Harvard Debate Institute
1
Elections DA
2012
Elections DA---Pre Camp
**1NC
1NC
Uniqueness---Obama has momentum now
Nate Silver, 6/29/12 (“June 29: Obama Rises to 67.8 Percent”, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Obama, who got good news in Thursday’s health care ruling, received more overnight on Friday when European leaders agreed to
terms on a bank bailout. That sent the S.&P. 500 up by 2.5 percent on the hopes that this will reduce some of the downside risk in the economy.
Since the stock market is one of the economic variables the model considers, Mr. Obama’s probability of winning the Electoral College rose with the European news, to
67.8 percent, his highest figure since we began publishing the model this month.
The government also released data on personal income on Friday, another economic indicator the model uses. It rose by 0.2 percent in
May, somewhat stronger than in most previous months and slightly beating market expectations. Still, personal income growth has been extremely sluggish for most
President
of Mr. Obama’s term and remains the most pessimistic of the economic indicators the model uses.
The flow of polling has been comparatively strong for Mr. Obama of late, with leads in most battleground states in surveys published this
week and national polls moving toward him, though some of this probably reflects statistical noise.
Internal Link---Voters will decide based on economics---it’s a wedge issue
Atlas 2/27 Terry, Bloomberg, "Obama’s ‘Pretty Strong Teflon’ Deflects Foreign Policy Criticism" www.bloomberg.com/news/201202-28/obama-s-pretty-strong-teflon-deflects-foreign-policy-election-attacks.html
“Today, as much as a year ago , as much as two years ago, voters are primarily looking at things through an economic prism,” said Goeas
of the Alexandria, Virginia-based Tarrance Group, who conducts the nationwide Battleground Poll, a bipartisan survey of voter attitudes. Obama “gets a certain
amount of credit on fighting terrorism and foreign affairs.”
‘Pretty Strong Teflon’
Obama “has coated himself with some pretty strong Teflon ,” Martin Indyk, director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution in
Washington, said in an interview. “I don’t think he has much of a foreign policy vulnerability from all these untoward events as long as he sticks
with his basic approach: to be tough on terrorism but to be ending the wars in the greater Middle East and bringing the troops home.”
So far, foreign policy barely registers as an issue in public opinion polls. Asked for “the single most important issue in your choice for president,” 51
percent of respondents said the economy and jobs while 2 percent said terrorism and national security, according to a CBS News Poll conducted Jan 12-15. The margin
of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Asked whether Obama “will keep America safe,” 61 percent of respondents said “very well” or “somewhat well” describes the president, according to an Associated Press-Gfk poll conducted Feb. 16-20. The margin of error
was plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
No Wedge Issue
Republicans have yet to find a “wedge issue” on foreign policy, said former Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a veteran voice on
foreign policy and now director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University in Bloomington.
While Republicans have accused Obama of “apologizing” for America, most recently after the Koran burning, he said, “ I
type issue that will resonate in the general election.”
don’t think it’s a cutting-edge-
Funding Transportation infrastructure unpopular with the public---they fear wasteful planning and don’t
see the upside.
Orski ‘12
Ken Orski is editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, an influential and widely read transportation newsletter, now in its 20th year of publication. Orski has worked
professionally in the field of transportation for close to 40 years. He served as Associate Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration under President
Nixon and President Ford. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and holds a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School. NewGeography – 02/05/2012 –
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002662-why-pleas-increase-infrastructure-funding-fall-deaf-ears
Finding the resources to keep transportation infrastructure in good order is a more difficult challenge. Unlike traditional utilities, roads and bridges
have no rate payers to fall back on. Politicians and the public seem to attach a low priority to fixing aging transportation infrastructure and this
translates into a lack of support for raising fuel taxes or imposing tolls. Investment in infrastructure did not even make the top ten list of public
priorities in the latest Pew Research Center survey of domestic concerns. Calls by two congressionally mandated commissions to vastly increase transportation
infrastructure spending have gone ignored . So have repeated pleas by advocacy groups such as Building America’s Future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. Nor has the need to increase federal spending on infrastructure come up in the numerous policy debates held by the Republican
presidential candidates. Even President Obama seems to have lost his former fervor for this issue. In his last State-of-the-Union message he made only a perfunctory
reference to "rebuilding roads and bridges." High-speed rail and an infrastructure bank, two of the President’s past favorites, were not even mentioned. Why pleas to
increase infrastructure funding fall on deaf ears There are various theories why appeals to increase infrastructure spending do not resonate with the public .
Harvard Debate Institute
2
Elections DA
2012
One widely held view is that people simply do not trust the federal government to spend their tax dollars wisely . As proof, evidence is cited that a
great majority of state and local transportation ballot measures do get passed, because voters know precisely where their tax money is going. No doubt there is much truth to
that. Indeed, thanks to local funding initiatives and the use of tolling, state transportation agencies are becoming increasingly more self-reliant and less dependent on federal
funding Another explanation, and one that I find highly plausible, has been offered by Charles Lane, editorial writer for the Washington Post. Wrote Lane in an
October 31, 2011 Washington Post column, "How come my family and I traveled thousands of miles on both the east and west coast last summer without
actually seeing any crumbling roads or airports? On the whole, the highways and byways were clean, safe and did not remind me of the Third World countries.
... Should I believe the pundits or my own eyes?" asked Lane ("The U.S. infrastructure argument that crumbles upon examination"). Along with Lane, I think
the American public is skeptical about alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no evidence of it around them . State
DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare,
transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between.
Impact---Health Care---Romney will repeal it
Sac Bee 7/1/12, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html
HEALTH CARE
OBAMA: Achieved landmark overhaul putting U.S. on path to universal coverage if the Supreme Court upholds the heath care law and its mandate for almost everyone to
obtain insurance. Under the law, insurers will be banned from denying coverage to people with pre-existing illness, tax credits will subsidize
premiums, people without work-based insurance will have access to new markets, small business gets help for offering insurance and
Medicaid will expand.
ROMNEY: Promises to work for repeal of the law modeled largely after his universal health care achievement in Massachusetts because he says states, not Washington,
should drive policy on the uninsured. Proposes to guarantee that people who are "continuously covered" for a certain period be protected against losing insurance if they get sick, leave their job and need
another policy. Would expand individual tax-advantaged medical savings accounts and let savings be used for insurance premiums as well as personal medical costs.
Health Care is key to check bioterror
New America Foundation 1 (11/12, http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/lack_of_health_care_for_all_creates_u_s_security_risk, Aly M)
From President Bush on down, our leaders are finally getting serious about the risks of bioterrorism. But in all of their proposals -- for early detection, for stockpiling
vaccines, for upgrading hospitals -- they continue to ignore one of the weakest links in our homeland defense: the armies of Americans without health
insurance. Health experts say the early detection of illness is one of the best ways to counteract bioterrorism. But how can we do that
when nearly 40 million Americans lack access to basic health insurance? Many of the low-income workers least likely to have health
insurance are among the most likely to be on the front lines in this new age of bioterrorism. Consider biological weapons delivered by mail.
Fortunately, Postal Service employees, government staffers and police officers all participate in public health plans. But what about the private security guards,
mailroom clerks and receptionists who handle private companies' mail? These clerical and support workers are among those least likely to
have employer-provided health benefits. Many of these uninsured workers, unable to pay for costly appointments and tests, might forgo
early diagnosis or treatment. That could delay the discovery that they -- and others around them -- are victims of biological warfare. The
danger would be even greater if the biological agent were contagious after infection. The unwitting accomplices of bioterrorists could then
be poorly paid restaurant employees, maids, nannies, janitors, barbers and others who, because they lack insurance, may avoid visiting either private doctors or
emergency rooms until it is too late. How, not Whether Thanks to the anthrax attacks, the debate about whether every American should have health insurance should be
over. The only question now should be how to provide universal coverage. The nature of America's new war on terrorism suggests two guiding principles:
Universal insurance should be citizen-based, not employer-based. And a single-payer funding method should be avoided because it would be too expensive
during this period of military buildup and economic weakness. Immediately after Sept. 11, well before any signs of anthrax surfaced, political leaders from Bush to Sen.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called for emergency provisions to extend the health-care coverage of those who had lost their jobs as a result of the attacks. In times of national
crises, they reasoned, the problem of losing one's job should not be compounded by the simultaneous loss of health insurance. This stopgap measure begs a deeper question:
Why continue an employer-based system in the first place? Job Jumping Tying health-care benefits to employers made some sense at the height of the Second Industrial
Revolution, when most workers aspired to lifetime jobs with one firm. But now that the average job tenure in America is only 3 to 5 years, it no longer does. Replacing this
antiquated link between employers and health insurance with a new citizen-based system could make basic health benefits universal and fully portable, both from job to job
and during periods of unemployment. Repeated failures to enact a single-payer system in this country suggest that we should look at another way to pay for universal,
citizen-based health care. A better approach: require all Americans to buy their own health insurance , just as most states require drivers to purchase their
own auto insurance. The government would subsidize those too poor or sick to pay for coverage. This is essentially what Switzerland does today. Our
health-care system was created by accident during World War II. Because wages were frozen then, employers attracted workers with benefits such as health insurance. As a
result, employer-based insurance became the foundation of the U.S. health-care system. The sad result today of that accident of history is 40 million Americans without
access to basic care. In this new era of bioterrorism, that is not only a personal disaster for those struggling to stay well without health
insurance, it's also a threat to the security of all Americans.
