.¶ What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost
Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the president is once again looking to do through
regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm
of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities.¶ On May 27, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants
would result in an average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of
$289 billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion.¶ These numbers are
just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the reliability
and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the
unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee witness, Marvin Fertel,
president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations are "shutting down the
backbone of our electricity system."¶ Other inexpensive domestic energy producers, many of whom had to fill
the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that these regulations will force them to
close their operations in the next few years. What happens for areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in
future years?¶ It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March 12, show that the majority of Americans are least
interested in climate change policy issues when compared to other, more important issues like the
economy, job creation and even available and affordable energy.¶ That the president is willing to follow
through on climate change policies, despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real
motivation behind his actions: pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and
others, earlier this year when he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate
change a priority. With each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises.¶
The Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics
with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his proposal will
provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in American history. The
big question is how the American people will respond and that decision can only be made by them at
the polls this November.
History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflict—radical terrorist
groups and tension over shared energy resources could unintentionally result in a preemptive nuclear strike
Mathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council, in 2009 [Mathew,
PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer,
member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the
Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to
be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample
Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may
be
more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the
lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic
societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League
of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as
much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could
grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change
would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even
as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s
appeal will decline if economic growth
continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in
2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within
their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent
collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic
outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any
economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.
Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the
region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons,
and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that
existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of
low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close
proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an
impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight
times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over
resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neomercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their
future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders
deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the
survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical
implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and
India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns
inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities
could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for
multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle
East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within
and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
UQ
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Ov
Republicans will gain a Senate majority in the midterms—prefer evidence speaking to
the public’s opinion of the economy because it’s the most important issue in
upcoming elections—that’s Dorning 6/26/14
1. Turnout—key democratic constituents (blacks, Hispanics, single women, youth)
have been hard hit by the economy and are less energized about voting
2. Obama’s approval rating—it’s tied to his party’s success and is crashing with public
dissatisfaction over living standards
3. Distraction from scandals—a booming economy is the best way to move beyond
negative stories like the VA, Bergdahl, and foreign policy crises
More ev—The economy is the most important issue in midterms
Steinhauser 5/2/14
Paul, CNN Political Editor, "6 factors that will influence the midterms", May 2 2014,
www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/politics/six-factors-midterms/
Say what you want about other issues, but the economy remains the top concern of Americans when it
comes to their vote. "The economy is stronger than it's been in a very long time," Obama said at a news
conference at the end of last year. By many metrics, he's right. The stock market has been in record
territory again, unemployment's at a five-year low, auto sales are at a seven-year high and the housing
sector, which dragged the country into recession five years ago, is rebounding. But many people just
don't feel that good about things. National polling indicates most people don't feel nearly as optimistic
about the economy and their personal plight. And a key economic indicator out earlier this week is
helping. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 0.1% annual
pace in the first quarter of this year. While the numbers are probably just the winter weather effect,
they add to the perception that the recovery is tepid. And a sluggish economy prevents Democrats from
highlighting the issue in the midterms. "Because the recovery has been relatively modest, moderate in
its strength, there's this psychology among people that it's just not getting better out in America," said
CNN Chief Washington Correspondent John King. The economy remains the top issue on the minds of
voters. Economic realities, as well as perceptions, will influence voters in 2014.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Battleground States
GOP wins midterms now—battleground states show low approval ratings for Obama
and support for Republican policies
Rhodan 6/26/14
Maya, politics reporter for TIME magazine, "More Bad News for Democrats in 2014 Battleground
States", June 26 2014, time.com/2927942/midterm-elections-2014-democrats/
A new survey of likely voters in 12 key Senate races shows the electorate continues to skew Republican A
new survey has more bad news for Democrats running in key battleground states this November. The poll by Resurgent
Republic and Democracy Corps, Republican and Democratic research firms, respectively, found that President Barack Obama’s approval
rating in 12 states with the most competitive Senate races is only 38%—3 points lower than his national
approval number. Recent headlines surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap, the Veterans Affairs
and IRS scandals, and the initially botched rollout of the health care reform law haven’t helped: 57% of
voters consider them to be “real problems that raise serious doubts about the competence of the Obama
Administration.” “That is a problem for the Obama Administration,” Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster who worked on the survey, told
reporters Thursday. “But it is a problem for the Democrats running for reelection in these battleground states
because the reputation of the President always overshadows midterm elections.” While the slew of scandals may
not drive voters to the poll, Ayres said, the results make it difficult for incumbent Democrats to stand with the President on key issue. And
Republicans have the upper hand when it comes to party trust on key issues, according to the survey: 50% of
all voters favor Republicans’ handling of foreign policy, 16 percentage points higher than their trust in
Democrats. The split is less dramatic on the economy, with 47% of voters trusting Republicans, compared to 37% trusting Democrats.
Among independents, who often cast the key swing votes in close races, 48% say they trust Republicans
handling of the economy while only 28% trust Democrats. Even on health care, Republicans are favored,
albeit slightly: 45% of all voters trust Republicans to handle health care and 41% of voters trust Democrats. The problem for
Democrats is more their weakness than Republicans’ strength. “There is enormous frustration… for
Congress in general,” Ayres said. “But the Republican leaders in the House are not on the ballot in
these… battleground states. “The playing field,” Ayres added, “looks more promising for Republicans
than any time in recent memory.”
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Bergdahl
GOP wins midterms now—bipartisan disapproval of the Bergdahl swap
Preston 6/10/14
Bryan, a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was
producer of the Laura Ingraham Show, "Polls: Will the Bergdahl Swap Impact the Mid-Term Elections?",
June 10 2014, pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/10/polls-will-the-bergdahl-swap-impact-the-mid-termelections/
There are a couple of new polls out on what Americans think about President Obama’s decision to trade five
Taliban commanders for Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the only American POW in Afghanistan.¶ The decision to trade the five
Taliban for Bergdahl has been greeted with more anger than praise in Washington, as Democrats and Republicans
in Congress criticize the Obama administration because it did not consult with them or notify them of the
release of the five detainees from Gitmo. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has gone on the record saying that if Obama does that
again, there will be calls for his impeachment. There are no more POWs for the administration to trade away, though there are dozens of
captured terrorists remaining at the facility on Cuba. Anger with the president’s decision has
been bipartisan, with Sen. Dianne
American people are
divided over the swap, but the division cuts along party lines, suggesting that however dangerous the
decision proves to be, Obama’s base will stick with him.¶ A CBS News Poll finds that 45% of Americans
disapprove of the deal, while 37% approve of it. A majority of Americans — 56% — say the US paid too high a
price for Bergdahl. Fully 65% of veterans believe the US paid too high a price for the soldier, who his squad mates accuse of desertion
prior to his capture. A majority of Democrats approve the deal, while a majority of Republicans oppose it. A
large majority — 58% — of independents also believe that the US paid too high a price for Bergdahl.
Feinstein (D-CA) stating that she doesn’t believe the Obama administration’s rationale for doing the trade.¶ The
Independents split against the deal overall, 47% to 33%.¶ A Pew poll gets similar results — 43% of Americans reject the swap, while 34% say it
was the right thing to do. Most Republicans disapprove; most Democrats approve. A heavy majority of veterans — 68% — say Obama made the
wrong decision in trading the Taliban commanders for Bergdahl. Overall, 64% of Americans say that the president must inform Congress in
advance of decisions like the Bergdahl trade, while 30% believe that he should not be required to do so. 44% of independents in the Pew poll
say they believe that the deal was the wrong thing to do, versus 32% who believe it was the right thing to do. The current National Defense
Authorization Act law requires the president to notify Congress 30 days before releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. President Obama
knowingly broke that law.¶ The bottom line is, Republicans
seem to be adding the Bergdahl swap to the pile of
actions taken by Obama that anger them and are driving them to the polls this fall. Democrats by and
large are sticking with the president, who broke the law and set the precedent of negotiating with
terrorists. Independents have broken against the Obama administration on a number of issues going
back into his first term, and they are breaking against him on this issue too.
GOP wins midterms now—Bergdahl
Johnson 6/5/14
O'Ryan, journalist for the Boston Herald, "Panicky Dems abandon Obama",
bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2014/06/panicky_dems_abandon_obama
As President Obama reels from widespread, bipartisan criticism of a prisoner swap with Taliban forces in
Afghanistan — with even Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s hometown canceling its welcome — the growing scandal is emerging as just
the latest political problem for Democrats facing tough re-election fights in November, with possible
ramifications for the 2016 presidential race.¶ The town of Hailey, Idaho, population 8,000, swamped with hate mail and angry
calls over Bergdahl after his fellow soldiers accused him of desertion, yesterday canceled its plans for a big welcome-home rally.¶ “If you had
10,000 people, 5,000 on one side and 5,000 on the other, then just due to the national attention, we don’t know what to expect,” Hailey Police
Chief Jeff Gunter said.¶ U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly rebuked the Obama
administration over the Bergdahl deal, saying, “It
comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went
ahead with no consultation, totally not following law. And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears
the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that we’re very dismayed about it.”¶ Ford O’Connell, a Republican operative in Washington,
D.C., suggested growing Democratic
criticism is linked to election fears. “Their fortunes are tied to his
approval rating. That’s only going to benefit Republicans. Like us or not, a lot of Americans feel it’s time for
new management.”
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Data
GOP wins midterms now—best stats prove
Silver 6/8/14
Nate, editor-in-chief for FiveThirtyEight, statistician and writer that analyzes political elections, in 2012
correctly predicted all 50 states in the presidential election and 31 out of 33 Senate races that year,
"FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecast: Toss-Up or Tilt GOP?", June 8 2014,
fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast-toss-up-or-tilt-gop/
We last issued a U.S. Senate forecast in mid-March. Not a lot has changed since then.¶ The
Senate playing field remains fairly
broad. There are 10 races where we give each party at least a 20 percent chance of winning, so there is a
fairly wide range of possible outcomes. But all but two of those highly competitive races (the two exceptions are Georgia and
Kentucky) are in states that are currently held by Democrats. Furthermore, there are three states — South Dakota, West Virginia, and
Montana2 — where Democratic incumbents are retiring, and where Republicans have better than an 80 percent chance of making a pickup, in
our view.¶ So it’s
almost certain that Republicans are going to gain seats. The question is whether they’ll net
the six pickups necessary to win control of the Senate. If the Republicans win only five seats, the Senate would be split 5050 but Democrats would continue to control it because of the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Joseph Biden.¶ Our March forecast
projected a Republicans gain of 5.8 seats. You’ll no doubt notice the decimal place; how can a party win a fraction of a Senate
seat? It can’t, but our forecasts are probabilistic; a gain of 5.8 seats is the total you get by summing the probabilities from each individual race.
Because 5.8 seats is closer to six (a Republican takeover) than five (not quite), we
characterized the GOP as a slight favorite to
win the Senate.¶ The new forecast is for a Republican gain of 5.7 seats. So it’s shifted ever so slightly — by one-tenth of a seat —
toward being a toss-up. Still, if asked to place a bet at even odds, we’d take a Republican Senate. Of course, it can be
silly to worry about distinctions that amount to a tenth of a seat, or a couple of percentage points. Nobody cares all that much about the
difference between 77 percent and 80 percent and 83 percent. But this race is very close. When you say something has a 47 percent
chance of happening, people interpret that a lot differently than if you say 50 percent or 53 percent — even though they really shouldn’t.3¶ It’s
important to clarify that these forecasts are not the results of a formal model or statistical algorithm — although it’s based on an assessment of
the same major factors that our algorithm uses. (Our tradition is to switch over to fully automated and algorithmic Senate forecasts at some
point during the summer.)¶ The political landscape¶ We usually begin these forecast updates with a broad view of the political landscape. Not
all that much has changed over the past couple of months.¶ President Obama
remains fairly unpopular with an approval
rating of about 43 or 44 percent. His numbers haven’t changed much since March (perhaps they’ve improved by half a percentage
point). It may be that modestly improved voter perceptions about the economy are being offset by increasing dissatisfaction of his handling of
foreign policy.¶ The
generic congressional ballot remains very close between Democrats and Republicans
and also has not changed much since March. Note, however, that many generic ballot polls are conducted among registered
voters; a tie among registered voters usually translates to a small Republican advantage among likely voters.¶ Both Democratic and Republican
voters report lower levels of enthusiasm today than they did in 2010 (perhaps for good reason). But Republican
voters are more
enthusiastic than Democrats on a relative basis. That will potentially translate to an “enthusiasm gap”
which favors the GOP, but not as much as it did in 2010.¶ Republicans’ recruiting of viable candidates is going better than in 2010 and
2012 although not uniformly so: they face potential issues in Mississippi and Oregon, for instance.¶ The quality of polling is somewhat
problematic. Much of it comes from firms like Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen Reports with dubious methodologies, explicitly partisan
polling firms or new companies that so far have little track record. As a potential bright spot for Democrats, polling firms that use industrystandard methodologies seem to show slightly better results for them, on average. However, these high-quality polls are mostly reporting
results among registered voters only, rather than likely voters. Thus, they aren’t yet accounting for the GOP’s potential turnout advantage.
GOP will take control of the Senate and House—newest data proves it will be close
Lewis & Roberts 6/10
Paul & Dan-reporters @ The Guardian- US midterm elections: Republicans could triumph – but it's not a
sure thing- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/midterm-elections-republicans-senateraces
This could be a transformative election year for the Grand Old Party. If Republican candidates across the country
perform as well during midterm elections as political forecasters believe they might, their party will be in line to regain its majority in the
Senate.¶ Such a scenario would be a disaster for president Barack Obama. If Democrats are defeated in November the White House will be left
isolated. Republicans already control the House of Representatives; if they capture the Senate, too, Obama will be left all but powerless to
affect change through Congress during his last two years in office.¶ For that to happen, Republicans
will need to win six seats,
and lose none. As the battle lines have been drawn, eight key Senate races have, political analysts believe, emerged as the most likely to
lost by the party that currently holds the seat.¶ Those eight Senate elections, more than any others, will probably be
crucial in determining the balance of power in the upper chamber.¶ The Guardian is launching a series of reports from
those states, beginning with a dispatch from Georgia on the battle for the state’s growing African American population. Every week for the next
two months the Guardian will report from the scene of another competitive Senate race.¶ Each state is different, and each Senate race is
already revolving around a unique set of political dynamics, policies and personalities. With more than five months to go until polling day on
November 4, it is also too soon to make firm predictions.¶ But right
now, things do not look good for Democrats vying to
hold onto a crucial lever of power.¶ Most of the political forecasters who combine up-to-date polling
analysis with other predictive modelling data agree the Republicans are likely to gain seats. Whether the GOP
will gain the six net seats they are aiming for is more difficult to predict.¶ Each forecaster gives different weight to different factors, and each
might use slightly different data.¶ Unsurprisingly, there are differences between the most recent predictions from the top forecasters, including
statistics guru Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight fame, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, and the rival election forecasting labs at the New York Times and
Washington Post.¶ But
they all essentially agree on the big question about control of the Senate: it is too
close to call.¶ In selecting the eight states that will form part of this series the Guardian opted for those that, pollsters and analysts agree,
are among the most competitive.¶ Senators are re-elected every six years, so of the 100 seats in the upper house, only 33 are up for grabs in
November.¶ Most of the so-called “toss-up” Senate races are seats currently held by Democrats.
Three of those, it seems, are
highly likely to switch into Republican control: Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia.¶ However
there are six other Democrat-held seats that are more competitive and, as a result, will be a focus of the Guardian’s
reporting: North Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado, Alaska, New Hampshire and Arkansas.¶ The remaining two races are both
Republican-held seats that Democrats believe they have a chance of winning: Georgia and Kentucky.¶
Taken together, the races in these eight states are expected to shape the balance of power in the
Senate.¶ Of course, elections are unpredictable and political forecasters are sometimes wrong – prospects of one or party or the other in a
campaign can change overnight.¶ Any number of other states could come into play. The potential nomination by the GOP of a Tea Party
candidate in Mississippi could make that deeply conservative state one that Democrats have an outside chance of winning. Republicans are also
targeting some long-shot seats currently held by Democrats like Iowa and Michigan.¶ November will
also see elections for all
435 seats of the House of Representatives, where Republicans already have a strong majority, as well as 46
elections in state legislatures and 36 state gubernatorial elections.¶ The story in the House is somewhat less compelling,
though that could change.¶ As things stand, only around 60 House districts are considered competitive
races, of which perhaps around a dozen are close toss-ups. Democrats would need to pick up 17 seats to
switch the balance of power and there are few if any analysts who expect that to happen.¶ The Guardian
will cover many of the Senate, House, state legislature and gubernatorial races in the weeks and months ahead. But we’ve decide to to kickstart
our campaign coverage with a deep dive into those Senate races that, at this stage, look like they’ll matter most.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Econ
GOP win now—they’re ahead on the most important economic indicators
Mataconis 5/20/14
Doug, Senior Editor at Outside the Beltway, holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and
J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, currently practicing law in Northern Virginia, "The
Midterms And The Economy: Bad News For Democrats?", May 20 2014,
www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-midterms-and-the-economy-bad-news-for-democrats/
A new Gallup poll presents some potentially bad news for Democrats headed into the 2014 midterms: Nearly nine
out of 10 voters say the economy will be “extremely” or “very” important to their vote for Congress in
the midterm elections, a good sign for Republicans who have slight advantage over Democrats on the
issue, a new Gallup poll shows. Forty-eight percent of voters say they think Republicans in Congress would do a
better job of dealing with the economy, while 43 percent favor Democrats. Eighty-nine percent of voters say the
economy will be “extremely” or “very” important in their midterm vote for Congress. According to the poll, the next four issues
considered important by voters are the budget deficit, taxes, health care reform, and income inequality.
Democrats have the upper edge with voters when it comes to health care and income inequality, but Republicans have the
advantage on taxes and the deficit. This isn’t entirely surprising, of course. Exit polls for pretty much every
Presidential and midterm election going back decades shows that, outside of odd years in which a foreign policy issue
of some sort has dominated the headlines, the issue on the top of voters minds when they enter the voting booth is
the economy and the myriad of issues related to it such as taxes and the budget deficit. The party
deemed by voters to have better ideas on that issue is the one that ends up with the polling advantage heading into
the election and, more often than not, the one that ends up winning the election. If that holds up as we head toward November,
then 2014 could end up being a problematic year for Democrats. Additionally, as this chart shows, the issues where
Republicans have the advantage are considered more important by voters at this time than the issues on
which Democrats the advantage: Perhaps most significantly, the issues that many, myself included, have stated numerous times are
trouble spots for Republicans — immigration, marriage equality, and global warming — are very far
down the list when it comes to issues that voters are saying will be important to them when they decide
who they’re going to vote for in November. This suggests a few things. First of all, poll results like this make it less likely that
Republicans in Congress will feel compelled to act on immigration reform before the midterm elections. Second, it seems unlikely that
Democrats will be successful in using issues such as these as “wedge issues” against Republicans in close races for the House or Senate. Finally,
poll results like this tend to make the arguments of those who argue that the GOP has to change its position these issues weaker, at least in the
short term. As has almost always been the case in national elections, it
is the economy that’s going to drive the narrative in
2014, and if this poll is to be believed then that poses a potential problem for Democratic candidates.
GOP win now—economy
Gary Langer, founder of Langer Research Associates, 4/29/2014
"Public Preference for a GOP Congress Marks a New Low in Obama’s Approval", April 29 2014,
abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/public-preference-for-a-gop-congress-marks-a-new-low-inobamas-approval/
Weary of waiting for an economic recovery worth its name, a frustrated American public has sent Barack
Obama’s job approval rating to a career low – with a majority in the latest ABC News/Washington Post
poll favoring a Republican Congress to act as a check on his policies.¶ Registered voters by 53-39
percent in the national survey say they’d rather see the Republicans in control of Congress as a
counterbalance to Obama’s policies than a Democratic-led Congress to help support him. It was similar
in fall 2010, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained six Senate
seats.¶ See PDF with full results and charts here.¶ Obama’s job approval rating, after a slight winter
rebound, has lost 5 points among all adults since March, to 41 percent, the lowest of his presidency by a
single point. Fifty-two percent disapprove, with “strong” disapproval exceeding strong approval by 17
percentage points. He’s lost ground in particular among some of his core support groups.¶ Economic
discontent remains the driving element in political views in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer
Research Associates. Americans rate the condition of the economy negatively by 71-29 percent – the
least bad since November 2007, but still dismal by any measure. Only 28 percent think the economy’s
improving, down by 9 points since just before Obama won his second term. He gets just 42 percent
approval for handling it.¶ Economic views are strongly related to political preferences. Among people
who see the economy improving, 65 percent prefer Democratic control of Congress, while among those
who see the economy as stagnant or worsening, 62 percent favor Republican control. Notably, economic
views are linked with preferences for control of Congress regardless of people’s partisan affiliation.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Foreign Policy
Obama’s unpopular foreign policy decisions will cost Democrats the Senate in the
November elections—critics of the Bergdahl exchange, Benghazi, and the Ukraine
crisis are riling up the Republican base while dispiriting Democrat voters.
Zelizer 6/9/14
Julian, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, contributed to CNN, "Will
Democracts pay a price for Bergdahl deal?", June 9 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/opinion/zelizerbergdahl-democrats-midterms/
(CNN) -- Critics
of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are getting louder by the day, and that poses risks
for Democrats this fall and even in 2016.¶ According to previews of Hillary Clinton's memoirs, "Hard Choices," the former secretary of
state distances herself from Obama on certain decisions, such as on the question of whether to arm Syrian rebels. She wanted to be more
aggressive; he did not.¶ Democrats
have grown more nervous about foreign policy as Obama has been working
hard to respond to critics who say hasn't taken a tough-enough line. The controversy over the deal to secure
the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban prisoners has flared into an extraordinarily heated
debate. Obama has watched as his approval rating for handling international affairs has fallen to 41%.¶ Last
month, Obama had to stand by as Republicans launched another round of congressional investigations into the deaths of
four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Russia's aggressive moves into the Ukraine stirred talk of a new Cold War
and concern that the President didn't really have a viable response to this kind of aggression. More
recently, the controversies shifted to the President's broader vision or lack thereof. Republicans found a
lot to dislike in his address at West Point, where Obama indicated that the nation should step back from
using military power as freely as it has done in the past.¶ Soon after came the news about the release of Bergdahl, in
exchange for the release of five notorious Taliban prisoners. Republicans were quick to accuse the President of
negotiating with terrorists. They have also accused him of violating the law by failing to inform Congress
of the impending deal.¶ Even though Democrats point to a number of huge accomplishments during the
Obama presidency -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, the drawdown of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and diplomatic initiatives to
bring nuclear disarmament in Iran without bloodshed -- the critics have upped their volume.¶ All of the recent stories
add up to the potential for foreign policy to emerge as a potent issue in the midterm campaigns this fall.
Congressional Democrats could suffer as a result of the unhappiness with the administration's policies.
Even though midterm elections generally focus on bread and butter questions about the health of the
economy, as well as local concerns, there are times when foreign policy can hurt the party of the president.¶ In 1966,
for instance, Republicans campaigned against Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam. GOP officials such as former Vice
President Richard Nixon said that Johnson was not unleashing enough force against the North Vietnamese Communists and leaving U.S. troops
in a quagmire. In 1978, Republicans railed against President Jimmy Carter for his alleged weakness in foreign policy, claiming that he gave away
too much in the Panama Canal Treaties and that he was pursuing a dangerous policy of détente with the Soviet Union.¶ In 1982, Democrats,
who were generally focused on the recession, also spoke in favor of a nuclear freeze and warned that President Ronald Reagan's embrace of
the military was bringing the nation close to war. More recently, Republicans blasted Democrats in 2002 for being weak on defense after having
not supported the administration's homeland security bill. And in
2006, Democratic candidates returned the favor by
criticizing the president's war in Iraq as a reckless, unnecessary and extremely costly operation that had
actually undermined the war on terrorism.¶ While foreign policy carried different levels of weight in these midterms, in some
of these contests, such as 1966 and 2006, the administration's actions overseas dismayed voters.¶ Will foreign
policy play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could have an indirect
effect on the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote.¶ At the most
immediate level, the
foreign policy controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of
stories upon which congressional Democrats were hoping to focus. The foreign policy controversy
intensified just as there was evidence that the economy was picking up steam and that the Obama's health
care program was gaining strength. Both signs of accomplishment were put on the back burner, overshadowed by the
Bergdahl debate.¶ The stories also feed the perception of some voters who feel that Democrats have not
done a good job managing government. This is a White House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated
politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed to avoid the kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane
Katrina during President George W. Bush's term. But that reputation has slowly been undercut, especially
after the botched health
care website rollout and the VA scandal.¶ Some of the coverage of the foreign policy, including recent
reports on how the deal with the Taliban was handled, have played into these kinds of criticism. The New
York Times published a lengthy piece about the diminishing returns that Obama was able to obtain over the past several years in exchange for
the release of the Taliban 5 and evidence of how his team had mishandled the process.¶ The
Berghdal deal is also becoming a
way to question the veracity of Democratic promises.¶ Members of Congress, in both parties, have
alleged that Obama violated the law by ignoring a federal statute that says the president must inform Congress one month before
such a deal is completed. They have said he is acting exactly like Bush, whom he had accused of discounting
legislative intent through sweeping notions of executive power.¶ The foreign policy debate puts into
focus the argument that Obama, as well as the party he leads, lacks a bold vision. This is something that
has even frustrated many Democrats who feel that the President is too much of pragmatist and not
enough of a visionary. The speech at West Point fell flat for some Americans because it almost seemed focus on excusing what he
couldn't do rather outlining what he wants to do.¶ During his visit to the Philippines, the President explained his outlook on foreign policy by
saying, "You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while you may be able to hit a home run."¶ The
debate over foreign policy
helps Republicans by riling up the party's base at an opportune time, five months before the election,
while at the same time dispiriting the Democrats. Yes, voters are thinking primarily about how they're faring in today's
economy, but on the margins, their perception of their local candidate's views on foreign policy could be a factor
in November.
Foreign policy swings the midterms---perception of a weak Obama internationally
makes it impossible for the Democrats to win.
Rothenberg 4-22
Stuart, non-partisan political analyst/handicapper who has been a Roll Call columnist for more than 20
years (Stuart, "Obama’s Foreign Policy Impacts 2014 Elections — Really,"
blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/how-obamas-foreign-policy-impacts-2014-elections/?dcz=)
But foreign
policy could have an indirect yet significant impact on the midterm elections, making the issue
more relevant than you otherwise might assume.¶ The growing perception that President Barack Obama
over-promised and has under-delivered on international issues could add to the already hardening
perception that his presidency has not been an unadulterated success. And that’s not good for
vulnerable Democrats as the elections approach.¶ For most partisan Democrats, the suggestion that the president has failed
on foreign policy is simply mistaken. They will note that he ended two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, has taken steps to address the nuclear
threat from Iran, and has tried to mobilize international opinion, and action, against military force used by Syria and Russia.¶ But even
some
Democrats have been critical of President Obama’s approach.¶ “…It’s been a mixed record,” said former Defense
Secretary Leon E. Panetta to the New York Times, “and the concern is, the president defining what America’s role in the world is in the 21st
century hasn’t happened.”¶ Whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act, the president’s performance on jobs and the administration’s
efforts to raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment insurance and enact “equal pay” legislation, the White House’s approach to foreign
policy — most recently on Syria, Ukraine, Russia and Middle East peace — has too often seemed naïve.¶ In April of 2007, during his race for the
White House against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama told an audience at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, “The disappointment that so
many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those
expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.Ӧ
Almost two years after that Chicago speech and a little more than two months into his presidency, Americans did believe that the new
president had improved the United States’ image abroad. But those numbers have slipped noticeably since then.¶ In February of 2009,
according to the Gallup Poll, more than two out of three Americans surveyed (67 percent) said that “leaders of other countries around the
world have respect for Barack Obama.” One year later, only 56 perfect answered the same way, and a year after that a bare majority, 51
percent, said that the president was respected by other countries’ leaders.¶ That figure remained virtually unchanged in polling conducted in
early 2012 and 2013, but this year, Gallup found only 41 percent of Americans believing that Obama was respected by leaders of other
countries, while 53 percent said that those leaders “don’t have much respect” for Obama.¶ “Democrats and
independents are
mainly responsible for the slide in Obama’s ratings,” concluded Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones in a Feb. 24 post on the company’s
website.¶ Obama’s poll numbers are still better than George W. Bush’s throughout most of his presidency, and Gallup found that even now, a
narrow majority of Americans believe the United States rates favorably “in the eyes of the world.”¶ But the
president’s declining job
performance numbers on foreign policy in NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys over the past few years is
impossible to ignore. (See question No. 6 in the March 5-9 survey, here. It includes historical data.)¶ In May 2011, Obama’s net job
approval as president was +11, while his job approval on handling the economy was a -21. But on his handling of foreign policy, the president’s
job performance was a stunning +22 (57 percent approve/35 percent disapprove).¶ One year later, Obama’s net job approval was +2, while his
job approval on his handling of the economy was -9. Once again, his job rating on foreign policy was measurably higher than both, with a net of
+9 (51 percent approve/42 percent disapprove).¶ The same trend held in December of 2012 and April of 2013 NBC News/Wall Street Journal
polls, though the differences in Obama’s net job approval on his overall performance, the economy and foreign policy were narrowing.¶ This
March, the president’s performance in all three areas was almost identical. In fact, an identical 41 percent of respondents approved of his
performance in his overall job, his handling of the economy and his handling of foreign policy.¶ Obama’s net approval as president was -13,
while his net approval in handling the economy was -15 and his handling of foreign policy was -12 (41 percent approve/53 percent
disapprove).¶ Are voters increasingly unhappy with the president’s foreign policy actions, or is the public’s general dissatisfaction with Obama’s
performance poisoning their view of his foreign policy performance?¶ It doesn’t really matter.¶ Public
dissatisfaction with the
president’s handling of foreign policy is another problem for Democrats who need to generate a strong
base turnout and also convince swing voters that the president and his party deserve their support in
November.¶ The less happy voters (particularly Democrats and Independents) are about the Obama presidency, the
more difficult it will be for Democratic strategists to achieve the results they want in the midterm
elections.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Obama Approval
GOP win now—historical correlation with job approval proves Democrats are behind
in the midterms
Benson 6/18/14
Guy, Townhall.com's Senior Political Editor, "Polls: Obama Approval Drops to Fresh Low, Major Midterm
Impact", June 18 2014, townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/18/reuters-poll-obama-approvaldrops-to-fresh-low-n1852723
In the fresh NBC/WSJ poll (see updates below on Hillary), Obama's approval slides to (41/53) -- which is
tied for his lowest approval level ever in that series. He's at (41/54) on the economy, and a dreadful
(37/57) on foreign affairs. A 54-percent majority say Obama is "no longer able to lead the country." For
the umpteenth time, the president may have already attained effective lame duck status, but that
doesn't make his polling irrelevant. Far from it. I've routinely pointed to political data analyst Sean
Trende's formula that suggests a strong historical correlation between flagging presidential approval
ratings and substantial Congressional gains for the opposition party:¶ [It] isn’t a perfect relationship, but
presidential job approval is still the most important variable for how his party fares in midterm elections,
explaining about half of the variance. The relationship is highly statistically significant: For every point in
job approval the president loses, his party loses 0.6 percent of its caucus. (The chart doesn’t measure
drop in job approval; just job approval.) So, at 60 percent, the president should lose 5 percent of his
caucus; at 50 percent, it is around 12 percent of his caucus lost; at 40 percent, it’s about 18 percent of
his caucus lost -- which would be 36 seats. Now the latter is highly unlikely to happen...As I’ve said
before, this election isn’t going to be about sixth-year itches or any such electoral mumbo-jumbo. It’s
going to be about presidential job approval, supplemented by the state of the economy (which also
affects job approval to a degree) and how overexposed or underexposed the president’s party is. Right
now, the second factor provides a drag beyond the president’s job approval, while the third factor will
work heavily to Democrats’ advantage on Election Day...It is still far too early to speculate about how
many seats Democrats will lose (or perhaps gain) in the 2014 elections. But if Obama’s job approval is 40
percent on Election Day, gains would be unlikely, and Democratic losses in the low double digits...would
be plausible.
GOP wins midterms now – scandal surrounds dems
Judis 6/12
John B. Judis, News Republic, 6/12/14, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118108/senate-2014-whydemocrats-will-probably-lose
Barring something entirely unforeseen, the Republicans will retain control of the House of
Representatives in November, and in the wake of Eric Cantor’s ouster, will be even less inclined to compromise with the White
House. The key battle will be for the Senate, and at this point—given the unpopularity of President Obama
and his programs in the states that could decide the outcome—the Republicans are a good bet to regain
the Senate. The recent scandal involving Bowe Bergdahl and the older scandal about Benghazi won’t
decide the outcome, but they are certainly not going to help the Democrats. It’s not 1998, when
Republican exploitation of a White House sex scandal actually cost them seats in the House. The Senate
is currently divided between 55 Democrats (counting two independents who caucus with the
Democrats) and 45 Republicans. Thirty-six senate seats are up for grabs this November. Of these, 21 are
unlikely to change hands. Two Democratic seats in West Virginia and South Dakota are very likely to go
Republican. Thirteen (assuming Chris McDaniel wins the runoff in Mississippi) could conceivably go either way, and of
them, ten are held by Democrats. So if the Republicans were to hold their seats in Mississippi, Kentucky
and Georgia, then they would have to win only four of the remaining ten seats in order to take back the
Senate. That’s not a tall mountain to climb. If you look at the 13 races, they are almost all in states
where Obama and his signature programs, including the Affordable Care Act, gun control, and the plan
to restrict carbon emissions from power plants, are very unpopular. That goes without saying in
Southern states where Democrats are running for re-election. In Louisiana, Obama’s approval rating is at 41 percent and
support for the ACA at 33 percent. In Arkansas, Obama’s approval is at 34 percent and Obamacare’s is at 31 percent. In North Carolina,
Obama’s approval is at 41 percent. Fifty-two percent of registered voters in Arkansas, 58 percent in Louisiana, and 53 percent in North Carolina
would not vote for a candidate who does not share their view of Obamacare. It’s
likely that most of these are opponents of
the president’s program. But Obama and his programs don’t fare much better in Eastern, Midwestern,
and Rocky Mountain states where Democrats are defending seats. In Iowa, Obama’s approval rating is at 42 percent
and only 30.7 percent of Iowans think the country is on “the right track.” In Colorado, Obama’s approval is at 38 percent, Obamacare’s at 39
percent, and 73 percent think the shape of the national economy is either “not so good” or “poor.” In Michigan, 53 percent oppose Obamacare,
and in New Hampshire 57.6 percent. Obama’s climate initiative may help Democrats in 2016 and is popular in some states that the president
carried in 2012, but it will probably not be popular in some of the crucial swing states this November. As the National Republican Senate
Committee has noted, Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, Kentucky and Montana—all except Kentucky with Democratic
incumbents—depend on coal for more than half their energy needs. Obama’s other initiatives are also not popular in some swing states. In
Colorado, 56 percent of voters now oppose the state’s strict gun control laws. In Michigan, a plurality opposed Obama’s gun control proposals.
Obama and the Democrats seem poised to suffer from the “six year itch” that the president’s party has
usually suffered during midterm elections of a second term. Ronald Reagan’s Republicans lost the
Senate in 1986, and George W. Bush’s Republicans lost it in 2006. The exception was Bill Clinton’s
Democrats in 1998, who broke even in the Senate and won five House seats. That was because Clinton
remained very popular, thanks to a booming economy. His job approval in the weeks before the election was in the low 60
percent range. The impeachment inquiry, which Republicans had hoped would discredit the president and
the Democrats, actually helped the Democrats. Southern black voters, who enthusiastically backed
Clinton and believed he was being unfairly targeted, turned out in large numbers. But the Democrats’
situation this year is very different. The economy is still in the doldrums, Obama is unpopular, and
Republican scandal-mongering is unlikely to generate a backlash. In 1998, many Democrats took offense
at the Republican impeachment efforts because they were aimed not merely at censuring Clinton, but at
unseating him. To date, the Republicans have not used the Benghazi and Bergdahl scandals to call for
Obama’s removal. Instead, they have merely called for investigations. And as recent polls have shown,
many Democrats and Independents, as well as Republicans, favor an investigation into Benghazi and are
critical of the administration’s deal with the Taliban for Bergdahl’s release. That probably means that the
scandals will be a small, and probably temporary, net plus for the Republicans. They will cast a pall over
the White House and, with an assist from Fox News, fire up the Republican base. The Democrats have
not developed a national theme—comparable, say, to the Reagan administration’s “staying the course”
in the 1982 election—to rally voters to their cause. Many of the Democratic candidates are trumpeting
the party’s support for boosting the minimum wage and for women’s rights—two issues that are
popular with voters—but few of the embattled Democrats are running on the White House’s record.
With Obama and his programs so unpopular in the key election states, the Democrats in these states are
desperately trying to distance themselves from the national party. Congressman Travis Childers, who is likely to face
Tea Party favorite McDaniel in Mississippi’s senate race, actually has a very small chance of winning only because he voted against the
Affordable Care Act. In Kentucky, Democrat Allison Grimes promised to “fiercely oppose” the president’s climate change plan. While the
Republicans are seeking to nationalize the campaign, Democrats like Grimes or Mary Landrieu in Louisiana or Mark Pryor in Arkansas want to
make the election all about themselves and not about their party or the President. If these Democrats can pull this off, they might able to hold
off the Republican challenge in November. Certainly, polls suggest that candidates like Landrieu, Pryor or Kay Hagan in North Carolina have a
chance of winning. But at
this point, it seems likely that Obama will have to face a Republican House and
Senate next year. That’s a recipe for two more years of gridlock.
Obama’s low approval rating affects midterms
Jones 6/16/14
Jeffrey M., Gallup Politics polls, "Key Midterm Election Indicators at or Near Historical Lows", June 16
2014, www.gallup.com/poll/171671/key-midterm-election-indicators-near-historical-lows.aspx
Obama Approval Rating at 2010 Level¶ Although the president is not a candidate in midterm election
years, his standing with voters is usually a significant predictor of election outcomes. When presidents
are unpopular, their party typically loses a substantial number of seats in the House of Representatives.
Conversely, in the 1998 and 2002 elections, when Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had
approval ratings above 60%, their parties gained House seats, providing rare exceptions to the historical
trend of midterm seat losses for the president's party. President Barack Obama's job approval rating
from Gallup Daily tracking has averaged 44% thus far in June. That is the same as his approval rating at
the time of the 2010 elections, when Democrats lost more than 60 seats in the House. Only two
presidents have had lower job approval ratings in recent midterm elections -- George W. Bush in 2006
and Ronald Reagan in 1982. In those years, the president's party lost more than 20 seats, suggesting
seat loss is not always proportional to presidential job approval, but underscoring the peril the
president's party faces when his approval rating is below 50%.
GOP win now—economic cycles, Obama’s failures, independents
Alan Caruba 6/3/14
Alan, political commentator and veteran public relations counselor, former fulltime journalist, author of
two recent books, "Will the midterm elections repreat history?" RenewAmerica, an independent
grassroots media source, www.renewamerica.com/columns/caruba/140603
As Americans go to the polls in primary elections to select the candidates that will run in November, the question is how many
Tea Party candidates will be among the winners. If there are a significant number among them, my feeling is that the
November midterm elections are going to be a bloodbath for the Democratic Party. There is a point at which
even Democrats realize that their President, their party and their policies are harming the economy in
general and themselves in particular. Very few families in America do not have someone who is out of work
because of what Obama has done at this point. What he has not done is put the economy on the road to recovery.
Ultimately all elections are about jobs and the economy. With 90 million Americans out of work or who have
just stopped looking for work, that's a lot of unhappy voters. Elections tend to work in cycles. When times are
good, politicians take credit for it and get reelected. When times are bad they blame the other party and are often
rejected. As we approach the November midterm elections the Obama administration's political strategy has been to
offer an increase in the minimum wage, to talk about equal pay and infrastructure, and to claim that the
Affordable Care Act is working. Raising the minimum wage will reduce new jobs because, at some point, a
business needs to make a profit, but if they don't pay enough, no one will work for them. For all the
complaints about Wal-Mart and McDonald's, these and other corporations employ thousands. Workers at a Toyota
manufacturing facility were given the choice of joining the auto workers union and they rejected it. A nation that has $17 trillion
debt is in no position to talk about spending billions on infrastructure. And the Affordable Care Act –
Obamacare – has proven to be an unmitigated disaster for millions who were insured, lost their insurance,
and then required to purchase plans they did not like and which cost more. So, yes, voters, Democratic and
Republican, are ready to reject incumbents in Congress seeking reelection if they voted for Obamacare
and are giving evidence of liking candidates who express Tea Party movement ideals. And let's not
ignore the growing role of independent voters who are deciding the outcome of elections.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Polls
GOP win now—most recent poll
Blake 6/26/14
Aaron, reporter for The Washington Post, "Democrats have an enthusiasm problem. Big time.", June 26
2014, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/26/democrats-have-an-enthusiasmproblem-big-time/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
The history-making coalition that delivered the presidency to Barack Obama in 2008 and reelected him
in 2012 has a distinct attitude toward the 2014 election: Meh. A new poll from Democratic pollster
Democracy Corps finds that just 68 percent of African Americans, Latinos, young people and unmarried
women who voted in 2012 and are "likely" to vote in 2014 -- the four key parts of Obama's coalition -say they are "almost certain" to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. The enthusiasm deficit for key
members of the Obama coalition (68% who say they are almost certain to vote) versus other voters
(85%). That's up four points from April, when 64 percent said the same. But it's still lagging far behind
other voting groups, a combined 85 percent of whom say they are almost certain to vote. The new 17point gap is up from 15 in April and 11 in March of last year. For comparison's sake, at the tail end of the
Democrats' disastrous 2010 campaign, the gap was 22 points. Here's how the data for this election look:
We wrote back in April how troubling this news is for Democrats. That's because their 2008 and 2012
coalitions were notable in large part because of these four groups, which don't generally turn out big
but did so for Obama. And the effect on the 2014 election is clear. While the less-enthusiastic "Rising
American Electorate" (the pollster's name for the Obama coalition) favors Democrats by 19 points, all of
the other, more-enthusiastic voter groups combine to favor Republicans by 18 points. And these aren't
the only polls to suggest midterm turnout is a looming problem for Democrats. An April AP-GfK poll
showed, among those who are strongly interested in politics -- i.e. most apt to vote -- people favored a
GOP-controlled Congress 51 percent to 37 percent. Democrats will continue seeking motivation for their
voters -- a big reason you've heard so much talk about GOP obstruction, the "war on women,"
allegations of GOP racism and the Koch brothers. All of these are geared at motivating the unmotivated,
who are legion right now. Despite these efforts, many of Democrats' most important voters are still very
casual about the need to vote in November.
GOP win now—enthusiasm for economic programs proves the democrats are behind
Dana Blanton 6/5/14
Dana, reporter for Fox News, "Fox News Poll: Republicans have edge in 2014 midterm ballot test",
www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/05/fox-news-poll-republicans-have-edge-in-2014-midterm-ballottest/
The latest Fox News poll finds that if
the 2014 midterm elections were held today, 43 percent of voters would
back the Republican candidate in their House district, while 39 percent would vote for the Democrat. ¶ Of
course the election isn’t today. It’s five months away. And for the fifth straight time this year, the results on this
congressional generic ballot question have reversed in our Fox News poll. ¶ Last month, the Democratic candidate had the
edge by three percentage points. In April, the Republican was up by three. In March, it was Democrats +2 and before that it was GOP +2. ¶
Democratic pollster Chris Anderson says this
indicates an unsettled environment among voters. ¶ “That said,” Anderson
adds, “most other findings in the poll suggest an increasingly favorable environment for the Republicans
heading toward the midterms.”¶ Anderson conducts the Fox News poll with Republican pollster Daron Shaw. Shaw notes his party’s
advantage grows when looking only at those voters who are “extremely” or “very” interested in the election:
48 percent would back the GOP candidate, while 37 percent would support the Democrat. That’s almost
unchanged from last month when the Republican candidate was favored 46-39 percent.¶ “What drives the difference between
the overall results and the subgroup of interested voters is that 61 percent of Republicans are interested
in the upcoming election, while just 55 percent of Democrats are,” Shaw says. “What might concern Republicans is that
interest in the election among their party faithful is down five points from last month, while interest is up five points among Democrats.” ¶ Even
so, by an 11-point margin, voters think
the Republican Party is better on foreign policy, and by a 10-point
margin it is seen as the party that would work harder to reduce taxes. The GOP also has a slim four-point
edge on being seen as the party that would do more to improve the economy. Republicans are seen as
more “pro-business” by a whopping 44-point margin.¶ To varying degrees, independents favor the Republican
Party on each issue tested, and prefer the GOP candidate on the generic vote by 14-points.¶ Poll pourri¶ By a
five-point margin, voters think a Republican politician is more likely to lie to them than a Democrat. Still, the largest number -- 46 percent -says both politicians are equally likely to lie to the public. ¶ Among independents, 10 percent say a Democratic politician is more likely to lie to
them, 12 percent say a Republican and 69 percent say “both.” ¶ Overall, first-time candidates (37 percent) and incumbents (36 percent) are
seen as equally likely to lie. Another 22 percent says “both.”¶ Speaking of incumbents, 78 percent of voters disapprove of the job Congress is
doing. Just 13 percent approve. ¶ The
Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006
randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson
Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 1-3, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error
of plus or minus three percentage points.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Turnout
GOP win now—turnout
Steinhauser 6/23/14
Paul, CNN Political Editor, "CNN/ORC Poll illustrates Democrats turnout problem", June 23 2014,
www.kspr.com/news/politics/cnnorc-poll-illustrates-democrats-turnout-problem/21051736_26618400
It's the biggest question surrounding this year's midterm elections: how many people will turn out to
vote? The answer is crucial, because a smaller, more typical midterm electorate should favor the
Republican Party. That's because single women, and younger and minority voters, who are big supporters of Democrats in
presidential election years, tend to cast ballots in smaller numbers in the midterms. That's the problem
facing Democrats this November, as they try to hold onto their 55-45 majority in the Senate (53 Democrats and two independents who
caucus with the party). The party is defending 21 of the 36 seats up this year, with half of those Democraticheld seats in red or purple states. In the House, the Democrats need to pick up a very challenging 17 Republican held seats to win
back the majority from the GOP. A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday illustrates the turnout dilemma for the Democrats. In the
generic ballot question, the Democrats have a two percentage point 47%-45% edge over the Republicans among registered voters. The generic
ballot asks respondents to choose between a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district without identifying the candidates. But
when looking only at those who say they voted in the 2010 midterms - when the GOP won back the
House thanks to a historic 63-seat pick up and narrowed the Democrats' control of the Senate - Republicans have a four-point
49%-45% edge. "Younger Americans, women and non-whites score low on questions that ask them
whether they are likely to vote. But on questions about how interested they are in the 2014 elections, women are not much
different than men, non-whites are not that much different than whites, and people under 35 years old are not much different than people
between 35 and 65 years of age," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The
task for the Democrats is not to get those
voters to pay attention to this year's election -- the party faces the much more difficult task of turning
that attention into enthusiasm for voting."
Dem turnout fails
Cohn 5/1/14
Nate, Correspondent at The New York Times, "Bursting the Democrats’ Midterm-Turnout Bubble", May
1 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/upshot/bursting-the-democrats-midterm-turnout-bubble.html
The Democratic midterm turnout problem is no secret. Young and nonwhite voters tend to stay home in off-year elections,
leaving the electorate older, whiter and more Republican than in a presidential election. If there’s any consolation for Democrats, it’s that they
will have an opportunity to do something about it. They’ll spend millions to target Democratic-leaning voters over the next six months. And you
would think that if anything could fix a turnout problem, it would be the vestiges of President Obama’s vaunted ground operation. But
not
even the most sophisticated and well-funded turnout effort can fix this problem. Strong turnout
operations can help Democrats at the margins. The Democratic turnout problem, however, is not
marginal. Nationally, low youth and nonwhite turnout might cost Democrats a net 3 percentage points
in November, relative to an election with the same turnout as a presidential race. In states where generational and
demographic change is responsible for renewed Democratic competitiveness, like North Carolina, low
turnout deals a greater blow to the Democratic coalition. Much of the optimism on Democratic turnout stems from Mr.
Obama’s successful turnout operation in 2012, or from experiments showing large increases in turnout when voters receive targeted mailers or
contacts. But political
scientists and campaign operatives found that even Mr. Obama’s impressive ground
operation was worth less than one point in his presidential elections. And those experiments are usually conducted in
extremely low turnout elections, like a local mayoral race, in which there are many more marginal voters. Finding people who are potential
voters but not existing voters in a national election is harder. Even Democratic operatives know the limits of the ground game. In a New
Republic cover article that otherwise suggested that a strong turnout operation could solve Democratic problems, Guy
Cecil, executive
director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, conceded that field operations would “only
solve our problem if the election is a close one.” The promise and limits of the Democratic turnout machine were on display
in November 2013. In the Virginia governor’s race, Terry McAuliffe’s well-funded campaign resurrected
elements of the Obama campaign’s turnout apparatus in a contest against an underfunded challenger, Ken Cuccinelli, who
alienated many of the state’s socially liberal voters. As a result, Mr. McAuliffe held a significant lead in the polls, even
among likely voters. But on Election Day, Mr. McAuliffe won by only 2.5 percentage points, less than Mr.
Obama’s 3.9-point margin in November 2012, even though Mr. McAuliffe clearly outperformed Mr.
Obama in Northern Virginia among the state’s moderate, affluent swing voters. The problem was lower Democratic
turnout. The electorate more closely resembled 2009 than 2012, according to Harrison Kreisberg, who directed the Virginia operation for
BlueLabs, a Democratic analytics firm founded by former Obama campaign operatives. BlueLabs’s analysis showed that Mr. McAuliffe’s margin
would have expanded by an additional 5 points if turnout had been equivalent to that of the 2012 race. That analysis is consistent with the
precinct-level results. Turnout fell by more than it did statewide in heavily Democratic precincts — usually with an
overwhelmingly African-American population. The decline wasn’t as steep as in 2009, but it could not be mistaken for the 2012 electorate
either. This
doesn’t mean the Democratic turnout operation was ineffective. It helped on the margins. After
all, the Virginia electorate was more favorable for Democrats in 2013 than it was in 2009. But Mr. McAuliffe’s win was narrow —
especially considering the tepid Republican effort. And no Democratic turnout effort will revitalize the
so-called Obama coalition of young and nonwhite voters in an off-year election. The levels of voter
interest in a midterm election and presidential election are simply too different. Indeed, Mr. Kreisberg said the
McAuliffe campaign didn’t aim to match 2012 turnout; it was mainly focused on outperforming turnout in 2009. As a result, Democrats might
not be able to follow Mr. McAuliffe’s footsteps this year. Mr. McAuliffe needed to overperform among well-educated, affluent voters in
Northern Virginia to squeak out a victory, and not every Democrat will be lucky enough to receive a gift like Mr. Cuccinelli or to run in a state
won by Mr. Obama. To
hold the Senate, Democrats will need to overcome their turnout problem the oldfashioned way: win older, white voters at far greater rates than Mr. Obama did. That’s how Democrats used to
deal with low midterm turnout among young and nonwhite voters, who have never turned out in off-year elections, not even in 2006, when
Democrats were said to be especially energized. Youth Turnout Is Always Bad in Midterms Young voters were as unlikely to vote
in 2006 as in 2010. Democrats won the 2006 midterms in a landslide partly by winning voters over 60. Young voters weren’t necessary then;
they just helped them run up the score. And until 2004, an older electorate often helped Democrats. In 1992 and 2000, Bill Clinton and Al Gore
did better among voters over age 60 than any other age group. Since then, the
Democratic advantage among older voters
has turned into a significant deficit. Democrats have more than made up for it in presidential elections
with large margins among young voters, but the result is an equally large generation gap — and a
midterm turnout problem where there hadn’t been one before. If Democrats want to overcome that problem, they’re
stuck trying to figure out how to earn higher levels of support among older and white voters than Mr. Obama earned. What makes matters
even more challenging: Not
only will they need to compensate for low turnout, but in many cases they’ll also
need to do it in states where Mr. Obama lost by a wide margin.
2NC UQ—GOP Win—Veterans Affairs
GOP win now—VA
Brianna Ehley, Washington Correspondent for The Fiscal Times, June 12 2014
www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/12/Disapproval-Obama-s-VA-Management-Could-HurtDems-Midterms
Americans are none too pleased with President Obama’s handling of the Veterans Affairs health care
scandal. A new Gallup poll shows that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of his response to the
ongoing revelations of mismanagement, including alleged cover-ups and the hidden lists of veterans
waiting for treatment. ¶ The poll shows that the majority of respondents – 69 percent – said that they’ve
been following the issue very closely or somewhat closely, which is well above the engagement average
for other current event stories. All of this increased attention on the VA scandal and the negative views
of Obama’s handling of it could have an impact on this year’s midterm elections, Gallup’s Art Swift
suggested.¶ “The VA scandal could remain on the minds of Americans for quite some time,” Swift said in
a note. “At the moment, a strong majority of Americans are following this matter closely, and Americans
give the president low marks for his handling of it. This may have implications for policies and politics in
2014 and beyond.”
GOP win now—VA
Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, 5/30/14
Peter A., assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, "Will the VA Scandal Influence the
November Elections?", The Wall Street Journal, blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/30/will-the-vascandal-influence-the-november-elections/
The resignation of Gen. Eric Shinseki as secretary of veterans affairs may or may not help President Barack Obama’s approval ratings in the
short run by getting the story off the front page.¶ The more important
question, however, is whether the VA scandal
becomes another building block for the Republican argument this fall that Democrats should not be
trusted with the federal government.¶ Mr. Obama is a lame duck and will never face the voters again. But history shows a
strong correlation between a president’s approval rating and how his party does in midterm elections.¶
Mr. Obama’s numbers have been in the low to mid-40s for many months. These relatively poor scores are
one reason many think that Republicans have a shot at winning control of the Senate in November.¶ More
In Think Tank¶ Why It's Too Early to Hit the Inflation Panic Button¶ What's Different About California's Primaries¶ A Bipartisan Response to the
VA Scandal?¶ Obama and the Realities of Foreign Policy¶ What the VA Scandal and Medicare Cost Issues Have in Common¶ The GOP
optimism is based on the large number of Senate seats now held by Democrats in “red states” that were
carried by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.¶ It’s not clear whether voters in those states will turn against
Democrats in November solely because of the VA scandal.¶ But the VA scandal could become another piece of a GOP
argument–along with the Internal Revenue Service scandal, Benghazi, and an economy recovering at a
historically slow pace–that Mr. Obama and his congressional allies are not running things every well.¶
Then again, it’s a long way to November.¶ No one knows whether the VA mess will still be in the public consciousness come Election Day. The
IRS scandal has pretty much dropped off the radar.¶ Yet if
Republicans can amass enough Obama administration
missteps to convince voters in those red states their senators are part of the problem because of their
party affiliation with the president, the VA scandal could prove to be a handy weapon for the GOP.
2NC AT: UQ over Link
UQ doesn’t overwhelm the link—a GOP win in the midterms isn’t certain—if economic
growth strengthens over the coming months, it will give Democrats momentum going
into November—that’s Dorning. It gives Democrats a talking point to re-focus media
attention away from scandals hurting Obama’s approval rating
Link
2NC Developmet Link—Ocean Pop
2NC Development Link—Ov
Increasing ocean development is popular—attention around a new initiative like the
plan would cause the public to realize the interconnection between a “blue economy”
and wellbeing—that’s Bugel
1. Marine industries and jobs have a significant financial impact on coastal watershed
countries—which accounts for more than half of all Americans
2. Passionate advocates and sound science will cause a rallying effect and necessary
enthusiasm to change doubter’s minds
The National Ocean Policy translates into public support through bottom-up
coordination with the public
Moran 14
Dr. S. Bradley, Acting Director, National Ocean Council Office, Executive Office of the President,
"Strengthening America’s Ocean Economy: The National Ocean Policy", January 2014, www.seatechnology.com/features/2014/0114/8_Moran.php
Last April, the
National Ocean Council (NOC)—composed of representatives from those 27 federal agencies, departments, and
its Implementation Plan, translating the National Ocean Policy into on-the-ground actions.
The Implementation Plan endorsed the concept of voluntary regional marine planning, a transparent,
bottom-up approach to coordinating activities that can help regions grow their economies and support
their coastal communities while protecting and conserving their ocean and coastal ecosystems. Regions
that want to do marine planning establish regional planning bodies, jointly led by federal, state and
tribal members. Stakeholder engagement, public participation, and information from a wide variety of
sources, including scientists, technical experts, industry, government agencies and native communities,
are vitally important to the process to ensure marine planning is based on a full understanding of the
range of interests and activities in the region. The National Ocean Council recognizes that there is a wide variety of ocean
users, industries and interests, and that even within any particular group, perspectives may differ greatly. For that reason, when the Council
issued a marine planning handbook in August, it made clear that regional planning bodies should operate in an open,
science-based and cooperative environment—one in which all stakeholders and the general public are
guaranteed the opportunity to inform marine plans by sharing data, information and perspectives.
offices—issued
Link—Generic Develop Pop
Ocean development is popular—their evidence doesn’t assume new efforts to
increase ocean literacy and public participation
UNESCO 14
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO and Nausicaá deepen
Partnership for the Ocean" June 10 2014, www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/singleview/news/unesco_and_nausicaa_deepen_partnership_for_the_ocean/back/9597/#.U65jafldW5o
UNESCO and Nausicaá have been working closely since 1998, when the 1st global forum of ocean museums, science centres and
aquariums was organized under Nausicaá’s leadership with the support of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
(UNESCO-IOC). This 1st meeting led to the creation of the World Ocean Network, an alliance of over 250 organizations worldwide, aiming
to
educate the general public on ocean-related issues and to promote the sustainable use of ocean
resources. Together, UNESCO and Nausicaá have striven to mobilize decision makers, stakeholders, and the general public on
global issues related to the ocean through targeted activities, notably during international fora, including the Global
Ocean Forums, the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the United Nations Conferences on Climate Change
and World Ocean Days. The
newly signed partnership will include joint efforts in education for sustainable
development. Through its Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO will support the extension of Nausicaá’s outreach
programme, focusing on climate change and on the High Seas. The promotion of ocean literacy will continue to be at the
center of these joint efforts, including activities to engage the public as ‘ocean citizens.’ “Sustainable
development is not possible on earth without sustainable development of the ocean,” said the Director-General. “Together, we have the power
to safeguard the ocean”. Nausicaá will play an active role in the Ocean and Climate Platform 2015, launched at UNESCO on the same day.
The Platform will bring together the research community and civil society organizations, with the aim of
placing the ocean at the heart of international debate on climate change. The ocean regulates the climate,
absorbs over one quarter of carbon emissions and is the main source of oxygen in the world. As such, it
must be part of the solution as States shape a new agenda for sustainable development. “This platform is a
crucial tool to highlight the ocean as a source of sustainable solutions to climate change, to weigh in the public debate and to fuel
negotiations,” declared the Director-General.
Link—Offshore Drilling Pop
Offshore drilling is popular—the majority of polled voters across party lines supported
increasing development policy due to the economic benefits—API has specifically
been successful in public campaigning
Boman 12
Karen, Senior Editor at Rigzone.com, "API: Poll Shows US Voters Link Energy Development, Economic
Recovery", Aug 14 2012,
www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/119997/API_Poll_Shows_US_Voters_Link_Energy_Development_Eco
nomic_Recovery
A recent poll by the American Petroleum Institute (API) found that U.S.
voters favor increased access to domestic oil and
gas resources, and see oil and gas development as a way to create jobs. Seventy-one percent of the 1,016
registered voters polled by Harris Interactive in telephone interviews throughout the United States from August 9-12 said they
supported opening more U.S. oil and natural gas resources for development. Republican voters and voters aged 55
years and older favored opening more oil and gas resource development. Eighty-five percent of Republican voters polled
strongly or somewhat agreed with increasing access to U.S. energy resources, while 73 percent of voters over the
age of 55 strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access. The poll also found that: 72 percent of independent voters either
strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access to oil and gas resources 60 percent of Democrats
strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access to oil and gas resources 72 percent of voters aged 35-54
strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access 66 percent of votes aged 18-34 strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access
Ninety percent of those voters agreed that increased access to domestic resources could lead to more
U.S.-based jobs. Ninety-five percent of voters identifying as Republicans strongly or somewhat agreed that increased oil and gas activity
could result in more job creation. Ninety-three percent of voters aged 18-34 strongly or somewhat agreed that more oil and gas activity could
lead to more jobs, according to the poll results. According to the results: 91 percent of independents believed increased domestic oil and gas
access could lead to more jobs 85 percent of Democrats polled thought increased oil and gas access could result in job creation 90 percent of
voters aged 55 and older believed more oil and gas development could lead to more jobs 89 percent of voters aged 35-54 agreed that greater
access to hydrocarbon resources could lead to more U.S.-based jobs Seventy-three
percent of voters polled also support
changing policies to allow more offshore development. More Republicans favored offshore drilling,
with 85 percent supporting changes in policies. Support for increased offshore development by age
groups was strongest among voters aged 18-34, with 78 percent voicing support. Seventy-five percent of voters
polled support development of the Keystone XL Pipeline. More Republican voters favored the pipeline project, while support was split fairly
evenly among the three age groups polled at around 75 percent. The poll results showed that 87 percent of voters agreed that access to more
domestic oil and natural gas could help lower energy costs for consumers. Sixty-five percent of voters agreed that increases in energy taxes
could drive up energy costs. The poll also found that 63 percent of voters think Washington is on the wrong track regarding U.S. energy
policy.POLL RESULTS THE FRUIT OF API VOTE FOR ENERGY CAMPAIGN The
poll results are the fruit borne of API's Vote for
Energy campaign, a multi-million dollar effort launched in January to encourage discussion of U.S.
energy policy and issues, said API President and CEO Jack Gerard in a conference call Tuesday. With 92 percent of voters
polled saying that energy security and domestic oil and gas production are important issues for the
November presidential election, API continues to lobby for a true all of the above energy policy with
action and vision, not just lip service from the administration, Gerard said during the call. The results show that voters
"clearly get" the issue of how oil and gas development can impact the nation's economy, Gerard said,
pointing to the expansions in U.S. industries such as steel that have been made possible by expanded exploration and production activity. Now,
API has taken its campaign to swing states Colorado, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, where both
President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney have been campaigning, to encourage discussion about the
United States' energy future and the impact that oil and gas activity can have on the economy. API has
also recruited 3 million grassroots supporters to support API's efforts, and said API has been speaking with
candidates of both parties who are up for election this fall. "It's not about political parties, it's about
good sound public policy," Gerard noted. "Having a pro-development business climate can have a positive impact on the economy."
Offshore drilling is popular with the public, specifically independents—approval is
back to pre-Gulf spill levels, and technology is perceived safe
Swanson 13
Emily, reporter for the Huffington Post, "Offshore Drilling Support High As Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Trial Opens", Feb 28 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/offshore-drilling_n_2783337.html
After the opening of a trial this week to assess BP's responsibility for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a
new HuffPost/YouGov
poll finds that support for offshore drilling has returned to high levels, and more think that spills are isolated
accidents rather than routine events.¶ According to the new survey, 58 percent of Americans favor increased offshore
drilling, and only 28 percent are opposed. Among Republicans, support for drilling is near universal, with 86
percent saying that they support expanded drilling. Most independents also said they support drilling, 58
percent to 26 percent. Democrats were divided on the issue, with 41 percent saying they favored and 40 percent saying they were opposed to
increased drilling.¶ Support for increased drilling has recovered nearly to where it was before the Gulf oil spill.
A YouGov/Economist poll conducted the month before the spill found that support for increased drilling outstripped opposition 62 percent to
24 percent. Support dropped as low as 44 percent in another YouGov/Economist poll taken after the spill, in June of 2010, with 40 percent
saying they opposed expanded drilling at that time.¶ By
a 50 percent to 30 percent margin, respondents to the
HuffPost/YouGov survey were more likely to say that drilling technology is safe and that spills are rare
accidents -- rather than say that the technology is unreliable and routine spills inevitable.
**North Carolina DA**
UQ—NC DA
GOP winning in North Carolina—turnout
Cohn 4/28/14
Nate, Correspondent at The New York Times, "Why the Democrats’ Turnout Problem Is Worst in North
Carolina", April 28 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/upshot/why-the-democrats-turnout-problemis-worst-in-north-carolina.html?_r=0
Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina seems as if she should be part of the firewall in the Democrats’ bid
to retain the Senate, considering that incumbents tend to win re-election in states that are competitive
in presidential elections. But Ms. Hagan is far more vulnerable than she appears at first glance. North Carolina might
be the state where Democrats suffer the most from low midterm turnout. The state is divided between
older, culturally Southern and conservative voters, and younger, more diverse and more liberal voters, especially around the
Research Triangle and Charlotte. In presidential elections, those two groups fight nearly to a draw. In midterm elections, when
older voters turn out at much higher rates than younger ones, the Republicans have a big advantage. If
Ms. Hagan cannot broaden her political appeal, it is not clear she can win a midterm election in North
Carolina. The gap between North Carolina’s younger (under 30) and older voters (over 65) is among the most pronounced in the country. In
2012, North Carolina’s seniors voted for Mitt Romney by 29 points, more than twice his 12-point advantage nationally among older voters,
according to exit polls. By contrast, President Obama won North Carolina’s young voters by a 35-point margin, better than the 24-point margin
he won nationally. This 64-point gap between young and old North Carolinians was nearly twice as large as it was nationally. Lower youth
turnout, then, is twice as damaging to Democrats in North Carolina than it is nationally. North Carolina’s
generation gap is a reflection of the profound demographic changes that have transformed the state.
Many of the state’s young voters are the children of Northern-born professionals who flocked to jobs in technology, higher education, banking
and health care over the last two decades. Others, including students and graduates of the state’s prestigious research universities, are
Northern expats themselves. When
young voters stay home, the state reverts to its Republican past and the
more conservative bent of the South. And judging from the last midterm election, the plunge in youth
turnout could be huge. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds accounted for a mere 3.9 percent of voters in 2010, down from 10.4 percent of voters
in 2008, according to the secretary of state’s office. Older voters jumped from 17.5 to 26.1 percent of those turning out.
Link—NC DA
Offshore drilling for natural gas is overwhelmingly popular with North Carolina voters
Trout 6/2/14
Katie, Operations Director at Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, and former Managing
Editor at John W. Pope Civitas Institute, "Over Half of NC Voters Support Offshore Drilling", June 2 2014,
civitasreview.com/polling/over-half-of-nc-voters-support-offshore-drilling/
A recent Civitas poll finds that 56
percent of North Carolina voters support drilling off the state’s coast for oil and
natural gas. Thirty-seven percent were opposed and 7 percent had no opinion. Support for oil exploration off the coast has
remained consistently strong in Civitas polling results. The May 2009 poll found 71 percent of voters in support of
offshore oil exploration; though voters are clear that the oil rigs should be out of sight from the shoreline. The numbers climb
higher to 74 percent in support of drilling if voters find out that the deposits are mainly cleaner, safer natural gas
which does not cause the environmental or safety problems of oil if there is a leak or spill. And despite the recent catastrophic oil
spill in the Gulf, only 12 percent of voters’ opinions changed in saying they supported it before the spill
but now oppose it. Fifty-seven percent continue to support drilling for oil and natural gas even as the
cleanup effort continues. A new oil rig off the coast of North Carolina may still be a ways off, however, as state legislators are
considering a bill that would adjust the listed pros and cons of drilling submitted by a legislative committee in 2009. The group will meet with
the Governor on Thursday, June 3 to discuss offshore drilling and its effects on the state. North
Carolina voters understand the
benefits that offshore drilling would have on the state’s economy which is currently struggling with
record unemployment.
North Carolina is the key state in determining the Senate majority
Kondik 14
Kyle, Managing Editor at Sabato's Crystal Ball, Communications Director at the University of Virginia
Center for Politics, "10 Maps That Explain the 2014 Midterms", May 5 2014,
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/10-maps-that-explain-the-2014-midterms106347.html#.U6kMUvldW5o
Perhaps the
key Senate race in the country is in North Carolina, a Republican-leaning swing state that
both sides suspect could decide the Senate majority. Adjust your eyes when looking at the maps above, which feature, on
the left, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan’s victory over Republican Elizabeth Dole in 2008 and, on the right, Republican Sen. Richard Burr’s victory
over Democrat Elaine Marshall two years later. In this case, blue is for Republicans, and red is for Democrats. (These maps are from Dave Leip’s
Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, a first-rate resource for election watchers.) Hagan took slightly more than 54 percent of the two-party vote
against Dole in 2008, four points better than Obama performed on the same ballot. Two years later, incumbent Burr performed a bit better
than Hagan in his reelection bid, winning 56 percent of the two-party vote. In
each of these elections, the winner of the state
also won Raleigh’s Wake County. Hagan took the county by 15 points in 2008; Burr won it by a point in 2010.
Wake is North Carolina’s second-biggest county, but it consistently casts more votes than the biggest—
Mecklenburg, home to Charlotte. Because Florida and Ohio, with their famous, key counties like Hillsborough
(Tampa) and Hamilton (Cincinnati), don’t feature Senate races this year, Wake might very well be the
key county this year. Hagan needs to win it again, and not just by a few points, which will be a challenge
given the significant turnout problems Democrats face in North Carolina midterms.
Int Link—NC DA
Offshore drilling excites North Carolina voters because of the economic benefits
Green 13
Mark, adjunct professor at George Mason University, reporter and editor for more than 30 years, "East
Coast Voters Look Offshore for Energy", Oct 17 2013, energytomorrow.org/blog/2013/october/eastcoast-voters-look-offshore-for-energy
Three more polls, three more states where strong majorities support oil and natural gas drilling off
America’s coasts – for jobs, a stronger economy and a more-secure energy future. Harris Interactive surveys
conducted recently in Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina found support for offshore drilling among
registered voters ranged from 64 percent (Florida) to 77 percent (South Carolina). As was true earlier this week in a
poll of Virginia voters on offshore drilling, developing offshore energy goes along with the belief that more access to
U.S. energy reserves and more drilling will lead to significant economic benefits and increased U.S.
energy security. More polling results from the three states: Agree that increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources
could help strengthen America’s energy security: FL 88 percent; NC 89 percent; SC 87 percent. Agree that increased production of domestic oil
and natural gas resources could lead to more jobs in the U.S.: FL 92 percent; NC 91 percent; SC 93 percent. Agree that producing more domestic
oil and natural gas could help lower energy costs for consumers: FL 83 percent; NC 80 percent; SC 87 percent. Agree that increased production
of domestic oil and natural gas resources could help stimulate the economy: FL 89 percent; NC 87 percent; SC 91 percent. Agree that producing
more domestic oil and natural gas could benefit federal and state budgets through lease payments, royalty fees and other sources of revenue:
FL 83 percent; NC 81 percent; SC 81 percent Support for increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources located here in the
U.S.: FL 73 percent; NC 77 percent; SC 78 percent. These
numbers are a great big clue for policymakers in Washington
as they consider allowing new seismic surveying off the coasts of the four Mid-Atlantic states. Significant
majorities of people living in those states – majorities that cut across party lines – view America’s energy
wealth as the catalyst for greater individual and national prosperity. A game-changer. Dave Mica of the Florida
Petroleum Council: “Floridians and residents of other coastal states are in the same boat in support of
offshore drilling. We can create good-paying jobs and strengthen our local economy by allowing more oil
and natural gas production here in the Sunshine State. As Governor Scott just announced in Daytona Beach, an oil and gas
technology firm will add 100 jobs in our state to support exploration and production in other states. The multiplier effect for high tech and
engineering jobs will be tremendous if additional access to exploration is granted in Florida both onshore and offshore.” David McGowan of the
North Carolina Petroleum Council: “North Carolina voters continue to support energy production in this state. The path from the earliest phase
of planning an offshore lease sale to the first day of production can take more than 10 years. North
Carolina has the opportunity
to produce energy off its coast and create jobs to fuel our economy while also ensuring the protection of the
environmental resources that make our state such a special place.” Kay Clamp of the South Carolina Petroleum Council: “South Carolinians
want every opportunity to create jobs and boost the state economy. The United States is leading the world in energy development, and
allowing South Carolina to produce offshore energy could mean increased revenues to ease the pressure
on government budgets.”
North Carolina key
Barnes 5/6/14
Fred, political commentator for the Weekly Standard, "Tillis Wins, Boosts GOP's 2014 Hopes", May 6
2014, www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tillis-wins-boosts-gops-2014-hopes_791090.html
The Tillis victory was important for two reasons. One, he is regarded, especially by Democrats, as the
only Republican capable of defeating Hagan. Not that Hagan is a strong incumbent—she isn’t—but she
will have millions to target against the Republican nominee, plus aid from Democratic super PACs. Tillis
alone is seen as equipped to withstand a withering negative campaign. Second, North Carolina is the key
state in the fall election. Without it, Republicans are unlikely to gain the six Senate seats needed to take
control of the Senate and oust Reid as majority leader. With it, Republican prospects of seizing the
Senate are far brighter. “North Carolina now becomes ground zero in the fight for the Senate,” said
Republican consultant Marc Rotterman. “Hagan is on the wrong side of nearly every issue.” She is
particularly vulnerable on Obamacare, which she voted for. Like President Obama, Hagan promised that
those who wished to keep their current health insurance could do so. That turned out to be untrue.
Hagan has stumbled badly in trying to find a way to combat attacks on Obamacare. Her campaign
presents Hagan as a problem-solving senator eager to compromise with Republicans in Washington. Her
record in the Senate, however, is that of a party-line Democrat. Now she is playing down her connection
with the Democratic party. And when Obama visited the state recently, she declined to appear with him.
Tillis’s political strength comes from his instrumental part in the success of Republicans in enacting a
sweeping conservative agenda after they won the governorship and both houses of the legislature in the
2012 election Republicans cut personal and business taxes, curbed regulations, slashed spending, and
changed election law to require voters to show ID.
2NC Exploration Link—Ocean Pop
2NC Exploration Link—Ov
Ocean exploration is popular—prefer predictive evidence that concludes the direction
of public opinion if the federal government increased scientific research—that’s
Bowen
1. Polls—over three-fourths of all Americans strongly support scientific research be
used to advance the frontiers of knowledge
2. Responsibility—72% thought the federal ocean exploration should be a national
priority
Lilley 10
Jonathan Charles, Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Studies, dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the
University of Delaware, "NAVIGATING A SEA OF VALUES: UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD
THE OCEAN AND OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES", Summer 2010,
www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf
Regarding action that could be taken to protect the marine environment, 85% thought the government
needs to do more, with 72% stating that funding for ocean exploration should take priority over space
exploration (17%). In terms of individual action that a person can take, 49% said they would be almost certain to recycle used motor oil and
42% said they would be almost certain to pick up trash on the beach. Much smaller percentages said they would be pay higher water bills to
fund better sewage treatment (20%); lobby their politicians to support positive ocean- related actions (18%); join an environmental group
(12%); or attend legislative meetings on ocean issues (10%). Regarding the perceived effectiveness of such actions, 70% thought that recycling
used motor oil would be very effective in protecting the marine environment and 63% thought that picking up trash on the bead would very
effective. The SeaWeb survey also found a
high level of agreement for protecting the ocean for the benefit of future
generations. When asked whether people have a 'responsibility to protect the ocean for future
generations,' 84% strongly agreed. Similarly, 82% strongly agreed that the 'destruction of the ocean is a
threat to the health of future generations.' In short, the SeaWeb study described the ocean as an "issue
waiting to happen" and comments that while the ocean is not seen as a top priority there exists "strong
latent, if not manifest, concern for the fate of the ocean" (Spruill, 1997, p. 149).