Bio-weapons use goes global, triggering nuclear WWIII.
Alexander 7 (Timothy, Former Scottish Editor of Burke’s Peerage, B.Sc. in Pol. Sc. & History; M.A. in European Studies, October 22 nd, “War On Iran = You Die
from Biowar”, Op Ed News, http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_lord_sti_071020_war_on_iran__3d_you_di.htm)
understanding of the horrific effects of a nuclear war.
biological war. The kill numbers are very similar, just with biowar you don't get the
etc. Just sub-microscopic genetically engineered super killer viruses that we have
We have been conditioned, by seeing films of mushroom clouds and images of nuclear destruction in Japan at the end of WWII, to have some
We have NOT been conditioned to understand the effects of Twenty-first Century advanced
"big
bangs", the
mushroom clouds,
the nuclear bombers, the ICBMs,
Harvard Debate Institute
3
Elections DA
2012
absolutely no defense against, delivered in secret, with a
slow
horrifying unstoppable migration through the global human population . All the fear of a
designer military viruses that are built to kill in the many hundreds of millions to billions
naturally mutated form of "bird flu" that might kill tens of millions is simply "child's play" compared to multiple
of people globally.
It costs approximately US$1 million to kill one person with nuclear weapons-of-mass destruction but only approximately US$1 to kill one person with biological weapons-of-mass destruction.
Bioweapons are truly the "poor man's nukes". The Iranians are known to have a biological weapons program and they, and their allies, certainly have the means to deliver biowar agents into the Israeli and European and North
American homelands. Bioweapons do not have to be dispersed via missiles or bombs, they are perfect for non-traditional normally non-military delivery systems. Being very small (there are, for example, typically approximately
40 million bacterial cells in every gram of soil and massively more viruses in the same gram), they lend themselves to an enormous variety of non-detectable methodologies for delivery and use in war, both regionally and globally.
What is being missed here, with all the talk of Iran developing nuclear weapons or not (depending on one's viewpoint), is that Iran is already a state that possesses WMD. HELLO, ANY WAR WITH IRAN IS HIGHLY APT TO
INVOLVE LARGE SCALE DEATHS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE IRANIAN WMD THREAT. Hello again, this means that YOU...the person reading this...is apt to die from biowar in
event of a war with Iran! We are in a MAD....mutually assured destruction....pre-war state with Iran, just as we are with Russia and and to a lessor extent with China when it comes to nuclear weapons. A famous line from the movie
"Wargames" (referring to engaging in nuclear war and the odds of "winning" such a war) is "the only winning move is not to play". Sad to say, this does not seem to have any bearing on the apocalyptic strategy of the neocon push
The nature of biowar is that it is a "gift that keeps on giving". Once released, advanced recombination DNA based viral
bioweapons will continue to spread and kill and kill ....regardless if Iran (and its ally Syria) are but a sea of green radioactive glass devoid of all life. With advanced biowar agents, it is not the
for war with Iran.
quantity that counts but the quality; humans themselves become the vectors and delivery systems of the bioweapons. It does not require large amounts of weapons running into the millions or billions of tons of high explosives; nor
does it require ICBMs and cruise missiles and $100 million dollar warplanes to deliver the bioweapons. A very small group of human assets, prepositioned with small amounts of easily hidden biowar weapons (submicroscopic
does it matter if
you die from some exotic bioengineered hemorrhagic fever or from radiation poisoning/nuclear blast .......dead is still dead. To begin to understand
the truly horrific nature of the biowar threat, one only has to look to history for some "mild" examples. The Black Death bubonic pandemic, believed caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, is estimated to have killed
between a third and two-thirds of Europe's population after it spread to Europe in 1347 from South-western/Central Asia. Yersinia pestis, being a bacteria is massive when compared to a virus, and is easily treated with
modern antibiotics. However, the Soviet Union's Biopreparat organization turned Black Death from a medieval plague into a 20th Century bioweapon. The Yersinia pestis bacteria was exposed to every then-known
antibiotic, in a process that any advanced high school or early undergraduate college level biology class student could undertake, and the resulting antibiotic resistant Y. pestis was
bred and loaded into a small number of Soviet ICBMs aimed at America. The resistant Y. pestis had also been exposed to various levels of radiation to "radiation harden" the bacteria. The intent was to hit American
survivors of a nuclear war with a new and untreatable form of Black Death that itself could survive the effects of nuclear fallout. As frighting as a totally
viruses), in the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and America can begin the process that will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions or even billions of human beings. When you get right down to it,
antibiotic resistant Yersinia pestis bacteria is, it remains "child's play" compared to the more advanced recombination DNA technology used in most biowar programs. This typically involves the recombining of viral DNA into new
virus, "designer virus". The Soviets, years ago, engineered a new virus that combined elements of Smallpox and Ebola. With the genetic engineering of viruses those doing the "designing" can engineer into the virus a wide number
of different characteristics. For instance, an advanced hemorrhagic fever can be designed to be: airborne (capable of being transmitted via sneezing), with a very small amount of viral material required to infect a human host, with a
incubation period of 14 days or longer, with most of the incubation period that is both highly contagious and at best looks like a mild version of the common cold, with the resulting hemorrhagic fever having a mortality of 90% or
more. The same technology can be used to create a large number of different viruses which can all be released on a target population at the same time, vastly complicating detection and containment and treatment programs. In fact
the normal research and development process used in genetic engineering results in a large number of different new viruses. Those nations not directly involved in a strike upon Iran, that is most of the rest of the world, will
nevertheless face massive deaths within their nations...they will lose more of their citizens to the war, that we are about to unleash, than they lost in World War II and ALL THE OTHER WARS IN HISTORY COMBINED.
The global military, political, economic, and medical chaos resulting
from global biowar will make the use of nuclear weapons a likely outcome as America, the United Kingdom, France and other nations
starting the war will be seen as out-of-control "mad dogs" who have unleashed World War III. The Book of Revelations speaks of one-third of the world dying, in the Final Battle, from plague ....biowar; and
Needless to say, this will have a profound effect on their actions towards those nations who have started the mess in the first place.
another one-third of the world dying from "wormwood"....which we now know to be nuclear war effects ...Chernobyl, which comes from the Ukrainian word "chornobyl", translates into wormwood (or its close relative mugwort).
(Chernobyl is the site of a massive uncontrolled nuclear meltdown disaster in the Ukraine on the 26th of April 1986). We are in a period of extreme danger to us all. Even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 60s.
Yet far too many people are so uneducated as to the real dangers from advanced Twenty-first Century biowar that they are totally blind to the profound risk to their own lives.
**Impacts
ANWR Drilling Bad---Bio-D
Romney will open ANWR to drilling
Sac Bee 7/1/12, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html
ROMNEY: Supports opening the Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves to drilling, as well as Western lands, the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and offshore Alaska. Wants to reduce obstacles to coal, natural gas and nuclear energy development, and accelerate drilling permits in areas where
exploration has already been approved for developers with good safety records. Says green power has yet to become viable and the causes
of climate change are unknown.
Drilling in ANWR would destroy wilderness and would do nothing to solve for energy dependence.
The World Wildlife Fund, 2004. (The World Wildlife Fund. “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” © 2004.
http://worldwildlife.org/advocacy/action.cfm#1)
The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge -- often called "America's Serengeti" because of its abundant caribou, polar bear, grizzly bear, wolf,
and other wildlife populations -- represents the last five percent of America's Arctic not already open to development. The Gwich'in
people of Alaska and Western Canada, whose subsistence lifestyle depends on the nearly 130,000 caribou that rely on the coastal plain,
call it "the sacred place where life begins."
For years, oil companies have been heavily lobbying to open the coastal plain, the biological heart of the wildlife refuge to oil drilling.
This development would transform this sanctuary into a spider web of vast oil field with roads, pipelines, sewage plants, drilling pads, and
housing for thousands of workers that would destroy the wilderness character of the land and limit the free movement of wildlife.
Contrary to the claims of drilling proponents, drilling in the refuge is not the answer to America's energy problems. It would not
appreciably reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and could not insulate the United States from short-term volatility in the world oil
market. The government estimates that only six months of economically recoverable oil exists under the coastal plain and it would not be
Harvard Debate Institute
4
Elections DA
2012
available for 10 years. For years, WWF has worked with our activists, NGOs and government allies in opposing any effort to open the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. Thanks to our work, we've been successful, but the fight is not over yet.