Link—Conservation Pop
Ocean exploration is popular—bipartisan support from American voters shows that
government investment that protects the ocean is a unique issue due to its economic
benefits
Weigel and Metz 13
Lori, Public Opinion Strategies, Dave, Fairank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, "American Voters
View Conservation as a Smart Investment with Many Benefits; Reject Disproportionate Cuts to
Conservation Programs and Back Investments in LWCF", Sept 30 2013,
blog.nature.org/conservancy/files/2013/10/2013-National-Poll-final-09-30-13.pdf
A recent national survey of voters conducted by the bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &
Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) at the height of the latest budget debates in Congress indicates that overwhelming
majorities of American voters reject cutting funding to conservation, seeing it instead as one area of the
federal budget where they see a tangible return and get “their money’s worth.” More than seven-in-ten (72
percent) of the national electorate says that even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not
be cut. American voters’ broad support for conservation generally extends to specific policy decisions,
such as funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. All of these views – including support for LWCF – extend across party
lines, across the nation, and with all key demographic sub-groups. Specifically, the survey found that: At the height of
major budget debates in Congress, more than seven-in-ten hold the view that even with budget problems for land, air and water should not be
cut.
Fully 72 percent of the national electorate – including over two thirds of Republicans (68 percent),
Independents (67 percent) and Democrats (79 percent) – agrees with the view that “even with federal
budget problems, funding to safeguard land, air, and water should not be cut.” Eight-in-ten U.S. voters
say that we get “our money’s worth” from investments in conservation. Fully 83 percent agree that “the
public receives its money’s worth when we invest in protecting water, land, air and wildlife.” A majority (51
percent) strongly agrees with this view. This view is also widely shared across party lines, as 79 percent of Republicans and Independents
indicate agreement, along with 93 percent of Democrats. Underlying
some of this support is a sense that there are
many benefits of conservation – for the economy, health and quality of life. Voters overwhelmingly
believe that conservation programs are beneficial in these three areas:2 In fact, the overwhelming majority
of American voters reject the notion that protecting our environment is at odds with a strong economy.
Voters do not view strengthening the economy as being in conflict with conservation. As shown in the next graph, nearly three-quarters of
voters (73%) believe we can protect land and water and have a strong economy at the same time, while only 19 percent believe that those
concerns are even “sometimes” in conflict. This is consistent with the views of voters from the beginning of the country’s economic recession
(In 2009, voters held these same views by a 76% to 19% margin), and holds true among virtually all demographic sub-groups. The view that
conservation and a strong economy are compatible is also predominant among the middle of the electorate which is undecided or not
definitive in their vote decision for President, as 84 percent of these “swing” voters sides with the idea that we should not have to choose the
economy over the environment. Voters’ broad support for conservation generally extends to specific policy decisions, such as funding the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. More than four-in-five American voters (85 percent) would prefer that the nation continues to invest in LWCF.
Only nine percent of the electorate would prefer to have those funds available for different purposes, as shown below. The
desire to
have continued federal investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is evident across all major
segments of the electorate
5% of
At least 78% of voters in each region of the country. Despite
continued budget debates, voters remain steadfast in their support for LWCF funding. As the following graph
indicates, support on this question that we tracked from a previous national survey of voters remains statistically the same over the last few
years, with just as solid and intense support as ever for continued federal investments in LWCF: Nearly all
voters think their
Member of Congress should honor the commitment to fund conservation through LWCF. There is no
equivocation in the message being sent by the electorate regarding this program: Overall, it is clear during the continued federal
budget debate that conservation is uniquely positioned as an issue – it has strong bipartisan support;
voters perceive a return on their investment economically and in better public health and quality of life;
and therefore they reject disproportionately cutting these programs. Moreover, they continue to
express strong support for continued federal investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Ocean exploration is popular—conservation
Goad et al 12
Jessica, Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progress’s Public Lands Project,
Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center, Christy Goldfuss, Public Lands Project Director
at the Center, "7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans",
Dec 6 2012, americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-loomingbudget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/
In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies,
such as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make
critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland
firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime
safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that
sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the
hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt
Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many
services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters,
American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionally—and perhaps most
obviously—the cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks,
seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also
reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public
lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security (weather
forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the
Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining,
timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving America’s shared history, heritage, and recreation
opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of
these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to balance the budget.
A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, “even with
federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not be cut.” And in the 2012 election, voters
across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund
conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the
American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both
revenue increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for
these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a
sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.
Link—Science Pop
Federal investment in science is popular with Americans—recent studies prove
NSF 14
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), "Science
and Engineering Indicators 2014", Feb 2014, www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter7/c7h.htm
Public Attitudes about S&T in General Most Americans continue to say that the benefits of science
outweigh the potential harms and that the federal government should fund research that “advances the
frontiers of knowledge.” As in past years, about 4 in 10 Americans said the government was spending
“too little on research.” In 2012, about half of respondents said government spending on scientific
research was “about right,” and about 1 in 10 said there was too much research spending. Americans
are most likely to say that education has remained the area in which the government spends too little
money. Majorities have also consistently said that they believe health, “alternative energy,” and
environmental improvement and protection receive too little funding. The only area in which majorities
say government spends “too much” is on “assistance to other countries.” Americans are more likely to
have a “great deal of confidence” in leaders of both the scientific community and the medical
community than in leaders of any group except the military. The scientific and medical communities are
also among the most highly regarded groups in most other countries surveyed. Americans hold positive
views about both scientists and engineers. Attitudes are similar to those expressed about scientists in
1983 and 2001. Less than half of Americans say they have an “excellent” or “good” understanding of
what scientists and engineers do at work. Americans say they have a better understanding of engineers’
work than scientists’ work. Many Americans say they think that “scientific work” and “engineering work”
are “dangerous,” although scientific work is seen as more dangerous than engineering work. Most
Americans see scientists and engineers as “dedicated people who work for the good of humanity.”
Science and technology are popular and are a unique issue for voters
NSF 02
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Indicators
2002, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding", April 2002,
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s2.htm
In general, Americans express highly favorable attitudes toward S&T. In 2001, overwhelming majorities of
NSF survey respondents agreed with the following statements: "Science and technology are making our lives
healthier, easier, and more comfortable." (86 percent agreed and 11 percent disagreed) "Most scientists want to work on
things that will make life better for the average person." (89 percent agreed and 9 percent disagreed) "With the application of science and
technology, work will become more interesting." (72 percent agreed and 23 percent disagreed) "Because
of science and
technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation." (85 percent agreed and 14 percent
disagreed) (See appendix table 7-12.) In addition, Americans seem to have more positive attitudes toward S&T than their counterparts in the
United Kingdom and Japan.[18] (See text table 7-3 text table.) Despite these positive indicators, a sizable segment, although not a majority, of
the public has some reservations concerning science and especially technology. For example, in 2001, approximately 50 percent of NSF survey
respondents agreed with the following statement: "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith" (46 percent disagreed). In
addition, 38 percent agreed with the statement: "Science makes our way of life change too fast" (59 percent disagreed). (See appendix table 712.) Over time these percentages have remained nearly constant, with only slight variation from survey to survey. For example, since 1983, at
least 80 percent of survey respondents have agreed that "science and technology are making our lives healthier, easier, and more
comfortable." The percentages have ranged from 84 percent in 1983 and 1990 to 90 percent in 1999. Similarly, the percentage disagreeing that
"we depend too much on science and not enough on faith" has ranged from 39 percent in 1985 to 48 percent in 1997. (See appendix table 713.) In addition, an
increasing number of people believe that the benefits of scientific research outweigh any
harmful results. (See "Public Attitudes Toward Scientific Research.") The concerns that do exist are related to the effect of technology on
society. For example, in 2001, a sizable minority, 44 percent, agreed with the statement that "people would do better by living a simpler life
without so much technology." (See appendix table 7-14.) Also, about 30 percent of respondents agreed that "technological discoveries will
eventually destroy the Earth" and that "technological development creates an artificial and inhumane way of living." (See appendix tables 7-15
and 7-16.) The
existence of public concern about the effect of technology on society does not negate the
fact that the vast majority of Americans have highly favorable opinions of technology and are highly
appreciative of the role of S&T in the history and economic success of the United States. Results from various
surveys show the following: More than 90 percent think science and technology have been important "in
establishing the United States' influence in the world" and "to America's economic success in the 20th
century"; 60 percent think they have been very important. Also, 90 percent believe that science and technology have changed life during the
past 100 years for the better, and more than 70 percent say they were more likely to vote for a candidate "who
places a high priority on strengthening science and technology" (Bayer/NSF 2000). Eighty-nine percent think science
and technology will play a major role "if life is going to be better in this country in the future (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
1999a)." More people gave this response for science and technology than for any other item in the survey, including medical advances, which
got the second highest vote of confidence. Also, the 89 percent statistic represents a substantial increase over the corresponding 77 percent
recorded in the 1996 version of the survey.[19] Americans also
believe that advancements in science and technology
were the nation's and the government's greatest achievements during the 20th century. The space program
tops the list of those achievements, followed by technology in general, and computers. More than 70 percent of those surveyed said that the
invention of airline travel and television were a change for the better; more than 80 percent gave the same response for the highway system
and computers; and more 90 percent put the automobile and radio in the "change-for-the-better" category. The only technologies not receiving
strong public endorsement were nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Among technologies introduced in the past decade, Americans are the
most enthusiastic about communication technologies, such as email, the Internet, cellular phones, and cable TV, and the least enthusiastic
about fertility drugs, Prozac, Viagra, and the cloning of sheep (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 1999b). Eighty-seven
percent agree that "technology in general makes a positive contribution to society"; only 3 percent think
that it makes a negative contribution (American Association of Engineering Societies 1998).
Link—Alt Nrg Pop
Alternative energy production is popular with the public
Brendan Moore and Stafford Nichols, pollers for Gallup Politics, 4/2/14
Brendan and Stafford, Gallup Politics polls, "Americans Still Favor Energy Conservation Over Production",
April 2 2014, www.gallup.com/poll/168176/americans-favor-energy-conservation-production.aspx
Alternative Energy Favored Over Traditional¶ A separate question in the survey, asked of a different
subset of respondents, finds 64% of Americans prefer an emphasis on the development of alternative
energy production, such as wind and solar power, to an emphasis on production of traditional fossil
fuels. That is up from 59% in 2013. On this point, nearly one-third of Americans would rather the
country pursue increased production of oil, gas, and coal supplies to these alternative energy options -roughly the same level of support seen in recent years.¶ Young Americans are highly likely to emphasize
the development of alternative energy, and the older age groups each successively favor it less. In fact,
slightly less than half of Americans aged 55 and older favor alternative energy, roughly equal to the
support in that age group for traditional fossil fuels (44%). Americans Favor Green Policies¶ Americans'
collective interest in alternative energy sources is reinforced by the responses to a question asking
Americans if they favor or oppose nine specific proposals dealing with energy and the environment.
Two-thirds of Americans favor increased government spending to develop solar and wind power, and
spending more to develop alternative fuels for cars has the same level of support.¶ Additionally, more
than 60% of Americans favor a variety of proposals that would regulate or limit fossil fuel emissions,
including setting higher pollution standards for business and industry. These results are consistent with
Gallup's earlier findings that Americans prioritize the environment over economic growth.
AT: Link Turn—Environment
The economy outweighs environmental concerns with voters
Kromm 10
Chris, executive director at the Instiute for Southern Studies, "ALTERNATIVES, BABY, ALTERNATIVES:
How to win the offshore drilling debate", July 8 2010, www.southernstudies.org/2010/07/alternativesbaby-alternatives-how-to-win-the-offshore-drilling-debate.html
One of the most striking things we learned meeting with community leaders in the Gulf Coast recently is how
deeply conflicted coastal residents are about offshore oil drilling. All of the people and groups Facing South talked to -- from Dulac,
Louisiana to Moss Point, Mississippi -- were suffering in some way from the BP spill. But most, even bona-fide
environmentalists, were at best ambivalent about calls to ban drilling in ocean waters. This was
especially true of fishermen, despite the fact that BP's disaster has closed a third of Gulf waters and undermined their very livelihood.
We quickly found out why: Many of the fishermen also worked on oil rigs in the off-season. And even those who
didn't work on rigs knew that thousands of Gulf jobs depend on the energy industry; in the absence of
alternatives, they're staying pro-drill. This highlights what may be the most critical point in the national debate over offshore oil
drilling: The public is increasingly wary of drilling in our oceans in the wake of the BP disaster, but the only
way environmentalists are going to cinch the debate is if they can offer compelling economic and energy
alternatives. The polls clearly show a backlash against the "drill, baby, drill" mantra. The Pew Research Center has found a 19-point drop in
support for increased offshore drilling since the spill: In February, 63% supported more offshore drilling; as of late June, a majority (52%)
opposed it. A new Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina, a state that was included in Obama's earlier plans to expand offshore projects,
finds that for the first time a plurality (46%) in NC now oppose offshore drilling. But those anti-drilling views aren't shared in Gulf Coast states,
even as BP's oil washes onto their shores. A Rasmussen poll in late June found 79% of likely Louisiana voters support offshore drilling and
another found 70% support in Texas. Rasmussen's surveys have always found higher support for offshore drilling than their peers, but in this
case their findings are in line with other polls. The overall message here: Even
after our worst oil spill ever, only small
majorities nationally oppose offshore drilling. And residents of states who rely on the oil economy still
fiercely support it. In a simple pro/con debate over offshore drilling, there isn't enough political
momentum to end the exploration and extraction of oil in the oceans.
AT: Link Turn—Spill
Broad support for offshore drilling has rebounded to pre-Gulf spill levels
PRC 12
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and
trends shaping America and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media
content analysis and other empirical social science research, "As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and
Gas Production Grows", March 19 2012, www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinchsupport-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/
At a time of rising gas prices, the public’s energy priorities have changed. More Americans continue to
view the development of alternative energy sources as a higher priority than the increased production
of oil, coal and natural gas, but the gap has narrowed considerably over the past year.¶ Moreover,
support for allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters, which plummeted during the 2010
Gulf of Mexico oil spill, has recovered to pre-spill levels. Nearly two-thirds (65%) favor allowing
increased offshore drilling, up from 57% a year ago and 44% in June 2010, during the Gulf spill.¶ The
latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 7-11,
2012 among 1,503 adults, finds that 52% say the more important priority for addressing the nation’s
energy supply is to develop alternative sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology, while 39%
see expanding the exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas as the greater priority.¶ A year
ago, the public viewed the development of alternative energy sources as the more important priority by
a much wider margin (63% to 29%). Since then, support for expanding production of oil and other
traditional sources has increased among most demographic and political groups and the shift among
Republicans has been particularly pronounced.¶ In March 2011, Republicans were evenly divided over
how to address the energy supply: 47% said the more important priority was to develop alternative
sources, while 44% said it was to expand exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas. In the
current survey, just a third of Republicans (33%) view development of alternatives as more important,
while 59% say the more important priority is to expand exploration and production of oil and other
traditional energy sources.¶ As in past Pew Research Center surveys, there continues to be broad public
support for an array of policies aimed at addressing the nation’s energy supply: 78% favor requiring
better fuel efficiency for cars, trucks and SUVs; 69% favor more federal funding for research on wind,
solar and hydrogen technology; and 65% favor spending more on subway, rail and bus systems.¶ But
while support for each of these policies has been steady or down modestly in recent years, support for
allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters has increased. Currently, more than twice as
many favor than oppose increased offshore drilling (65% vs. 31%). In June 2010, only 44% favored more
offshore drilling while 52% were opposed. The balance of opinion today is almost identical to what it
was in February 2010, two months before the Gulf oil disaster (63% favor, 31% oppose).
Impact—EPA Regs
GOP Win = No Regs
GOP still has a chance to block enforcement
Ned Resnikoff, MSNBC Reporter, 2014 ("Republicans mobilize to block EPA regulation" June 16,
2014. www.msnbc.com/msnbc/republicans-mobilize-block-epa-regulation)
Congressional Republicans
may not be able to kill a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation, but
they can starve the agency of the funding needed to enforce it. That’s how two Congressional Republicans say they
now intend to stop a proposed cap on power plant emissions from ever reaching fruition.¶ “We’re going to take a serious
look at it,” said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., last week. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, has also indicated that a bill outlining
appropriations for the EPA might include language making it difficult to enforce the proposed
regulation.¶ That regulation, which was first proposed at the beginning of this month, would require a nationwide 30% reduction in power
plant emissions by the year 2030. That proposal, if implemented, could be the most ambitious executive action against climate change in
American history. Republicans
have already taken a firm stance against implementation; House Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, set the tone early on when he called the EPA’s plan “nuts.”¶ Blocking funding for the proposed rule isn’t the
Republicans’ only plan of attack. Rep. Steve Daines, R-Mont., has introduced legislation that would impose
additional requirements on the EPA before it could implement the rule. Those requirements include a promise from
the Department of Labor that the rule will not cost jobs and a report from the Congressional Budget Office saying that it won’t cause any
reduction in GDP.
EPA Regs Internal Link—Econ
EPA regulations are terrible for the economy—lack of flexibility will cause power
plants to close, destroying business growth and job opportunities
Barrasso and Heitkamp 6/2/14
John, junior senator from Wyoming, Heidi, a member of the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan
League Party, is the junior senator from North Dakota., The Wall Street Journal, "The New Anti-Coal
Rules Will Cut Jobs and Hurt the Economy", June 2 2014, online.wsj.com/articles/the-new-anti-coalrules-will-cut-jobs-and-hurt-the-economy-1401751493
On Monday, the Obama administration unveiled new
regulations to restrict the amount of carbon dioxide produced
by existing power plants. While we agree that America needs to balance energy needs with environmental concerns, the timing of this
effort could hardly be worse for the struggling U.S. economy.¶ We learned just last week that the economy is
shrinking for the first time since 2011. America's labor-force participation remains low. Millions of Americans
continue to have difficulty finding good jobs. These excessive new regulations will likely force power plants to close,
putting Americans out of work.¶ The administration repeatedly promised to deliver regulatory certainty and give states "flexibility" if
they meet the tough new standards. The fact is that states have to present their plans to the Environmental Protection
Agency for final approval. If the EPA doesn't approve the state plan, the agency could impose its
requirements on the state.¶ The 645-page rule would give states a few options to reduce emissions.
Those options are still very restrictive and will take away good jobs, increase energy costs and hurt the
economy.¶ EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that the agency's regulations will decrease energy costs by 8% by 2030. We remain
skeptical and believe that consumers will see higher rates. Businesses, large and small, and manufacturers will
have to pay much more for their electricity; these increased prices will be absorbed or passed on and
will further hurt the economy.¶ In states that already require higher portions of renewable fuels, electricity costs are on average 30%
higher than in other states. Recent studies have estimated that this rule would lead to certain job losses, with one study by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce estimating that an
aggressive carbon policy would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs by
forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down. This does not even begin to address capacity and reliability
issues that the administration all too often brushes aside.¶ Coal-fired power plants will be especially hard hit,
disproportionately hurting coal-producing states like Wyoming, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Montana.¶ When excessive
Washington red tape closes a power plant or a coal mine in a small community, those jobs aren't the
only ones to go. The lost revenue base hurts public schools, police and busing services for seniors who
can't drive. Teachers, laborers and doctors move away, looking for a better chance somewhere else.
Small businesses don't have enough customers, so they shut down—the town withers away. The pain is
felt locally, but America's environmental policies must reflect the fact that carbon dioxide is produced globally. The U.S. share of
carbon-dioxide emissions has been dropping for more than a decade. Meanwhile, emissions in
developing countries have soared. China's have increased by 173% from 1998 to 2011.¶ These new EPA
policies will produce minimal environmental benefits unless other countries also aggressively reduce
emissions, to the detriment of their economies. That is unlikely in the near term.¶
Regs bad for the economy
COC 14
The United States Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with the Institute for 21st Century Energy
and IHS, which provided experts to analyze the impact of carbon regulations, "Assessing the Impact of
Potential New Carbon Regulations in the United States", www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/filetool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf
U.S. economy results and implications¶ The
overarching objective of the economic impact ¶ analysis conducted for
to quantify ¶ the impacts, both on U.S. national and regional ¶ economies, of aiming for the
Policy Case’s reduction ¶ in power sector CO2¶ emissions by 2030. These higher ¶ electricity prices will absorb
more of the disposable ¶ income that households draw from to pay essential ¶ expenses such as
mortgages, food and utilities. In ¶ turn, this will lead to moderately less discretionary ¶ spending and lower
consumer savings rates.¶ More significant, however, are the opportunity costs ¶ associated with
approaching the emissions reduction target by 2030. The $480 billion required to achieve ¶ compliance or
replace prematurely one source of ¶ electricity generation with another represents an ¶ unproductive use of capital,
meaning that the Policy ¶ Case’s spending in pursuit of regulatory compliance ¶ rather than economic
expansion will lead to an overall ¶ drop in U.S. economic output, relative to the Reference ¶ Case. The
subsequent negative impacts on GDP and ¶ employment will exert additional downward pressure on ¶
disposable income and consumer spending.¶ In the Policy Case, GDP is expected to average ¶ about $51 billion lower than in
the Reference Case¶ to 2030 (Table ES-3), with a peak decline of nearly ¶ $104 billion in 2025. These substantial GDP losses ¶ will be
accompanied by losses in employment. On ¶ average, from 2014 to 2030, the U.S. economy will ¶ have 224,000
fewer jobs (Table ES-3), with a peak ¶ decline in employment of 442,000 jobs in 2022 (Figure ¶ ES-1). These job
losses represent lost opportunities ¶ and income for hundreds of thousands of people that ¶ can never
be recovered. Slower economic growth, ¶ job losses, and higher energy costs mean that annual ¶ real
disposable household income will decline on an ¶ average of more than $200, with a peak loss of $367 ¶ in 2025. In fact, the
typical household could lose a ¶ total of $3,400 in real disposable income during the ¶ modeled 2014-30 timeframe.¶ The economic
impact will vary significantly across ¶ the nine U.S. Census Divisions examined. Because ¶ California’s cap and trade
this study was
program and the Regional ¶ Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that includes nine ¶ Northeastern States are included in the Reference ¶ Case,
these regions are not significantly affected by ¶ federal CO2¶ regulations. The
cost of compliance for ¶ state-based regimes in
these regions will already ¶ result in significant economic impacts, including high ¶ electricity prices, making
the discussion about federal ¶ regulations less relevant. Despite California’s lead in ¶ compliance, however, the remaining states will drag the ¶
Pacific region down moderately in the early years. The ¶ Northeast, on the other hand, will see little additional ¶ impact on its already high and
increasing electricity ¶ rates from the imposition of a federal CO2¶ regime.¶ The need to replace large portions of the coal ¶ generation fleet in
the midcontinent Census Divisions ¶ (East North Central, East South Central, West North ¶ Central, and West South Central), however, means
that ¶ these regions will experience the bulk of the economic ¶ distress in the early years, followed by the South ¶ Atlantic4¶ in the latter years.¶
Overall, the South Atlantic will be hit the hardest in ¶ terms of GDP and employment declines. Its GDP ¶ losses
make up about one-fifth of total U.S. GDP ¶ losses, with an average annual loss of $10.5 billion and ¶ a peak loss of nearly $22 billion in 2025.
This region ¶ also will have an average of 60,000 fewer jobs over ¶ the 2014-30 forecast period, hitting a 171,000 job loss ¶ trough in 2022.¶ The
West South Central5¶ region also takes a big hit, ¶ losing on average $8.2 billion dollars in economic ¶ output each year and 36,000 jobs.
EPA Regs Impact—Econ—Modules
Econ Impact—Asia War
Economic collapse causes Asian war, escalates
Auslin 9 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2/6/09,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp?pg=2)
AS THEY DEAL WITH a
collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not
forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, the most
heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade
flows can lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately, military
miscalculation. The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also
important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to
development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic
systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet
policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of
terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine
such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the
1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can
take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to
established states like Japan and South Korea. How
will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What happens if
Quite simply, Asia's political
infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict. This
would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly drag America in
at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should any of them come under
Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing vessel?
armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in
good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing approaching a systemic
conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it
is unclear if the American military, already
stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the
American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands
across the ocean.
Econ collapse also draws Russia and China into Asian flashpoints, great power war
outweighs
South China Morning Post 9 (March 27, “Failure of G20 could raise the threat of war”, lexis)
The relationship between economic troubles and war is always close, if sometimes indefinable. Storm
clouds loom over northeast Asia as North Korea prepares to launch a Taepodong-2 missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as the
west coast of the US. North Korea already has an array of short- and mid-range missiles that can inundate all of South Korea and most of Japan. The tensions
may very well worsen, and the threats of war become harshly real, if the global leaders are unable to
deal effectively with economic crisis, or near-crisis. Just think of the desperation that might drive leaders
in such disparate, large powers as China, Russia and Japan, all of which have enormous stakes and long,
sinister histories on the Korean peninsula, to compete again militarily in the region.
Econ Impact—Critical
A Democrat controlled Senate would allow Obama to implement costly EPA
regulations which impose strict emission standards on power plants—energy prices
would skyrocket, the economy would collapse, and millions would suffer a lower
quality of life
That’s David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, president and executive director of the
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 6/5/14
David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational organization
devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director, “EPA’s next
wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014, canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564
Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet,
President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued
more economy-crushing rules that they
say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change. Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new rules, released
June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.¶ The new rules supposedly give states
“flexibility” in deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose
costly cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced
to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable
electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will
be enormous.¶ The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first
quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (oneeighth of our total economy) that businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules.¶ A U.S.
Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually,
result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in
higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families—and those
already dependent on unemployment and welfare—will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend
on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard. Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of
life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college
and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of
depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe
Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to
die.” EPA ignores all of this.¶
Econ Impact—Heg
Economic growth is key to sustaining hegemony – collapse causes global war
Khalilzad 11 — Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States
ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at
the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 2011 (“The Economy and
National Security,” National Review, February 8th, Available Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, Accessed 02-082011)
Today, economic
and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader.
While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival
powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American
primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war
among the great powers.¶ The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely
to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost
350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth
were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an
unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. ¶ Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce
deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which
already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even
worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its
outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. ¶
Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as
well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic
capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from
Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If
the U.S. debt problem goes critical,
the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international
commitments.¶ We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth.
Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies
are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the
long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to
grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of
the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major
powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut
our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation.¶ The
stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the
era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars.¶ American retrenchment could have devastating
consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to
balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms
races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger
powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to
make aggressive moves in their regions.¶ As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of
great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic
missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the
seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions
following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the
most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.¶ Given
the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its
economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional
powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American
institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S.
demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of
small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes
through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. ¶ The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment
while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have
outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to
pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while
lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. ¶ The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol
Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within
our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to
the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. ¶ As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take
steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese
expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways.¶ While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also
frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done.¶
Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness
should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic
calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a
coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist
alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.
Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America
to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our
economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival
powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in
Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
¶
Econ Impact—Russia
Economic decline causes US-Russian war
Ockham Research 8 (“Economic Distress and Geopolitical Risks”, November, http://seekingalpha.com/article/106562-economicdistress-and-geopolitical-risks)
Russia, whose economy, stock markets and financial system have literally imploded over the past few months,
could become increasingly problematic if faced with a protracted economic downturn. The increasingly
authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already showing signs of anger projection. Its invasion of
Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West reflect a desire to stoke the pride
and anger of its people against foreign powers—particularly the United States. It is no accident that the Russians announced a
willingness to deploy tactical missile systems to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama’s election in the U.S. This was a clear “shot across the
bow” of the new administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational foreign policy going forward.
Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia’s economy. The Russian budget reputedly needs oil at $70 per barrel or
higher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over the past few months by hamfisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system. Bristling
with nuclear weapons and nursing an
ego still badly bruised by the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of superpower status, an
impoverished and unstable Russia would be a dangerous thing to behold.
Outweighs everything, extinction
Wickersham 11 (Bill, University of Missouri adjunct professor of Peace Studies and a member of The Missouri University Nuclear
Disarmament Education Team, citing: Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Nuclear weapons still a threat”,
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/sep/27/nuclear-weapons-still-a-threat/, 9/27/11)
Nearly 20 years after the Cold War ended, humankind still faces
the distinct possibility of instant extinction without
representation. If nuclear war occurs between Russia and the United States, there will be no parliamentary or
Congressional debates nor declarations of war.¶ In a time of crisis or perceived attack, the Russian and U.S. presidents each have
only a few minutes to make a decision to order an attack against each other. The time frame for those decisions could be as
short as seven minutes, depending on the nature of the perceived attack and the efficiency of communications within the respective
early-warning chains of command. Launch-to-landing time for submarine-launched nuclear missiles can occur in as few as four minutes.
Launch-to-landing time for hundreds of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles is about 25 minutes. An
attack with just two 1megaton nuclear warheads would unleash explosive power equivalent to that caused by all the bombs used
during World War II.¶ For the duration of the Cold War, leaders of the United States and USSR were concerned about the devastation
both countries would experience if a nuclear war were triggered by a false alarm attributable to human or technological error. The Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attack on New York killed nearly 3,000 people, causing massive destruction, chaos and grief. In comparison, a purposeful or
accidental nuclear
strike between the United States and Russia would kill hundreds of millions in the short term and many
more over time caused by worldwide, wind-driven nuclear fallout. Thus, the threat of nuclear war is the most serious potential
health, environmental, agricultural, educational and moral problem facing humanity .¶ Steven Starr, senior
scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, said research makes clear the environmental consequences of a U.S.-Russian nuclear war: “If
these weapons are detonated in the large cities of either of their nations, they will cause such catastrophic damage
to the global environment that the Earth will become virtually uninhabitable for most humans and many other
complex forms of life.” (See www.nucleardarkness.org.)¶ It is important for Missourians to be aware that a Russian nuclear attack on the United
States would probably incinerate the Honeywell nuclear bomb parts factory in Kansas City, the Boeing Defense, Space and Security plant near
St. Louis, and Whiteman Air Force Base, home of U.S. B-2 bombers deployed at Knob Noster.
Econ Impact—Terror
Econ decline makes a major terrorist attack likely
Washington Post 8 (“Experts See Security Risks in Downturn”, November, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403864.html)
Intelligence officials are warning that the
deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the
world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to
a new wave of security threats. U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil
has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border
protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly
regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense,
intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said. The crisis could also accelerate the shift to a more Asia-centric globe, as rising
powers such as China gain more leverage over international financial institutions and greater influence in world capitals. Some of the
more troubling and immediate scenarios analysts are weighing involve nuclear-armed Pakistan, which
already was being battered by inflation and unemployment before the global financial tsunami hit. Since
September, Pakistan has seen its national currency devalued and its hard-currency reserves nearly wiped out. Analysts also worry
about the impact of plummeting crude prices on oil-dependent nations such as Yemen, which has a
large population of unemployed youths and a history of support for militant Islamic groups. The underlying
problems and trends -- especially regional instability and the waning influence of the West -- were already well
established, but they are now "being accelerated by the current global financial crisis," the nation's top
intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said in a recent speech. McConnell is among several top U.S. intelligence
officials warning that deep cuts in military and intelligence budgets could undermine the country's ability to anticipate and defend against new
threats. Annual spending for U.S. intelligence operations currently totals $47.5 billion, a figure that does not include expensive satellites that
fall under the Pentagon's budget. At a recent gathering of geospatial intelligence officials and contractors in Nashville, the outlook for the
coming fiscal cycles was uniformly grim: fewer dollars for buying and maintaining sophisticated spy systems. "I worry where we'll be five or 10
years from now," Charles Allen, intelligence director for the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview. "I am deeply worried that
we will not have the funding necessary to operate and build the systems already approved." Intelligence officials say they have no hard
evidence of a pending terrorist attack, and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in a news conference Thursday that his agency has not detected
increased al-Qaeda communications or other signs of an imminent strike. But many
government and private terrorism
experts say the financial crisis has given al-Qaeda an opening, and judging from public statements and
intercepted communications, senior al-Qaeda leaders are elated by the West's economic troubles,
which they regard as a vindication of their efforts and a sign of the superpower's weakness. "Al-Qaeda's
propaganda arm is constantly banging the drum saying that the U.S. economy is on the precipice -- and it's the force of the jihadists that's going
to push us over the edge," said Bruce Hoffman, a former scholar-in-residence at the CIA and now a professor at Georgetown University.
Whether terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is technically capable of another Sept. 11-style attack is
unclear, but U.S. officials say he has traditionally picked times of transition to launch major strikes. The two
major al-Qaeda-linked attacks on U.S. soil -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the 2001 hijackings -occurred in the early months of new administrations.
Global nuclear war
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New
Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic
Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing
Institutions via InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds
imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with
the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst
terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it
must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear
an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate
a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this
exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially
context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising
the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear
proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a
massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought
into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved
how might the
United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear
terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution
of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael
in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example,
May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a
wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came
from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all)
suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel
and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would
if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a
backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already
been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of
course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were
confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear
terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the
United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For
example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its
it is just possible that Moscow
and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against
them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality,
probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional
(or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these
targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty.
One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as
Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would
almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the
question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist
attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But
there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished
to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or
against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some
connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously
modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the
responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was
especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear
use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect,
there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of
the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative
to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an
attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the
group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional
sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and
In the charged atmosphere immediately
after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare
they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not
help the chances of nuclear restraint.
seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur?
AT: Impact Turn—Regs Solve Warming
EPA regulations can’t solve warming
-at best it would only decrease temperatures by .05 degrees by 2100
-sources are biased and receive money and tax exemptions from the green industry
That’s David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, president and executive director of the
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 6/5/14
David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational organization
devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director, “EPA’s next
wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014, canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564
It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant
in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!¶
President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that
he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more
devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their
first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate
disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.¶ As part of a
nationwide White House campaign to promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung
Association echoed the health claims. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive
innovation and investment” in green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.¶ Bear in
mind, the ALA received over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly
$100 million per year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-peryear U.S. Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per
year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million annually),
Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special interest groups
dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are tax-exempt.¶ As to the
claims themselves, they are as credible as the endlessly repeated assertions that we will all be able to
keep our doctor and insurance policies, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest, and there is not a scintilla
of corruption in the IRS denials of tax-exempt status to conservative groups.
EPA regs don’t solve warming
That’s David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, president and executive director of the
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 6/5/14
David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational organization
devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director, “EPA’s next
wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014, canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564
The very term “carbon pollution” is deliberately disingenuous. The
rules do not target carbon (aka soot). They target carbon
dioxide. This is the gas that all humans and animals exhale. It makes life on Earth possible. It makes crops and
other plants grow faster and better. As thousands of scientists emphasize, at just 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 plays only a
minor role in climate change—especially compared to water vapor and the incredibly powerful solar,
cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that have caused warm periods, ice ages and little ice ages, and
controlled climate and weather for countless millennia.¶ The terrible disasters that the President and other
climate alarmists attribute to fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creatures of computer
models that have gotten virtually no predictions correct. That should hardly be surprising. The models are based
on faulty assumptions of every size and description, and are fed a steady diet of junk science and
distorted data. We shouldn’t trust them any more than we would trust con artists who claim their
computers can predict stock markets or Super Bowl and World Series winners—even one year in advance, much
less 50 or 100 years.¶ The models should absolutely not be trusted as the basis for regulations that will cripple our economy.¶ Contrary to
model predictions and White House assertions, average global temperatures have not risen in almost 18
years. It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States—the longest
such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are no more intense or frequent than
since 1900. There were fewer than half as many forest fires last year as during the 1960s and 1970s. Sea levels rose just eight inches
over the last 130 years and are currently rising at barely seven inches per century. There’s still ice on Lake
Superior—in June! Runaway global warming, indeed.¶ This is not dangerous. It’s not because of humans. It does not justify
what the White House is doing.¶ Asthma has been increasing for years—while air pollution has been decreasing. The two are not related. In
fact, as
EPA data attest, between 1970 and 2010, real air pollution from coal-fired power plants has
plummeted dramatically—and will continue to do so because of existing rules and technologies.¶ For once
the President is not “leading from behind” on foreign policy. However, there is no truth to his claim that other countries will
follow our lead on closing coal-fired power plants and slashing carbon dioxide emissions. China, India
and dozens of other developing countries are rapidly building coal-fueled generators, so that billions of people
will finally enjoy the blessings of electricity and be lifted out of poverty. Even European countries are burning more coal to
generate electricity, because they finally realize they cannot keep subsidizing wind and solar, while
killing their energy-intensive industries.¶ Then what is really going on here? Why is President Obama imposing some of the
most pointless and destructive regulations in American history? He is keeping his campaign promises to his far-left and
hard-green ideological supporters, who detest hydrocarbons and want to use climate change to justify
their socio-economic-environmental agenda.¶
Impact—CIR
GOP win = CIR
GOP Congress passes immigration reform
Galupo 2/7
Scott, Reporter, The American Conservative, “Why Obama Shouldn’t Fear a GOP Senate Takeover”,
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-obama-shouldnt-fear-a-gop-senatetakeover/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-obama-shouldnt-fear-a-gopsenate-takeover
Conventional wisdom says the Obama administration is effectively toast if Republicans capture the Senate this fall.