Opening ANWR sets a model for environmental devastation worldwide
Boston Globe 2/24/2002 lexis
Yes, they are convinced that this ecosystem would be irreparably harmed for very little oil. But just as important, drilling in the
Arctic, they argue, would undercut efforts to persuade other countries to preserve wild spaces . Bill Weber of the Wildlife Conservation Society (the
low-profile but powerful group that runs the Bronx Zoo and conducts field work in 53 countries) is proud of this nature-loving American heritage. But he worries that
America could turn into a rich and selfish nature bully. "We become a hypocritical nation if in conservation work we want the poorest countries
to
do all the heavy lifting," Weber says. Now the director of WCS programs in North America, Weber has worked in international
conservation and once studied mountain gorillas with the legendary Dian Fossey. Many African nations have become passionate
conservationists, Weber says. But they are astute when watching our behavior here. Weber cites the example of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. When the Nouabale-Ndoki national park was created in the early '90s, the Congolese gave up the chance to exploit $80 million of hardwood from the
forest. Weber recalls that the minister of forestry in Congo asked him about the Pacific Northwest and the debate over spotted owls vs. logging jobs. "We can't lock up
the rest of the world and not be working in our own backyard," Weber says. Randall Snodgrass works for the World Wildlife Fund, in the
division of government relations. Should drilling begin in the Alaskan refuge, Snodgrass says, we will be subject to scrutiny from many
other countries - countries that we've been wagging our finger at for some time. "The Japanese, for instance," Snodgrass says. "We are
urging them not to take endangered whales illegally. We are urging them and many other countries to ensure that their fisheries' practices
are sustainable. I do think that if the Congress and the new president were to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge up to drilling, it
would reduce our standing with those countries that we are currently urging to develop more progressive positions." Snodgrass, who has
worked to protect this area for more than 20 years, says surveys consistently show that most Americans want the refuge to stay untouched. He says most politicians realize
that to go against this desire would be at their own peril - and he's wagering that George W. Bush will realize that, too. Weber is less sanguine. "The world's most
profligate nation going after perhaps six months of fuel for our SUVs? Wrecking something as sublime as wilderness? What kind of
example does that set? It's an outrage, a horrible example to the rest of the world." He maintains that we have to live by the standards
we're so fond of setting for others. "Can you imagine what we would have to say if Tanzania wanted to turn a quarter of their wildebeest
population into wildeburgers?"
HC Good---Economy
AND, Healthcare solves every internal link to the economy ---- stimulates spending, jobs, curbs health care
cost, and solves deficit threat.
Gruber, 9 (Dr. Jonathan, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Volume 360:437-439, January 29,
Universal Health Insurance Coverage or Economic Relief — A False Choice, New England Journal of Medicine)
These are exciting times for advocates of universal health care coverage, with sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president who made universal coverage a central pledge of his
campaign. Indeed, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) are hard at work on universal-coverage legislation, and Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) have already submitted a
many observers are skeptical that the U nited S tates can foot the bill for universal coverage in
such economically trying times. Universal coverage, their argument runs, is a luxury that we must do without in order to make
way for other programs that will stimulate the economy. This argument presents a false choice. Indeed, I would counter that now is exactly the
right time for universal coverage, because it can play such an important role in growing our economy, while also enabling us to shift
the focus of health policy discussions to approaches for addressing our largest long-term fiscal challenge: escalating health care costs. The first step toward
universal coverage would be to send resources to the states for maintaining and expanding their public insurance programs . For example, the
bipartisan bill that would accomplish that goal. But despite this enthusiasm,
recent legislation reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was vetoed by President George W. Bush, included large incentive payments to states for enrolling children who were already
eligible for, but were not yet enrolled in, state public insurance programs. These bonus payments would have offset much of the cost that states would have incurred for the newly insured children, providing a major source of
broad subsidies that make affordable health insurance available to lower-income families would
improve not only the health of these families but also the health of our economy, by freeing up funds that the families could spend
on other consumer goods. Indeed, this dynamic is exactly what we saw when Medicaid was expanded to cover additional low-income children and pregnant women in the late 1980s and early 1990s. My
federal funds to cash-strapped states. More generally,
colleague Aaron Yelowitz and I found that the families that gained insurance coverage through these expansions substantially increased their spending on other consumer goods1 — by an average of about $800 per year in
This sizable effect could go a long way toward offsetting the decline in consumer spending that is marring the current
economic landscape. Another major benefit of universal coverage would accrue to the labor market. A fundamental problem with our employment-based health
insurance system is that Americans are afraid to leave jobs that come with health insurance for those that do not . Colleagues and I have documented
the empirical importance of such "job lock," estimating that this fear reduces job-to-job mobility among the employer-insured by as much as 25%.2 If
workers are afraid to leave their jobs, they will not move to the most productive positions, and economic growth will suffer. Universal
coverage that moves beyond the restrictions of the employer-sponsored system would end job lock and increase the productivity
of our labor force. If it were part of a comprehensive reform package, universal health insurance coverage could also be a source of growth for high-quality
jobs. A key aspect of most reform plans is major new investments in information technology that is necessary to bring our health care system into the 21st
today's dollars.
century. For example, during his campaign, President Barack Obama called for investing $10 billion per year over 5 years to move the country toward the use of electronic health records. Such investments are central to the
delivery of coordinated care that can improve the quality of health care and reveal opportunities for systemwide savings. But
the economy would benefit as well, since this plan would require the creation
making
and implementation of a vast new computer infrastructure for collecting and sharing medical information — which would, in turn, mean filling a large number of well-paid high-technology positions. Moreover,
Harvard Debate Institute
2012
5
Elections DA
coverage universal will necessitate expanding the medical sector to meet the needs of a larger population. If this expansion were done
right, it could be a huge jobs program. For example, the white paper issued by Senator Baucus in November focuses on the need for dramatic investment in the delivery of primary and preventive
care.3 His plan calls for improved payments to primary care providers and community health centers, for instance, and increased reliance
on "patient-centered medical homes." Such an approach would shift the focus of the health care system from specialists to
preventive care practitioners with much lower barriers to entry, such as those for nurse practitioners and registered nurses. Such rewarding, high-paying
jobs could provide a landing spot for workers displaced from other sectors of our economy. Finally, providing universal coverage
represents an important prerequisite to addressing the most important fiscal issue facing the U.S. government: the enormous future
promises made through our public insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Recent estimates suggest that the future obligations of the U.S. government
for the Medicare program alone, minus any Medicare payroll taxes collected, will be more than $70 trillion — an amount that is seven times that of our national
debt. Closing this gap, along with the $15 trillion gap in the Social Security program, would require roughly a tripling of the existing payroll tax on firms and workers4 — clearly an
unsustainable fiscal burden for the country and its taxpayers. The primary driver of this burden is not the aging of our society or the specifics of
eligibility for these entitlements, but rather the uncontained underlying growth in health care costs . These costs have more than tripled as a share of our economy
since 1950, and their escalation shows no signs of abating. The Congressional B udget O ffice recently projected that the share of the economy devoted to
health care will double by 2050.5 Thus, the sustainability of our public insurance programs depends on reining in health care costs.
Designing, passing, and implementing policies that will bring health care costs under control, however, will require herculean efforts on the part of U.S. policymakers. Universal health insurance coverage
is, in a sense, central to these efforts, because squaring away a baseline level of coverage will allow policymakers to focus their energies on cost
control. The health policy community has long been fighting a two-front war, and the goals of universal coverage and cost control can
sometimes conflict. Having everyone pulling in the same direction — with the recognition that certain financial limits will be required to
ensure ongoing health care for all — is key to developing the consensus necessary for cost contro l. I have witnessed this effect firsthand in Massachusetts, where for years our advocacy community
focused exclusively on expanding coverage for medical expenditures and therefore opposed most initiatives that might have put that goal at risk, even those that might have meant controlling costs. Since
Massachusetts passed its universal-coverage plan, this powerful advocacy community has shifted its attention to controlling costs as a
means of preserving the program's affordability to the state. The result was the passage last year of an opening salvo in the cost-control wars here in Massachusetts — Senate bill 2526,
An Act to Promote Cost Containment, Transparency and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care. Other countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, have
demonstrated that it is possible to have both universal coverage (even coverage provided through private insurance companies) and much lower health care
spending. Thus, the choice between fixing our health insurance system and fixing our economy is a false one. A smart health care reform
bill, which has at its center universal health insurance coverage for our citizens, can improve both individual health and the economy's health, both today and in the
long run.
AND, U.S. recover is key to the global economy
Caploe 09 (David Caploe is CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia.,
“Focus still on America to lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times, lexis)
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 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. This system has
the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that
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
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. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there 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. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern
- to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time,
that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in
reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable
credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the
If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will ? The obvious answer is China. But that
is unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world .
Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China
can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its
domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the
global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy.
question:
There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until
Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is
monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the
China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale.
present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and
It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it
feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the
US will remain the engine of global economic recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This
crisis began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history.
Harvard Debate Institute
2012
Economic decline causes escalating nuclear conflict in every region
6
Elections DA
Ferguson 9 (Niall, march/April, Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard University, “The Axis of Upheaval”,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4681&print=1)
The Bush years have of course revealed the perils of drawing facile parallels between the challenges of the present day and the great
catastrophes of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is reason to fear that the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could have
comparable consequences for the international system.
For more than a decade, I pondered the question of why the 20th century was characterized by so much brutal upheaval. I pored over primary and secondary literature. I wrote more than 800 pages on the subject. And
ultimately I concluded, in The War of the World, that three factors made the location and timing of lethal organized violence more or less predictable in the last century. The first factor was ethnic disintegration: Violence was
economic volatility: The greater the magnitude of economic shocks, the more likely conflict
was. And the third factor was empires in decline: When structures of imperial rule crumbled, battles for political power were most bloody.
worst in areas of mounting ethnic tension. The second factor was
In at least one of the world’s regions—the greater Middle East—two of these three factors have been present for some time: Ethnic conflict has been rife there for decades, and following the difficulties and disappointments in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States already seems likely to begin winding down its quasi-imperial presence in the region. It likely still will.
the third variable, economic volatility, has returned with a vengeance
Now
. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s “Great Moderation”—the supposed decline of
economic volatility that he hailed in a 2004 lecture—has been obliterated by a financial chain reaction, beginning in the U.S. subprime mortgage market, spreading through the banking system, reaching into the “shadow”
system of credit based on securitization, and now triggering collapses in asset prices and economic activity around the world.
After nearly a decade of unprecedented growth, the global economy will almost certainly sputter along in 2009, though probably not as much as it did in the early 1930s, because governments worldwide are frantically trying
to repress this new depression. But no matter how low interest rates go or how high deficits rise, there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in most economies this year and a painful decline in incomes. Such
economic pain nearly always has geopolitical consequences. Indeed, we can already see the first symptoms of the coming upheaval.
In the essays that follow, Jeffrey Gettleman describes Somalia’s endless anarchy, Arkady Ostrovsky analyzes Russia’s new brand of aggression, and Sam Quinones explores Mexico’s drug-war-fueled misery. These,
however, are just three case studies out of a possible nine or more.
Israel has engaged in a bloody effort to weaken Hamas
In Gaza,
. But whatever was achieved militarily must be set against the damage Israel did to its international image by killing
innocent civilians that Hamas fighters use as human shields. Perhaps more importantly, social and economic conditions in Gaza, which were already bad enough, are now abysmal. This situation is hardly likely to strengthen
events in Gaza have fanned the flames of Islamist radicalism throughout the region—not least in
Egypt. From Cairo to Riyadh, governments will now think twice before committing themselves to any new Middle East peace
initiative.
Iran, meanwhile, continues to support both Hamas and its Shiite counterpart in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and to pursue an alleged nuclear
weapons program that Israelis legitimately see as a threat to their very existence. No one can say for sure what will happen next within Tehran’s complex political system,
but it is likely that the radical faction around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be strengthened by the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. Economically, however, Iran is in a hole that will only
deepen as oil prices fall further. Strategically, the country risks disaster by proceeding with its nuclear program, because even a purely Israeli air offensive would be hugely disruptive. All this risk ought
the forces of moderation among Palestinians. Worst of all,
to point in the direction of conciliation, even accommodation, with the United States. But with presidential elections in June, Ahmadinejad has little incentive to be moderate.
On Iran’s eastern border, in Afghanistan, upheaval remains the disorder of the day. Fresh from the success of the “surge” in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, the
new head of U.S. Central Command, is now grappling with the much more difficult problem of pacifying Afghanistan. The task is
made especially difficult by the anarchy that prevails in neighboring Pakistan. India, meanwhile, accuses some in Pakistan of having
had a hand in the Mumbai terrorist attacks of last November, spurring yet another South Asian war scare. Remember: The sabers
they are rattling have nuclear tips.
The democratic governments in Kabul and Islamabad are two of the weakest anywhere. Among the biggest risks the world faces this
year is that one or both will break down amid escalating violence . Once again, the economic crisis is playing a crucial role. Pakistan’s
small but politically powerful middle class has been slammed by the collapse of the country’s stock market. Meanwhile, a rising
proportion of the country’s huge population of young men are staring unemployment in the face. It is not a recipe for political stability.
This club is anything but exclusive. Candidate members include Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey, where there are already signs that the economic
crisis is exacerbating domestic political conflicts. And let us not forget the plague of piracy in Somalia, the renewed civil war in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the continuing violence in Sudan’s Darfur region, and the heart of darkness that is Zimbabwe under
President Robert Mugabe. The axis of upheaval has many members. And it’s a fairly safe bet that the roster will grow even longer this year.
The problem is that, as in the 1930s, most countries are looking inward, grappling with the domestic consequences of the economic
crisis and paying little attention to the wider world crisis. This is true even of the United States, which is now so preoccupied with its
own economic problems that countering global upheaval looks like an expensive luxury. With the U.S. rate of GDP growth set to contract between 2 and 3
percentage points this year, and with the official unemployment rate likely to approach 10 percent, all attention in Washington will remain focused on a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. Caution has been thrown to the
wind by both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The projected deficit for 2009 is already soaring above the trillion-dollar mark, more than 8 percent of GDP. Few commentators are asking what all this means for U.S.
foreign policy.
The resources available for policing the world are certain to be reduced for the foreseeable future. That will be especially true if foreign
The answer is obvious:
investors start demanding higher yields on the bonds they buy from the United States or simply begin dumping dollars in exchange for other currencies.
Economic volatility, plus ethnic disintegration, plus an empire in decline: That combination is about the most lethal in geopolitics. We
now have all three. The age of upheaval starts now.
Space Weaponization Bad
Obama would prevent space weaponization
David Krieger, ‘8 (president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a councilor of the World Future Council, September, “Comparing
The Positions Of Senators Obama And Mccain On Nuclear Weapons Policy”,
http://www.mediaforfreedom.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=10451, JB)
Harvard Debate Institute
7
Elections DA
2012
Another potential stumbling block is space weaponization. Russians and the Chinese have both promoted a draft treaty to reserve outer space for peaceful purposes, including a ban on space
weaponization. The US has not been willing to even discuss such a ban, and was the only country in the United Nations to vote against such a ban in the 2007 UN General Assembly. The US
should join with the other countries of the world in assuring that space is reserved for peaceful purposes only. Senator Obama has said flatly, “I will not weaponize space .”
The impact is accidental nuclear war – risks extinction.
Mitchell, et al 1 -Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Debate at the University of Pittsburgh
(Dr. Gordon, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defence, “Missile Defence: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a Crossroads”, No. 6 July, http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html)
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the
tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact
elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of
offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc
Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35
interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars',
capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use
or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with
automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit
violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of
accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated
To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such
components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As
Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment
of
space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given
the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman,
'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than
would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one
of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any
nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical
weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever
seen.
Ext---Space Weaponization Bad
More evidence.
Chari, 7 – Research Professor, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (PR, “CHINA’S ASAT TEST Seeking the Strategic High Ground,” http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1512612560IPCSSpecial-Report-34.pdf
Possession of satellites with both defensive and offensive capabilities could, in theory, enable the nation possessing them to acquire
virtual invulnerability to counterattack by the adversary’s missiles. In other words, the ability to intercept a ballistic missile attack, using information acquired by reconnaissance and
communication satellites, could ensure an invulnerable first strike capability, untrammeled by the angst that the adversary would be able to launch a second strike and inflict unacceptable damage on
and ensure that second-strike capabilities remain
robust; thereby, the nuclear deterrent relationship between adversaries would also remain stable. Unfortunately, this scenario is unlikely to obtain in
the real world. A nation which discovers that its space-based assets have become vulnerable to attack would, most likely, either enlarge their
numbers or equip them with self-protecting equipment possessing both defensive and offensive capabilities. It could also place its other
nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert to attack the aggressor if it finds its space-based assets being targeted or attacked. This not implausible scenario might very well spell
the initiation of a nuclear Armageddon. Proceeding further, the national judgment of when, how and in what manner it would determine that its
space-based assets have been attacked to launch its counter-attack from space or earth would be made by computers. Given the reality that
computers do malfunction and the well-recognized maxims of Murphy’s Law, the transfer of decision-making on such vital national security issues to
computers and machines is hardly reassuring. Stated differently, the chances of accident, misunderstanding and misperception will increase
should decisionmaking be largely premised on mechanical instruments, which is inevitable when satellites are equipped and empowered
to launch attacks and defend themselves in space. This dispensation is, intrinsically, conducive to great instability and tensions in bilateral
relations.