I’ve peddled it myself, and I’m not certain it’s wrong. But here are a few reasons why it might be:¶ His agenda is dead anyway. What
the moral-equivalence mainstream vaguely calls “dysfunction” is really a poisonous dynamic in which compromise, the mere scent of it,
politically lifts Obama and splits Republicans. Of immigration, Carl Hulse writes this morning:¶ Republicans knowledgeable about the issue said
immigration was not yet completely off the table. Instead, they said, reaching any agreement has become appreciably harder because of a
Republican reluctance to get caught up in an internal feud and stomp on their increasingly bright election prospects.¶ This is why new gun
regulations were never going to pass. Or tax reform. Or tweaks to Obamacare. Or an extension of unemployment insurance. Looking back, it’s
obvious that Congress would pass nothing of any significance after November 2010. This is a pitfall of divided government. You can blame
James Madison if you like. (Garry Wills once made a provocative case that our notion of Madisonian checks and balances is so much
mythology—an argument for another day.)¶ Arguably
the only thing that President Obama and Congress have
accomplished since the GOP House takeover is a sharp reduction in short-term budget deficits. Neither
party has benefited politically from this accomplishment. Nor has the economy improved appreciably. Rather, it has
probably been dragged down. (One day, historians will look on the period of 2011-13 and unanimously conclude it was utter madness.)
Consequently, both sides have wisely given up on debt and deficits for the meantime.¶ There is
the issue of judicial and
executive branch appointments. But the heavy lift on those probably has already taken place.¶ Things
may actually improve slightly under a unified GOP Congress. Look at it this way: if Republicans win the Senate,
their next prize, obviously, will be the White House. That’s a different ballgame altogether—a bigger, browner electorate.
Suddenly the imperative to obstruct the Obama agenda begins to recede. A different incentive
structure will take shape: the party will have to govern, or at least appear as though it’s trying. As Hulse
writes in the Times, some Republicans “believe it would be smarter to wait until after the midterms and pursue
immigration in 2015 leading up to the presidential election,¶ when Republicans will be more
motivated to increase their appeal to Hispanic voters. If the midterm goes their way, they will be
strengthened in Congress.¶ The Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP desperately wants an immigration bill. Obama desperately
wants an immigration bill. With control of both the House and Senate, the GOP could write a bill that’s more to
its liking than the dead-in-the-water bill the Senate passed last summer. And Obama will have no choice but
to sign it. It’s the last feather in the cap of his legislative legacy, with the White House now set to pursue the Podesta
strategy on unilateral executive action.¶ If it takes losing the Senate to pass immigration, Obama should welcome it. Come 2017, he’ll be
working on his memoirs and running a foundation.¶ Speaking of the next presidential campaign…¶ “Republican Congress” will make for a juicy
target in ’16. In 1996, President Bill Clinton had great fun turning the moderate Sen. Bob Dole into the sidecar villain of Speaker Newt Gingrich.
There’s little reason to think the next Democratic nominee, whoever he or, ahem, she turns out to be, won’t be able to repeat the trick.¶ If,
however, the trick proves unrepeatable—if the attack line that Republicans are extremist refuseniks loses its punch—it will have been due to
some kind of thawing in the great cold war between Obama and Republicans. It will have been due to something like, say, the passage of
immigration reform (see point two above), plus one or two other major compromise measures. Which, as far as Obama is concerned, would be
all to the good.¶ Put it this way: if
Republicans win the Senate, the prospects for getting something through
Congress may brighten for Obama. And if they don’t brighten, his frustration—and the country’s—will ultimately redound to the
benefit of Hillary Clinton, who is faced with a uniformly depressing and horrendous array of potential GOP contenders.
The GOP will support immigration next year if they win the Senate-newest evidence
Jake Sherman and Seung Kim 6/13, Politico June 13, 2014 "Raul Labrador enters leadership race"
www.politico.com/story/2014/06/raul-labrador-majority-leader-race-kevin-mccarthy-eric-cantor107836.html
Labrador, a native of Puerto Rico, has close ties to the issue of immigration. Before his election to Congress in 2010, he
worked as an immigration attorney and secretly negotiated with a bipartisan group for months in 2013 to try to hammer out an immigration
reform bill. The comprehensive measure was known to include a 15-year pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But
Labrador suddenly quit the group in June 2013 over a dispute on how to handle health care for
undocumented immigrants. The bipartisan House gang imploded later that year. Since then, Labrador
frequently spoke out against attempts to do immigration reform this year, going as far as to say Speaker
John Boehner (R-Ohio) should lose his speakership gavel if he pursues an overhaul this year. Instead,
Labrador has advocated for doing immigration reform next year, particularly if Republicans win
control of the Senate.
GOP Congress passes immigration reform
Bolton 5/15
Alexander, Reporter, The Hill, “GOP: We'll move immigration reform if we take back Senate”,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/206177-gop-well-move-immigration-reform-if-we-take-backsenate
Senate Republicans say they'll try to pass immigration reform legislation in the next two years if they
take back the Senate in November. ¶ The Republicans say winning back the Senate will allow them to
pass a series of bills on their own terms that have a better chance of winning approval in the House. ¶
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a central member of the coalition that passed a comprehensive reform bill in
the Senate last year, said he would craft a better legislative approach if Republicans control the upper
chamber in 2015.¶ That would give his party a chance to pass immigration legislation before the
presidential election, when Hispanic voters will be crucial to winning the White House.¶ But Democrats
are threatening that if the House does not pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year the
issue will be dead in 2015 and 2016, sinking the GOP brand among Hispanics ahead of the 2016
election.¶ “I certainly think we can make progress on immigration particularly on topics like modernizing
our legal immigration system, improving our mechanisms for enforcing the law and I think if you did
those things you could actually make some progress on addressing those who are illegally,” Rubio said
Wednesday evening of the prospects of passing immigration reform in 2015. ¶ He said the Senate next
year should pass immigration reform through a series of sequential bills that build upon each other to
enact comprehensive reform. This approach would be more palatable in the House, he said. ¶ Rubio said
he was not fully satisfied with the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate last year, adding
Republicans would “absolutely” pass better legislation if they pick up six or more seats in the midterm
election. ¶ Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is poised to take over as chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, said he will vote to pass immigration legislation in the next Congress if Republicans ascend
to the majority.¶ “We’d start over again next year,” Grassley said, when asked about the next steps if
Congress does not pass immigration reform by September.¶ “I’d make a decision about whether you
could get more done by separate bills or a comprehensive bill,” he said.¶ Grassley said he may have
supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill if it had tougher border security and interior enforcement
provisions. ¶ “For that reason, not for the legal immigration stuff that’s in it,” he said, explaining why he
voted against it.¶ Some Republicans, such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), strongly oppose increasing legal
immigration.¶ “Washington can’t rewrite the law of supply and demand: we can’t rebuild our middle
class if we continue to bring in record numbers of new workers for companies to hire at the lowest
available wage,” he said.¶ Only 14 Republicans voted for the Senate bill, which conservative critics
panned for giving too much discretion to the Obama administration in deciding how its border security
requirements would be met. ¶ Senate Republicans believe that House Republicans would be more likely
to pass immigration reform if the midterm election shifts control of the upper chamber because it would
be easier to negotiate a Senate-House compromise.¶ House conservatives have opposed bringing
immigration legislation to the House floor because they fear even a narrow bill could be used as a
vehicle to jam the sprawling Senate bill through the House. That threat would be less dire if the Senate
passed a series of smaller immigration reform bills.¶ “It could pass if we break it down into smaller
pieces,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas). “[The House] has always been amenable to
passing smaller bills on a step-by-step basis.Ӧ Once Congress passes legislation to tighten border
security and interior enforcement, it could pave the way for a deal legalizing an estimated 11 million
illegal immigrants, expanding work visas and enlarging the flow of legal immigration, Senate Republicans
argue.
AT: Cantor = No CIR
Cantor didn’t lose election because of immigration
Clawson 6/11/14
Laura, a Labor editor at Daily Kos Labor, and a contributing editor at Daily Kos, "Immigration reform is a
heck of a lot more popular than Eric Cantor is with his district's voters", June 11 2014,
www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/11/1306123/-Immigration-reform-is-a-heck-of-a-lot-more-popularthan-Eric-Cantor-is-with-his-district-s-voters
Claims are flying fast and furious that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary to economics
professor David Brat because Cantor is too soft on immigration. But while Brat's viciously anti-immigrant
positions may have turned a few hardliners out to vote, immigration reform is actually very popular
among the district's voters. A Public Policy Polling poll done for Americans United for Change on primary
night found that: ¶ 72% of voters in Cantor’s district support the bipartisan immigration reform
legislation on the table in Washington right now to only 23% who are opposed. And this is an issue
voters want to see action on. 84% think it’s important for the US to fix its immigration system this year,
including 57% who say it’s ‘very’ important. Even among Republicans 58% say it’s ‘very’ important,
suggesting that some of the backlash against Cantor could be for a lack of action on the issue.¶ Just nine
percent strongly oppose the bipartisan immigration bill, so while it's possible that those nine percent
voted for Brat at a high rate, it's hard to make the case that immigration explains Cantor's defeat.
Cantor's job approval numbers, on the other hand ... ¶ Cantor has a only a 30% approval rating in his
district, with 63% of voters disapproving. The Republican leadership in the House is even more
unpopular, with just 26% of voters approving of it to 67% who disapprove. Among GOP voters Cantor’s
approval is a 43/49 spread and the House leadership’s is 41/50.¶ The reasons for that shockingly low job
approval rating will doubtless be debated endlessly in the coming weeks. But clearly his alleged softness
on immigration is not the leading factor.
CIR Impact—Cyber
1NC
Visas are key to cybersecurity preparedness
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and
Task Force Co-Chair, “U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force”, 7-8,
http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And
as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's
developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States.¶ We're
seeing a lot more activity
around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of
requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's
held in private hands. Was there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about
what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT
experts here in the United States, many of which are coming to the
U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a
competitive disadvantage going forward.¶ MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we
have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted,
talented, really have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances, we're going to be put at
an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to
them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen, I think, our system,
our security needs.
Cyber-vulnerability causes great power nuclear war
Fritz 9 Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament [Jason,
researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army
officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond University, “Hacking Nuclear
Command and Control,” July, http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf]
This paper will analyse the threat of
cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the structure of
nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber
If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake
or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from
another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or
acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and
provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and
a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which
could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer
network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear
weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear
arsenals. All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a
closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation,
roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and
maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed
network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on
removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access
terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics.
these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer
networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have
multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists.
For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to
suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio
frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines.
Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear
weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a
retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it
did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer
network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through
additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could
remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against
Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China
was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could
be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the
disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use of
disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike
between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against
key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to
respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the
confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war
could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential,
military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A
sophisticated and all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could
be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and
control centres directly.
Reform K2 Cyber-D
Shortage of cyber workers in the US --- kills cyberdefense
HSNW 10, Homeland Security Newswire, “Shortage of cyber workers in the U.S.”, 7/22,
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/shortage-cyber-workers-us
The United States is lacking an adequate number of individuals within the federal government and
private sector with the technical skills necessary to secure cyberspace; there is an even greater
shortage of cybersecurity experts that can design secure systems and networks, write nonvulnerable computer code
and create the tools needed to prevent, detect and mitigate damage due to malicious acts The United States is
lacking an adequate number of individuals within the federal government and private sector with the technical skills necessary to secure cyberspace, concludes
a report released last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “ There
is a significant skills gap issue, and we need
to address it,” Karen Evans, partner at information technology advisory KE&T Partners and co-author of the report, told SCMagazineUS.com’s Angela
Moscaritolo. There
is a shortage of individuals with the necessary security skills to operate and support
systems that already are deployed, according to the report, released by the Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, established in 2007 by
the CSIS to provide findings and make recommendations concerning cybersecurity. The report also found that there is an even greater shortage of
cybersecurity experts that can design secure systems and networks, write nonvulnerable computer code and create the tools needed to prevent, detect and
mitigate damage due to malicious acts. Jim Gosler, fellow at the Sandia National Laboratory and visiting scientist at the National Security Agency (NSA), said in
the report that there are only about 1,000 individuals in the United States with the specialized security skills to defend cyberspace. There needs to be around
10,000 to 30,000, he said. Additionally, Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, commander of the Joint Task Force for global network operations in the U.S. Air Force, stated
that the most critical problem in meeting the growing cyber challenge is finding the technical security
people to handle the task. “A critical element of a robust cybersecurity strategy is having the right
people at every level to identify, build and staff the defenses and responses,” the report states. “And that is,
by many accounts, the area where we are the weakest.” Additionally, existing professional certification
programs are “inadequate” and create a “dangerously false sense of security” because these programs do not
always improve an individual’s ability to address security risks, the report states.
Cyber-Attack Now
Cyber-attack is coming---actors are probing weaknesses
Reed 12John, Reports on the frontiers of cyber war and the latest in military technology for Killer Apps at Foreign Policy, "U.S. energy companies
victims of potentially destructive cyber intrusions", 10/11,
killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/us_energy_companies_victims_of_potentially_destructive_cyber_attacks
Foreign actors are probing the networks of key American companies in an attempt to gain control of industrial facilities
and transportation systems, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed tonight.¶ "We know that foreign cyber actors are probing America's
critical infrastructure networks," said Panetta, disclosing previously classified information during a speech in New York laying out the Pentagon's role in protecting the U.S. from cyber attacks.
"They are targeting the computer control systems that operate chemical, electricity and water plants, and those that guide transportation
thorough the country."¶ He went on to say that the U.S. government knows of "specific instances where intruders have gained
access" to these systems -- frequently known as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (or SCADA) systems -- and that "they are seeking to create
advanced tools to attack these systems and cause panic, destruction and even the loss of life," according to an advance
copy of his prepared remarks.¶ The secretary said that a coordinated attack on enough critical infrastructure could be a "cyber Pearl
Harbor" that would "cause physical destruction and loss of life, paralyze and shock the nation, and
create a profound new sense of vulnerability."¶ While there have been reports of criminals using 'spear phishing' email attacks aimed at stealing information about
American utilties, Panetta's remarks seemed to suggest more sophisticated, nation-state backed attempts to actually
gain control of and damage power-generating equipment. ¶Panetta's comments regarding the penetration of American utilities
echo those of a private sector cyber security expert Killer Apps spoke with last week who said that the networks of
American electric companies were penetrated, perhaps in preparation for a Stuxnet-style attack .¶Stuxnet is
the famous cyber weapon that infected Iran's uranium-enrichment centrifuges in 2009 and 2010. Stuxnet is believed to have caused some of the machines to spin erratically, thereby destroying them. ¶ "There is
hard evidencethat there has been penetration of our power companies, and given Stuxnet, that is a
staging step before destruction" of electricity-generating equipment, the expert told Killer Apps. Because uranium
centrifuges and power turbines are both spinning machines, "the attack is identical -- the one to take out the centrifuges and the one to
take out our power systems is the same attack."¶ "If a centrifuge running at the wrong speed can blow
apart" so can a power generator, said the expert. "If you do, in fact, spin them at the wrong speeds, you
can blow up any rotating device."¶Cyber security expert Eugene Kaspersky said two weeks ago that one of his
greatest fears is someone reverse-engineering a sophisticated cyber weapon like Stuxnet -- a relatively
easy task -- and he noted that Stuxnet itself passed through power plants on its way to Iran. "Stuxnet infected thousands of computer systems all around the globe, I know there were power plants infected by Stuxnet
very far away from Iran," Kaspersky said.
Cyberattacks will destroy the grid---status quo cyber defense fails
RT 13 – RT, January 11th, 2013, "United States ill-prepared for skyrocketing cyberattacks against
critical infrastructure " rt.com/usa/cert-dhs-cyber-monitor-814/
Compared to recent years, the
cyberassaults waged during 2012 demonstrate an alarming trend. While ICSCERT identified 198 incidents last year, in 2009 that number was only nine.¶ "I believe that people will not
truly get this until they see the physical implications of a cyberattack," former FBI cybercrime official Shawn Henry
said last year, as quoted by CNN. "We knew about Osama bin Laden in the early '90s. After 9/11, it was a
worldwide name. I believe that type of thing can and will happen in the cyber environment."¶Leading
figures in Washington have warned just as much, equating an eventual assault on the United States’
cyber-grid as being on par with national tragedies of historic proportions. In October, Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta said the country was at risk of facing a “Cyber Pearl Harbor.” In December, former National Security Agency
Director Mike McConnel said a “Cyber 9/11” should be imminent.¶ "We have had our 9/11 warning. Are we going to wait for the
cyber equivalent of the collapse of the World Trade Centers?" McConnell told Financial Times in an interview published last month.¶"All
of a
sudden, the power doesn't work, there's no way you can get money, you can't get out of town, you
can't get online, and banking, as a function to make the world work, starts to not be reliable," McConnell
said. "Now, that is a cyber-Pearl Harbor, and it is achievable."
CIR Impact—Ag
1NC
Agriculture industry’s collapsing now---immigration’s key to solve
Alfonso Serrano 12, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws,
Time, 9-21-12, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollarlosses-on-immigration-laws/
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account for acute labor
shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent
immigration laws have forced waves of undocumented
immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops have been left to rot in
the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help.¶ “The enforcement of
immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we’ve depended on for 20 or 30 years,” said Ralph
Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington farmers — part of an $8 billion agriculture
industry — were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. “ It’s
getting worse each year,” says Broetje, “and it’s going to
end up putting some growers out of business if Congress doesn’t step up and do immigration reform.”¶ (MORE: Why
Undocumented Workers Are Good for the Economy) ¶Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture
industry are undocumented.No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants.But
acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of
stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
Extinction
Lugar 2kChairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee and Member/Former Chair of the
Senate Agriculture Committee (Richard, a US Senator from Indiana, is Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. “calls
for a new green revolution to combat global warming and reduce world instability,” pg online @
http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight
of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s
need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the
environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to resources,
and that poverty and famine have oftenbred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will
minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of [WMDs] weapons of mass destruction.
With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the
demand for affordable food will increasewell beyond currentinternational production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will
have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more
developing countries often use limited arable land to
expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as
they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences
could be disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next
50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have.
basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West:
That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual
Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the
use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a
threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee
average of 25 tonnes per hectare.
that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have
significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the
The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at
increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival ofbillions of people and
the health of our planet.
world.
Reform K2 Agriculture
Immigration key to agriculture
Antoine Abou-Diwan 1/28/13, “Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs”,
Imperial Valley Press
Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs¶The bipartisan proposal unveiled Monday paves the
way to legalization of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants with a program described as “tough but fair.” ¶It also addresses the concerns of the agricultural
industry, whose labor pool by some estimates is composed of some 50 to 70 percent unauthorized
workers.¶“Agricultural workers who commit to the long-term stability of our nation’s agricultural
industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play inensuring that Americans
have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume,” states the proposal.¶Total farmworkers in Imperial County fluctuated between 8,000 and
11,000 in 2012, according to data from the Employment Development Department. ¶“There’s definitely recognition that agriculture will be taken care of,” said Steve Scaroni, a Heber farmer who has lobbied Washington
immigration reform.¶The proposalis based on four broad principles: a path to citizenship for
unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, reform of the system to capitalize on characteristics that strengthen the economy, the
creation of an effective employment verification system and improving the immigration process
forfuture workers.¶The principles are broad and many details need to be worked out.¶“The principles acknowledge that the situation in
agriculture is distinct and requires different treatment,” said Craig Regelbrugge, chairman of the
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, a group that represents the landscape and nursery industry.¶Access to a legal and stable
work force is vital, Regelbrugge said, as is a workable program that eliminates or reduces hurdles for a future work
force.¶“We would like to see the agriculture legalization program attractive so there are incentives for them to work in the sector,” Regelbrugge noted.¶The proposals also acknowledge that the United States immigration
extensively on
system is broken, and address criticism that not enough is being done to enforce existing immigration laws. To that end, Monday’s proposals are contingent on secure borders.¶But, the acknowledgement of the agriculture sector’s
As long as the labor supply solutions are there, we can support the enforcement
solutions,” Regelbrugge said.
needs allows for some optimism.¶“
Guest worker visas are key to the ag industry labor pool
Rohrlich 10, 5/4/2010 (Justin - head writer for World in Review, Immigration reform a thorn in
agricultural industry’s side, Minyanville, p.
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/immigration-arizona-agriculture-industryforeign-labor/5/4/2010/id/28109)
A F B F
reported the lack of a viable guest worker program could cut annual farm
revenues by approximately $9 billion.¶
Of all major sectors of the US economy,
agriculture is the most dependent on a migrant labor force.” ¶
Agriculture would face dire
consequences if we were to lose our guest labor workforce
¶Farmers are dependent
A few years ago, the
merican
arm
ureau
ederation
that
Bob Stallman, president of the federation, wrote, “
He added, “
. Would you prefer to eat food produced on American soil by migrant workers, or would you rather eat food produced on
foreign soil by the same workers?”
on the migrant workforce. "We need them to milk cows or we'd barely be in business," Cochrane, Wisconsin dairy farmer Loren Wolfe told the Wisconsin Center for Investigative
Journalism. ¶ Guest workers who enter the United States on H2 visas are allowed to remain in the country for up to 10 months and pick the t omatoes that are made into the Heinz (HNZ) ketchup we buy at Walmart (WMT), process the milk used in McDonald’s (MCD) shakes, pick the
lettuce with which Burger King (BKC) tops its Whoppers, and sort the strawberries the J.M. Smucker Co. (SJM) turns into jam. ¶ The Arizona law won’t impact workers who are in the US legally under an H2 visa, but the farm industry is concerned that the increased scrutiny on immigration
The H2 program
helps the industry
stabilizing the workforce and removes the risk of having your
workforce disrupted at a critical period in the growing season.You may have only a few days to work
with a farmer can’t risk having half his workforce being taken away
¶
will impede their efforts to get the H2 program expanded. And the law could make it even more difficult to find labor. ¶ “
Growers League, tells Minyanville. “It
achieves the goal of providing a sufficient workforce for growers,” Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington
as a whole,
,
, and
by Immigration just like that.”
The bureaucracy standing between growers and much-needed
labor can be daunting. To help navigate the red tape, companies have sprouted up to act as employment agents that have satellite offices in Mexico, where they help people obtain H2 visas, then help match employers with legal, H2-holding workers who are bused up to the States for a
maximum period of ten months.¶ Bob Wingfield, who is president of one such agency, Dallas-based Amigos Labor Solutions, tells Minyanville that Americans don’t want the jobs these guest workers have. “It’s a fallacy that guest workers are sucking the system dry,” he says. ¶ Far from
there actually aren’t enough of them hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crops
rotted
because there were simply too few hands available.
sucking the system dry,
California
. In 2006,
in the fields
in Texas, Michigan, and
Now’s key --- immigration flows are net zero --- farmers cannot find the employees
necessary to sustain their sector
Boston Globe12, “Immigration reform is good for business,” 10-21-12,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/10/20/immigration-reform-good-forbusiness/1zjj2uQXy0cT80EKLwgilL/story.html
For hardliners who refuse to consider a guest worker program for illegal immigrants, a moment of truth may be approaching. If undocumented
workers are truly taking jobs that would otherwise go to Americans, then unskilled workers should be flocking to the fields of states like Arizona
and Alabama, which have instituted draconian crackdowns on illegal immigrants.¶ Alas, it isn’t happening. The American Farm Bureau
Federation recently estimated that labor
shortages from state crackdowns on illegal immigration are costing the
economy between $5 billion and $9 billion.In some states, farms are heavily dependant on
undocumented labor both to plant and harvest crops. Now, they simply do not have the bodies to work
the fields.¶Not all of these shortages are due to state laws targeting illegal immigration; the weak US economy and improved opportunities
in Mexico have also led to a dwindling of undocumented workers. These factors, combined with tougher border enforcement, have
squeezed the net flow of Mexicans coming into the United States to zero.¶This is mostly good news. The border-control
problem is getting better. And employers who’ve taken advantage of cheap illegal labor have no grounds to claim injury now that they can’t
find people to pick their crops. But if employers literally cannot recruit enough documented workers to do these jobs,
after agreeing to pay the minimum wage, one argument against a guest-worker program has disappeared.
Immigration reform is key to food security
ACIR ‘7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM )
Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration enforcement
legislation known as the ‘Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or ‘SAVE Act’ (H.R.4088 and S.2368). While these
bills seek to address the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they
fail to take a comprehensive approach to
solving the immigration problem. History shows that a one dimensional approach to the nation’s immigration
problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without providing a viable means to obtain a legal
workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster. Agriculture best illustrates this point.
Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and vegetable,
dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor shortages have
resulted in actual crop loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are making decisions to
scale back production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled.Continued labor
shortages could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed
food and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of affected industries. This
problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest worker program does not work. Based
on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is foreign born, and a significant
majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills’ imposition of mandatory electronic employment eligibility
verification will screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal workers. Careful study of farm labor force demographics and
trends indicates that there is not a replacement domestic workforce available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will result in chaos unless
combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued
failure by Congress to act to address this situation in a
comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security and global competitiveness. Furthermore,
congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose jobs exist because
laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced to move, most of the upstream and
downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support well-managed borders and a
rational legal system. We have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the existing experienced farm
workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides a fair balance of employer
and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other bills that would impose employmentbased immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would provide for a stable and legal farm labor force.
Food Solves War
Food insecurity’s the greatest proximate cause of war
Brown 11 (from World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, by Lester
R. Brown © 2011 Earth Policy Institute)
For the Mayans, it was deforestation and soil erosion. As more and more land was cleared for farming to support the expanding empire, soil
erosion undermined the productivity of their tropical soils. A team of scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
noted that the extensive land clearing by the Mayans likely also altered the regional climate, reducing rainfall. In effect, the scientists suggest, it
was the convergence of several environmental trends, some reinforcing others, that led to the food
shortages that brought down
the Mayan civilization. 26 Although we live in a highly urbanized, technologically advanced society, we
are as dependent on the earth’s natural support systems as the Sumerians and Mayans were. If we continue with business as usual,
civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when. We now have an economy that is destroying its natural support systems, one
that has put us on a decline and collapse path. We
are dangerously close to the edge. Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller
death of our civilization is no longer a theory or an academic possibility; it is the
road we’re on.” 2 Judging by the archeological records of earlier civilizations, more often than not food
shortages appear to have precipitated their decline and collapse. Given the advances of modern agriculture, I had
long rejected the idea that foodcould be the weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it could
be the weak link but that it is the weak link.
Foundation president, puts it well: “The
Food insecurity sparks World War 3
Calvin 98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281,
No. 1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and
lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries
would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant
remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating
competitors for the remaining food.This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far
east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer
do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Ag K2 Heg
Vibrant ag industry’s key to US national strength
Eighty-Seven Acres 7 [“Is the US Outsourcing Its Agriculture, Too?,” August 16, 2007, pg.
http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com/eightyseven_acres/2007/08/is-the-us-outso.html]
Foods wouldnot disappear from our supermarkets; but they wouldbe imported and bear stamps saying, as many do today, Produce of Chile, Produce of Mexico, Produce
of Brazil, Produce of China. And so on.¶ What would the United States look like, should this scenario come to pass? Basically, we would look like Britain. We would be nearly
completely urbanized, with no functioning rural society and rural culture with its own means of
support.Agriculture would largely disappear like heavy manufacturing. The farming that remains would be a tiny industry, servicing niche markets. We
would import nearly all of our food. We would not be able to feed ourselves as a nation. We would be a high tax, service, welfare state, with a
population most of whom would have no experience of business ownership and no experience of producing real goods. We would, I submit, cease to be an
independent people.¶ Is this what we want America to be? It strikes me as a serious weakening of the national strength. It
would make us as vulnerable to external pressuresas our import of foreign oil or our import of
manufactured goods from China. Like European nations, we would be afraid of most everything and would make a virtue of our fear by calling it pacifism. The world
is much too dangerous for us to be thrown into this position.
Key to global leadership
Andrew Pickford 8, Andrew Pickford holds positions of Mannkal Fellow at Mannkal Economic
Education Foundation and Project Consultant at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia
in Western Australia, Masters of Studies in Strategic Affairs from the Australian National University,
Research Manager of Future Directions International, Australia's Center for Strategic Analysis,
7/29/2008, (The Rise of Agri-Powers,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1499253/the_rise_of_agripowers/)
AGRICULTURAL POWERS – those self sufficient in food, fabric, and hydrocarbon production – once were unambiguously regarded as strategic powers. This has been true throughout history:
societies which were not agriculturally efficient and abundant could never long or fully sustain strategic
power. Now, once again, a new set of nations is likely to emerge in the 21st Century with significant regional, if not
global, influence demonstrably based on their agricultural capacity and their ability to match capital, productive land, and emerging technology on a
scale which was not possible in the past. These emerging “agri-powers” are benefitting from trends making agricultural commodities more strategically important, and will gain from having a
significant agricultural base.¶ Unlike the second half of the 20th Century,
the global strategic environment is set to become more fluid, and
the criteria which marked “middle-power” status, such as access to sophisticated military technology, is likely to become less overwhelming in importance. Even the term itself will lose its
a back to basics approach, which
leverages agricultural surpluses for international sale, biofuel production and potentially, through biotechnology, industrial applications, may result in
nations with a substantive agricultural sector, such as Australia, having a more prominent global position. Similarly, it
could make smaller agri-powers attractive targets for larger, hungrier1 nations.
relevancy as dozens of nations fulfil the original definition of a traditional middle- power.¶ In this period of global turbulence,
CIR Impact—Econ
1NC
CIR’s critical to economic growth---multiple internals
Klein 13 Ezra is a columnist for The Washington Post. “To Fix the U.S. Economy, Fix Immigration,” 1/29,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/to-fix-the-u-s-economy-fix-immigration.html
Washington tends to have a narrow view of what counts as “economic policy.” Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any stimulus we pass,
or any deficit reduction we try. Most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy.¶ The truth is, the
most important piece of
economic policy we pass -- or don’t pass -- in 2013may be something we don’t think of as economic policy at all:
immigration reform.¶ Congress certainly doesn’t consider it economic policy, at least not officially. Immigration laws go through the
House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy: About a tenth of the U.S.
population is foreign-born. More than
a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from
1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a foreign-born
founder.¶Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born
counterparts, and while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, there’s little
dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them.¶The economic case for immigration is best made by way of
analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly
conventional view of Japan. It’s even conventional wisdom about the U.S. The retirement of the baby boomers is
correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall from 5-to-1 today to 3-to1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy.¶ Importing Workers¶ There’s nothing controversial
about that analysis. But if that’s not controversial, then immigration shouldn’t be, either. Immigration is essentially the
importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old
enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very
industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual
amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get
the first-round picks -- at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come
here.¶From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might
not.¶Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more immigration.If you’re worried about deficits,
more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re
concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic
growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science
and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious
solution you’ll find.
Economic crisis causes nuclear war
CesareMerlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and
chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, “A PostSecular World?”, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first
scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One
or more of the acute tensions apparent
today evolves into an open and traditional conflictbetween states, perhaps even involving the
use of nuclear weapons.The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic
and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great
Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the
trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of
outside interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying,
perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such
as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration
might become unbearable. Familiar
issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the
secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or
converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.
Reform K2 Economy
CIR is essential to economic growth
Jacoby 12
Jeff Jacoby (reporter for the Boston Globe) “Immigration reform key to economic revival” The Boston
Globe 8/19/12 http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/08/18/immigration-reform-key-economicrevival/IfLnvJvmjZ6lbb1Mpxis5O/story.html
It isn’t every day that three men with such disparate ideological profiles find common cause, let alone on a high-profile issue that has been
roiling American politics for years. But there they were at Boston’s Seaport Hotel one evening last week, jointly making a nonpartisan case that
reforming the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system is essential for economic revival. Without the
growth fueled by immigrants — especially foreign-born entrepreneurs — the United States is unlikely to
retain its preeminent position in the world. In Bloomberg’s vivid phrase, America is “committing economic
suicide” by making it too hard for ambitious foreigners to enter the United States and unleash their drive and
ingenuity.¶ Opening the Boston forum, Menino was effusive in his praise for Bloomberg, whose social liberalism, especially on gun control,
complements his. “I am proud to call him my friend,” Menino said.¶ But the mayor was at loss for something nice to say about Murdoch, the
former owner of the conservative Boston Herald. The best he could manage was to thank him “for being here and sharing his views.”¶ What
was striking about the discussion that followed, however, was its unity of opinion, above all on the subject of
immigrants and their economic impact.¶ Menino ran through some local numbers. There are 8,800 immigrant-owned small
businesses in Boston, he said, producing nearly $3.7 billion in annual sales and employing more than 18,000 people. New Americans have
swelled Boston’s population to 625,000, its healthiest level since 1970 — healthy because “more people
mean more talent, more
ideas, and more innovation.” They also mean more revenue: Boston’s immigrants spend $4 billion per year, generating
$1.3 billion in state and federal taxes. For generations immigrants have rejuvenated Boston, said the mayor. “They make this old city new again
and again.”¶ He got no argument on that score from Murdoch, an Australian native who became a US citizen in 1985. “An
immigrant is
more likely to start a small business than a non-immigrant,” said Murdoch, whose career exemplifies the phenomenon.
“You go to Silicon Valley, and you realize it’s misnamed: It’s not the silicon” that makes it such a high-tech dynamo. “It’s the immigrants.”
Ambitious foreigners “want to dream the American dream,” and it’s in America’s national interest to
help them do so.¶ There is an abundance of empirical evidence that immigration is a tremendous
economic driver. A study by the Partnership for a New American Economy, a coalition of mayors and
business leaders advocating for more rational immigration laws, is awash with eye-opening data on
immigrant entrepreneurship. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by
immigrants or their children, and immigrants are now more than twice as likely as US natives to start a
business. Though the foreign-born account for less than 13 percent of the US population, they created 28 percent of all new American
businesses in 2011.¶ Murdoch and Bloomberg, two of the partnership’s co-chairmen, argue that if only more Americans
understood what remarkable job-creators immigrants tend to be, fewer politicians would feel the need
to play to anti-immigrant xenophobia. Fewer voters would believe the popular canard that foreigners enter America to live off
welfare — or the equally popular, if contradictory, canard that immigrants steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. ¶ “People don’t
come here to put their feet up and collect welfare,” Bloomberg said. “They come here to work. If there are no jobs, they don’t come.” You’d
never know it from the clamor over illegal immigration — “Put a damn fence on the border . . . and start shooting,” one GOP congressional
candidate recently advised — but illegal border crossings have sharply declined.¶ What hasn’t declined is the hunger of strivers and dreamers
the world over — talented entrepreneurs eager to bring their gifts here and make a success of themselves. Those would-be
immigrants
are an extraordinary growth hormone we can’t afford to spurn. A broken immigration system threatens
America’s future economic vitality. Fixing that system must become a priority — for left, right, and center alike.
Immigration reform boosts the US economy in the short- and long-term
Edward Krudy13, Reuters, 1-29-13, http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/immigrationreform-seen-boosting-us-economic-growth-1C8159298
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a liftif President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators
succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s. ¶Relaxed immigration
rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase demand forhousing, raise tax revenues and help
reduce thebudgetdeficit, economists said. ¶By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to
remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birthrate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging
Europe, Japan and China. ¶ "Numerous industries in the United States can't find the workers they need, right now
even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex
Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. ¶Theemerging consensus among economists is that
immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and
lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth. ¶ President Barack Obama plans to launch
his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional
approval of a reform package this year, the White House said. ¶ The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan
group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. ¶Their
proposals would also include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This
would be aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers
abroad. ¶An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start
businesses, said Nowrasteh. ¶Boosting
legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to
the U.S. economy over the next 10 years,estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the
University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate,
currently stuck at about 2 percent.
CIR key to economy
Smith 12 [Gerry, technology reporter, "Brain Drain: Why We're Driving Immigration Talent Overseas" Huffington Post -- November 5 -www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/immigrant-entrepreneur_n_2077183.html]
Stories like his are not unique. They’re also troubling
for the U.S. economy, advocates say. For the first time, the number of
immigrant-founded startups is in decline, as foreign-born entrepreneurs struggle to obtain a limited number
of visas and green cardsand decide to launch companies in other countries that offer perks to start businesses there.