the aggressor. Disrupting a putative detection and interception capability by ASAT means could, arguably, restore the balance,
AT Iran Strikes Turn
Obama won’t strike Iran – only sanctions will make Iran stop its nuclear program
The Guardian 11/3/07 (“Iran: Stopping nuclear ambitions”, lexis)
Harvard Debate Institute
8
Elections DA
2012
Bombing Iran would be a disaster. Even if bombs busted Iran's nuclear bunkers, they would still miss their target. A
military strike on the uranium-enrichment centrifuges would hasten an Iranian weapons programme, not delay it. A preemptive strike would turn a covert programme into an overt one, this time with the full backing of a wounded nation. Iran
would leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), spelling the end of visits by international nuclear inspectors. Iran has
already violated the NPT by failing to declare experiments with nuclear materials, but its formal departure from the regulatory regime would leave it free to pursue its nuclear programme unfettered by inspection. And Iran
would have 154,000 US targets in Iraq to fire back at. But letting Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions would be no less cataclysmic. The arrival of the Iranian bomb would set off an arms race among the Sunni states in the Gulf
unparalleled in the history of nuclear proliferation. The absence of Arab reaction to the Israeli bombing of a suspected nuclear facility under construction in the Syrian desert was a telling sign of the fear spreading in the
region. Even assuming Tehran would not pass fissile material to its proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas, the mere possession of a nuclear capability would give an unstable populist regime untold military and diplomatic clout.
International negotiations are logjammed. A grand bargain offered four years ago, whereby Iran stops uranium enrichment in return for uranium for its fuel cycle, generous aid packages and a full return to the international
stage, is still on the table. Iran has refused to comply with two previous rounds of UN sanctions and the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany were struggling yesterday in London to come up with a third round.
The threat of military action does not give the diplomats more force. It muddies their efforts by dividing world opinion
and allowing Iran to believe that it can stall indefinitely. If the military option can not be used, it must be removed from
the table. What the Iranian regime fears is a unified international response, because only then would it face a genuine
choice between the bomb and penury. Russia and China would have no choice but to support tougher economic sanctions, and Germany and Italy might even stop their export credit guarantees.
The Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said he would personally negotiate with the regime if it forgoes
pursuit of nuclear weapons. The desire to solve this issue needs that sort of commitment, if the west is not to find itself
igniting another fire in the Middle East that it can not put out.
Obama won’t strike Iran
NPR 8/13/07 (“Obama: Iran requires direct diplomacy”, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928)
Obama says that as president, he would use direct diplomacy to constrain Iran's role in Iraq, encouraging Iran to
cooperate with the United States through non-military means. In an interview with NPR's Andrea Seabook from a campaign stop in Iowa, Obama said that he'd use
whatever military force is necessary to protect U.S. citizens, but that "the military option is not the only option in the toolbox." "I think Iran understands what military threats we
Sen. Barack
pose. You know, they're not surprised that we could strike them, and strike them hard," Obama said. "What we haven't suggested in any way is what advantages they would have in acting more responsibly in the region.
That's been the missing ingredient." The Illinois Democrat's comments follow a week of sparring over Iran with his main rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has a commanding lead in the polls. On Thursday, Clinton said she'd
meet with Iranian leaders "without preconditions" — a position she criticized Obama for taking earlier in the summer. Obama also questioned Clinton's judgment in voting for last month's Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which
identified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran."This is a lesson that I think Sen. Clinton and others should have
learned: that you can't give this president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it," Obama said.
Obama won’t strike Iran – he’s already opposed a resolution to go to war with Iran
Donald Lambro 2/11/08 (The Washington Times, “Iraq aside, Democrats mum on foreign policy”, lexis)
Last year, though, Mrs. Clinton came under fire from antiwar activists when she voted for a bipartisan Senate resolution condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization that was responsible for roadside
Antiwar critics saw the vote as an attempt by the Bush administration to prepare to go to war against Iran
unless it abandoned its ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama opposed the resolution but missed the vote because he was
campaigning. Many of Mr. Obama 's foreign policy advisers are also from the Clinton administration, including former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state during Mr.
bombings and other attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.
Clinton's second term, and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. Also on his team are Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brezezinski, and former National Security Agency counterterrorism specialist Richard
A key foreign policy clash that developed during debates between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama arose when he called for a change
in dealing with rogue nations, saying he would hold unconditional talks with leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Mrs. Clinton called his proposal
"irresponsible and, frankly, naive." Mr. Obama shot back, charging that her approach was outdated and represented a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies. Mr. Obama 's foreign policy emphasizes
personal diplomacy, economic development and humanitarian aid, and he rejects the pre-emptive policies of the Bush administration that
led to the war in Iraq. "For most of our history, our crises have come from using force when we shouldn't, not by failing to use force," he told the New York Times. "The United States is trapped
by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough; it makes
us look arrogant," he says on his campaign Web site. But Mr. O'Hanlon thinks Mr. Obama 's eagerness for one-on-one meetings with leaders of rogue nations "would cheapen the value of a presidential summits."
Clarke.
"You don't want a president using his time by being lied to by foreign leaders. Hillary would be much more pragmatic. She suggested midlevel talks with Iran. Obama would look weak, and Hillary would not look weak," he said.
Obama will not strike Iran
FOXNews.com, 7- 9, 2008 “MCCAIN, OBAMA STAKE OUT DIFFERENCES ON IRANIAN MISSILE TESTS”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-says-iranian-missile-tests-prove-need-for-diplomacy/
Obama
“I would want to talk to the national security team to find out whether this indicates any new capabilities on Iran’s part. At this point, the reports aren’t clear. It’s still early,”
told CBS’ “Early Show.” “But I
think what this underscores is the need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behavior. And, frankly, we just have not been able to do that over the last several years. Partly because we’re
released a statement saying: “These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat
Now is the time to
pursue
diplomacy with the Iranian regime
not engaged in direct diplomacy,” he said. His campaign
posed by the Iranian regime. “
work with our friends and allies, and to
direct and aggressive
backed by tougher
unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.”
McCain told reporters in South Park, Pa., that the reported tests prove Iran is a threat to the surrounding region. “Channels of communication have
been open and will remain open, but the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran,” he said. “Diplomacy plays a key role … but history shows us when nations embark on paths that
can jeopardize the security of the region and the world then other action besides diplomacy has to be contemplated and
taken, and that’s why meaningful and impactful sanctions are called for at this time.” McCain said there is “continuing, mounting evidence that Iran is
pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons,” a statement that appears at odds with a December U.S. intelligence report that concluded the country’s nuclear weapons program was halted in the fall of 2003.
Harvard Debate Institute
9
Elections DA
2012
**UQ
2NC UQ
Obama ahead now---here’s a graph predicting a 11 point lead in the electoral college
NYT, accessed 7/1/12, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map
Obama will win now----Job numbers
Nate Silver, 2/3/12 (“Obama’s Magic Number? 150,000 Jobs Per Month”, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/obamasmagic-number-150000-jobs-per-month/#h[])
Updated On Friday morning, the
Labor Department announced that the economy added 243,000 jobs in January and an average of 201,000 jobs
over the last three months.
The unemployment report on Friday will give us the most tangible read to date on how the economy is performing in 2012. It might also represent the
number yet for President Obama’s prospects of winning re-election.
most important
Here’s a spoiler: reports that say more than 150,000 jobs have been created can generally be interpreted as good news for Mr. Obama.
Reports that come in at under 150,000 jobs could put him on a trajectory toward defeat.
However, the matter is worth examining in more depth.
No economic indicator is the holy grail. The American economy is a hard thing to measure, and initial estimates of economic performance are subject to significant
revisions. Different aspects of the economy affect different people in different ways (the political science literature on exactly how economic performance affects voter
behavior comes to some diverse conclusions). And there are a number of non-economic variables pertinent to predicting presidential elections — wars, candidate quality and
ideology, turnout, scandals and so forth.
But if you want to focus a single economic indicator, job growth during the presidential election year — especially as measured by the series called nonfarm
payrolls — has a lot going for it.
data related to the change in the level of employment have had among the highest correlations with electoral
performance in the past. The correlations aren’t perfect by any means. But if you perform a true apples-to-apples comparison (that is, looking at
the economic indicators alone rather than muddying them with other sorts of extraneous variables), they do at least as well as anything
else in predicting elections, and slightly better than some other commonly used metrics.
Just as important, there are a lot of qualitative reasons to focus on the jobs numbers. They measure something tangible and important. They receive much attention
from economists, investors, political campaigns and the news media, and therefore inform the public discussion . They are released every month
For one thing,
after only a minimal lag. They are subject to revision, and the revisions can be significant, but they aren’t quite as bad as those for other economic series like G.D.P. or
personal income growth. The jobs numbers are calculated in a comparatively straightforward way, and are usually in pretty good alignment with other economic measures.