Losing founders like Darash, who launch startups that create jobs, means that America risks losing a source of employment
and a competitive edge in the global economy as the country claws its way out of a recession, they say.¶ For
years, immigrant entrepreneurs have propelled the growth of Silicon Valley, building some of the most successful tech
companies in the world: Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was born in Russia; Elon Musk, co-founder of PayPal and Tesla, was born in South
Africa; VinodKhosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, was born in India. When they immigrated, it was likely easier for them because there was
not a backlog that there is today, according to VivekWadhwa, a professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University who researches
high-tech immigration. Immigrants
are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born Americans,
according to a report earlier this year by the Partnership for a New American Economy. And their companieshave produced
sizable economic benefits. This year, engineering and technology companies founded in the United States
employed about 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales, according to Wadhwa. About a quarter of
those companies hadat least one foreign-born founder.¶An estimated three out of every four startups fail, if not more. But
by the conventional wisdom of Silicon Valley, Darash’s chances were even slimmer. For one, he does not have a co-founder. He insists he
doesn’t need one. (Paul Graham, creator of the startup incubator Y Combinator, has said having a co-founder is critical because “a startup is too
much for one person to bear.”) Darash also never worked for a major tech company before, so he did not have the network of contacts that
help other entrepreneurs find engineers and meet investors.¶ But what he has lacked in support and connections he has made up for through a
work ethic that borders on obsession.¶ “Asaf is a stubborn guy,” said Adam Gries, a childhood friend and founder of Smart Bites, a smartphone
app that teaches people English. “He gets into his head that something is going to happen and he’s tenacious.”¶Darash awakes every morning
at 4:30 a.m., takes the BART train from his home in Berkeley to San Francisco, and arrives at the office by 6 a.m. He works for an hour, then
walks across the street to the gym to swim and lift weights (A back injury he suffered while serving in the Israeli army requires him to stay
physically strong). He typically does not go home until 9 p.m., after his children have gone to bed. Employees say he is a “total workaholic” who
sends emails past midnight and sleeps just a few hours a night.¶ “I have a one-and-a-half year old who sees his Daddy maybe three hours a
week,” Darash said. “It’s hard to explain how much sacrifice you make to bring a company from an idea to something real, especially if it’s a
company with high-level technology.Ӧ He is hands-on about all aspects of the company, from courting new clients to writing code. But lately,
Darash has been distracted, spending valuable hours gathering documents and talking to lawyers, instead of running his company. His wife
recently flew back to Israel to find housing and a school for their kids in case they have to leave the United States. He describes feeling a range
of emotions: anger, fear, frustration. Mostly, though, he is confused. In his homeland of Israel, politicians fight over who can attract more
foreign entrepreneurs. The United States, he says, should be rolling out the welcome mat for him, not ushering him out the door.¶ “I could not
even comprehend this would become a problem,” he said. “I’m creating a company. I’m creating jobs. There’s nothing bad in what I’m doing
and there’s nothing I’m taking away from someone else. The only thing I’m doing is creating more!”¶ “SERIOUS ALARM”¶Since
2005, the
number of immigrant-founded startups in Silicon Valley has declined from 52 percent to 44 percent,
according to Wadhwa, who argues this drop is cause for “serious alarm” because America needs to attract
immigrant entrepreneurs for its economy to recover.¶“The United States risks losing a key growth engine
right at the moment when it’s economy is stuck in a deep ditch, growing slowly and struggling to create
jobs,” Wadhwa wrote in his new book, The Immigrant Exodus.¶Their recent decline could be linked to entrepreneurs
finding better business prospects abroad, especially in countries with growing economies like India and China. But advocates say
a major reason why immigrants are launching fewer startups in the United States is because they are
struggling to secure visas to remain in the country.
CIR’s key to economic growth and competitiveness---it’s now or never
Kenny 12 Charles Kenny is a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America
Foundation. “Why More Immigration, Not Less, Is Key to U.S. Economic Growth,” 10/28,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-28/why-more-immigration-not-less-is-key-to-u-dot-sdot-economic-growth#p1
For those in favor of immigration reform, it might have been a relief that the presidential candidates spent more time describing how workers
overseas are stealing American jobs than they did accusing foreign workers of stealing jobs right here in the U.S.A. But the status quo on
immigration apparently supported by the candidates isn’t nearly good enough.¶Beyond
the huge importance of immigrants to
the U.S. economy today, three forces are makingimmigration reform more urgent: growing crackdowns
on undocumented workers at the state level, which are already hurting farming and are likely to spread to other sectors,
including construction; the aging of populations in the U.S. and Europe; and increasing opportunities in the
developing world, which are luring home skilled immigrants the U.S. needs most.¶High-tech industries
probably have the most to gain from action on immigration. Carl Lin of Rutgers University looked at the impact on tech
stock prices of a doubling of H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers in the U.S., thanks to the 1998 American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act. High-tech industries absorb around 80 percent of H-1B visa applicants. Lin estimates that in the month after the act passed,
companies in those industries enjoyed 15 percent and higher cumulative excess returns—a measure of the impact of news on stock prices.¶
More broadly, a Kauffman Foundation study by researcher VivekWadhwa suggested that in 2006, foreign nationals residing in the U.S. were
named as inventors or co-inventors of one-quarter of all patent applications filed from the U.S. Wadhwa’s study of foreign-born entrepreneurs
found that one-quarter
of science and technology companies founded from 1995 to 2005 had a foreignborn lead technologist or chief economist. These businesses employed 450,000 workers.¶But it is not just at the level of
entrepreneurs and inventors that immigration is playing an increasingly vital role in sustaining Americans’ quality of life. Patricia Cortes and
Jessica Pan of Boston University and the National University of Singapore report (PDF) that foreign-educated nurses now account for 20 percent
or more of all those taking the U.S. licensure exam—up from 6 percent in the mid-1980s. The considerable proportion of those nurses who
were educated in the Philippines ended up earning 4 percent more than the average nursing wage in 2010, and Cortes and Pan suggest the
reason for the premium is “quality differences.” One more reason Americans should get serious about immigration: When they get sick, they
probably want to get treated by a Filipino nurse.¶ At the low-education end of the scale, according to a 2011 Brookings Institution analysis of
immigrant skills and employment in the U.S., low-skilled immigrants in the country had a higher level of employment and a lower rate of
household poverty than native low-skilled populations, despite the fact that employed immigrants earned $5,000 less than employed
natives.¶As
the baby boom generation retires, the need for immigrant labor to sustain rich world lifestyles
will climb higher. That problem used to look less serious in the U.S. than it did in Europe because, with a historical fertility rate near 2.1
compared with well below 2.0 in Europe, America’s demographic transition looked to be less dramatic. But since the financial crisis, U.S. fertility
has also dropped below two children born per woman. Analysis by Moshe Hazan and HosnyZoabi at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University finds that
an important reason for historically large families in the U.S. was cheap child care, much of it provided by undocumented workers. If
lowskilled migration stops, the fertility rate could remain permanently depressed, in which case the longterm “crisis” in entitlement programs, from Medicare to Social Security, that rely on a good ratio of
workers to retirees will become an urgent problem.¶ By 2030, nearly 70 percent of Latinos who came to the U.S. during the
1990s are expected to own a home, according to John Pitkin, Julie Park, and Dowell Myers from the University of Southern California. That’s
good news, the researchers point out, because the
78 million-strong baby-boom generation in the U.S. will be looking
to downsize as their children leave home. Workers from Latin America were central to building the
boomer housing stock, and they’ll be central to ensure it is still worth something in 20 years.¶ Yet despite the
growing importance of migrants to the U.S. economy, VivekWadhawa reports in a recent update to his Kaufmann study, called “The Immigrant
Exodus,” that an
unprecedented number of Indian and Chinese students being educated in the U.S. intend
to go home rather than try to stay in the U.S. to work. The proportion of high-tech startups founded by
Chinese and Indian immigrants in Silicon Valley dropped from 52 percent in 2005 to 44 percent this year.
Even the size of the illegal immigrant population has been declining since 2007, by about 200,000 a year, according to the Pew Hispanic
Center.¶ This isn’t just an American problem. Reverse migration is a fact of life across Europe—indeed, around 30,000 Spaniards moved to
Argentina between June 2009 and November 2010. An additional 13,200 went to Chile and Uruguay. Just like the U.S., the U.K. is suffering
reverse migration to India, with about 300,000 Indians employed overseas expected to return home by 2015.¶Over time,
the
competition for immigrants is going to become more intense. Some countries, including the U.K.,
Australia, and Canada, have already taken measures to ease the visa process for foreign students and
innovators. Given the first-mover advantage (countries that open their doors to migrants from a
particular country subsequently attract more migrants from that country), reform is an urgent
priority.¶What should the U.S. do? Remove the country caps on H-1B visas, which are exhausted almost every year within days of the annual
quota of 85,000 places released. Expand the number of H-1Bs. And fix the EB-5 program, designed to give visas to people who invest $500,000
and create at least 10 jobs, so that if the jobs aren’t created in exactly the way originally described in the application procedure, that doesn’t
lead to a deportation order. Design rigidities are a big reason why, of the 13,719 immigrant investors who tried to take part in the program in
the first decade of this century, only 3,127 ended up with green cards.¶ The U.S. can also adopt the Schumer-Lee Bill, which provides a
residency visa for anyone who spends $500,000 on a house. It should grant automatic green cards to graduate students from U.S. universities.
Passing the Dream Act and raising the numbers on programs from the visa lottery through H-2 unskilled visa programs would boost low-skilled
immigration, which is vital to the U.S. economy as well. And it’s time to give permanent status to the 1 million workers and their families on
temporary visas waiting for green cards.¶Our
refusal to let more migrants into America is delaying the recovery. It’s
costing Americans jobs. It’s damaging our long-term prospects as a nation ofinnovation and
entrepreneurship, putting at greater risk the sustainability of such programs as Social Security and
Medicare, and concentrating the burden of U.S. debt on a declining number of working-age people. It’s
time for America’s politicians to do more than merely duck this issue and actually lead on it.
CIR is key to US growth
Hinojosa-Ojeda 12 Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center at
UCLA Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Cato Journal,
Vol. 32, No. 1 Winter 2012
The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Actindicates that
comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate
additional tax revenue. Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high unemployment (1990–91), it still helped raise wages and
spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a starting
point, we estimate that comprehensive immigration reform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added
U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years. 1 This is a compelling economic reason to move away
from the current “vicious cycle” where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration
and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a “virtuous cycle” of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights
exert upward pressure on wages.
US K2 Global Economy
The US is key to the global economy
Caploe 9 David is the Chief Political Economist at Economy Watch and holds a PhD in International
Political Economy from Princeton. April 7, 2009, The Straits Times, “Focus still on America to lead global
recovery,” http://acalaha.com/STarticle07Apr09.pdf
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made
by United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world
has
become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of
economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' ¶While
superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in fact been
'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either
sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US.To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand
thatthere is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not
drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are
critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. ¶This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained
certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and
later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. ¶At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the
rest of the world also explains how the collapse
of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing,
logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic
crisis since the Great Depression.
Econ Wars
The best statistical support proves economic decline causes war
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in
Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p.
213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline mayincrease the likelihood of external conflict. Political science
literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defencebehaviour of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions
follow.¶ First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that
rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and
the often bloody transitionfrom one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as
economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty
about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to
challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel
leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown.¶ Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996,
2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future
expectation of trade' is asignificant variablein
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are
likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the
expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood
for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises
could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states.4¶Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level.
Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write:¶ The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence
of a recession tends to
amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg&
Hess, 2002. p. 89)¶Economic decline has also been linked with anincrease in the likelihood of terrorism
(Blomberg, Hess, &Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions.¶ Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary
theory" suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). andBlomberg,
Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi
(1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are
greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to
being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force.¶ In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an
increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political sciencescholarship links economic decline with
external conflictat systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and
armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.¶ This observation is not
contradictory to other perspectives
that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood
of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependenceand do not specifically consider the occurrence
of and conditions created byeconomic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those
views.
Economic decline leads to global nuclear war
Green and Schrage 9 – Senior Advisor and Japan Chair @ CSIS and Associate Professor @
Georgetown University AND CSIS School Chair in International Business and Former Senior Official with
the US Trade Representative’s Office (Michael J. and Steven P., “It’s not just the economy,” State
Department and Ways & Means Committee, Asia Times, 3/26,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/asian_economy/kc26dk01.html)
Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central
Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications forinternational stability if there is
not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe.¶
However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even havejarring impacts
on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by
themost destructive war in human history. ¶In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and
protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation
of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to
maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward
deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting.
¶There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest
that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is
not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical
challenges we face.¶ A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis
has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is
too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally.¶
Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency
controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its
own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate
greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit
for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth).¶ The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the
kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before
1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold standard.¶ The worldwide
depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy
andcontributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policiesin Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what
counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly convergingwith the global economy, and many
experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%.¶
Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last
month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese
leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just
begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese
who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development".¶
If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic
nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too.¶ Dangerous states¶ It is noteworthy that North
Korea, Myanmar and Iran have
all intensified their defiancein the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's leading
nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of
North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament
because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang
have grown increasingly
boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as anuclear weapons state.¶ The junta in
Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country
Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or
the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds
out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy.¶ It is possible that the economic
downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea
and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal
political pressures linked to the economy. So
far, there is little evidence to suggest either and much evidence to suggest
these dangerous statessee an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantagesagainst the
international system.¶ Challenges to the democratic model¶The trend in East Asia has been for developing
economies tosteadily embrace democracy and the rule of law in order to sustain their national success. But to thrive,
new democracies also have to deliver basic economic growth. The economic crisis has hit democracies hard, with
Japanese Prime Minister Aso Taro's approval collapsing to single digits in the polls and South Korea's Lee Myung-bak and Taiwan's Ma Ying
Jeou doing only a little better (and the collapse in Taiwan's exports - particularly to China - is sure to undermine Ma's argument that a more
accommodating stance toward Beijing will bring economic benefits to Taiwan). Thailand's new coalition government has an uncertain
future after two years of post-coup drift and now economic crisis.¶The string of old and new democracies in East Asia has helped to anchor
US relations with China and to maintain what former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice once called a "balance of power that favors
freedom". A
reversal of the democratic expansion of the past two decades would not onlyimpact the global
balance of powerbut alsoincrease the potential number of failed states, with all the attendant risk
they bring from harboring terrorists to incubating pandemic diseases and trafficking in persons. It would also
undermine the demonstration effect of liberal norms we are urging China to embrace at home.
AT: Economy Resilient
No resiliency---double-dip now causes a depression
Isidore 11(Financial Correspondent-CNN Money, 8/10,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm)
The risk of double dip recession is rising. And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S. economy is to fall into another downturn, they generally agree on one thing -a new recession would be worse than the last and very difficult to pull out of. "Going back into recession now would be scary,
because we don't have the resources or the will to respond, and our initial starting point is such a point of weakness," said Mark Zandi, chief
economist at Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It would likely feel like a depression." Zandi said the recent sell-off in stocks
have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25% only 10 days ago. Other economists surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an
average chance of a new recession to be about 25%, up from a 15% chance only three months ago. Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have joined Zandi in increasing their estimates in
just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is another concern. "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession
due to the negative hit to wealth and confidence," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist for BMO Capital Markets. Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow Jones industrial average Tuesday following the
Federal Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock indexes have lost more than 11% of their value over the last 12 trading days. A plunge in stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession. The economy avoided
a recession after the stock market crash of 1987. "Stock price declines are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David Berson, chief economist of BMI Group. But with
the
economy already so fragile, the shock of another stock market drop and resulting loss of wealthcould be the
tipping point."It really does matter where the economy is when it gets hit by these shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a prescription for a long, painful recession," he said.
Most economists say they aren't worried that S&P's downgrade makes recession more likely, although a few said any bad news at this point increases the risk. "The downgrade has a psychological impact
in terms of hurting consumer confidence," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors. On shakier ground Another
recession could be even
worse than the last one for a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession
began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of any other downturn since the end of
World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just
4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low. Various parts of the
economy also have yet to recover from the last recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn.
Home values continue to lose ground and are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession
levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great Recession took hold. But what
has
economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used to try to jumpstart an economy teetering on the edge of
recession aren't available this time around."The reason we didn't go into a depression three years ago is the policy response by
Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress
approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade,
and with elections looming, the federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession
would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it.
CIR Impact—Heg
1NC
Immigration reform is key to all aspect of heg
Nye 12 Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National
Intelligence Council, is a Professor at Harvard University. “Immigration and American Power,” December
10, Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigrationreform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise to
In
recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Party’s presidential
nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a
result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration
policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second
term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power.¶Fears about the
CAMBRIDGE –
top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶
impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were
singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.¶During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage
of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration
than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from
39% in 2008.¶Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim
majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.¶But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English
language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest
immigration strengthens US
power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level
needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one
of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶For example, to maintain its
immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term,
current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that
Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from
now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all
other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration
could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small,
and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to particular sectors – and to long-term growth. There is
a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At
the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon
Valley’s technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade.
Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.¶Equally
important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact that people want to come to
the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries.
The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many
successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and their families and
friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many
cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of
globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both.¶Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan
Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first
century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightestfrom the rest of the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has
a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US. ¶That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in
enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his
promise to maintain the strength of the US.
the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶
Heg solves great power war
Khalilzad 11 – ZalmayKhalilzad, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United
Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense
Department from 1990 to 1992, February 8, 2011, “The Economy and National Security; If we don’t get
our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity,” online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India,
and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter
the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers
continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The
closing of the gap between
theU nited S tates and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major
powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another,
andundercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher
risk of escalation.¶The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers
has beenthe era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with
their competitive dynamics resulting infrequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multipolar international systems produced both world wars. ¶ American retrenchment could have devastating
consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against
emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation,
or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker
powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states
would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.¶As rival powers rise, Asia in
particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has
enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite
capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as
cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises
in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the
most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.
Reform K2 Heg
CIR’s key to all facets of leadership
Bush et al 9 Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty III
are co-chairmen and Edward Alden is director of a Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent
Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy. “Nation needs comprehensive, flexible immigration reform,” July
21, AJC, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/nation-needs-comprehensive-flexible-immigrationre/nQH9m/
Our immigration system has been broken for too long, and the costs of that failure are growing. Getting immigration
policy right is fundamental to our national interests — our economic vitality, our diplomacy and our national
security.¶ In the report of the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, we lay out what is at stake for the United States. President Barack Obama has made it clear that
reform is one of his top priorities, and that is an encouraging and welcome signal. ¶Immigration has long been America’s secret weapon. The U.S. has
attracted an inordinate share of talented and hardworking immigrants who are enticed here by the world’s best universities, the most innovative
companies, a vibrant labor market and a welcoming culture.¶Manyleaders in allied nations were educated in the U.S., a diplomatic asset
that no other country can match. And the contributions of immigrants — 40 percent of the science and
engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. are foreign-born, for example — have helped maintain the scientific and
technological leadership that is the foundation of our national security.¶ But the U.S. has been making life
much tougher for many immigrants. Long processing delays andarbitrary quota backlogs keep out many
would-be immigrants, or leave them in an uncertain temporary status for years.Background and other
security checks are taking far too long in many cases. Other countries are taking advantage of these
mistakes, competing for immigrantsby opening their universities to foreign students and providing a
faster track to permanent residency and citizenship.
Competitiveness Internal
CIR’s the backbone of US competitiveness
Shapiro 13 Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, the U.S.
trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and a New York Times
best-selling author. “Inaction on immigration reform harms US economy,” 1/8,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/08/inaction-on-immigration-reform-harms-us-economy/
successful entrepreneurship relies
not on isolationism, but on assembling the right team. That is becoming increasingly difficult in the
United States thanks to federal inaction on immigration reform.¶
the best entrepreneurs operate in
teams that are usually relatively small and targeted to a well-defined mission.¶But today, some of the
best and brightest trained in America’s top schools are having a difficult time joining such teams or
forming their own. America’simmigration laws are making it increasingly difficult for foreign-born, U.S.educated entrepreneurs to stay in the U.S. to innovate.
our laws are forcing these innovators
abroad after they’ve already started assembling their teams here.¶Today’s companies need to be able to
hire highly skilled immigrants. High-growth firms have been a consistent source of job creation, namely
because of these immigrants.
nearly half of the country’s top venturebacked, early-stage companies were founded by at least one immigrant. Not surprising, perhaps,
because advanced education in STEM fields (
correlates with high rates of
entrepreneurship and innovation.¶
their efforts also favorably affect economic growth and
global competitiveness.¶Immigrant entrepreneurship has stalled in the U.S. and is causing a reverse
brain drain.
¶
innovators should take the lead
in stressing the need for comprehensive immigration reform that will bring the best and brightest
foreign students to America to work, create jobs and innovate here.
When people imagine the world’s most successful innovators, they often imagine them starting out isolated in their garages, t oiling away at their latest gadgetry or endeavor. The truth is,
The ultimate way for a “ninja innovator” — a term we coined to describe the agile, adaptive, cunning qualities
of today’s successful entrepreneurs — to accomplish his mission is to build a strike force and attract the best and brightest workers to join him. Similar to the ninjas of feudal Japan,
Or — even worse —
In fact, a recent study by The National Foundation for American Policy found that
science, technology, engineering and mathematics)
Immigrant entrepreneurs are most likely to start companies in “innovation/manufacturing-related services (45%) and software (22%) industries,” according to a recent Kauffman Foundation
study. Not only do these individuals play a major role in making their individual companies more profitable on a small scale, but
Since 2005, the proportion of immigrant-founded companies nationwide has slipped from 25.3 percent to 24.3 percent, according to the Kauffman Foundation.
Ninja
If past attempts to reform the law are any indication, job creators and businesses will have to work
hard to ensure reform. In September 2012, the White House and congressional Democrats failed to pass the STEM Jobs Act, which would have helped keep foreign-born graduates in America.¶ President Obama says he plans to push for immigration reform this month. But it’s still
To remain competitive in the global marketplace
companies need to be able to build effective teams. Those that attract the best and
brightestto join their strike forces will be best positioned to beat the global competition.
unclear which specific measures he supports. I’m hopeful he will open a platform for entrepreneurs and job creators to be heard in the debate.¶
and
hone the ninja-like attitude of fighting for victory,
US competitiveness solves hegemony and great power war
Baru 9 – SanjayaBaru is a Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School in Singapore Geopolitical Implications
of the Current Global Financial Crisis, Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 168
Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.2 In the modern era, the idea that strong
economicperformance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. 'Victory (in
war)', Kennedy claimed, 'has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base'.3 Drawing attention to the
interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to
efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projectionand national defence, Kennedy
argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. 'The fact remains', Kennedy
argued, 'that all of the major
shifts in the world's military-power balance have followed alterations in the
productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empiresand states in the international
system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side
with the greatest material resources'.4 In Kennedy's view, the geopolitical
consequences of an economic crisis, or even
decline, would betransmitted through a nation's inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously
sustaineconomic growth and military power, the classic 'guns versus butter' dilemma.
Heg Solves War
Hegemony prevents global nuclear war
Barnett 11 – Thomas P.M. Barnett is Former Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare
Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College American
military geostrategist and Chief Analyst at Wikistrat., worked as the Assistant for Strategic Futures in the
Office of Force Transformation in the Department of Defense, March 7th, 2011, “The New Rules:
Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads,”
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-andglobalization-at-crossroads
We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the
global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature
being its
lack of mass violence
if we do take
the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be
adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing
"megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the
systemadministering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of
global order
As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has
been the greatest force for peace the world has ever known.Had America been
removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass
murder never would have ended
there would now be no identifiable human
civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did
not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up
and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power
peace.We introduced the international liberal trade order known as
globalization
What resulted was the collapse of empires, an
explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women,
the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a
profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts.
It is worth first examining the larger picture:
relative and absolute
. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because
same sort of
since World War II.Let me be more blunt:
. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable
and played loyal Leviathan over its spread.
That is what American
"hubris" actually delivered. Please remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation
bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Ar ab world. While we might imagine
ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. ¶As for the sheer "evil" that is our military-industrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly
head. The last great period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a
world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast approaching 7 billion people.
Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop
and a 99 percent relative drop in deaths due to war.We are clearly headed for a
world order characterized by multipolarity, something the American-birthed
system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things
turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do
well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to
come.
Empirics and best studies prove
Wohlforth 8 William,Daniel Webster Professor of Government in the Dartmouth College Department
of Government, October, World Politics, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War,”
www.-polisci.-wisc.-edu/-Uploads/-Documents/-IRC/-Wohlforth (2009)-.-pdf)
empirical studiesof the
relationship between both systemic and dyadic capabilities distributions and war have continued to cumulate. If the relationships
Despite increasingly compelling findings concerning the importance of status seeking in human behavior, research on its connection to war waned some three decades ago.38 Yet
The clearest empirical implication
of the theory is that status competition is unlikely to causegreat power military conflict in unipolarsystems. If status
competition is an important contributory cause of great power war, then, ceteris paribus, unipolar systems should be markedly less war-prone
than bipolar or multipolar systems. And this appears to be the case. As Daniel Geller notes in a review of the empirical literature: "The
only polar structure that appears to influence conflict probability is unipolarity."39 In addition, a larger number
of studies at the dyadic level support the related expectation that narrow capabilities gaps and
ambiguous or unstable capabilities hierarchies increase the probability of war.40 These studies are based entirely on post-sixteenthimplied by the status theory run afoul of well-established patterns or general historical findings, then there is little reason to continue investigating them.
century European history, and most are limited to the post-1815 period covered by the standard data sets. Though the systems coded as unipolar, near-unipolar, and hegemonic are all marked by a high concentration of capabilities
in a single state, these studies operationalize unipolarity in a variety of ways, often very differently from the definition adopted here. An ongoing collaborative project looking at ancient interstate systems over the course of
two thousand years suggeststhat historical systems that come closest to the definition of unipolarity used here exhibit precisely
thebehavioralproperties implied by the theory. 41 As David C. Kang's research shows, the East Asiansystem between 1300 and 1900
was an unusually stratified unipolar structure, with an economic and militarily dominant Chinainteracting with a small number of geographically proximate, clearly weaker East Asian
states.42 Status politics existed, but actors were channeled by elaborate cultural understandings and interstate practices into clearly recognized ranks. Warfare was exceedingly rare,
and the major outbreaks occurredprecisely when the theory would predict: when China's capabilitieswaned,
reducing the clarity of the underlying material hierarchy and increasing status dissonance for lesser powers. Much more research is needed, but initial exploration of other arguably unipolar systems-for example, Rome, Assyria, the
Both theory and evidence demonstrate convincingly that
competition for status is a driver of human behavior, and social identity theory and related literatures suggest the
conditionsunder which it might come to the fore in great power relations. Both the systemic and dyadic findings presented in large-N studies
Amarna system-appears consistent with the hypothesis.43 Status Competition and Causal Mechanisms
are broadly consistent with the theory, but they are also consistent with power transition and other rationalist theories of hegemonic war.
Heg is the root causeof structural decline in conflict---prevents rivalry escalation
Daniel W. Drezner 5, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at
Tufts University, May 25, 2005, “GREGG EASTERBROOK, WAR, AND THE DANGERS OF EXTRAPOLATION,”
online: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002087.html
Daily explosions in Iraq, massacres in Sudan, the Koreas staring at each other through artillery barrels, a Hobbesian war of all against all in eastern Congo--combat plagues
human society as it has, perhaps, since our distant forebears realized that a tree limb could be used as a club. But here is something you would never guess from watching
War has entered a cycle of decline. Combat in Iraq and in a few other places is an exception to a significant global trend that has
gone nearly unnoticed--namely that, for about 15 years, there have beensteadily fewer armed conflicts worldwide.
In fact, it is possible that a person's chance of dying because of war has, in the last decade or more, becomethe
lowest in human history. ¶ Is Easterbrook right? He has a few more paragraphs on the numbers: ¶ The University of Maryland studies
find the number of wars and armed conflicts worldwide peaked in 1991 at 51, which may represent the most
wars happening simultaneously at any point in history. Since 1991, the number has fallen steadily. There were 26 armed conflicts in
the news:
2000 and 25 in 2002, even after the Al Qaeda attack on the United States and the U.S. counterattack against Afghanistan. By 2004, Marshall and Gurr's latest study shows,
the number of armed conflicts in the world had declined to 20, even after the invasion of Iraq. All told, there were less than half as many wars in 2004 as there were in
1991. ¶ Marshall and Gurr also have a second ranking, gauging the magnitude of fighting. This section of the report is more subjective. Everyone agrees that the worst
moment for human conflict was World War II; but how to rank, say, the current separatist fighting in Indonesia versus, say, the Algerian war of independence is more
speculative. Nevertheless, the Peace and Conflict studies name 1991 as the peak post-World War II year for totality of global fighting, giving that year a ranking of 179 on a
scale that rates the extent and destructiveness of combat. By 2000, in spite of war in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda, the number had fallen to 97; by 2002 to 81; and,
theextent and intensityof global combat is nowless than
halfwhat it was 15 years ago. ¶ Easterbrook spends the rest of the essay postulating the causes of this -- the decline in great power war, the spread
at the end of 2004, it stood at 65. This suggests
of democracies, the growth of economic interdependence, and even the peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations. ¶ Easterbrook makes a lot of good points -- most
people are genuinely shocked when they are told that even in a post-9/11 climate, there has been a steady and persistent decline in wars and deaths from wars. That said,
what bothers me in the piece is what Easterbrook leaves out.¶ First, he neglects to mention
thebiggest reason for why war is on the
decline -- there's a global hegemon called the United States right now. Easterbrook acknowledges that "the most powerful factor must
be the end of the cold war" but he doesn't understand why it's the most powerful factor. Elsewhere in the piece he talks about the growing comity among the great powers,
the reason the "great powers" get along is that the United States is much,
more powerful than anyone else
without discussing the elephant in the room:
much
. If you quantify power only by relative military capabilities, the U.S. is a great power, there are maybe ten
or so middle powers, and then there are a lot of mosquitoes. [If the U.S. is so powerful, why can't it subdue the Iraqi insurgency?--ed. Power is a relative measure -- the U.S.
might be having difficulties, but no other country in the world would have fewer problems.]¶ Joshua Goldstein, who knows a thing or two about this phenomenon, made
We probably owe this lull to the end of the cold war, and to
aunipolar world order with a single superpower to impose its will in places like Kuwait,
Serbia, and Afghanistan.The emerging world order is not exactly benign – Sept. 11 comes to mind – and
Pax Americana delivers neither justice nor harmony to the corners of the earth . Buta
unipolar world is inherently more peacefulthan the bipolar one where two superpowers fueled rival
this clear in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed three years ago:¶
The
peace dividend" has arrived
armies around the world.
long-delayed "
, like a tax refund check long lost in the mail.¶ The difference in language
between Goldstein and Easterbrook highlights my second problem with "The End of War?" Goldstein rightly refers to the past fifteen years as a "lull" -- a temporary
The flip side of U.S. hegemony being responsible for the reduction of
armed conflict iswhat would happen if U.S. hegemony were to ever fade away. Easterbrook focuses on the
reduction in war and war-related death.
trends that suggest an ever-decreasing amount of armed conflict -- and I hope he's right. But I'm enough of a realist to know that if the U.S. should find its primacy
challenged by, say, a really populous non-democratic country on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, all best about the utility of economic interdependence, U.N.
peacekeeping, and the spread of democracy are right out the window.¶ UPDATE: To respond to a few thoughts posted by the commenters:¶ 1) To spell things out a bit more
U.S. hegemony important to the reduction of conflict in two ways. First, U.S. power canact
as a powerful if imperfect constraint on pairs of enduring rivals (Greece-Turkey, IndiaPakistan) that contemplate war on a regular basis. It can't stop every conflict, but it can blunt a lot ofthem. Second, and more
important to Easterbrook's thesis, U.S. supremacy in conventional military affairsprevents other middlerange states -- China, Russia, India, Great Britain, France, etc. -- from challenging the U.S. or each
otherin a war. It would be suicide for anyone to fight a war with the U.S., and if any of these countries waged a war with each other, the prospect of U.S.
clearly --
intervention would be equally daunting.
Impact—TPP
TPP Impact—Asia Pivot
1NC
A GOP midterm win is key to the Asia Pivot---Democrats would be comparably worse.
Keck 4-22
Associate Editor at The Diplomat, Previously, he worked as Deputy Editor of e-International Relations,
the Center for a New American Security and in the U.S. Congress (Zachary, "The Midterm Elections and
the Asia Pivot," 2014, thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-midterm-elections-and-the-asia-pivot/)
But it needn’t be all doom and gloom for U.S. foreign policy, including in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, the
Republicans wrestling control
of the Senate from the Democrats this November could be a boon for the U.S. Asia pivot. This is true for at
least three reasons.¶ First, with little prospect of getting any of his domestic agenda through Congress,
President Barack Obama will naturally focus his attention on foreign affairs. Presidents in general have a tendency
to focus more attention on foreign policy during their second term, and this effect is magnified if the other party controls the legislature. And
for good reason: U.S. presidents have far more latitude to take unilateral action in the realm of foreign affairs than in domestic policy.
Additionally, the 2016 presidential election will consume much of the country’s media’s attention on domestic matters. It’s only when acting on
the world stage that the president will still be able to stand taller in the media’s eyes than the candidates running to for legislative office.¶
Second, should
the Democrats get pummeled in the midterm elections this year, President Obama is likely
to make some personnel changes in the White House and cabinet. For instance, after the Republican Party
incurred losses in the 2006 midterms, then-President George W. Bush quickly moved to replace Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the less partisan (at least in that era) Robert Gates. Obama followed suit by making key
personnel changes after the Democrats “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections.¶ Should the Democrats face a similar fate in the 2014
midterm elections, Obama is also likely to make notable personnel changes. Other aides, particular former Clinton aides, are likely to leave the
administration early in order to start vying for spots on Hillary Clinton’s presumed presidential campaign. Many of these changes are likely to be
with domestic advisors given that domestic issues are certain to decide this year’s elections. Even so, many nominally domestic positions—such
as Treasury and Commerce Secretary—have important implications for U.S. policy in Asia. Moreover, some
of the post-election
changes are likely be foreign policy and defense positions, which bodes well for Asia given the appalling
lack of Asia expertise among Obama’s current senior advisors.¶ But the most important way a Republican victory in
November will help the Asia Pivot is that the GOP in Congress are actually more favorable to the pivot than are
members of Obama’s own party. For example, Congressional opposition to granting President Trade Promotional
Authority — which is key to getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified — is largely from Democratic legislators.
Similarly, it is the Democrats who are largely in favor of the defense budget cuts that threaten to
undermine America’s military posture in Asia.¶ If Republicans do prevail in November, President Obama
will naturally want to find ways to bridge the very wide partisan gap between them. Asia offers the
perfect issue area to begin reaching across the aisle.¶ The Republicans would have every incentive to
reciprocate the President’s outreach. After all, by giving them control of the entire Legislative Branch, American
voters will be expecting some results from the GOP before they would be ostensibly be ready to elect
them to the White House in 2016. A Republican failure to achieve anything between 2014 and 2016
would risk putting the GOP in the same dilemma they faced in the 1996 and 2012 presidential elections.
Working with the president to pass the TPP and strengthen America’s military’s posture in Asia would be
ideal ways for the GOP to deliver results without violating their principles.
The pivot solves a US-China conflict---only US assurances can create convergence and
maintain stability.
Mendis 3-6
Senior Fellow and Affiliate Professor at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University (Patrick,
"How Washington’s Asia pivot and the TPP can benefit Sino–American relations," 2013,
www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/06/how-washingtons-asia-pivot-and-the-tpp-can-benefit-sinoamerican-relations/)
In November 2011, President Obama embarked on an unusually lengthy ten day tour of the Asia Pacific
during which he met with over 25 heads of state, reiterating America’s commitment to and presence in the Asia Pacific and, most significantly,
reaffirming the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).¶ The TPP aims to create a tariff-eliminating, free trade zone through a
network of expansive trade agreements with eligible Pacific Rim economies. Launched in 2006 as a free trade pact between Brunei Darussalam,
Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPP has expanded to include negotiations with the Australia, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. It
forms a
key part of the Obama administration’s new ‘Asia pivot’ policy, which calls for a shift of security
priorities from the Middle East and Europe to the Asia Pacific.¶ Yet China, the world’s second-largest economy and Asia’s
dominant economic and trading power, is noticeably absent from the TPP. China views the TPP, and other aspects of the Washington’s pivot
strategy (including the US Marine’s revived presence in Australia and strengthened ties to countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) as part of a new containment policy not unlike that employed against the former Soviet
Union. According to state-run Chinese Xinhua news, American intervention in South China Sea disputes is seen as part of a set of ongoing
‘provocative moves’ under the guise of freedom of navigation. Overseas, Obama’s Asia pivot has also played out as a clear attempt to
comprehensively contain China and to counterbalance a perceived China threat.¶ But Washington’s
pivot strategy is better
understood within a new framework of mutually assured prosperity (MAP) — a twist on the Cold War containment
practices backed by a doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).¶ First, at present, strong interdependent economic relations exist as
importer–exporter, debtor–creditor and consumer–producer between the United States and China. This already forces the two countries to
caution and resort to trade diplomacy within the WTO framework, rather than retaliatory competition or military threats to resolve
differences.¶ Second, Sino–American trade and commercial history suggests that convergence
between the two largest
economies — intensifying indirectly and multilaterally through the TPP — may instead solidify this
existing symbiotic economic relationship. Since America’s founding, commerce has been the uniting factor among states and
with foreign nations. To achieve Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an ‘Empire of Liberty,’ Alexander Hamilton devised an ingenious strategy that
entailed a strong manufacturing base, a national banking system, the centralised federal government and an export-led economic and trade
scheme protected by the US Navy. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping’s export-led liberalisation of Chinese economic policy also implicitly recognised the
role of trade and commerce as a unifier of peoples.¶ There are three dimensions to the new MAP framework — geopolitics, geo-economics and
geo-security — intertwined to the extent that the lines of distinction between each are blurred. Geopolitically, Washington’s re-engagement
with the Asia Pacific after a decade of distraction is not so much a paradigm shift as the revival of a traditional and historic role. Since the Cold
War, the United States has underwritten the regional security architecture through bilateral ties with allies such as Australia, Japan, South
Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. In recent years as South China Sea tensions have intensified, Beijing’s perceived use of force in its own
neighborhood causes weaker states to question the necessity of its current status as a regional hegemon, and to look for a balancer.
America’s return to the Asian region reassures stakeholders that China will not overwhelm its
neighbors.¶ Economically, through trade engagement and transparency via the TPP, Washington affords
smaller countries the opportunity to collectively rebalance asymmetries in bilateral trade with China
without undermining China as a valued and vital trade partner. This simultaneously eliminates the need
for naval competition, reducing the likelihood of hostile engagement over South China Sea disputes of
the so-called gunboat diplomacy sort — a term often applied to Washington’s historically preferred method of advancing foreign
trade policy objectives in Asia.¶ Meanwhile, from a security perspective, China will be able to continue to prosper
from regional stability. The expansion of Chinese military capabilities and the establishment of ports of call for PLA Navy ships will seem
less threatening if the US Navy is engaged in the region in a cooperative, multilateral fashion, avoiding direct confrontation but implicitly
projecting the show of force without war to restrain the adversarial behaviour. This may give China the space to ease into its role as the
dominant — but not domineering — regional power in a way that will best serve its own economic growth and national security interests. It is
also the finest insurance policy for China that holds over $1 trillion worth of American treasury securities. ¶ Ultimately,
a regional TPPled free trade zone is the best ‘pacifying’ security architecture for long-term stability between the two
economic superpowers in the Pacific Ocean. The TPP will deliver benefits for individual restraint
between the two power centres, and may advance regional development, encourage the integration of
the Chinese economy, and allow surrounding nations to hedge their bets on (and therefore contribute
to) China’s ‘Peaceful Rise.’ In the Asian century, alliances are complex, and multilateralism and flexibility are the new currency. This
era of Sino–American relations will require measured diplomacy.
This conflict would be catastrophic and involve nuclear weapons---East Asia is a
particulary volatile hotspot
Doble 11
John, has an M.A. in International Affairs from American University and a B.A. in Political Science and
History from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Maritime Disputes a Likely Source of Future
Conflict” http://www.policymic.com/articles/2279/maritime-disputes-a-likely-source-of-future-conflict December]//BM
Yesterday, the
U.S. and China were involved in a nuclear exchange. The cause of this conflict was a war brought
about between China and the Philippines after the Philippines seized several of the Spratly Islands to secure natural
resources and the sea lanes traversing the South China seas, both of which it would use to advance itself in the global economy. China
refused to accept this action and attacked, and the U.S. was dragged in after the president was pressured by Congress and American
allies to honor America’s mutual-defense agreement with the Philippines. The result was disastrous. While this is a hypothetical
example, similar scenarios are becoming increasingly probable. Due to increasing economic competition and climate change, a
source of future conflict will be the contest for control over the seas. The U.S. must adequately plan for future
contingencies to avoid any surprises and to discern what it needs to do to prevent the worst-case scenario from occurring.
Economic competition on the seas can be seen most clearly in terms of port construction. As it stands, over 90% of all goods measured by
weight or volume are transported by cargo ship, and port construction greatly increase a nation’s access to foreign markets and appeal as a
manufacturing center. Conversely, a nation’s investment in ports reduces the amount of goods traveling to other nations, thus damaging their
economies. Unlike other forms of infrastructure investment, maritime infrastructure implicitly affects international security. This competition
has already created conflict in the Middle East. Bilateral efforts to improve relations between Iraq and Kuwait were scuttled earlier this year
after Kuwait announced it was investing heavily in building a new port (the Mubarak Kabeer) only 20 kilometers away from a port Iraq was
building (the Grand al-Faw). Rapprochement swiftly ended over Iraqi fears of economic strangulation and calls for eternal brotherhood were
replaced by curses. Nowadays, rumors abound that Iraqi and Kuwaiti forces are infiltrating the border areas and Iraqi militants have already
launched rockets from Iraq into Kuwait and threatened to kidnap the contractors building the Mubarak Kabeer port. While threatening, this
conflict is unlikely to explode as Iraq is in no shape to wage war and labors under a history of belligerence it is trying to expunge. But what if a
similar sequence of events occurred in Southeast/East Asia, where GDP is growing an average of 6%-7% a year(with China at 9.1%) and states
can operate more freely? The U.S. is investing more resources in the region at the exact moment when growing economic competition make
conflict more likely. Secondly, climate change will soon have a massive impact on the world’s coastal areas. Global sea levels are likely to rise
between 80 to 200cm at the end of the century and would submerge large tracts of land, displacing millions of people and wiping out urban
and agricultural areas. Since they are built on the coast, this would also damage or destroy many ports worldwide and jeopardize international
commerce as we know it. These losses would be difficult to replace given the increased environmental pressures Southeast/East Asian states
would face as well as the spillover problems that would arise as low-lying countries sink into the sea and collapse. Competition over the
ports that survive will be fierce as whoever possesses them would likely dominate the sea lanes and international
commerce for some time, leading to regional dominance. Similarly, economic competition and climate change are going to going to
cause havoc on the military industrial base supporting naval power in the region. It is expensive to build a competitive navy, and many states
will be unable to afford it if they need to constantly adapt to economic and environmental pressure. China and India are already building up
their naval forces and will likely be naval powers into the foreseeable future, but the U.S. will gain a lot of allies in the future struggling to get
the U.S. involved in every security dispute they have. Like WWI, someone may gamble incorrectly, and a conflict that starts as a minor incident
may explode into something much greater. The
U.S. consequently needs to utilize all facets of American power, from military to
diplomatic to foreign aid, to confront these complex challenges and prevent them from escalating out of control.
We need to promote broader acceptance of free trade on the open seas as well as democratic governance to limit the appeal of coercive power
and the ability to use that power arbitrarily. We need a way to maintain the strength of our alliances without getting sucked into conflicts we
don’t want, besides selling more weapons that only make war increasingly likely. Regardless of the exact policies, policymakers need to start
thinking ahead on how it will deal with the implications economic competition and climate change are going to have on maritime power.
Intelligent observers of the Middle East knew for years that the authoritarian status quo was unsustainable, yet no plans were made to respond
to the collapse of those regimes and our response could have been better. Current
quo in Southeast/East Asia is equally untenable. Do we have a plan in place?
trends indicate that the current status
Exts – TPP Solves China
TPP is key to contain Chinese aggression in the South China Sea
Gordon 2011 – BERNARD GORDON is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of New Hampshire, and the author, most
recently, of America’s Trade Follies. (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Rise of China”, Foreign Affairs, November 7, 2011,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136647/bernard-k-gordon/the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-the-rise-of-china?page=show)
The final factor is China’s new foreign policy assertiveness. An early sign was Beijing’s revival, in 2010, of
claims to islands in the South China Sea, an issue that has roiled relations between China and its
neighbors since the mid-1990s. In 2002, China and its neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations agreed to resolve the claims multilaterally, but
China later insisted on dealing bilaterally with each neighbor. China’s foreign minister argued at the time, “China is a big country
and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.” Japan bore the brunt of Chinese belligerence in September
2010, when a Chinese fishing trawler rammed one of its coast guard boats. When Japan arrested the
trawler’s captain, Beijing demanded that Japan apologize and release him, and it stopped exports to
Japan of crucial rare-earth minerals. Maehara, then foreign minister, called China’s reaction “hysterical”; now a central player in the Noda
government, he is among Japan’s most popular politicians. In a recent speech in Washington, reflecting Tokyo’s assessment, he expressed worries
about how China’s rise “alters the power balance of the game in the region.” Such statements show that Japan has come
a long way from where it was in 2009, when former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama urged Japan to integrate more with Asia and to adopt a policy of “equidistance”
between Beijing and Washington. The Noda government has instead reinforced its already close ties with Washington, and many
Japanese now
argue that Japan must join in the booming transpacific trade to escape the economic doldrums of the
past two decades. “Japan should harness the energy of the Asia-Pacific region,” Noda said at a Democratic Party of Japan meeting in August, “and use it
for economic recovery.” The U.S. ambassador in Tokyo, John Roos, recently remarked that Japan’s inclusion in the TPP would be a “game
changer.” He is right. A transpacific trade agreement with Japan on board would be a victory for the principle
of an open international system. Moreover, as an adviser to Prime Minister Noda stated earlier this month, Tokyo joining the TPP
talks would help it “consolidate a strategic environment that gives China the impression that Japan is a
formidable country that can’t be intimidated.” Nations of the region need not succumb to the
inevitability of a Pacific dominated by China. A Trans-Pacific Partnership composed of Japan, the United States, Australia,
and the group’s smaller economies represents a healthier alternative -- one that realists would recognize as a step
toward a classic balance of power.
The alliance prevents violent China rise and Chinese social unrest
Armitage and Nye 12 (Richard L. Armitage is president of Armitage International and a trustee of CSIS. From 2001 to¶ 2005, he served as U.S. deputy secretary of state. In
the course of his career, he has been engaged¶ in a range of worldwide business and public policy endeavors, as well as frequent public speaking¶ and writing. From 1992 to 1993, Mr.
Armitage (with the personal rank of ambassador) directed¶ U.S. assistance to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. From 1989 to 1992,¶ he filled key diplomatic
positions as presidential special negotiator for the Philippines Military¶ Bases Agreement and special mediator for water in the Middle East. President George H.W. Bush¶ sent him as a
special emissary to Jordan’s King Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. In the Pentagon¶ from 1983 to 1989, he served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. Mr.¶
Armitage graduated in 1967 from the U.S. Naval Academy, where he was commissioned an ensign¶ in the U.S. Navy. He served on a destroyer stationed on the Vietnam gun line and
subsequently¶ completed three combat tours in Vietnam. He has received numerous U.S. military decorations, as¶ well as decorations from the governments of Thailand, the Republic of
Korea, Bahrain, and Pakistan.¶ In 2010, Mr. Armitage was appointed an honorary companion of the Order of Australia, and¶ in 2005, he became a Knight Commander of the Order of St.
Michael and St. George. Mr. Armitage¶ currently serves on the boards of ConocoPhillips, ManTech International Corporation, and¶ Transcu Group Ltd. He is also a member of the
American Academy of Diplomacy. He was most¶ recently awarded the Department of State Distinguished Service Award and has received the Department¶ of Defense Medal for
Distinguished Public Service four times, the Secretary of Defense¶ Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Award for Outstanding¶ Public Service, the
Presidential Citizens Medal, and the Department of State Distinguished Honor¶ Award.¶ Joseph S. Nye is dean emeritus of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and¶
a trustee of CSIS. He joined the Harvard faculty in 1964 and has served as director of the Center¶ for International Affairs, Dillon Professor of International Affairs, and associate dean of
arts and¶ sciences. From 1977 to 1979, Dr. Nye served as deputy to the U.S. under secretary of state for¶ security assistance, science, and technology and chaired the National Security
Council Group on¶ Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the National Intelligence¶ Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the
president. In 1994 and 1995, he¶ served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. In all three agencies, he¶ received distinguished service awards. Dr. Nye is a
fellow of the American Academy of Arts and¶ Sciences and the American Academy of Diplomacy and a member of the Executive Committee of¶ the Trilateral Commission. Dr. Nye has also
served as a director of the Aspen Strategy Group, as¶ a director of the Institute for East-West Security Studies, as a director of the International Institute¶ for Strategic Studies, as U.S.
representative on the UN Advisory Committee on Disarmament¶ Affairs, and as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Institute of International Economics. He received his
bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1958. He did¶ postgraduate work at Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship and earned a Ph.D. in political¶ science
from Harvard University. Dr. Nye has also taught for brief periods in Geneva, Ottawa,¶ and London and has lived for extended periods in Europe, East Africa, and Central America. He¶ is
the author of numerous books, including The Future of Power (PublicAffairs, 2011), The Powers¶ to Lead (Oxford University Press, 2008), and Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics¶ (PublicAffairs, 2004), “The U.S.-Japan Alliance¶ anchoring stability in asia,” August 2012, Online, PDF) GANGEEZY
China’s meteoric rise in economic heft, military muscle, and political clout over the past three¶ decades
has not only dramatically revamped the world’s most populous nation, it has also decisively¶ shaped East Asia’s post–
Cold War geopolitical landscape. Far from being a constraint on¶ China’s re-rise, the strong U.S.-Japan alliance has
contributed to it by helping to provide a stable,¶ predictable, and secure environment within which
China has flourished. The alliance has a stake¶ in China’s success. However, the lack of transparency and ambiguity as to how China
intends to¶ use its newfound power—to reinforce existing international norms, to revise them according to¶ Beijing’s national interests, or
both—is an area of growing concern.¶ One area of particular unease is China’s possibly expanding core interests. In
addition to the¶ official three—Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan—there has been reference to the South China Sea¶ and the Senkaku Islands as
emerging interests. While the latter are unofficial and undeclared, the¶ People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy’s increased presence in the South
China Sea and East China¶ Sea leads us to deduce otherwise. The
shared theme of sovereignty further raises questions
about¶ Beijing’s intentions in the Senkakus and the South China Sea. One thing is certain—China’s
ambiguity¶ of core interest claims further reduces its diplomatic credibility in the region.¶ The alliance’s
strategy toward China has been a blend of engagement and hedging, befitting¶ the uncertainties about
how China might choose to use its rapidly growing comprehensive national¶ power. But most aspects of the
allied hedge against China’s growing military power and political¶ assertiveness—the gradual expansion in the geographic scope of alliance
activities, joint work on¶ missile defense technologies, heightened attention to interoperability and to missions related to¶ sustaining sea lines
of communication, efforts to strengthen regional institutions such as the Association ¶ of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), renewed focus on
freedom of navigation, and the¶ launch in December 2011 of a new trilateral U.S.-Japan-India strategic dialogue—have been based¶ on the
assumption that China will continue along a path of high economic growth, making possible¶ comparable increases in defense spending and
capabilities.¶ That
assumption is no longer assured. As China moves into its fourth decade since the launch¶
of “reform and opening up” by Deng Xiao-ping in 1979, there are many indications that growth¶ is slowing.
Questions exist about the ability of China to move from an export-led to internalconsumption-¶ driven
economy. In the years ahead, China’s leaders will have to tackle at least six¶ demons: energy constraints, calamitous environmental
degradation, daunting demographic realities,¶ widening income inequality among people and provinces, restive ethnic minorities in Xinjiang¶
and Tibet, and endemic official corruption. Economic
success adds to this list the uncertainty¶ of coping with the
“middle income trap,” whereby a growing middle income cohort puts exceptional¶ pressure on the
Chinese political structure to meet rising expectations. Any one of these¶ challenges could derail China’s
economic growth path and threaten social stability. The Chinese¶ Communist Party (CCP) is aware of these daunting
challenges, which is one reason its leaders¶ boosted spending on internal security to more than $120 billion for 2012, roughly comparable to¶
the defense budget. The PLA remains focused on developing the wherewithal to deal with external¶ threats, including deterring Taiwan from
moves toward de jure independence. But, the CCP is¶ equally concerned about internal threats.¶ A
China that stumbles badly could
present the alliance with challenges that are not necessarily¶ smaller—just different. We all have much
to gain from a peaceful and prosperous China.¶ Alternatively, Chinese leaders confronting severe internal
fissures could take refuge in nationalism,¶ perhaps exploiting an external threat, real or imagined, to reforge unity. To sustain order, the¶ leadership could turn to ever more draconian measures, exacerbating existing human rights violations,¶
alienating some foreign partners, and undermining the political consensus that has driven¶ Western engagement with China since the Nixon
opening 40 years ago.
TPP Impact: US-Japan Relations
TPP k2 US-Japan relations
Terada 12 – Takashi Terada is currently a Japan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, within a program funded by
the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. In April 2012 he will become Professor of Political Science at Doshisha University. Previously, he was a
Professor of International Relations at the Organization for Asian Studies at Waseda University. He received his Ph.D from Australian National
University and has served as an Assistant Professor at National University of Singapore (1999-2006) and Associate Professor at Waseda
University (2006- 2008). (“Japan and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA, February 2012,
http://www.spfusa.org/files/Japanandtpp_terada.pdf)
On November 11, 2011, the day before the United States hosted the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Summit in Honolulu, Prime
Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced, “I have decided to enter into consultations toward participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations with the countries concerned.” While the Prime Minister’s announcement was less than a forceful articulation of intent, with
Japan’s economy twice the size of the eight countries currently participating in TPP negotiations with
the United States, Japan’s potential entry is important for the pact’s emergence as the preeminent trade
agreement in the Asia Pacific. TPP, moreover, has developed into the most important issue on the U.S.
trade agenda and is vitally linked to Washington’s new “rebalancing” strategy toward the Asia Pacific.
Japan’s potential entry into the agreement has thus become a focal point of the U.S.- Japan relations
with important implications for the future of that relationship and the region’s broader economic architecture.
Japan’s decision on TPP likely will also be viewed as an indication of the direction the country chooses to
take as its population ages and decreases in size, its economy declines relative to that of China and much of the rest of East Asia, and as the
country seeks to rebuild in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake. To examine the economic, political and strategic implications of
Japan’s potential entry into TPP, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA, in cooperation with the Brookings Institution, convened a half-day
conference on December 2, 2011. Senior current and former government officials, representatives of the business and academic communities
from both countries, the first director general of the World Trade Organization and other experts participated. The commentary below builds
on the results of that conference. Prime Minister Noda’s predecessor, Naoto Kan, asserted that the impact of joining TPP, along with progress
on other smaller trade initiatives, would constitute “the third opening of Japan.” In effect, he viewed Japan’s accession to TPP and the
implementation of a final agreement as comparable to the revolutionary changes the country undertook first in the Meiji era, and second, in
the aftermath of World War II. While Kan’s description exaggerates the impact of TPP on Japan, current member
countries—
Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Vietnam, Chile, Peru and the United States—are seeking a highly ambitious
trade and investment accord addressing regulatory convergence, issues posed by stateowned
enterprises, supply chains, intellectual property and other so-called “21st century” issues that in some cases
go beyond current World Trade Organization rules. Participating countries are seeking to make TPP a model free trade agreement, one that will
be open to new members and will serve as a stepping stone to a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) encompassing the world’s most
dynamic region and economies representing more than half of global economic output and trade. Within
Japan, support for the
country’s accession to TPP is led by the business community. As Kiyoaki Aburaki, the U.S Representative of Keidanren,
the Japan Business Federation, noted at the SPFUSA/ Brookings conference, TPP will provide Japan opportunities for global
business and domestic reforms that will benefit Japan’s economy, enhance U.S.-Japan economic
integration and strengthen the overall trans-Pacific trade architecture. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(METI), has asserted that if Japan fails to join TPP, the country would lose ¥10.5 trillion yen in gross domestic product as of 2020 (about 2% of
GDP), while the Cabinet Office has estimated that participation in TPP would boost Japan’s real GDP by ¥2.5-3.2 by 2018.
The alliance solves multiple threats to escalate to global nuclear war
Gates 11 (Robert, U.S. Secretary of Defense, “U.S.-Japan Alliance a Cornerstone of Asian Security”, Speech to Keio University, 1-14,
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1529)
Over the course of its history, the
U.S.-Japan alliance has succeeded at its original core purpose – to deter military
aggression and provide an umbrella of security under which Japan – and the region – can prosper.
Today, our alliance is growing deeper and broader as we address a range of security challenges in Asia.
Some, like North Korea, piracy or natural disasters, have been around for decades, centuries, or since
the beginning of time. Others, such as global terrorist networks, cyber attacks, and nuclear proliferation
are of a more recent vintage. What these issues have in common is that they all require multiple nations
working together – and they also almost always require leadership and involvement by key regional
players such as the U.S. and Japan. In turn, we express our shared values by increasing our alliance’s capacity to provide humanitarian aid and
disaster relief, take part in peace-keeping operations, protect the global commons, and promote cooperation and build trust through strengthening regional
institutions. Everyone gathered here knows the crippling devastation that can be caused by natural disasters – and the U.S. and Japan, along with our partners in the
region, recognize that responding to these crises is a security imperative. In recent years, U.S. and Japanese forces delivered aid to remote earthquake-stricken
regions on Indonesia, and U.S. aircraft based in Japan helped deliver assistance to typhoon victims in Burma. We worked together in response to the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami, earthquakes in Java, Sumatra, and Haiti, and most recently following the floods in Pakistan. These efforts have demonstrated the forward
deployment of U.S. forces in Japan is of real and life-saving value. They also provide new opportunities for the U.S. and Japanese forces to operate together by
conducting joint exercises and missions. Furthermore, U.S. and Japanese troops have been working on the global stage to confront the threat of failed or failing
states. Japanese peacekeepers have operated around the world, including the Golan Heights and East Timor and assisted with the reconstruction of Iraq. In
Afghanistan, Japan represents the second largest financial donor, making substantive contributions to the international effort by funding the salaries of the Afghan
National Police and helping the Afghan government integrate former insurgents. Japan and the United States also continue to cooperate closely to ensure the
maritime commons are safe and secure for commercial traffic. Our maritime forces work hand-in-glove in the Western Pacific as well as in other sea passages such
as the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia, where more than a third of the world’s oil and trade shipments pass through every year. Around the Horn
of Africa, Japan has deployed surface ships and patrol aircraft that operate alongside those from all over the world drawn by the common goal to counter piracy in
vital sea lanes. Participating in these activities thrusts Japan’s military into a relatively new, and at times sensitive role, as an exporter of security. This is a far cry
from the situation of even two decades ago when, as I remember well as a senior national security official, Japan was criticized for so-called “checkbook diplomacy”
– sending money but not troops – to help the anti-Saddam coalition during the First Gulf War. By showing more willingness to send self-defense forces abroad
under international auspices – consistent with your constitution – Japan is taking its rightful place alongside the world’s other great democracies. That is part of the
rationale for Japan’s becoming a permanent member of a reformed United Nations Security Council. And since these challenges cannot be tackled through bilateral
action alone, we
must use the strong U.S.-Japanese partnership as a platform to do more to strengthen
multilateral institutions – regional arrangements that must be inclusive, transparent, and focused on results. Just a few months ago, I attended the
historic first meeting of the ASEAN Plus Eight Defense Ministers Meeting in Hanoi, and am encouraged by Japan’s decision to co-chair the Military Medicine Working
Group. And as a proud Pacific nation, the United States will take over the chairmanship of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum this year, following Japan’s
successful tenure. Working through regional and international forums puts our alliance in the best position to confront some of Asia’s toughest security challenges.
As we have been reminded once again in recent weeks, none has proved to be more vexing and enduring than North Korea. Despite the hopes and best efforts of
the South Korean government, the U.S. and our allies, and the international community, the character and priorities of the North Korean regime sadly have not
changed. North Korea’s ability to launch another conventional ground invasion is much degraded from even a decade or so ago, but in other respects it has grown
North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and proliferation of nuclear knowhow and ballistic missile equipment that have focused our attention – developments that threaten not
just the peninsula, but the Pacific Rim and international stability as well. In response to a series of provocations – the most
more lethal and destabilizing. Today, it is
recent being the sinking of the Cheonan and North Korea’s lethal shelling of a South Korean island – Japan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of
Korea and the United States. Our three countries continue to deepen our ties through the Defense Trilateral Talks – the kind of multilateral engagement among
America’s long-standing allies that the U.S. would like to see strengthened and expanded over time. When and if North Korea’s behavior gives us any reasons to
believe that negotiations can be conducted productively and in good faith, we will work with Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China to resume engagement with
North Korea through the six party talks. The first step in the process should be a North-South engagement. But, to be clear, the North must also take concrete steps
to honor its international obligations and comply with U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Any progress towards diffusing the crisis on the Korean Peninsula must
include the active support of the People’s Republic of China – where, as you probably know, I just finished an official visit. China has been another important player
whose economic growth has fueled the prosperity of this part of the world, but questions about its intentions and opaque military modernization program have
been a source of concern to its neighbors. Questions about China’s growing role in the region manifest themselves in territorial disputes – most recently in the
incident in September near the Senkaku Islands, an incident that served as a reminder of the important of America’s and Japan’s treaty obligations to one another.
The U.S. position on maritime security remains clear: we have a national interest in freedom of navigation; in unimpeded economic development and commerce;
and in respect for international law. We also believe that customary international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides clear
guidance on the appropriate use of the maritime domain, and rights of access to it. Nonetheless, I disagree with those who portray China as an inevitable strategic
adversary of the United States. We welcome a China that plays a constructive role on the world stage. In fact, the goal of my visit was to improve our military-tomilitary relationship and outline areas of common interest. It is precisely because we have questions about China’s military – just as they might have similar
questions about the United States – that I believe a healthy dialogue is needed. Last fall, President Obama and President Hu Jin Tao made a commitment to advance
sustained and reliable defense ties, not a relationship repeatedly interrupted by and subject to the vagaries of political weather. On a personal note, one of the
things I learned from my experience dealing with the Soviet Union during my earlier time in government was the importance of maintaining a strategic dialogue and
open lines of communication. Even if specific agreements did not result – on nuclear weapons or anything else – this dialogue helped us understand each other
better and lessen the odds of misunderstanding and miscalculation. The Cold War is mercifully long over and the circumstances with China today are vastly different
– but the importance of maintaining dialogue is as important today. For the last few minutes I’ve discussed some of the most pressing security challenges – along
with the most fruitful areas of regional cooperation – facing the U.S. and Japan in Asia. This environment – in terms of threats and opportunities – is markedly
different than the conditions that led to the forging of the U.S-Japan defense partnership in the context of a rivalry between two global superpowers. But on
account of the scope, complexity and lethality of these challenges, I would argue that our alliance is more necessary, more relevant, and more important than ever.
And maintaining the vitality and credibility of the alliance requires modern izing our force posture and other defense arrangements to better reflect the threats and
military requirements of this century. For example, North Korea’s ballistic missiles – along with the proliferation of these weapons to other countries – require a
more effective alliance missile defense capability. The U.S.-Japan partnership in missile defense is already one of the most advanced of its kind in the world. It was
American and Japanese AEGIS ships that together monitored the North Korean missile launches of 2006 and 2008. This partnership –which relies on mutual support,
cutting edge technology, and information sharing – in many ways reflect our alliance at its best. The U.S. and Japan have nearly completed the joint development of
a new advanced interceptor, a system that represents a qualitative improvement in our ability to thwart any North Korean missile attack. The co-location of our air-
and missile-defense commands at Yokota – and the associated opportunities for information sharing, joint training, and coordination in this area – provide
enormous value to both countries. As I alluded to earlier, advances by the Chinese military in cyber and anti-satellite warfare pose a potential challenge to the
ability of our forces to operate and communicate in this part of the Pacific. Cyber attacks can also come from any direction and from a variety of sources – state,
non-state, or a combination thereof – in ways that could inflict enormous damage to advanced, networked militaries and societies. Fortunately, the U.S. and Japan
maintain a qualitative edge in satellite and computer technology – an advantage we are putting to good use in developing ways to counter threats to the cyber and
space qdomains. Just last month, the Government of Japan took another step forward in the evolution of the alliance by releasing its National Defense Program
Guidelines – a document that lays out a vision for Japan’s defense posture. These guidelines envision: A more mobile and deployable force structure; Enhanced
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities; and A shift in focus to Japan’s southwest islands. These new guidelines provide an opportunity for even
deeper cooperation between our two countries – and the emphasis on your southwestern islands underscores the importance of our alliance’s force posture. And
this is a key point. Because even as the alliance continues to evolve – in strategy, posture, and military capabilities – to deal with this century’s security challenges, a
critical component will remain the forward presence of U.S. military forces in Japan. Without
such a presence: North Korea’s military
provocations could be even more outrageous -- or worse; China might behave more assertively towards
its neighbors; It would take longer to evacuate civilians affected by conflict or natural disasters in the region; It would be more difficult and costly to conduct
robust joint exercises – such as the recent Keen Sword exercise – that hone the U.S. and Japanese militaries ability to operate and, if necessary, fight together; and
Without the forward presence of U.S. forces in Japan, there
would be less information sharing and coordination, and we
would know less about regional threats and the military capabilities of our potential adversaries.
Aff Answers
Generic Elections Defense
One instance doesn’t change an election---best statistics
Nate Silver 6/4/2014, you know who he is, “The Political Media Still Fall for the Hot-Hand Fallacy”,
FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-political-media-still-falls-for-the-hot-handfallacy/
The most important lesson of the 2012 presidential campaign, in my view, was not that polling-based models are foolproof ways
to assess the political environment, but instead that undisciplined ways of evaluating polls and political events can
lead to flawed conclusions. On several occasions during the race, news media commentators either overrated the
amount of information contained in outlier polls and jumped the gun on declaring a change in
momentum — or insisted that a candidate had the “momentum” in the race when there was little evidence of it.
The past year-and-a-half hasn’t made me optimistic that things are getting better. Late
last year, the news media badly
overrated the political consequences of the government shutdown. Just a couple of months later, it somewhat
overhyped the lasting impact of the botched rollout of Obamacare. (I think that case is more debatable, but President Obama’s approval ratings
have improved by about 4 percentage points from their lows in December.)
The general flaw is in overestimating the importance of recent events and assuming that short-term trends
will continue indefinitely: that a candidate rising in the polls will continue to do so, for example. In fact, especially in general elections,
candidates gaining in the polls see their position revert to the mean as often as they continue to gain
ground.
The political news media are by no means alone in committing this mistake. It’s a close cousin of the hot-hand fallacy. This is the tendency —
also evident in sports commentary — to place too much evidence on recent events, which may be idiosyncratic or essentially random
compared with longer-term averages and patterns.
Still, the
news media may be especially prone toward overhyping purported “game-changers” that make
for snappy headlines. Two weeks ago, after Sen. Mitch McConnell beat a more conservative rival in the Republican primary in
Kentucky, some in the political media were ready to declare another momentum shift, claiming that the tea party was “losing steam” to the
GOP establishment. But Tuesday night in Mississippi, incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran received fewer votes than challenger Chris McDaniel, a
state senator who is often associated with the tea party. (McDaniel appears as though he’ll finish with just under 50 percent of the vote,
however, so the race is probably headed to a June 24 runoff.)
Obamacare outweighs the affirmative---polls prove
Drew MacKenzie 4/10/2014, writer for Newsmax citing a USA Today/Pew poll, “Poll: Democratic
Candidates Hurt by Obamacare Support”, April 10, 2014,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-healthcare-poll-Democrat/2014/04/10/id/564833/
An overwhelming percentage of registered voters have admitted that a candidate’s position on the troubled
health care law will play an important part in deciding their vote in the upcoming elections, according to a
new poll. Republican senatorial candidates have been constantly hammering at Democrats who have supported
Obamacare as the GOP bids to capture the Senate in November – and it appears from a USA Today/Pew Research Center poll that the tactic will
pay big dividends. The poll shows that more than eight
out of every 10 voters say that the stance of a candidate in the
midterms will play a key role in their decision-making on who to vote for in November. The survey also found that 54
percent of respondents called it a "very important" part of their vote process, while two out very three people said they
disapproved of Obamacare. "That means it is more likely to motivate opponents than supporters to vote — a critical element in midterm
elections when turnout often is low," wrote Susan Page of USA Today.
No vote-switching
Vavreck 4/22 (Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science at U.C.L.A., is a co-author of "The Gamble,” about the 2012 presidential
campaign, “The Myth of Swing Voters in Midterm Elections,” APRIL 22, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-myth-of-swingvoters-in-midterm-elections.html?_r=0)
If you want to understand the 2014 midterm elections, remember this simple fact about American politics: There just
aren’t that many swing voters. Many people change their minds over the course of a campaign about
whether to vote and even which candidate they’re leaning toward. Ultimately, though, voters tend to come
home to their favored party. There are relatively few voters who cross back and forth between the parties during a
campaign or even between elections. Political professionals have increasingly come to appreciate this
pattern and have focused resources on getting previous voters to the polls. Both parties have spent
considerable effort in recent elections trying to understand the effects of television ads, canvassing, phone calls
and mailings on turnout. Mobilizing a party’s voters has become as important as persuading undecided
or swing voters. The 2010 midterm elections highlight the relatively small number of swing voters. After winning with a
wide margin and extraordinary enthusiasm in 2008, the Democrats suffered one of the largest losses of seats in any midterm two years later. Although the
president’s party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, the size of the 2010 “shellacking,” to
borrow President Obama’s description, created the impression that many voters had changed their minds about the
president, his policy goals or his ability to get the country back on the right track between 2008 and 2010. But only a
small percentage of voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010. Moreover, there were almost as many John
McCain voters who voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2010 as there were Obama voters who shifted the other way. That may be a surprise to some, but it
comes from one of the largest longitudinal study of voters, YouGov’s Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (C.C.A.P.), for which YouGov interviewed 45,000 people
at multiple points during 2011 and 2012. The results clearly show that voters
in 2010 did not abandon the Democrats for the other side,
but they did forsake the party in another important way: Many stayed home. Fewer than 6 percent of 2008 voters in
the presidential election voted for a congressional candidate from the other party in 2010, with the switchers roughly evenly divided across the parties, according to
the C.C.A.P. It’s worth noting, however, that these switchers are not evenly distributed around the country, with North Dakota’s single district having very few crossparty voters (under 3 percent) and some Pennsylvania districts, for example, having upward of 10 percent switching between 2008 and 2010. On average, across
districts, roughly 6 percent of Obama voters switched and just under 6 percent of McCain voters switched; because there were more Obama voters than McCain
voters in 2008, this means — as you’d expect — that more voters swung to the Republicans than to the Democrats. An additional 1.5 percent switched to thirdparty candidates. But on turnout, the numbers were not evenly balanced for Democrats and Republicans. Only 65 percent of Obama’s 2008 supporters stuck with
the party in 2010 and voted for a Democrat in the House. The remaining 28 percent of Mr. Obama’s voters took the midterm election off. By comparison, only 17
percent of McCain’s voters from 2008 sat out the midterms. Turnout
in midterm elections is always down from presidential
elections, and Democrats routinely fight to return more of their voters to the polls than the Republicans.
More Democrats come from groups, such as young people and Latinos, that typically vote at lower rates in midterm elections than other groups. But this 11-point
difference in holding on to 2008 voters is larger than normal. It probably stemmed from a gap in enthusiasm between the parties’ voters in 2010, as survey data
indicated. It may seem hard to believe that the shellacking
was more about who turned up than about who changed their
minds between 2008 and 2010, but it lines up with a lot of other evidence about voters’ behavior. Most identify with the same political
party their entire adult lives, even if they do not formally register with it. They almost always vote for the
presidential candidate from that party, and they rarely vote for one party for president and the other one
for Congress. And most voters are also much less likely to vote in midterm elections than in presidential
contests. These stable patterns of American politics reveal a clear path for both parties in 2014: Get your
2012 voters to the polls. Of concern to Democrats right now is that Republicans once again have the
upper hand on enthusiasm going into November. The 2014 fight is not over swing voters. It’s for
partisans.
Obama’s recent ocean preservation thumps the link
Lederman 6/17/14
Josh, AP, "Obama to create world's largest ocean preserve", June 17 2014, news.yahoo.com/obamacreate-worlds-largest-ocean-preserve-122133107--finance.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Moving to protect fragile marine life, President Barack Obama
announced plans Tuesday to create the
largest ocean preserve in the world by banning drilling, fishing and other activities in a massive stretch
of the Pacific Ocean.¶ Using presidential authority that doesn't require new action from Congress, Obama proposed to expand the
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which President George W. Bush designated to protect unique species and rare geological
formations. The waters are all considered U.S. territory because they surround an array of remote, mostly uninhabited islands that the U.S.
controls between Hawaii and American Samoa.¶ Carbon
pollution is making the world's oceans more acidic, pollution
is threatening marine life and overfishing could wipe out entire species, Obama warned as he vowed to
expand the sanctuary during an ocean conservation conference hosted by the State Department.¶ "If we
ignore these problems, if we drain our oceans of their resources, we won't just be squandering one of humanity's greatest treasures," Obama
said in a recorded video message. "We'll be cutting off one of the world's major sources of food and economic growth, including for the United
States. We cannot afford to let that happen."¶ Obama hasn't settled on the final boundaries for the preserve. The White House said Obama
planned to solicit input from fishermen, scientists, politicians, experts in conservation and others before the new protections take effect.¶ But
conservation groups the potential reach could be massive.¶ Under maritime law, nations have exclusive economic control over
waters that extends 200 nautical miles from its coast. Drawing on an geographic analysis of U.S. possessions in the region, the Pew Charitable
Trusts determined that Obama could protect more than 780,000 square miles — almost nine times what Bush set aside when he created the
monument. If Obama were to also protect all U.S. waters in the Pacific other than Hawaii, the sanctuary could grow to roughly 1.5 million
square miles, Pew said.¶ The practical effect of the expanded marine sanctuary could be modest. At present, very little commercial fishing is
conducted in the waters Obama is seeking to protect, and there are no signs that drilling in the waters is imminent. But conservation groups
said it was crucial to take proactive steps to prevent those activities going forward.¶ "Anywhere there are fish to be extracted or minerals or
resources, these locations are under threat form commercial extraction," said Matt Rand, who runs Pew's global ocean legacy project.¶ The
executive steps, first reported by The Washington Post, come as Obama is searching for ways to leave
his second-term mark on the environment despite opposition from many Republicans in Congress.¶
Presidents have authority to phase out commercial fishing and other activities from U.S. waters under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the same law
that allows for land-based national monuments to be created by executive order.¶ Still, the
moves could rankle some GOP
lawmakers who say Obama is exceeding his authority by going around Congress to promote his agenda
on issues like the environment, immigration and gay rights. Earlier this month Obama unveiled sweeping new pollution
limits on U.S. power plants amid signs that Congress wouldn't act soon to combat climate change.¶ In a related environmental move, Obama
also vowed to create a government program to combat black market fishing and seafood fraud, in which seafood products are mislabeled to
hide their origin. The White House said 20 percent of the wild marine fish caught each year are part of the black market, at a cost of $23 billion
to the legitimate fishing industry.¶ "President
Obama's announcement is a historic step forward in the fight
against seafood fraud and illegal fishing worldwide," said Beth Lowell of the conservation group Oceana. "This initiative is a
practical solution to an ugly problem and will forever change the way we think about our seafood."¶ Obama, in his public comments, indicated
the significance was partially symbolic, but could spur the rest of the world to take action. ¶ "For this effort to succeed, it has to be bigger than
any one country," Obama said.