They don’t need to be adjusted for inflation.
These qualitative factors are important because a sample size of 16 elections since World War II is insufficient to provide for persuasive statistical evidence as to which
economic indicators (from among dozens or hundreds of credible candidates) are really best for predicting election outcomes in the long-run. Still, that the statistical
relationship between job growth and re-election has been comparatively good in the past is reassuring.
In the table below, I’ve listed the annualized rate of payroll growth from January through October in the 16 presidential election years since World War II, then compared it
to the margin of victory or defeat for the incumbent party.
Because these growth rates are not commonly reported, I’ve used a little algebra to translate them into something I call “equivalent monthly jobs.” This represents how
many jobs would be added or subtracted per month using today’s figure of 131.9 million payroll jobs as a baseline.
In 1984 under Ronald Reagan, for instance, jobs grew at an annualized rate of 4.43 percent, which worked out to an average of 340,000 new jobs added per month from
January through October. That’s already a very good figure. But it’s even better when you translate it into today’s terms, since the adult population is now larger. Were
payroll jobs to grow at 4.43 percent this year, that would translate to about 487,000 new jobs per month. (With numbers like that, you might be able to win re-election
against George Washington, let alone Walter Mondale.)
In the three election years where the economy was actually shedding jobs, the incumbent party lost — badly in 1980 and in 2008, and in a close election in 1960. And
George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 when the rate of job growth was under 1 percent, below the rate of population growth.
Overall, the relationship between job growth and electoral performance is good but not great.
Roughly speaking, there were 10 election years in which you could make a pretty good prediction about the election outcome from knowing the jobs numbers alone: 1948,
1960, and then the eight elections from 1980 onward.
The year 1992 is something of a borderline case — job growth was sluggish enough that you might have expected a loss for Mr. Bush, but not necessarily a clear loss. Still,
there were some other things going on that year — Bill Clinton was a highly skilled and relatively moderate candidate, Ross Perot was in the race and Republicans had held
the White House for three consecutive terms.
In six other elections, you would have needed to look beyond the jobs numbers to come to a good prediction about the outcome.
In 1964 and 1972, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had strong jobs numbers and were clear favorites for re-election on that basis, but their huge margins of victory
also came about in part because they were running against extremist opponents who had little appeal to swing voters.
In 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower won an overwhelming victory despite the economic numbers being fairly average — perhaps a testament to his personal popularity,
especially against a milquetoast Democratic opponent in Adlai Stevenson.
Meanwhile, there were three times that the incumbent party lost despite fairly strong jobs numbers. Gerald Ford was weighed down by Watergate and Richard Nixon’s
resignation in 1976. Hubert Humphrey in 1968 was running in the shadow of Johnson, who had become unpopular amid an environment of racial tension and protests over
Harvard Debate Institute
10
Elections DA
2012
the Vietnam War. Stevenson, in 1952, had a number of things working against him: Democrats had occupied the White House for five consecutive terms, the Korean War
had become fairly unpopular and he was running against one of the strongest opponents ever in Eisenhower.
A bit of common sense, in other words, can usually explain these outliers. (I won’t go on another diatribe about this, but be wary of models that substitute data dredging for
common sense.)
But what about Mr. Obama?
If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, it doesn’t seem as though the outcome is likely to be an outlier. Mr. Romney is, by most
measures, a fairly average challenger — neither a bridge-building moderate like Eisenhower, nor someone far outside of the political
mainstream like George McGovern.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has no major scandals or foreign policy debacles to deal with.
Yes, there are little things that could matter around the margin — for instance, an unmotivated Democratic or Republican base, or Mr.
Romney’s mediocre favorability ratings. But those are things that might shift the outcome by a percentage point or two rather than
producing a radical deviation from the economic fundamentals.
One way to estimate how many jobs Mr. Obama would need to create to win re-election is to look at the red regression line in the charts
above. It crosses the horizontal axis at a figure of about 107,000 jobs per month.
What this means is that if we knew nothing else about the election but how many jobs were created between January and October 2012, we would deem Mr.
Obama to be a favorite if the economy created more than 107,000 jobs per month and an underdog otherwise.
Supreme Court ruling against Arizona’s immigration law hurts Romney
Nate Cohn, 6/25/12, election blogger for the New Republic, “Today’s Immigration Ruling Adds To Romney’s Latino Woes”,
http://www.tnr.com/blogs/electionate)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against three components of the
controversial Arizona immigration law, while upholding the provision requiring police to check the immigration status of individuals suspected to be in the United States illegally. Whatever the
legal or policy merits of the decision—and TNR’s writers and analysts have a take on both matters—the decision places Romney in a
difficult spot on immigration issues for the second time this month.
The long-awaited health care ruling didn't arrive this morning, but there was another significant announcement:
Even though the law has stirred considerable controversy, most polls show that the Arizona law is broadly popular. According to a recent Pew Research survey, 58 percent of Americans approve of the law, including 69 percent of
white voters and 84 percent of Republicans. Given broad public and Republican support, Romney has no choice but to endorse the surviving provisions of the Arizona law, should he choose to weigh in. Of course, Latinos are
overwhelmingly opposed, with just 21 percent of Hispanics approving and 75 percent disapproving. Significantly, more Latino voters disapprove of the Arizona law than voted for Obama in 2008, suggesting additional downside
risks to Republicans and placing Romney in a difficult position.
During the GOP primary, Romney said that Arizona’s immigration laws were a model for the nation (although his comments were largely in the context of other elements of Arizona’s immigration laws, including e-verify, as his
campaign has been keen to observe). By returning attention to the Arizona law, the court’s ruling ensures that Romney’s prior comments receive renewed attention. Democrats will focus on reviving Romney’s past comments, and
with the Supreme Court poised to hold off on the ACA ruling until Thursday, there is a window when the press will again focus on immigration issues.
If past is prologue, Romney will attempt to skirt the issue—perhaps by simply observing the importance of border enforcement. Sustained attention will make it difficult for Romney to avoid more direct comments, perhaps
Even if Romney avoids weighing in, Democrats will employ Romney’s “model for the nation”
comment to such an extent that an explicit Romney endorsement is unnecessary for them to achieve their political objectives .
Few voters are likely to cast their ballots exclusively on the intricacies of immigration policy, but Romney risks further alienating moderate Latino voters who consider the law hostile to the Latino community. Obama
stands to benefit to the extent that the DREAM gambit and today’s ruling combine to reinforce that perception among undecided Latino
voters who likely supported McCain in 2008. At the same time, the ruling blunts the recurring theme that Obama has not made progress
on immigration. The Justice Department’s lawsuit did not produce their preferred outcome, but Obama can take credit for invalidating
three provisions of the state’s law.
One should not expect clear and substantial movement toward Obama in the polls, since Obama has already consolidated most of the Obama ’08 Latino vote. As a result, further gains won't be easy. However, most polls
suggest that there are more undecided Latino voters than other racial/ethnic groups, and Romney is generally polling below McCain’s
final standing. If Obama won an outsized share of undecided Latino voters, he could perform better among Latinos than he did in 2008,
even if that seems unlikely given the economic circumstances. It is possible for Romney to overcome a 2008-esque defeat among Latino voters, but he can’t afford further losses. Since
immigration represents Romney’s biggest vulnerability among Latino voters, every day that the news focuses on immigration is a bad
day for Romney and good day for the President.
especially since Romney is fundraising in Arizona right now.
That means Obama will win
NYT, Accessed 7/1/12, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map
Florida
The most famous battleground state in America could once again earn that title. President Obama carried the state in 2008, but a wave of
home foreclosures and a sour economy has complicated his path to an easy victory. A growing number of conservative retirees offer Mitt
Romney hope, but the outcome could hinge on whether he can win over Hispanic voters, particularly younger Cuban Americans in
southern Florida and Puerto Ricans in central Florida.
2NC UQ---Prefer Pew
PEW polls are non-partisan and most accurate
Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, ‘7 (“Ask The Expert: Using the internet to stay informed about government and politics with Dr. Kathleen
Hall Jamieson”, Prof, www.annenbergclassroom.org/asset.aspx?id=928, JB)
Harvard Debate Institute
11
Elections DA
2012
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (http://people-press.org/) is a non partisan center that conducts well-respected polls on national issues.
Polling questions usually reflect the key arguments in a debate. This means that reading the questions is a good way to get a sense of the important areas of disagreement on an issue. And the
results of the poll provide a sense of the public’s opinion on the day the poll was taken.
AT Too Far Off/Can’t Predict
Our authors are accurate
ICA, '6 (International Communication Association, April 28, "Forecasting teh Outcome of National Election", p. 2, JB)
Predicting the outcome of elections is a perennial issue for politicians, journalists, and academics and big business for polling firms. The
media reports extensively about pre-election polls, and a majority of voters will encounter such information during the course of a
campaign. For the most part, the polls of professional polling firms tend to perform rather well and allow fairly accurate predictions of
upcoming elections.
AT HC Helps Romney
Opposition to healthcare is already accounted for by the polls
NATE SILVER, 6/28/12 (founder of fivethirtyeight.com, “In Health Ruling, Relief for Obama but a Blow to Conventional Wisdom”,
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
some observers have claimed that the decision could help Mitt Romney in terms of electoral
politics.
With due respect, I think this counterintuitive conclusion is too cute by half. It may involve the same sort of wishful thinking that
liberals were guilty of when some began to argue that the court striking the health care bill would actually help Mr. Obama politically.
Other analyses issued before the decision had implausibly argued that both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama could benefit from the law being upheld. They seem to forget that in contrast to public policy, electoral politics
is largely a zero-sum game.
The health care law is likely to remain fairly unpopular; opinions about it have been essentially unchanged for most of the last two
years. The bill was probably partially responsible for the significant losses that Democrats endured in the 2010 midterm elections.
But continued dissatisfaction over the health care bill was presumably already priced into the polls. A decision that upholds the status quo
is not likely to change that much.
To the extent there are marginal effects of the court’s decision, they would seem to be positive for Mr. Obama. The framework of the bill has now been
If Mr. Obama is the victor from the standpoint of public policy, however,
endorsed by the court, including by John G. Roberts Jr., the relatively conservative and relatively well-respected Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion.
It won’t motivate his base any more than they already are
NATE SILVER, 6/28/12 (founder of fivethirtyeight.com, “In Health Ruling, Relief for Obama but a Blow to Conventional Wisdom”,
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Some of the analyses that claim the law could help Mr. Romney instead argue that Thursday’s decision could motivate the Republican
base. But the Republican base was already reasonably well motivated for the election. A decision to strike down the law, meanwhile,
would have represented a victory for movement conservatism — and victory can be its own motivating force.
AT HC Means Obama Can’t Lose
Post-Healthcare polls overestimate the boost to Obama
NATE SILVER, 6/28/12 (founder of fivethirtyeight.com, “In Health Ruling, Relief for Obama but a Blow to Conventional Wisdom”,
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
And be wary of whatever the polls say for the next week or two — the short-term reaction to the news of the ruling may not match its
long-term political effects. As before, the presidential election is mostly likely to be contested mainly on economic grounds. Next week’s jobs
report is likely to have a larger effect on the election than what the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
AT Moral Issues
Moral issues like abortion and gay marriage don’t matter – empirically proven
Wilensky, Professor of PoliSci at University of California, Berkeley, ‘8 (Harold L., 2008: Democratic Sweep or a Near Miss?,
Huffington Post, 7/15, GF)
Harvard Debate Institute
12
Elections DA
2012
Many instant analysts argued that the wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage were critical in the defeat of John Kerry. Using standard
multivariate statistics on exit polls and one of the most thorough national post-election surveys, political scientists have now shown that
such "moral values" were at best very marginal in the 2004 outcome. Two of the several academics who analyzed this, D.S. Hillygus
and T.G. Shields, summarize: Opinions about gay marriage and abortion "...had no effect on voter decision making among
Independents, respondents in battleground states, or even among respondents with an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.... Only in
the South did either issue have an independent effect on vote choice, and even here the effect was minimal." Overwhelmingly what
counted nationally as well as in the South were attitudes toward the economy, the Iraq war, and terrorism. (Of course, no one knows
whether gay marriage was worth the 60,000 vote shift in Ohio that would have made Kerry President.)
The lesson from 2006 is that where Democrats spend their energies and money on bread-and-butter issues, where they avoid burning
themselves out fighting the culture war and quit searching for a middle mushy ground to accommodate current Republican leadership
("bipartisanship"), they win.
**Links/ILs
2NC Link---General
And – Voters pay attention to transportation infrastructure policy
Callen ‘9 ZACHARY A CALLEN – THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO – “THE SEAMS OF THE STATE: INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS IN AMERICAN STATE BUILDING” – A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO – THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IN
CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE – AUGUST – http://gradworks.umi.com/3369449.pdf
Further, spatial development continues to be a salient political issue into the present day. In 2006, there was conflict over shipping ports that were sold to a foreign company
based in Dubai. Much of the concern that originated about this sale related directly to issues of security and questions over where companies that controlled the entrance of
goods to American shores should be housed (Sanger, 2006; Sanger and Lipton, 2006). More closely tied to daily experience, following the astronomic rise of gas prices in
the summer of 2008, there was increased discussion about mass transit in American cities. Related to automobiles, but more grimly, the bridge collapse in Minnesota during
the summer of 2007 raised serious questions about the age and maintenance of American infrastructure (Wald, 2008). The increasing costs and risks of infrastructure
maintenance has actually led some states, such as Indiana, to turn over the operation of toll roads to private companies, an action that generated considerable debate (Desk,
2006). Thus, far from being a settled concern, infrastructure projects continue to generate considerable debate, conflict, and attention from
voters. The issue that perhaps speaks most strongly to the ongoing pertinence of infrastructure politics is, of course, the sizable role
infrastructure played in the most recent presidential campaign. Following his victory, Barack Obama made a sizable commitment to
infrastructure repair and development as part of his economic development package in early 2009. Interestingly, an important facet of Obama's plan is the
building of several high speed rail corridors throughout the country. Significantly, Obama's infrastructure plans also directly relate to the problem of federalism in American
political development. The components of Obama's stimulus package that are geared towards infrastructure programs build directly on local projects, with federal funds
being being utilized to jump start state and city e orts stalled by the economic recession (Baker and Broder, 2008). Thus, local competition for limited local resources
continues to color modern infrastructure construction, much as in the antebellum period. As evidenced by these brief, contemporary anecdotes, space and how it
should be organized within a federal system continues to be a topical political issue that challenges human ingenuity and sparks heated political conflict
within the American federal system.
AT Rubio
Rubio doesn’t make Florida a lock for the GOP – still up for grabs
McManus ’12 Doyle McManus is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, who appears often on Public Broadcasting Service's Washington Week. He earned an
A.B. in history at Stanford University in 1974, and was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Brussels. LA Times – April 26, 2012 –
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/news/la-ol-vice-president-rubio-20120426
And Rubio might not even help Romney carry his home state. In Florida, the tea party senator is something of a polarizing figure. A
Rasmussen Poll last month found that 48% of Floridians have a favorable view of Rubio, not an overwhelming number for a well-known
senator. Fox News found that Rubio’s name on the ticket didn’t help Romney in a head-to-head poll: When vice presidential nominees
were mentioned, the outcome was still a dead heat, 45% for Obama-Biden to 44% for Romney-Rubio.
Rubio does not make Florida a lock for the GOP
March ’11 William March is a political reporter at the Tampa Tribune. Tampa Tribune. October 22, 2011 election2010.illumen.org/latest-news/appeal-of-rubioon-ticket-not-clear
But some political experts, and not just Democrats, raise questions about how much Rubio would help the GOP 2012 ticket. Most agree his
charisma would energize a ticket that could be plagued by lack of fervor and that he would appeal to Hispanics. But Rubio’s own electoral record and job
Harvard Debate Institute
13
Elections DA
2012
approval ratings don’t suggest he could single-handedly swing Florida and create a national GOP Hispanic win. And drawn
rightward by the tea party, Rubio has taken stances on some immigration-related issues that don’t please some of his own Hispanic
constituents. His appeal may have taken a hit this week with revelations that Rubio has not been completely accurate in his frequent, dramatic descriptions of his
family’s history as exiles from Castro’s Cuba. His parents left Cuba before Castro took power.
Romney won’t choose Rubio
Fiscal Times ’12 (June 1, 2012 – http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/01/Can-Romney-Resist-Marco-Rubio-As-Running-Mate.aspx#page1)
But Romney’s choice of Rubio over other suitors – including GOP governors Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rep. Paul
Ryan of Wisconsin and Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio – is far from a slam dunk. For one thing, there have been allegations of fund-raising
irregularities in his 2010 Senate race. And according to some experts, Rubio’s appeal to Latinos is largely limited to Florida’s huge Cuban-American, antiCastro community.
Rubio won’t be selected as the VP.