UQ
Dem Win—Local
Dem win now—localized campaigns
Parker 5/28/14
Ashley, New York Times, "Democrats, to Counter G.O.P., Turn Their Focus to Local Issues for Midterms",
May 28 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/us/politics/senate-democrats-turn-focus-to-local-issuesfor-midterms.html
If
Republicans are trying to nationalize the 2014 midterms, tying Democrats to President Obama and his
signature health care law, Democrats considered vulnerable are countering by going local, doubling
down on state-specific issues that are more typically the province of Republicans. Facing a hostile national
climate — with Mr. Obama’s approval rating stalled below 50 percent and that of Congress barely in double digits — Democrats say they
believe their path to victory hinges on a series of individual contests rather than a referendum on the
president and his policies.¶ “The only people that can vote for me are people in Louisiana,” Ms. Landrieu said, “and I never forget that
and try to come up here and work on the issues they care about.”¶ In a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “six-year itch,” the party
that holds the White House historically loses seats during the midterm elections of a president’s second
term. For Democrats to perform well in 2014, said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, they will need to make the
election about their particular candidates, rather than the overall political environment. (The playbook is
similar to the one Democrats ran in 2010, when control of the Senate was also in play.)¶ “In red states, if this election is a referendum on the
Democrats, we don’t do well,” Mr. Mellman said. “The
people in these red states have already made the party choice,
and it’s not with us. But if our candidates can make it a personal choice about them and their
opponents, then we can win that.Ӧ In 2006, Democrats tried to nationalize the election, focusing on the unpopular Iraq War under
President George W. Bush. (“2006 was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and nothing but Iraq,” said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political
Report.) And in 2008, Democrats again seized on national issues, trying to ride Senator Barack Obama’s wave of hope and change while
simultaneously highlighting what they saw as the failures of Mr. Bush’s presidency.¶ But now, Democrats are going local. In
Arkansas, for
instance, Mr. Pryor has taken the Democrats’ push for a federal minimum wage of $10.10 by 2015 and
applied it to his state. While he does not support an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10, he
has supported an Arkansas ballot initiative that would increase the state’s minimum wage to $8.50 by
2017.¶ “He found that happy place,” Ms. Duffy said, where he can back a more modest minimum wage increase in Arkansas and “say no to
the president at the same time.Ӧ In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic Senate nominee, is painting her Republican opponent,
Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, as a figure of entrenched Washington interests, having served in the Senate for nearly three
decades.¶ “I think the theme of our race certainly is Kentucky versus Washington, and our ads reflect that,” said Jonathan Hurst, Ms. Grimes’s
campaign manager. Mr. Hurst said that even many
of the national Democratic issues — the minimum wage, pay
equity, violence against women — “are all things we’ve localized, and we’ve talked about how they affect the 120
counties across Kentucky.”¶ Democrats’ internal research has found that one way to tell a compelling local story is through testimonials, which
are increasingly popping into their ads. The first commercial for Senator Al Franken’s re-election bid in Minnesota focuses on Elizabeth
Abraham, the owner of a small manufacturing business in the state who extols Mr. Franken’s work to help companies like hers.
Dem Win—Women
Dem win now—women
Nia-Malika Henderson, senior writer for She The People, 6/4/14
Nia-Malika, senior writer for She The People, covered national politics for The Post since 2010,
"Democrats’ ‘war on women’ strategy still works. For now.", www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-thepeople/wp/2014/06/04/democrats-war-on-women-strategy-still-works-for-now/
Democrats, facing a tough midterm election with crucial races in red states, have been focused on
highlighting issues like the gender pay gap and the minimum wage, framing the economy as yet another
front in their “war on women” strategy.¶ Well, it seems to be paying off. At least for now.¶ A new Washington Post-ABC
News polls shows that women are increasingly engaged in the midterm elections, and energized by “women’s
issues,” although the economy, health care and how Washington works rank as the highest priorities.¶ Democrats have typically
had an edge with women, and so far they have been able to maintain it, even as they have lost some ground.¶ Let’s
start with President Obama.¶ Overall, the poll shows that women have a more positive view of Obama than men-50 percent of women approve of the job that he is doing, while 42 percent of men approve. Since
January, the president’s approval rating among women has seen a slight uptick, while men’s opinion of Obama
has been on a slight decline.¶ Women also trust Obama more than they trust Republicans in Congress to deal
with the country’s challenges–45 percent pick Obama, with 36 percent choosing Republicans in Congress.
For men, it’s a tie, 40 percent to 40 percenct. Overall, though, Obama has lost ground among women, with Republicans gaining some ground. In
December of 2012, women trusted Obama much more–57 percent picked him over Congress. The decline to 43 percent in December of 2013,
came as the White House grappled with the disastrous health care Web site rollout.¶ And, on
the generic ballot, women give the
edge to Democrats over Republicans, whereas men back Republicans, 49 to 40.¶ These numbers suggest that as a messenger,
Obama is still a good one, although he lost some points around health care. None of this means that Democratic candidates will want Obama
out on the stump with them, but Obama’s
strategy of highlighting women’s issues from the White House, and on the road,
does seem to continue to resonate with women voters, who backed him by double digits over Republican presidential nominee
Mitt Romney in 2012.¶ The most interesting trend from this poll that backs this up is that over the last year,
women have become much more likely to say they will vote.¶ In August of 2012, on the eve of a presidential election, 69
percent of women said that they were absolutely certain to vote. Now, that figure stands at 77 percent.¶ So what has energized women?¶
The issue that has so far shaped much of the debate on the ground has been the Affordable Care Act, although that strategy also seems to be
shifting from an all-out assault on the law by GOP candidates, to something more nuanced.¶ And where do women come down on health care?
Before the numbers, some context.¶ Republicans and Democrats have both tried to frame the good and bad of health care around women. In
anecdotes from the stump and in campaign commercials, women have been front and center, testifying as to how the ACA either helped them
or hurt them.¶ But, according to our poll, neither side has gained the edge with women on Obamacare, although since March there has been a
5 point positive swing for the law among women.¶ Like most midterms, November
will be about getting out the base and
our poll shows that the base sees “issues that are especially important to women,” as a midterm
priority. Almost 70 percent of Democrats see these issues as important to their vote for candidates for
Congress, with just 43 percent of Republicans saying the same thing. Overall, 53 percent of voters see
this as important. Women voters, not surprisingly have some of the strongest views, and will have these
issues in mind as they think about who to back for Congress.
AT: Bergdahl
Bergdahl will have no impact on midterms
Bernstein 6/5/14
Jonathan, a Bloomberg View columnist covering U.S. politics, co-editor of "The Making of the
Presidential Candidates 2012.", "Question Day: Will Bergdahl Affect Midterm Elections?", June 5 2014,
www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-05/question-day-will-bergdahl-affect-midterm-elections
Doverby asks, “If, after investigation, it was found that the Bergdahl-Taliban prisoner swap was an unlawful move by the Obama administration,
do you think this could have electoral effects in 2014?”¶ It’s
very unlikely the deal made for the release of U.S. Army Sergeant
Bowe Bergdahl will matter for the midterms. Mostly because single issues rarely matter. Moreover, issues or
scandals can have electoral effects directly (by turning voters for or against the president’s party) or indirectly (by changing
the incentives for potential candidates, donors, and other political elites), and it’s already too late for most of the indirect
effects.¶ This would apply to any political story or scandal at this point. The Bergdahl swap looks to me like an unpromising
scandal. In particular, the question of whether President Barack Obama broke the law by not notifying Congress of
the swap seems very unlikely to resonate beyond intense partisans, who are always looking for reasons to hate the
president. It’s more or less similar to the question of whether presidents break the law when they ignore the War Powers Act, as Barack Obama
was accused of doing in Libya. Voters
care about U.S. troop casualties, but they don’t care about the details of
the law in these cases.¶ My guess is that the flap here already had its desired effect. Getting a captured soldier
home was a potential rally-around-the-flag moment that might have lifted the president’s approval rating. However,
political scientist Richard Brody found long ago that the rally effect depends on one variable: whether the out-party
praises or criticizes the president. So the immediate Republican attacks surely had the effect of
preventing an approval boost.¶ Not that it matters much anyway; the whole idea of the rally effect is that it’s a temporary
boost. So that didn’t and won’t happen. After a few weeks, approval will be back to where it would have been
anyway.¶ At any rate: I’d be shocked if Bergdahl has any effect on the 2014 elections.
AT: Turnout
Turnout doesn’t matter as much as people think it does---presidential popularity is a
more important variable.
Harry Enten 5/8/2014, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, “Midterm Election
Turnout Isn’t So Different From Presidential Year Turnout”, May 8, 2014,
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/midterm-election-turnout-isnt-so-different-from-presidential-yearturnout/
But turnout
isn’t nearly as important as D.C. wags make it out to be. The demographics of who voted in 2012
vs. 2010 were different,1 but that difference didn’t make much of a difference. The reason Republicans won
more votes in 2010 — and likely will in 2014 — is that voters wanted Republicans in office, not that minorities
and young people didn’t turn out to vote. First, let’s sort out the differences between people who voted in 2010 and 2012, according to the
government’s Current Population Survey. Note how all
minority groups but “others” made up a larger share of voters
in 2012 than in 2010. Notice, too, how young voters decreased as a percentage of all voters, regardless of race. The share of voters who
were whites over the age of 30, the most Republican group, was 6 points higher in 2010 than in 2012. But if the two voting pools
somehow magically switched places, 2012′s demographics wouldn’t have swung control of the House in the
2010 election. I transposed the 2012 demographics onto the 2010 vote tallies2 and Republicans still won
the national vote by about 3.3 percentage points in the midterms. In 2010, Republicans actually won the national vote by 6.7 points — a
safer margin. According to a 2010 seat curve3 put together by FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver, each point in the national House vote
was worth about four seats. In our counterfactual demographic swap, Republicans would have earned 3.4 fewer points and won 14 fewer
seats, for a total of 228 seats. But it’s not as simple as that. Even
this model overstates the difference between midterm
and presidential years. To assume that the electorate would have looked the same in 2010 as it did in 2012 is, among other things, to
assume that the country was as white in 2012 as it was in 2010. That, of course, isn’t true. The electorate gains more minorities
every year, while the number of white voters is growing at a significantly smaller rate. To standardize for
changes in population, I applied each demographic’s 2012 turnout rate among voting-age citizens to its population size in 2010,4 which remade
the 2010 voters to look like this: Once all that’s done, the
gaps between midterm turnout and presidential year turnout
are even smaller. In this hypothetical 2010, Republicans would have won the national House vote by 4.1 points and taken somewhere in
the neighborhood of 232 seats, good enough for a 53-seat gain. The more robust the math, the more solid the GOP’s lead.
The same thing works in reverse, when we take 2010’s turnout rates and apply them to 2012. With just
midterm voters casting a ballot, President Obama would have won the national vote in 2012 by 1.2 points. That’s 2.7 points
less than his actual margin in 2012, but it’s more than enough to have carried the election.5 It’s not that the demographic splits of voter
turnout don’t matter. They worked in Republicans’ favor in 2010 and in Democrats’ favor in 2012; demographics just weren’t the
reason either party won.6 What really mattered was that voters changed their minds about which party they wanted to vote for. Look
at the voting patterns of each group. Republican congressional candidates won white voters who were at least 30 years old by 25.9 points in
2010, but Mitt Romney won them by only 20.2 points in the presidential race in 2012. Obama’s margin among black voters 30 and older was
89.4 points in 2012, while House Democrats’ margin for this group was 79.1 points in 2010. These
aren’t turnout figures —
they’re voting figures. The percentage of voters who were black, white or Latino didn’t matter. Votes were what counted.
Some of this is attributable to the “midterm penalty,” the historical trend showing voters tend to reject
the president’s party in midterm elections. The White House’s party lost seats in all but three of the past 26 midterm elections.
Chances are the midterm penalty will strike again in 2014. Democrats and Republicans are currently tied in national House
ballot polls among registered voters, and over time the party not in the White House usuallygains support. Add to this
the fact that even in 2012 Democrats did worse among likely voters and you can see why the national tide will probably go
against them once again. Perhaps the cliché should be, “It’s all about turnout, except for when it isn’t.”
Turnout won’t have a big impact on these midterm elections
Sides 6/3/14
Jon, The Washington Post, "Can turnout save the Democrats in 2014?", June 3 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/03/can-turnout-save-the-democrats-in2014/
A popular theory about elections today goes like this: Democrats can’t win midterm elections because Democrats don’t vote in midterm
elections. Certainly Barack Obama seems to buy this theory. But how
much is lower turnout a factor in the challenges
facing Democrats? Maybe less than you think. A significant challenge in judging the validity of the “Democrats don’t vote in
midterms” theory is finding good data. For example, recently, 538′s Harry Enten critiqued a New Republic piece by Sasha Issenberg by
questioning how much midterm electorates really differ from presidential electorates. Drawing on the Census Bureau’s Current Population
Survey, Enten argued that turnout
may have hurt the Democrats, but not that much. Enten estimated what
might have happened if the 2010 election had been run with the 2012 electorate. Democrats would
have won at most 14 additional seats — a fraction of the number they lost in 2010. In reaction, Clarity Campaign Labs‘ Tom
Bonier, who had partnered with Issenberg, wrote this rebuttal. Part of Bonier’s response is that his data, which come from actual voter files, are
superior to the Current Population Survey. The voter files allow Bonier a closer look not just at the demographic composition of the electorate,
but which members of different demographic groups actually voted. So here’s where I step in. My notion was this: What if we had a survey
asking people how they planned to vote in their House race, and we knew from the voter file whether they had voted in 2010 and 2012? This
would exploit the voter file data that Bonier prefers and allow us to conduct a hypothetical like Enten’s — that is, what
if we re-ran an
election with the electorate from a different election? Thanks to Bonier and David Margolis of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner
Research, I have the precise data. The data come from a September 2012 GQRR poll conducted in 54 competitive congressional districts. The
poll asked whether respondents planned to vote for the Democrat or Republican running in their House
race. But unlike in most pre-election polls, the vast majority of poll respondents (89 percent) were ultimately matched to voter file data that
indicated whether they voted in 2010 or, several weeks after the poll was taken, in 2012. Among respondents who voted in
2012, 48 percent supported the Democratic House candidate and 46 percent supported the Republican
House candidate. That’s the Democratic advantage that we might expect in a presidential election. What
about respondents who voted in 2010? This group does not include voters who turned out only in the presidential but not the midterm
election. Among 2010 voters, the generic ballot results were reversed: 46 percent supported the Democratic
House candidate and 48 percent supported the Republican candidate. In other words, switching from
the 2012 electorate to the 2010 electorate shifted the generic ballot from a 2-point Democratic
advantage to a 2-point Republican advantage. What would this have meant in terms of House seats? In 2012, the Democrats
had a 1.2-point edge in the national House vote and ended up controlling 201 seats. If the electorate had resembled 2010 and Republicans had
had a 2-point advantage in the national House vote, there would have been 3-point swing to the GOP overall. A simple votes-seats curve from
2012 suggests that a 3-point swing in Republicans’ favor would have left the Democrats with 181 seats, or 20 fewer than they controlled after
the 2012 election. Twenty seats is not nothing, of course. But it suggests that
simply shifting from midterm to presidential
electorates, or vice-versa, can’t explain all, or even most, of the differences in outcomes between these
two types of elections. Turnout is not going to explain a 63-seat gain for Republicans in 2010. So here is
where I come down in this debate. No one disagrees that “turnout matters,” and of course Democrats should work hard at
turning out Democratic voters in 2014. This is what made Issenberg’s piece and Bonier’s analysis so interesting. The question is how
much turnout matters. My sense is that commentators still put too much emphasis on it. That is, there is not enough
grappling with what changes in the electorate do not explain — such as, perhaps, the majority of Republican seat gains in 2010. There is
not enough grappling with how Democrats did so well in 2006 despite a midterm electorate, as political
scientist Michael McDonald has noted. For more, see Mark Mellman’s four excellent columns on this, and especially political scientist Seth Hill’s
research.
UQ over Link
UQ over link—voter’s perception of unpopular Democrat policies are “here to stay”
Kohut 6/17/14
Andrew, Founding Director of the Pew Research Center, "A dug-in electorate bodes poorly for the
Democrats in November", June 17 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/a-dug-inelectorate-bodes-poorly-for-the-democrats-innovember/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-dug-in-electorate-bodes-poorly-forthe-democrats-in-november
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed nearly four years ago, a plurality of Americans have disapproved of
it. Since the onset of the Great Recession six years ago, more than 80% of Americans have rated economic conditions
as only fair or poor. And since winning a second term, Barack Obama’s approval score has mostly been in the mid40s or lower. One or more of these attitudes will have to move in a clearly positive direction for the Democratic
Party to avoid a drubbing in the congressional elections, according to a new analysis of voter opinion.¶ So far the
indications for that are not so good. Recent months have shown signs of economic progress and
indications that the Affordable Care Act has begun to achieve its goals. But there is little indication that
the unemployment rate’s falling to 6.3%, the Dow Jones average soaring to a new high and the ACA signing up 8 million people,
(including many young people,) had any effect on attitudes about these two key issues.¶ A late April Pew Research/USA Today poll found only
17% of the public rating national economic conditions as excellent or good, which is not materially different than such ratings have been since
February 2008. Similarly, the poll found the
percentage disapproving of the health law (55%) is as high as it ever
has been in the four-year history of the law. Just 41% approve of it. Not surprisingly, on this issue and others, views
about Obama remain quite negative: 44% approve, 50% disapprove of his job performance.¶ A special
analysis of a recent Pew Research Center/USA Today survey suggests that these three factors are strong correlates of
congressional preferences in 2014. Taken together, opinions about the national economy, the Affordable
Care Act, and the president’s job performance accurately predict congressional voting intentions. For
example, in the most recent Pew Research survey, these three pieces of information are enough to identify 86% of
registered voters who plan to vote for the Republican candidate in their district. The poll from which these
analyses were made found 47% of registered voters supporting or leaning to Republican candidates in their
district compared to 43% favoring the Democratic candidates. This is a better showing for the GOP than in other surveys
over the past six months. Odds are, if this poll were based on likely voters rather than all registered voters, the
Republicans would hold a significant lead.¶ The survey also showed 26% of voters saying they will be casting a vote against the
president in November, which is roughly the same percentage who said they were doing so in 2010, when his party’s poor showing cost it
control of the House of Representatives. The poll identified jobs as the most important issue, followed by health care. In that regard, the
public has come to the view that the president’s signature legislation is probably “here to stay,” even as
it remains widely unpopular.¶ Among all registered voters, Obama approval and opinion of the Affordable Care Act appear about
equally influential in shaping voter opinion, and are somewhat more important than economic attitudes among all voters. But the most
important factor varies by key voting blocs. For independents, attitudes toward the health care law, which they largely disapprove of, is more
important than opinion about Obama or the condition of the nation’s economy. Similarly, the new health care law is most important for men,
while opinions about Obama are more significant vote drivers among women.¶ Opinions about the president are also more crucial to about
20% of voters who admit they are still on the fence about which party’s candidate to cast a ballot for.
Congressional disapproval is high and unlikely to change before November
Stanek 6/16/14
Becca, TIME reporter, "Gallup Poll Sees Historically Ugly Midterm Elections", June 16 2014,
time.com/2883801/2014-gallup-poll-midterm-elections/
National polling numbers have been bad for years. Now they are worse.¶ Congressional job approval is
likely to be at its lowest ever in a midterm election year, according to a review of Gallup polls dating
back to 1974. The current 16% approval rating could bring another high turnover in House membership
in the election this November.¶ House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s unexpected defeat in Virginia’s
primary election showed an early sign of candidates’ potential vulnerability in the upcoming elections.
Approval ratings of Congress are down 5% from the 2010 survey, an election year that resulted in the
defeat of 15% of House incumbents seeking re-election. In another Gallup poll taken this year, only 22%
of voters said that most members of Congress deserve reelection. Fifty percent said their own member
of Congress deserves reelection.¶ Voters’ dissatisfaction with the general direction of the country,
above-average economic concern and Obama’s low job approval ratings also factor into the likelihood of
a significant turnover this fall. Obama’s job approval rating of 44% is the same as it was in 2010, when
the Democrats lost more than 60 seats in the House. Only two other presidents – George W. Bush in
2006 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 – have had lower job approval ratings in recent elections.¶ Economic
conditions are also a major cause of American’s dissatisfaction with the state of the nation and
disapproval of government leaders. Although confidence in the economy is improving slightly, the public
is now showing greater concern in the economy than in previous years.¶ Gallup predicts that
improvement in the election indicators is unlikely between now and the fall midterm elections.
Link
No Link
Even if democrats are ahead on the issues, people still won’t vote for them
Nyhan 5/16/14 Brendan, assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, "Democrats Have
Advantage on Issues, but It Won’t Save Them in November", May 16 2014,
www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/upshot/democrats-have-advantage-on-issues-but-it-wont-save-themin-november.html
Democrats know they face a difficult midterm campaign landscape, but they can cling to one seeming reason for hope: The
public agrees with them more than with Republicans on the issues. More Americans say they trust Democrats than
Republicans on the “main problems the nation faces over the next few years” as well as a number of key policy issues, including the
economy, health care and immigration. Members of the public also typically indicate that Democrats are closer to their opinion than
Republicans on specific issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and raising the minimum wage. This
apparent political advantage
is less important than it might seem, however. For instance, Democrats had greater advantages on several
major issues at comparable points in the 1994 and 2010 electoral cycles, which both resulted in
Republican landslides. Agreeing With Democrats, but Not Voting for Them Voters say they trust Democrats more than Republicans on a
variety of issues, but they had similar views in both 1994 and 2010, when Republicans won big victories. In those previous elections, Democrats’
lead on these questions was also seen as an advantage for the party. The lead sentence by the Washington Post’s Dan Balz in an article on a
1994 poll noted that “Americans say they have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans to handle the country’s biggest problems.” The
article added that, in combination with President Clinton’s high approval ratings, “the findings provide gloomy news for Republicans.” Similarly,
a 2010 article, while cast in a more negative light for the Democrats and Obama (“the most anti-incumbent electorate since 1994”), portrayed
the Democrats’ issue advantage as among the “positive signs” for the party. Why
haven’t these issue advantages translated
into electoral success? First, the midterm electorate is not representative of the American public. The public’s
preferences for Democrats on the issues may diminish or disappear once you look at registered voters or those who
claim they are “absolutely certain” to vote, as Jaime Fuller of The Washington Post has noted. The Democrats’ edge on
the issues is likely to dissipate further among the older, whiter group of Americans most likely to vote in
November. In addition, the importance of the issues in congressional elections is typically overstated.
Structural factors like presidential approval, the state of the economy, the type of election (midterm or
presidential year) and the composition of the seats that are up for election tend to matter more. None of this is to
say that the public’s policy preferences are irrelevant — Democrats would presumably be worse off if the public preferred Republicans on
the issues. But their advantage on these questions shouldn’t offer much reassurance. It didn’t save them in 1994 or
2010 and most likely will not in November either.
Generic Ocean Unpop
Government ocean policies are unpopular—fear of regulation
Eilperin 12
Juliet, covers the White House for The Washington Post, "National ocean policy sparks partisan fight",
Oct 28 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisanfight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html
In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in
2010 calls for five regions of the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West
Coast and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental
Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or
change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and
regulations that already affect our oceans.” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings
(R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that
the administration’s broad definition of what affects the ocean — including runoff from land — could
open the door to regulating all inland activities, because “all water going downhill goes into the ocean.
. . . That potential could be there.” The House voted in May to block the federal government from
spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two
influential groups — anglers and energy firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the
administration’s approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could
prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even
inland waters.” The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were
in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. “Fishermen saw this as just
another area where fishing was going to be racheted down,” said Michael Leonard, director of ocean
resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nation’s
major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has
solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its
final implementation plan is released, after the election. The National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group
based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests — has
galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law
firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for
energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that the public has
not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about “the
potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.”
Conservation Unpop
Ocean conservation is unpopular
Lilley 10
Jonathan Charles, Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Studies, dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the
University of Delaware, "NAVIGATING A SEA OF VALUES: UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD
THE OCEAN AND OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES", Summer 2010,
www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf
In the summer of 1999, The Ocean Project commissioned Belden Russonello & Stewart in collaboration with American Viewpoint to undertake
a national survey in order to "understand what needs to be communicated to build awareness and to increase American's concerns about the
health of the oceans" (Belden Russonello & Stewart & American Viewpoint, 1999, p. 1). As with the SeaWeb survey, respondents were
contacted by telephone and 1,500 adults in the continental United States were interviewed. Before conducting the study, Belden Russonello &
Stewart organized six focus groups for people who had visited an aquarium, zoo, or science museum in the previous two years. The data
from the focus groups were used to identify certain beliefs and values that people might have regarding
the ocean. The authors of the report noted that the use of focus groups was extremely useful in helping them understand public attitudes
to the ocean and in designing the questions for the national survey (Belden Russonello & Stewart & American Viewpoint, 1999). The Ocean
Project survey found that, overall, Americans have
a low level of awareness of the current state of the marine
environment, especially of the deeper ocean. When asked about the health of the deep ocean, a majority (47%)
of respondents did not know their condition, 3% thought they were in excellent shape, 20% thought they were in good health,
25% fair, and 5% thought they were in a poor condition. When the same question was asked of coastal waters, 27% did
not know their condition, 2% thought they were in excellent condition, 21 % good, 40% fair, and 10% said they were in poor health.
Based on these findings, the authors of the report suggest that respondents neither generally perceived the
ocean to be in immediate danger, nor saw the need for urgent action to protect the marine
environment. The survey found that respondents who lived within a two-hour drive of the coast were
more familiar with coastal waters but still 40% of them did not have any idea about the condition of the
deep ocean. Respondents from the Midwest were less sure about the state of coastal waters than those living in other regions but all who
responded – both coastal and non-coastal residents – were unsure of the health of the deep ocean. Those who were more likely to believe the
ocean is in excellent health included: men; those between the ages of 30-59; those with a college education; professionals; and those with
higher household incomes. In light of these findings, The
Ocean Project describes the ocean as a “second-tier
environmental problem” (Belden Russonello & Stewart & American Viewpoint, 1999, p. 20). By this it is meant that while
people are concerned about the state of the ocean, they are more worried about other environmental
issues. The Ocean Project suggested a number of environmental issues to the respondents and asked them, on a scale of one to ten, to state
how serious a problem they thought the issue was. Of the three ocean-related issues, ‘damage to coastal waters’ ranked highest at sixth on the
list, with 24% of respondents saying it is an extremely serious problem. The two other ocean-related problems – ‘damage to ocean beaches’
and ‘damage to the open, deep ocean’ – ranked ninth (22%) and eleventh (last at 18%) respectively. Overall, the top five environmental issues
were: water pollution (36%); toxic waste (36%); loss of rain forests (32%); air pollution (31%); and land being developed (30%). Overconsumption (24%), extinction (23%), and global climate change (21%) ranked seventh, eighth, and tenth, respectively.
NASA Unpop
NASA funding is unpopular
Kelley 12
Kaitlyn, Worcester Poytechnic Institute, "Framing NASA: An Analysis of How the Space Agency is
Portrayed in Popular Media", April 26 2012, www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042512134033/unrestricted/FramingNASA_PW_2012.pdf
Over forty years ago, NASA landed a man on the moon with the backing of billions of dollars of
government-funded money, but, today, NASA programs are being canceled at an alarming rate as
funding falters. In 2011, the space shuttles were permanently retired, ending over 25 years of missions
to space. In early 2012, John Travis of Science Insider reported that NASA bowed out of a joint
interplanetary mission with the European Space Agency (ESA) due to its limited budget. The space
agency is not funded as it once was. Although there are many factors that impact NASA funding,
decreasing public support could be related to decreasing funding. The agency’s budget is determined by
the U.S. government, which is comprised of elected officials. These officials often make decisions
according to public opinion in hopes that they are re-elected by the public. Since the people who decide
NASA’s budget are influenced by public opinion, there is a correlation between NASA funding and public
support. NASA’s decreasing budget is then indicative of less popular support. The media has an
influence on the public opinion of NASA, so how the space agency has been portrayed in the media
could be linked to its current funding crisis. According to Gamson, a rhetoric scholar, the media utilizes
frames, persuasive rhetorical devices, to contextualize stories for their readers (157). These frames not
only contextualize the story but attempt to influence the audience. For example, Cornelia Dean applied
a recklessness frame to NASA spaceflight programs in order to decrease public support. Depicting the
spaceflight programs as “thrill-seeking” and without scientific merit was intended to persuade readers
not to support spaceflight programs. Through persuasive portrayals of NASA like Dean’s, journalists can
attempt to sway readers to support or not support the space agency. Although they may not influence
everyone, journalists’ depictions of NASA reflect how the public feels about the agency.
Warming Unpop
Public has low concern over environmental issues, including global warming
Brulle et al 12
Robert J, Department of Culture and Communications, Drexel University, Jason Carmichael, Department
of Sociology, McGill University, J. Craig Jenkins, Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, "Shifting
public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate
change in the U.S., 2002–2010", January 13 2012, www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj/0212ClimateChangeOpinion.Fulltext.pdf
Public opinion on climate change¶ In the United States, climate change and environmental issues have
consistently ranked at¶ the bottom of public concerns as measured by polls. The most frequently used
measure is the¶ “Most Important Problem” question administered by the Gallup organization. Over the
past¶ 40 years during which environmental issues have been included in this scale, the overall¶ response
rate rarely exceeds 3%. Within subcategories of environmental concerns, global¶ warming or global
climate change is usually at the bottom. For example, in the March 2011¶ Gallup poll, environmental
concerns were mentioned by only 1% of respondents as the most¶ important problem facing the nation,
and ranked 22nd overall. Among those mentioning¶ environmental concerns, 79% worried a “great deal”
or “fair amount” about toxic waste and¶ water pollution. Out of nine environmental issues, global
warming was ranked last, with¶ only 51% of the public worried a great deal or a fair amount about this
issue.
Warming unpop—polls
PRC 1/27/14
Pew Research Center, nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and
trends shaping America and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media
content analysis and other empirical social science research, "Climate Change: Key Data Points from Pew
Research", Jan 27 2014, www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-frompew-research/
The American public routinely ranks dealing with global warming low on its list of priorities for the
president and Congress. This year, it ranked second to last among 20 issues tested. There are substantial
partisan differences over the importance of dealing with global warming, according to our survey
conducted Jan. 15-19. About four-in-ten (42%) Democrats cite it as a top priority compared to 14% of
Republicans and 27% of independents. When we asked about climate change again in a survey
conducted in Feb. 2013, only 34% of the public viewed new climate change policies as something that
was essential for the White House and Congress to tackle last year. Fewer Americans cite global climate
change as a major threat to their country than most publics around the world. In a poll of 39 countries
conducted March through May. 2013, a median of 54% of those surveyed cited global climate change as
a major threat to their countries, putting it at the top of the list of items tested. In contrast, 40% of
Americans said climate change was a major threat.
Warming unpop—skeptics
Pike and Herr 11
Cara and Meredith, Director and Senior Associate of the Social Capital Project of the Resource
Innovation Group respectively, "American Climate Attitudes", May 2011,
www.c2es.org/docUploads/AmericanClimateAttitudest_May2011.pdf
Despite growing scientific evidence that points the finger squarely at humans, polls show that the
number of Americans who believe in anthropogenic global warming has declined in recent years. What’s
worse is that this number wasn’t very high before it began to fall in 2008. This is unfortunate because
research indicates that individuals who believe that human activities are to blame for global warming
are much more likely to support policy actions and engage in other efforts to address it (Pew 2009). The
growing gap between public and scientific understanding of global warming is not surprising. Most
people do not understand the basic mechanisms of the topic and are thus unable to make the
connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures. Research by the Yale
Project on Climate Change Communication, for example, has shown that large majorities of Americans
continue to confuse the ozone hole with global warming and believe that aerosol spray cans are
contributing to rising temperatures. Along with age (those under 30 are the most likely to believe that
human factors are to blame) and political affiliation (Democrats are more than three times as likely as
Republicans to view global warming as a man-made problem), education level is a primary factor in
determining one’s opinions on the causes of global warming. While increasing climate education may
work with some segments of the population, in many cases the lack of issue understanding is a function
of political or religious worldviews that may not be easily altered with more facts. For example, research
by Stanford University has shown that increased understanding of the issue will lead to higher levels of
concern among many Democrats and Independents, but not among most Republicans.
Warming unpop—personal
Pike and Herr 11
Cara and Meredith, Director and Senior Associate of the Social Capital Project of the Resource
Innovation Group respectively, "American Climate Attitudes", May 2011,
www.c2es.org/docUploads/AmericanClimateAttitudest_May2011.pdf
2010 marked the first time that there were more Americans, according to Gallup, who worry “not at all”
about global warming than those who worry “a great deal” about the issue. This is despite the fact that a
solid majority of Americans (though this has decreased somewhat in recent years) consider global
warming to be a serious or very serious issue. But recognizing the seriousness of an issue is not the same
thing as worrying about it and a major challenge for climate practitioners is that fewer and fewer
Americans think that global warming will affect them personally. This is problematic because according
to cognitive and behavioral science, people are more likely to respond to immediate personal threats
(CRED 2009). Instead, the issue is perceived as a problem primarily for plants and animals (such as the
ubiquitous polar bear on the shrinking iceberg) and when Americans do make the connection between
global warming and human impacts, they usually consider it to be more of a problem for impoverished
populations in developing countries. It hasn’t helped that in 2010, Americans were more likely than at
any point in more than a decade to believe that the seriousness of global warming has been
exaggerated.
Warming unpop—priorities
Pike and Herr 11
Cara and Meredith, Director and Senior Associate of the Social Capital Project of the Resource
Innovation Group respectively, "American Climate Attitudes", May 2011,
www.c2es.org/docUploads/AmericanClimateAttitudest_May2011.pdf
Global warming has never been a top national priority for most Americans. And now it is even less so. In
fact, it tends to rank at the very bottom of the list of public policy priorities. In 2010, only about a
quarter of Americans thought that global warming should be a top priority. Moreover, the gap between
the top priorities – strengthening the economy, improving the job situation and defending against
terrorism – has widened in recent years. This is despite attempts by climate leaders to tie global
warming to the top issues of the day. Global warming lacks a sense of relevancy for many Americans
who do not see how this gradual and hard-to-see process is connected to their daily lives. Consequently,
most Americans favor dealing with more immediate issues over taking action on global warming. This is
understandable given not only the recent economic downturn, but also that researchers point out that
all of us are limited in terms of the number of issues we can be concerned about. This “finite pool of
worry” (CRED 2009) makes it critical to link global warming to people’s existing priorities.
AT: EPA Regs Impact
AT: Regs kill Econ
No impact to EPA regs—doesn’t impact economy
Jeff Spross, blogger for ThinkProgress, 6/3/14
Jeff, blogger for ThinkProgress, a liberal American political blog serving as an outlet of the Center for
American Progress, an independent nonpartisan educational, public policy research, and advocacy
organization, citing data from The Economic Policy Institute, "Why EPA's Carbon Regulations Won't Ruin
The Economy, In Three Simple Steps", June 3 2014,
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/03/3444064/epa-explainer-economy/
On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new regulations to curb carbon
dioxide emissions from America’s existing power plants — the most significant step taken by any U.S.
president to address climate change.¶ In combination with the agency’s previous carbon rules for new
power plants, Monday’s regulations are the linchpin in the President’s effort to meet the United States’
international commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.¶
Critics pounced rapidly, calling the regulations job killers and a drag on the economy. House Speaker
John Boehner (R-OH) cited a pre-emptive analysis from the Chamber of Commerce that the rules would
leave hundreds of thousands of people out of work each year, and put a drag on economic growth. Not
to be outdone, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)called the regulations “a dagger in the
heart of the American middle class,” and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) dismissed them as “all pain, no gain.”¶
Here are three reasons why they’re wrong.¶ 1. The Regulations Are Designed To Be Market-Friendly¶
Boehner, McConnell and Vitter all fail to mention a crucial caveat: only electricity that’s created by
emitting a lot of carbon, such as power derived from coal, will get more expensive. They then leap to
claiming the cost of electricity will go up. That requires the unspoken assumption that American firms
and individuals won’t be able to move off high-carbon electricity effectively and cheaply. But markets
work by pursuing low-cost solutions to problems through decentralized experimentation among
businesses. The better and cheaper the solution, the more profits a firm will make, so they have an
inherent incentive. And the new regulations are designed to work with those market forces as much as
possible.¶ Each state is given a carbon emission rate to reach (how much carbon can be released per
unit of electricity generated), but then the state and its electricity providers can use a wealth of different
methods to hit their target. They can build new renewable energy capacity; they can build new natural
gas capacity; they can run less carbon-intensive plants more often; they can cut demand for high-carbon
electricity through a smorgasbord of efficiency programs; they can install carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) on their coal plants (a technological gamble, admittedly); or they could go with
other technological improvements to update and clean up the country’s aging fleet of coal plants. They
can even set up a state-level cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. States can even band together to
create regional systems, like the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.¶ And that’s just the
options that immediately come to mind. Even better technologies for scrubbing carbon dioxide from
power plant emissions could be on the horizon.¶ The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
modeled a very similar proposal to the regulatory design EPA ultimately hit on, and found it would
actually cut Americans’ electricity bills, thanks largely to improvements in energy efficiency. EPA’s own
forecast of its regulations also found a drop in electricity bills.¶ By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce
arrived at its results by assuming a much deeper emissions cut than EPA chose, by assuming demand for
electricity would grow much faster in the immediate future than it has since 2000, and by assuming EPA
would require CCS technology on natural gas plants. (It didn’t.)¶ 2. Critics Have Overestimated The Costs
Of Regulations For Decades¶ Since its creation in 1970, EPA has been issuing rules for everything from
coal furnaces to chlorofluorocarbons to urban air quality. The Economic Policy Institute surveyed this
history, and found that over and over, estimates made before the regulations went into effect — often
estimates made by the EPA itself — significantly overshot how much compliance would actually cost
American industry. In December 2011, EPA finalized new rules to cut emissions of mercury, lead, and
other toxins from coal plants. The Chamber of Commerce predicted rolling blackouts, and former Sen.