Adams ’12 (David C Adams – Bureau Chief for South-East US and Caribbean at Thomson Reuters – Reuter’s – Jan 26th –
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-usa-campaign-florida-rubio-idUSTRE80P09620120126)
But Rubio may not be as coveted as Gingrich or Romney would have it appear as they press for votes in Florida, where more than 450,000 Hispanics
identify themselves as Republicans. Despite his reputation as a watchdog over federal spending, Rubio, 40, has had significant financial problems that
could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice, Republican and Democratic strategists say. In
some ways, the story of Rubio's finances is similar to those of hundreds of thousands of his constituents in a state where more than 40 percent of homeowners are
"underwater," owing more on their homes than the homes are worth. It is a crisis driven by falling property values and ill-advised home equity loans that drove up
homeowners' debts. Rubio owes far more on his $384,000 Miami home than it is worth, and at times has had difficulty paying his mortgage. He bought the home in
2005 for $550,000 with a $495,000 mortgage. He soon had it appraised for $735,000 and took out a home equity line of credit for $135,000. In 2008, despite earning a
declared $400,000 - including his $300,000 salary from the Miami law firm Broad and Cassel - Rubio failed to pay down the principal on his home for
several months, according to Florida campaign finance disclosures. During the same period he did not make payments on a $100,000-plus student
loan from his days at the University of Miami, the disclosures said. Rubio's spending habits also have gotten attention in Florida . Before joining the
Senate last year, he was caught up in an Internal Revenue Service investigation of the Florida Republican Party's use of party-issued credit
cards. He frequently had used his party credit card for personal use , and later reimbursed the card company for about $16,000. Rubio's handling of his
personal finances contrasts sharply with the image of him on his Senate website, which highlights Rubio's efforts to prevent Washington from "piling up debt." "We
need a government that stops spending more money than it takes in," the website says. Rubio's financial issues have led Florida Democrats to cast him
as a hypocrite. "Rubio campaigned on reining in government spending, but his own personal spending is out control," said Brannon Jordan of the Florida
Democratic Party. "He says one thing but is doing another." Rubio's office declined to discuss his mortgage issues in detail.
**Aff
2AC Link UQ---Slayer
Umm…goodbye all negative arguments
Frank Thorp, 6/29/12 (MSNBC, "Congress sends student loan and transportation package to Obama",
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/29/12483144-congress-sends-student-loan-and-transportation-package-toobama?lite&google_editors_picks=true)
Congress ended months of partisan bickering on Friday by passing and sending to President Barack Obama a comprehensive extension
of highway and infrastructure projects, along with a one-year extension of low student loan rates that were set to double.
The House voted 373 to 52 to approve a $120 billion, 27-month bill to fund highway projects. Attached to that bill was the student
loan extension, which prevented rates from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1.
The Senate approved the package shortly thereafter in a 74-19 vote. The legislation now heads to the White House for the president's
signature.
2AC Link Turn
Harvard Debate Institute
14
2012
Elections DA
Our link turn outweighs – support for infrastructure investment outweighs concerns about spending or
mismanagement.
Halsey ’12 (Ashley Halsey III is a staff writer for The Washington Post – Washington Post – April 24, 2012 – lexis)
The plan to energize public support was outlined Monday in a report by transportation experts brought together by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. After a
conference in November, the group concluded that most Americans are aware of the infrastructure crisis and support spending to address it.
"Recent public-opinion surveys have found overwhelming support for the idea of infrastructure investmen t," the report said. "After the 'bridge
to nowhere' controversies of recent years, the public has become sensitized to issues of pork-barrel spending and understandably demands to see a
clear connection between federal expenditures, actual transportation needs, and economic benefits." Despite apprehension about wasteful spending, the report
said, more than two-thirds of voters surveyed by the Rockefeller Foundation said infrastructure improvement was important and 80 percent said
spending on it would create millions of jobs. The transportation group, co-chaired by former transportation secretaries Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K.
Skinner, compiled a comprehensive study on infrastructure in 2010. That report estimated that an additional $134 billion to $262 billion must be spent per year through 2035
to rebuild and improve roads, rail systems and air transportation.
Transportation infrastructure will be a central issue in 2012
A.D.S. Logistics, ‘12 –This article internally quotes the HNTB Report, a survey conducted by Kelton Research – Our staff of authors at ADS Logistics are pulled
from all of our different divisions. Collectively they have over 100 years of experience in the metals, transportation, and supply chain management industry, which they
comb through on a daily basis to bring you the best and most important information that you need to know – ADS Logistics Supply Chain Management Blog –
“Transportation Infrastructure Weighs Heavy on the Minds of Voters” – May 29, 2012 – http://www.adslogistics.com/blog/bid/78595/Transportation-Infrastructure-WeighsHeavy-on-the-Minds-of-Voters
With all the political issues you will be hearing about as the election nears, one important topic that will be on many Americans’ minds
may surprise you.
The transportation infrastructure concerns many in this country, and it will be heavily considered before voters decide who they want for
the next president.
In fact, according to Truckinginfo, about two thirds of American voters claim that each candidate’s stance on transportation infrastructure
will help them vote. This is not exactly a hot button issue that you may see discussed on the news frequently, but it is clearly important to
the average voter.
The survey, which was conducted by HNTB Corp., also discovered the following results:
89% of citizens surveyed feel that federal funding is crucial to improve interstate highways.
More than 80% wish to increase current funding for highways.
57% claimed that this country’s infrastructure is underfunded.
Why Do Voters Care?
Though people may not discuss this issue as much as they talk about hot topics, it is easy to see why it is important to most. When
highways and bridges are left to deteriorate, they become unsafe for travel. In addition, when new roads and bridges are not being built as
the population grows, travel becomes more difficult.
A crumbling infrastructure is not just unsafe, it is also unappealing, as some older roads and bridges have simply become eyesores that
passers-by and local residents alike do not want to look at. Putting additional money into improving the infrastructure, therefore, can
increase safety, travel, and appeal. So it should be obvious now why so many voters will consider this issue when voting in the upcoming
election.
How Can We Increase Funding?
The problem is that the government, like so many people, does not have any disposable income at this point. There are a few other
options, including implementing tolls on many highways to help pay for the improved infrastructure. About 61% of those polled seem to
like this idea, especially when compared to the other options of increasing the gas tax, or implementing a tax based on the number of
miles driven by each car owner.
There are pilot programs in place to test out the use of tolls, but nothing is official yet. Meanwhile, you can expect to hear about the
transportation infrastructure issue as November creeps closer, since apparently so many voters are keeping this in mind as they choose a
new president.
2AC Rubio Pounder
Rubio will be the VP on the ticket
Krauthammer ’12 (as quoted in Real Clear Politics – Charles Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post who is regarded as an
important intellectual trailblazer of neoconservative discourse in the United States. Real Clear Politics – April 23rd –
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/23/krauthammer_rubio_will_find_a_horses_head_in_his_bed_if_he_passes_on_vp.html)
Harvard Debate Institute
15
Elections DA
2012
"If Rubio passes the vetting process, assuming he does, I think he's the obvious choice. And if he says he doesn’t want the office, he'll find a horse's
head in his bed. The next day he will accept," Charles Krauthammer said on this week's broadcast of "Inside Washington." "Romney's not going to take
no for an answer. We have ways, we Republicans," Krauthammer added.
That ensures GOP wins Florida
Miller ‘12
(internally quoting Florida-based political consultant Rick Wilson Zeke Miller is a staff writer for Buzz Feed – Buzz Feed – Apr 3, 2012 –
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/the-rubio-assumption)
Romney is a candidate who always makes the safe choice. But despite some worries about Rubio’s time in the Florida legislature, the rising
expectations may make Rubio the safest. “If you put Marco Rubio on the ticket you lock down Florida,” said Florida-based political consultant
Rick Wilson, explaining the simple calculus that is certain to appeal to Romney’s advisers.
AT Zogby
Zogby polls are bias
Five Thirty Eight, 8/25/08 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/, JB)
Of course, bad pollsters can have house effects too (I just wanted to list a couple of good pollsters first to debunk the notion that house
effects mean 'bias'). Zogby Interactive has a pretty strong Democratic lean, for instance. TargetPoint has a pretty strong Republican lean.
AT Target Point
TargetPoint polls are bias
Five Thirty Eight, 8/25/08 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/, JB)
Of course, bad pollsters can have house effects too (I just wanted to list a couple of good pollsters first to debunk the notion that house
effects mean 'bias'). Zogby Interactive has a pretty strong Democratic lean, for instance. TargetPoint has a pretty strong Republican lean.
AT Florida Key
Florida’s not key to the election
Smith ’11 Adam C. Smith, Tampa Times Political Editor, October 11, 2011 – http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/the-tricky-2012-math-for-presidentbarack-obama/1196157
There's good news for President Barack Obama as he sweeps into Florida today to raise money in a state where barely four in 10 voters approve of his performance:
He can lose Florida's 29 electoral votes and still comfortably win re-election in 2012. Thanks to the expanded political playing field he helped
create three years ago, even a long-standing presidential election axiom — whoever wins two out of three between Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio
wins the White House — is out the window. Obama could lose all three of those mega battleground states, 67 electoral votes combined, and still have
more than enough to win the required 270. That's because in 2008, Obama overwhelmingly won the electoral vote, 365 to John McCain's 173.