Evan Bayh (D-IN) warned the regulations would “put tens of thousands of jobs in [Indiana] directly at
risk.” There were no blackouts, and jobs in Indiana rose from late-2011 to mid-2014, while the
unemployment rate dropped.¶ In 1990, Congress passed a law directing the EPA to install a national capand-trade system to cut down on the sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. Industry, lobbying
groups, and political critics all predicted spikes in electricity rates and major hits to economic growth
and jobs. Instead, the trajectory of economic growth remained steady, as did employment in
manufacturing (usually the sector hardest hit by higher electricity rates), and the national cost of
electricity continued to decline through the late 1990s. Even more tellingly, the Center for American
Progress found that almost all of the 10 states most dependent on coal power saw their inflationadjusted electricity rates fall from 1990 to 2009 — despite industry predictions they would jump.¶ The
key thing to remember is there’s no inherent profitability in cutting carbon until forces like EPA’s
regulations step in to create that profitability. That means firms and businesses generally haven’t tried
that market experimentation yet, and don’t know what they can really achieve. So they overestimate —
again and again — how costly implementing regulations will be. Brian McLean, the former director of
EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division, told ThinkProgress in an earlier interview that when power companies
actually started installing the technology to cut sulfur dioxide emissions after the 1990 law was passed,
it regularly outperformed industry predictions — sometimes significantly.¶ 3. There Are Positive
Economic Benefits To Regulations, Too¶ The general hit on regulations is that they create unforeseen
ripple effects throughout the economy, damaging jobs and growth. But this assumes all of the
unforeseen ripple effects are negative. They aren’t.¶ For one thing, EPA’s regulations will drive demand
away from carbon-heavy electricity and into other emerging sectors like renewable electricity, energy
efficiency, and new technological implementation. That will create new jobs in those sectors to offset
jobs lost in traditional coal power. NRDC’s analysis showed its proposal would create 274,000 jobs in
energy efficiency in 2020 — that alone would reduce the job loss the Chamber projected for 2020 by
almost two-thirds. We can also expect job creation in renewable energy, as well as in pollution control
technology and installation.¶ But arguably even more important than growth in those sectors are the
health benefits of cutting power plant emissions. The sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate
matter that get released when power plants burn coal drive up rates of asthma attacks, respiratory
disease, heart disease, and a host of other ailments. This is a big reason why the 1990 sulfur dioxide laws
and lots of other regulations actually helped the economy: the economic benefits of lives saved, hospital
visits prevented, and an overall healthier workforce far outweighed the compliance costs to businesses.¶
Now, carbon dioxide itself isn’t an immediate threat to human health — most of the economic benefits
of avoiding climate change are loaded into the future — but cutting carbon emissions inevitably cuts
those other pollutants as well. So when NRDC ran the numbers on its proposal for the carbon rules,
found the benefits of the emissions cuts, excluding the benefits of avoiding climate change, would
outpace the costs in 2020 by roughly $6 billion to $19 billion.¶ And when the EPA modeled the actual
regulations, it found annual costs to the economy of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion annually, versus benefits
of $55 billion to $93 billion by 2030. The benefits are primarily thanks to the health effects, which
includeavoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.¶
Those benefits will not be far in the future, they will arrive much faster. And because poor and minority
Americans are disproportionately harmed by coal pollution, they’ll also enjoy the bulk of those benefits.¶
In short, the unforeseen positive effects of EPA’s regulations will likely overwhelm the foreseen negative
effects.
Impact Defense—Econ
Economic collapse doesn’t cause war
Bazzi et al., UCSD economics department, 2011
(Samuel, “Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence of?) Evidence from Commodity Prices”,
November,
http://www.chrisblattman.com/documents/research/2011.EconomicShocksAndConflict.pdf?9d7bd4,
ldg)
VI. Discussion and conclusions A. Implications for our theories of political instability and conflict The state is not a prize?—Warlord politics and the state prize logic
lie at the center of the most influential models of conflict, state development, and political transitions in economics and political science. Yet we
see no
evidence for this idea in economic shocks, even when looking at the friendliest cases: fragile and
unconstrained states dominated by extractive commodity revenues. Indeed, we see the opposite
correlation: if anything, higher rents from commodity prices weakly 22 lower the risk and length of
conflict. Perhaps shocks are the wrong test. Stocks of resources could matter more than price shocks (especially if shocks are transitory). But combined with
emerging evidence that war onset is no more likely even with rapid increases in known oil reserves (Humphreys 2005; Cotet and Tsui 2010) we regard the state
prize logic of war with skepticism.17 Our main political economy models may need a new engine. Naturally, an absence of evidence cannot be taken for evidence of
absence. Many of our conflict onset and ending results include sizeable positive and negative effects.18 Even so, commodity price shocks are highly influential in
income and should provide a rich source of identifiable variation in instability. It is difficult to find a better-measured, more abundant, and plausibly exogenous
independent variable than price volatility. Moreover,
other time-varying variables, like rainfall and foreign aid, exhibit robust
correlations with conflict in spite of suffering similar empirical drawbacks and generally smaller sample
sizes (Miguel et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2011). Thus we take the absence of evidence seriously. Do resource revenues drive state
capacity?—State prize models assume that rising revenues raise the value of the capturing the state, but have ignored or downplayed the effect of revenues on selfdefense. We saw that a growing empirical political science literature takes just such a revenue-centered approach, illustrating that resource boom times permit
both payoffs and repression, and that stocks of lootable or extractive resources can bring political order and stability. This countervailing effect is most likely with
transitory shocks, as current revenues are affected while long term value is not. Our findings are partly consistent with this state capacity effect. For example,
conflict intensity is most sensitive to changes in the extractive commodities rather than the annual agricultural crops that affect household incomes more directly.
The relationship only holds for conflict intensity, however, and is somewhat fragile. We do not see a large, consistent or robust decline in conflict or coup risk when
prices fall. A reasonable interpretation is that the state prize and state capacity effects are either small or tend to cancel one another out. Opportunity cost: Victory
by default?—Finally, the inverse relationship between prices and war intensity is consistent with opportunity cost accounts, but not exclusively so. As we noted
above, the relationship between intensity and extractive commodity prices is more consistent with the state capacity view. Moreover, we shouldn’t mistake an
inverse relation between individual aggression and incomes as evidence for the opportunity cost mechanism. The same correlation is consistent with psychological
theories of stress and aggression (Berkowitz 1993) and sociological and political theories of relative deprivation and anomie (Merton 1938; Gurr 1971).
Microempirical work will be needed to distinguish between these mechanisms. Other reasons for a null result.—Ultimately, however, the fact that commodity
price shocks have no discernible effect on new conflict onsets, but some effect on ongoing conflict, suggests that political
stability might be less sensitive to income or temporary shocks than generally believed. One possibility is that
successfully mounting an insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable risk, costs, and coordination challenges. Another possibility is that the
counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile nations, income shocks of one type or another are ubiquitous. If
a nation is so fragile that a
change in prices could lead to war, then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price
shock. The same argument has been made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low growth in developing nations in the 1980s.19 B.
A general problem of publication bias? More generally, these findings should heighten our concern with publication bias in
the conflict literature. Our results run against a number of published results on commodity shocks and
conflict, mainly because of select samples, misspecification, and sensitivity to model assumptions, and,
most importantly, alternative measures of instability. Across the social and hard sciences, there is a concern that the majority of
published research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis (2005) demonstrates that a published finding is less likely to be true
when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships; there is greater
flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when more teams are involved in the chase
of statistical significance. The cross-national study of conflict is an extreme case of all these. Most worryingly,
almost no paper looks at alternative dependent variables or publishes systematic robustness checks. Hegre
and Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority of published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on timeinvariant regressors and not the time-varying
shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also concerned there is a “file drawer problem” (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this decision rule: scholars that discover
robust results that fit a theoretical intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry about problems with the data or
empirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further analysis produces a robust result, it is published. If not, back to the file drawer. In the
aggregate, the
consequences are dire: a lower threshold of evidence for initially significant results than
ambiguous ones.20
Impact Turn—Regs Solve Warming
Regs good—warming, climate leadership
Hoffman and Bernstein 6/5/14
Matt and Steve, political science professors at the University of Toronto and co-directors of the
Environmental Governance Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, "The real reason Obama's climate
plan could change the game", June 5 2014, www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-real-reasonobamas-climate-plan-could-change-the-game/article18997712/
The regulations can
be a tipping point if they produce new coalitions for action on climate change and are
attentive to the interests of those negatively affected by the transition away from fossil fuels.¶ More broadly, these regulations can
contribute to developing decarbonization pathways by shifting the U.S. political debate to look more like
Europe’s, where the question is how, not whether, to act on climate change. The critical juncture for such a shift
already occurred when the Obama administration moved to treat carbon dioxide like other harmful substances regulated by the EPA. But this is
the pathway’s first real test. If
the regulation survives legal and legislative challenges, the entrenchment and
institutionalization of this understanding in national regulation is the real game changer.¶ This focus on
the instruments of policy – how fast and in what ways – as opposed to debating abstract future goals to cut
emissions also distances the U.S. from Canada, where the debate is still over whether to decarbonize. It’s
thus no surprise U.S. ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman publically urged Canada to take more aggressive action on climate change the very
the oil sands and the controversial Keystone XL
pipeline are the next stops along this policy pathway if the U.S. is to re-take leadership on climate
change internationally.¶ Social science research tells us that when a policy goal starts to become taken for granted, following this
pattern, it can have far-reaching effects. Normalization of climate policy leaves opponents fighting a rearguard
action because it changes the commonsense around an issue. It also provides a long-term signal that
could change how major players think about where to move capital and investments –towards
renewables and energy efficiency. Once cities, states, and corporations begin to work towards the
emissions targets in the proposed regulations, their orientation towards energy and climate may
significantly change and they may take up different practices in multiple areas (transportation, buildings, urban
development). The combination of aggressive targets in a particular sector and flexibility mechanisms that
encourage a diverse range of action in multiple sectors have the potential to produce ripple effects that
put the U.S. on a different trajectory, away from fossil fuels.¶ Those catalytic effects could also extend to
the moribund international negotiations where a major sticking point for the last 20 years has been
complaints from developing countries that the U.S. has done too little to address climate change. These
proposed regulations will nudge the U.S. closer to the ‘leader’ category in the global response to climate
change (or at least further from the laggard label that has dogged the U.S. for years) perhaps making a global deal more
palatable and realizable.¶ The carbon pathway has been locked in for over a hundred years, which has
created strong coalitions of entrenched interests to support it. The battle is not so much over this single
initiative, as about its ability to create new coalitions and entrench interests that further institutionalize
and normalize the national and international policy pathways towards decarbonization.
same day President Obama announced the new regulations, recognizing that
Warming is real, anthropogenic, and causes extinction.
Deibel 2007
Terry L, Professor of IR @ National War College, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft”, Conclusion: American Foreign
Affairs Strategy Today
Finally, there
is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far
urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon
which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades
now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of
more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003
doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is
virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence
in the future, demands
from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international
panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean
currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are
melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have
been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature
measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s
warming climate is estimated to
contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread
bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly
disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just
call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and
by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately,
atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century,
so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant
global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted
above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease,
mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like
the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets
could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the
southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be
the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer
than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from
moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening
scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in
the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with
only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing
amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing
enhancement
of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and
humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to
burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when
there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan
popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only
destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global
warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear
winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from
terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but
potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
(Insert Climate Leadership impact from NG Neg)
AT: CIR Impact
AT: GOP = CIR
GOP win means no CIR—Cantor’s defeat
VOA 6/11/14
Voice of America, "Column: Virginia Election Result Could Doom Immigration Reform", June 11 2014,
www.voanews.com/content/headline-column-virginia-election-result-could-doom-immigrationreform/1934758.html
WASHINGTON — The shockwaves shook Washington beginning late Tuesday and throughout the day on Wednesday. House Majority leader
Eric Cantor, the second most powerful lawmaker in the House of Representatives, lost
a primary challenge to David Brat, an
underfunded challenger with grassroots backing from Tea Party activists. Cantor announced at an afternoon press
conference that he would be stepping down from his leadership post as of July 31. The defeat of a high-ranking member of Congress is rare,
especially in a party primary election. The
fact that it was completely unexpected has put a lot of Republicans on
high alert, unwilling to do anything that might spark an angry reaction from conservative activists back
home. So what’s the big deal about the Cantor defeat? Plenty. For starters, immigration reform may be a dead issue in this
session of Congress. Don’t like the current state of U.S. partisan politics? Too bad, because there’s more
to come and it’s probably only going to get to worse. Fascinated by the ongoing battle between mainstream Republicans
and the Tea Party? Good, because there is plenty more to come, not just this election year but in the 2016 presidential year as well.
Immigration reform setback The
most immediate victim in the wake of Eric Cantor’s defeat may be the push for
immigration reform in the House. House Republican leaders had talked about doing small bits of
immigration legislation as a counter to a more sweeping bill that was passed by the Senate. But Cantor
was criticized for his support for a version of the so-called Dream Act, which sets up a path to citizenship
for immigrant children who were brought to the country illegally. Cantor fought back against those who saw him as too
liberal on immigration reform, but it was too late. That could have a chilling effect on any number of House
Republicans who may have been toying with the idea of supporting immigration reform in smaller
increments. The national political implications of that could be enormous. Many Republican leaders are
convinced that unless they support some version of immigration reform, the growing Hispanic-American vote in the
U.S. will increasingly go Democratic, making it harder for Republicans to win the presidency. In 2012, President Barack Obama lost the white
vote but he was able to patch together a winning coalition thanks to strong support from Hispanics, African-American voters and AsianAmerican voters, the fastest growing group of all. As University of Virginia expert Geoffrey Skelley told VOA congressional correspondent Cindy
Saine, “If
immigration is seen to be part of the factor (in Cantor’s defeat)…then I think it will make it more
difficult to find Republican votes to pass immigration reform or even bring it to the (House) floor out of
fear of angering people who will vote against them in the primaries.” The key word there is fear.
Nothing drives politicians like fear, and right now many Republicans are going to be most concerned
with how they avoid a future primary challenge from well-funded Tea Party opponents chomping at the
bit to run against anyone who is seen as too lenient on immigration. ‘Tea Party War’ heats up In recent years, Eric
Cantor has been a key bridge between mainstream Republican elements in the House and Tea Party supporters. Remember that whole
government shutdown dance last October? House leaders like Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner did not have the clout to stop Tea Party
lawmakers from pushing the idea of a government shutdown. They had to wait them out and three weeks later, once public opinion turned on
them, the Tea Party group was forced to capitulate. After that showdown, the Republican Party’s mainstream old guard appeared to have the
upper hand. Many Republicans had turned back Tea Party primary challengers this year. That is, until the Cantor defeat. Defeating
Cantor
has re-energized the national Tea Party elements. The irony is those groups did little to defeat Cantor. Local grassroots
activists played a role and they remain the most powerful asset the Tea Party has. The next target for the Tea Party is
Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran. He has been forced into a runoff primary on June 24th against State Senator
Chris McDaniel, who has become one of the Tea Party’s best hopes this year. National Tea Party leaders are now eager to build momentum
from the Cantor defeat and whip up support among activists to get out and vote against Cochran later this month. Up until the Cantor defeat,
the Republican establishment was confident they had beaten back the influence of the Tea Party this year. But the
Cantor loss will
likely to serve to refuel the Tea Party, both in this year’s election cycle and in the upcoming shuffle of
House Republican leaders. L. Brent Bozell III, the chairman of ForAmerica, which supports Tea Party themes, told the Associated
Press, “The grassroots is in revolt and marching.” Looming implications In the short term, the Cantor defeat is likely to
make Republicans less willing to compromise with Democrats and President Obama. The cost of
angering conservatives and Tea Party activists back in their home districts is just too great. That does not
portend a great final two years of the Obama presidency in terms of dealing with Congress.
GOP win = No CIR
AP 6/13/14
The Associated Press, "Cantor's defeat illustrates GOP quandry on immigration", June 13 2014,
m.cjonline.com/news/2014-06-13/cantors-defeat-illustrates-gop-quandry-immigration
DENVER — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s startling primary loss
this week to a tea party-backed opponent
illustrates how the GOP finds itself paralyzed by immigration reform. The policy most party leaders agree
is best for the Republican Party’s future is risky for most House Republicans seeking re-election in the
fall.¶ Almost all represent districts that are home to few minorities and they are in greater danger of
losing to a primary challenger than to a Democrat in the general election. That leaves little incentive for
the GOP-controlled House to even touch an immigration overhaul that would to grant citizenship to
many of the 11 million people living in the country illegally.¶ Economics professor David Brat hammered Cantor,
R-Va., for purportedly backing “amnesty” for people in the U.S. illegally during his primary challenge. He called his
unexpected victory a wake-up call that “immigration reform is DOA.” After Cantor’s defeat, Republicans are left in a
quandary before the 2016 election — what to do about an issue that’s often a winner in primaries but could cripple the party in a White House
race before a more diverse electorate.¶ “Pain can be a good teaching tool sometimes,” said Mario H. Lopez, a Republican and executive director
of the Hispanic Leadership Fund. “It may take another White House beat-down before some folks understand what kind of cliff they’re walking
over.Ӧ Many
people involved in the immigration debate have similar predictions about what will happen
next: The House takes no action on an immigration overhaul, President Barack Obama makes good on his
promise to ease deportations by executive action later this summer, and that inflames the GOP even
more, dooming any bill in 2015.¶ When the next presidential race gets underway, a broad field of the GOP’s presidential candidates
will be competing for the support of primary voters who are far more opposed to an immigration overhaul than most Americans.¶ To some
Republicans, that brings back memories of 2012, when Republican Mitt Romney adopted tough-on-illegal-immigration rhetoric to win the
Republican presidential primaries. On Election Day, Hispanic and Asian voters overwhelmingly backed Obama.¶ The lone policy
recommendation of GOP’s post-mortem on Romney’s loss was to pass immigration reform. While
14 Republican senators voted
for an immigration overhaul that chamber passed last year, the measure was declared dead on arrival in
the House. Republican lawmakers, many of whom were focused on the midterms, sought to avoid
angering their base.
Dems are key to CIR, not republicans
LaMonica 5/23/14
Gabe, political reporter for CNN, "Obama: Midterm elections will decide the fate of immigration
reform", politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/23/obama-midterm-elections-will-decide-the-fate-ofimmigration-reform/
(CNN) – President Barack Obama
said Thursday night before a hometown Chicago crowd that it was up to Congress to move
on immigration reform. He predicted that if Democrats don't win big in the midterm elections, the overhaul
won't get done.¶ Obama told supporters at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fund-raiser, "You have a President who is
fighting for you in the White House."¶ "What you do not have right now is a Congress that can function."¶ Meanwhile, House Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday it's up to Obama to pass immigration reform.¶ "The President has responsibility here as well," Boehner said.¶
Many conservatives in the GOP-led House of Representatives view any legislation that includes a
pathway toward citizenship tantamount to "amnesty." When the Democratic-controlled Senate
approved a bipartisan immigration bill last year that included an eventual path toward citizenship for
most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, the bill stalled in the House.¶
Complete coverage of the 2014 midterm elections¶ Obama's assertion came on the heels of remarks Thursday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New
York, that the President will act on his own if Republicans don't pass immigration reform soon.¶ Speaking alongside Schumer, Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Congress should pass immigration reform now and let it take effect in 2017.¶ "If Republicans don't trust
President Obama, let's give them a chance to implement the bill under President Rand Paul or President Theodore Cruz," Reid said, referring to
two possible GOP presidential contenders in 2016.¶ Schumer said Republicans had until the August recess to pass an immigration reform bill. "If
they don't pass immigration reform then, the President will have no choice but to act on his own. We'd much rather pass legislation," he said.¶
CNN: Key races to watch in 2014¶ Speaking at his weekly press conference, Boehner said he has talked immigration reform since the day after
the 2012 election and has said repeatedly it's an issue Congress needs to tackle.¶ "I made it clear we're not going to deal with the Senate bill, a
1,300-page bill that no one has read. And we're not going to do it," he said.¶ Schumer said Republicans will lose the presidency, the Senate and
House if they don't move on immigration. And Obama on Thursday night said
that it would take Democrats winning
Congress to move on immigration.¶ "If we do not hang on to the Senate and make gains in the House,"
said Obama, speaking at a private residence, "we may not get immigration reform done, which means we could have another
three, four years, in which we're being deprived of talent we're training here in the United States - they go back home and start businesses
someplace else."¶ With no support in the House for a comprehensive immigration package, Boehner insisted Thursday upon a piecemeal
approach to legislation.¶ "I think that moving in a piece-by-piece fashion on this in a common-sense way is the way to do this," he said.¶
Boehner attributed the failure to pass immigration legislation on the President losing the American people's trust because of Obamacare.¶
"When he continues to ignore Obamacare, his own law, 38 unilateral delays, he reduces the confidence of the American people in his
willingness to implement an immigration law the way we would pass it," he said.
Impact Defense—Cyber-Terror
No cyber impact
Healey 3/20 Jason, Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, "No,
Cyberwarfare Isn't as Dangerous as Nuclear War", 2013, www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/worldreport/2013/03/20/cyber-attacks-not-yet-an-existential-threat-to-the-us
America does not face an existential cyberthreat today, despite recent warnings. Our cybervulnerabilities are
undoubtedly grave and the threats we face are severe but far from comparable to nuclear war. ¶ The most recent
alarms come in a Defense Science Board report on how to make military cybersystems more resilient against advanced threats (in short, Russia
or China). It warned that the "cyber threat is serious, with potential consequences similar in some ways to the nuclear threat of the Cold War."
Such fears were also expressed by Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2011. He called cyber "The single biggest
existential threat that's out there" because "cyber actually more than theoretically, can attack our infrastructure, our financial systems."¶
While it is true that cyber attacks might do these things, it is also true they have not only never
happened but are far more difficult to accomplish than mainstream thinking believes. The consequences
from cyber threats may be similar in some ways to nuclear, as the Science Board concluded, but mostly, they are
incredibly dissimilar. ¶ Eighty years ago, the generals of the U.S. Army Air Corps were sure that their bombers would easily topple other
countries and cause their populations to panic, claims which did not stand up to reality. A study of the 25-year history of cyber
conflict, by the Atlantic Council and Cyber Conflict Studies Association, has shown a similar dynamic where the impact of
disruptive cyberattacks has been consistently overestimated. ¶ Rather than theorizing about future cyberwars or
extrapolating from today's concerns, the history of cyberconflict that have actually been fought, shows that cyber incidents have so far tended
to have effects that are either widespread but fleeting or persistent but narrowly focused. No
attacks, so far, have been both
widespread and persistent. There have been no authenticated cases of anyone dying from a cyber
attack. Any widespread disruptions, even the 2007 disruption against Estonia, have been short-lived causing no significant
GDP loss. ¶ Moreover, as with conflict in other domains, cyberattacks can take down many targets but keeping them down over time in the face
of determined defenses has so far been out of the range of all but the most dangerous adversaries such as Russia and China. Of course, if the
United States is in a conflict with those nations, cyber will be the least important of the existential threats policymakers should be worrying
about. Plutonium
trumps bytes in a shooting war.¶ This is not all good news. Policymakers have recognized the problems since
at least 1998 with little significant progress. Worse, the threats and vulnerabilities are getting steadily more worrying. Still, experts have
been warning of a cyber Pearl Harbor for 20 of the 70 years since the actual Pearl Harbor. ¶ The transfer of
U.S. trade secrets through Chinese cyber espionage could someday accumulate into an existential threat. But it
doesn't seem so seem just yet, with only handwaving estimates of annual losses of 0.1 to 0.5 percent to the total U.S. GDP of around
$15 trillion. That's bad, but it doesn't add up to an existential crisis or "economic cyberwar."
Their impacts are all hype
Walt 10 – Stephen M. Walt 10 is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of international relations at
Harvard University "Is the cyber threat overblown?" March 30
walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/30/is_the_cyber_threat_overblown
Am I the only person -- well, besides Glenn Greenwald and Kevin Poulson -- who thinks the "
cyber-warfare" business may be overblown? It’s clear the U.S. national security
establishment is paying a lot more attention to the issue, and colleagues of mine -- including some pretty serious and level-headed people -- are increasingly worried by the danger of some
sort of "cyber-Katrina." I don't dismiss it entirely, but this sure
looks to me like a classic opportunity for threat-inflation.¶ Mind you, I'm not saying
that there aren't a lot of shenanigans going on in cyber-space, or that various forms of cyber-warfare don't have military potential. So I'm not arguing for complete head-in-the-sand
here’s what makes me worry that the threat is being overstated.¶ First, the whole issue is highly esoteric -details about a number
of the alleged incidents that are being invoked to demonstrate the risk of a "cyber-Katrina," or a cyber-9/11, remain
classified, which makes it hard for us lay-persons to gauge just how serious the problem really was or is. Moreover, even
complacency. But
you really need to know a great deal about computer networks, software, encryption, etc., to know how serious the danger might be. Unfortunately,
when we hear about computers being penetrated by hackers, or parts of the internet crashing, etc., it’s hard to know how
much valuable information was stolen or how much actual damage was done. And as with other specialized areas of
technology and/or military affairs, a lot of the experts have a clear vested interest in hyping the threat, so as to create
greater demand for their services. Plus, we already seem to have politicians leaping on the issue as a way to grab
some pork for their states.¶ Second, there are lots of different problems being lumped under a single banner, whether the
label is "cyber-terror" or "cyber-war." One issue is the use of various computer tools to degrade an enemy’s military capabilities (e.g., by disrupting communications nets, spoofing sensors,
etc.). A second issue is the alleged threat that bad guys would penetrate computer networks and shut down power grids, air traffic control, traffic lights, and other important elements of
infrastructure, the way that internet terrorists (led by a disgruntled computer expert) did in the movie Live Free and Die Hard. A third problem is web-based criminal activity, including identity
theft or simple fraud (e.g., those emails we all get from someone in Nigeria announcing that they have millions to give us once we send them some account information). A fourth potential
threat is “cyber-espionage”; i.e., clever foreign hackers penetrate Pentagon or defense contractors’ computers and download valuable classified information. And then there are annoying
This
sounds like a rich menu of potential trouble, and putting the phrase "cyber" in front of almost any noun
makes it sound trendy and a bit more frightening. But notice too that these are all somewhat different problems of quite different importance, and the
appropriate response to each is likely to be different too. Some issues -- such as the danger of cyber-espionage -- may not require
elaborate technical fixes but simply more rigorous security procedures to isolate classified material from the web. Other
problems may not require big federal programs to address, in part because both individuals and the
private sector have incentives to protect themselves (e.g., via firewalls or by backing up critical data). And as Greenwald warns, there may be real
activities like viruses, denial-of-service attacks, and other things that affect the stability of web-based activities and disrupt commerce (and my ability to send posts into FP).¶
costs to civil liberties if concerns about vague cyber dangers lead us to grant the NSA or some other government agency greater control over the Internet. ¶ Third, this is another issue that
Is the danger that some malign hacker crashes a power grid greater than
the likelihood that a blizzard would do the same thing? Is the risk of cyber-espionage greater than the
potential danger from more traditional forms of spying? Without a comparative assessment of different risks and the costs of mitigating each
cries out for some comparative cost-benefit analysis.
one, we will allocate resources on the basis of hype rather than analysis. In short, my fear is not that we won't take reasonable precautions against a potential set of dangers; my concern is
that we will spend tens of billions of dollars protecting ourselves against a set of threats that are not as dangerous as we are currently being told they are
DA=Long TF
Timeframe is more than 10 years
Navarrette 2-19 – Ruben Navarrette, CNN Contributor, February 19th, 2013, "Guest worker issue
may kill immigration reform" www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/navarrette-immigrationreform/index.html
How long? The undocumented could immediately apply for a special protective status to avoid
deportation, but it would take them about eight years to get legal permanent residency (a green card)
and another four or five years to become a U.S. citizen.
AT: TPP Impact
Impact Defense—Asia Pivot
Alt causes to the pivot
Campbell and Ratner 4/19 – Kurt Campbell is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013,
he served as US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Ely Ratner is a Senior
Fellow and Deputy Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American
Security. (“Far Eastern Promises”, April 19, 2014, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141241/kurt-m-campbell-and-ely-ratner/far-eastern-promises)
Although the most common arguments against the
rebalancing do not withstand scrutiny, the policy nevertheless faces major
challenges. Perhaps chief among these is a lack of human capital. After more than a decade of war and counterinsurgency,
the United States has developed and promoted an entire generation of soldiers, diplomats, and intelligence specialists well versed in ethnic
rivalry in Iraq, the tribal differences in Afghanistan, postconflict reconstruction strategies, and U.S. Special Forces and drone tactics. But
Washington has not made any comparable effort to develop a sustained cadre of Asia experts across the
U.S. government, and a surprising number of senior government officials make their first visits to the
region only once they have reached high-level positions near the end of their careers. This is a genuine
weakness in the U.S. foreign policy establishment, since even the most accomplished public servant will find it
difficult to navigate Asia’s complexities without prior experience in the region. The pivot to Asia will therefore
affect the budgets of civilian government agencies, not just that of the Pentagon, as the United States invests more in ensuring that U.S.
diplomats, aid workers, trade negotiators, and intelligence professionals have the language skills and exposure to Asia they need to do their
jobs well. The
pivot will also be buffeted by the steady stream of crises that other regions -- especially the Middle
East -- will surely continue to supply. At the same time, pressure to “come home” seems certain to grow. In the wake of
every modern American conflict, from World War I to the 1990–91 Gulf War, the public has put pressure on politicians and officials to refocus
on domestic issues. The
past 13 years of war have again triggered this instinctive insularity, which has also
been fostered by a frustratingly slow economic recovery after the financial crisis. Although internationalist and
strong-defense strains still exist in U.S. politics, there are subtle (and not so subtle) signs in Congress that the United States
may be entering a new era in which U.S. engagement abroad -- even in areas critical to the country’s economic wellbeing, such as Asia -- will be a tougher sell. Those political constraints will only make a hard job even harder: when it comes to Asia, the
to-do list is long, both for the remaining years of the Obama administration and beyond.
Asia triggers the link to the DA---we are massively ramping up diplomatic and military
presence there.
Campbell and Ratner 4/19 – Kurt Campbell is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as US Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Ely Ratner is a Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the
Center for a New American Security. (“Far Eastern Promises”, April 19, 2014, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141241/kurt-m-campbell-and-ely-ratner/far-eastern-promises)
The United States is in the early stages of a substantial national project: reorienting its foreign policy to
commit greater attention and resources to the Asia-Pacific region. This reformulation of U.S. priorities has emerged
during a period of much-needed strategic reassessment, after more than a decade of intense engagement with South Asia and the Middle East.
It is premised on the idea that the history of the twenty-first century will be written largely in the Asia-Pacific, a region that welcomes U.S.
leadership and rewards U.S. engagement with a positive return on political, economic, and military investments.
As a result, the Obama administration is
orchestrating a comprehensive set of diplomatic, economic, and security
initiatives now known as the “pivot,” or “rebalancing,” to Asia. The policy builds on more than a century of U.S. involvement in
the region, including important steps taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations; as President Barack Obama has rightly noted,
the United States is in reality and rhetoric already a “Pacific power.” But the
elevation of Asia’s place in U.S. foreign policy.
rebalancing does represent a significant
Questions about the purpose and scope of the new approach emerged as soon as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered what remains the
clearest articulation of the strategy, and first used the term “pivot” to describe it, in a 2011 article in Foreign Policy. Almost three years later,
the Obama administration still confronts the persistent challenge of explaining the concept and delivering on its promise. But despite the
intense scrutiny and short-term setbacks faced by the policy, there
is little doubt that a major shift is well under way. And
whether Washington wants it to or not, Asia will command more attention and resources from the United States,
thanks to the region’s growing prosperity and influence -- and the enormous challenges the region
poses. The question, then, is not whether the United States will focus more on Asia but whether it can do so with the necessary resolve,
resources, and wisdom.
EASTBOUND AND DOWN
Paying more attention to Asia is not an admission of defeat in the Middle East.
The Asia-Pacific region exerts an inescapable gravitational pull. It is home to more than half of the
world’s population and contains the largest democracy in the world (India), the second- and third-largest
economies (China and Japan), the most populous Muslim-majority nation (Indonesia), and seven of the ten
largest armies. The Asian Development Bank has predicted that before the middle of this century, the region will account for half of the
world’s economic output and include four of the world’s ten largest economies (China, India, Indonesia, and Japan).
But it is the trajectory of Asia’s evolution, not just its dizzying scale, that makes the region so consequential. According to Freedom House,
during the last five years, the Asia-Pacific has been the only region in the world to record steady improvements in political rights and civil
liberties. And despite questions about the ability of emerging markets to sustain rapid economic growth, Asian nations still represent some of
the most promising opportunities in an otherwise sluggish and uncertain global economy. At the same time, Asia struggles with sources of
chronic instability, owing to the highly provocative actions of North Korea, the growth of defense budgets throughout the region, vexing
maritime disputes that roil relations in the East China and South China seas, and nontraditional security threats such as natural disasters,
human trafficking, and the drug trade.
The United States has an irrefutable interest in the course Asia will take in the coming years. The region is the leading destination for U.S.
exports, outpacing Europe by more than 50 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Both U.S. direct investment in Asia and Asian direct
investment in the United States have roughly doubled in the past decade, with China, India, Singapore, and South Korea accounting for four of
the ten fastest-growing sources of foreign direct investment in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The United
States also has five defense treaty allies in the region (Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand), as well as strategically
important partnerships with Brunei, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Taiwan and evolving ties with Myanmar (also
known as Burma). Major U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea are central to Washington’s ability to project power in Asia and beyond.
U.S. military alliances have undergirded the region’s security for decades, and one of the main purposes of the pivot is to deepen such ties. In
recent years, Washington
has encouraged its partners in Asia to prevent conflicts between major powers,
keep sea-lanes open, combat extremism, and address nontraditional security threats. Japan and South Korea
are poised to take increasingly prominent roles in joint operations with the United States, and U.S. forces are working with
Australia to develop its amphibious capabilities and with the Philippines to boost its capacity to police its
own shores. The net result has been more powerful alliances and a more secure region.
None of this suggests an effort to encircle or weaken China. To the contrary, developing a more robust and productive relationship with Beijing
represents a principal goal of the rebalancing strategy. Far from seeking to contain China, the United States has in the last several years sought
to build a more mature bilateral relationship through unprecedented, frequent top-level meetings across issues and throughout the countries’
respective bureaucracies. Even military-to-military relations are back on track, at times actually taxing the Pentagon’s ability to keep up with
Beijing’s proposed levels of activity.
A PIVOT TO -- AND WITHIN -- ASIA
The rebalancing strategy also calls for a substantial increase in U.S. engagement with the multilateral institutions of the Asia-Pacific region.
Under the Obama administration, the
United States has gained membership in the East Asia Summit, the region’s premier
the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which signals
enhanced U.S. commitment to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); and placed a permanent ambassador to
ASEAN in Jakarta. Although these overlapping institutions can be frustrating, given their slow pace and requirements for consensus,
they promote regional cooperation and help build a system of rules and mechanisms to address
annual gathering of heads of state; signed
complex transnational challenges. In June 2013, for example, ASEAN hosted its first-ever humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief exercise, which included more than 3,000 personnel from 18 nations.
Meanwhile, the United States is responding to the new reality that the Asia-Pacific region increasingly drives global economic growth. The
Obama administration has advanced U.S. economic interests by bringing the U.S.-Korea Free Trade
Agreement into force in 2012 and pushing hard to complete negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a
massive free-trade agreement among a dozen countries. A number of the countries participating in the TPP talks are vibrant markets in
Southeast Asia, such as Malaysia and Singapore, which reflects the growing geopolitical importance of that subregion. Indeed, the U.S. pivot to
Asia has been accompanied by a pivot within Asia. Washington is balancing its historical emphasis on the countries of Northeast Asia with new
attention to countries in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, seeking to augment two-way trade and investment
with some of the world’s most vibrant economies. In 2010, Washington and Jakarta established a “comprehensive partnership” to deepen
cooperation across a wide range of issues, including health care, science, technology, and entrepreneurship.
A similar desire to realign U.S. priorities in the region helps explain the changes the Pentagon has made
to its military posture there. Although U.S. military bases in Northeast Asia remain central to Washington’s ability to project power
and fight wars, they are increasingly vulnerable to disabling missile attacks, and they lie relatively far from potential disasters and crises in the
South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile, with countries in Southeast Asia expressing growing interest in receiving American military
training and assistance with disaster response, the
United States has diversified its military footprint in the region,
stationing hundreds of U.S. marines in Darwin, Australia, and deploying a pair of Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore.