1NC
Despite setback, TPA passage still likely, but Obama PC key – vital to US trade
leadership, TPP and asia pivot
Kehoe, 6/14 -- John, Journalist and US Correspondent at Australian Financial Review,
AFR Weekend, http://www.afr.com/news/world/north-america/obama-applies-pressureto-democrats-ahead-of-new-vote-on-stalled-bill-20150614-ghnfrq
Obama applies pressure to Democrats ahead of new vote on stalled bill A former senior adviser to US President
Barack Obama has warned that the no vote by the US Congress that blocked a proposed Pacific rim free trade deal
is a "near-death experience" for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Matthew Goodman, who was an international economic
adviser to President Obama, told The Australian Financial Review the vote was a serious setback. "But it's still in play and
the broad consensus in Washington is that this will still move forward and get done," said Mr
Goodman, now a senior Asia adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr Obama, who
has been criticised for failing to persuade Democrats of the benefits of international trade, spent the weekend
lobbying his own party to overturn their opposition. The President's lack of clout with colleagues suggests his power is fading
late in his second term. The mooted free trade pact encompassing Australia and 11 other Pacific rim countries hit a roadblock, after Mr Obama
copped an embarrassing rejection from his own Democratic Party on legislation considered vital to finalising the TPP. Democrats in
Congress, under pressure from trade unions worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs from free trade, on Friday turned against the President
at the eleventh hour on a trade bill intended to pave the way for the US to finalise the TPP with negotiating countries. Unless the Congress
grants Mr Obama so-called "trade promotion authority" (TPA), countries like Australia and Japan are unlikely to sign
the TPP, a pact that would cover more than 40 per cent of the world's economy and set sweeping new
rules for trade, investment, intellectual property, labour and the environment. "Trying to ratify the TPP in
US Congress without TPA will kill the agreement," said Shiro Armstrong, a co-director of the AustraliaJapan Reserach Centre at Australian National University. "The Japanese side has rightly made it clear it will not
conclude the bilateral negotiation or show all its cards until the President has TPA." The House will hold
another crucial vote on Tuesday in an attempt to win support for the trade legislation. Minister for Trade and
Investment Andrew Robb admitted Friday's outcome was a setback, but remained optimistic a deal could be struck.
"There is always a lot of cut and thrust in these things and politics being played ," Mr Robb said. "There is
another opportunity to get the ducks lined up but second guessing the US is always difficult." "I remain hopeful the
relevant legislation will ultimately pass which would provide the necessary momentum to conclude the
negotiations." Major TPP countries like Japan and Canada are highly unlikely to sign the TPP and drop
agriculture tariffs and import restrictions, unless they have confidence Mr Obama can push the TPP
through Congress. At the heart of the US domestic political debate is a fight between pro-free trade
Republicans and sceptical Democrats worried about international trade sending blue collar jobs to cheaper labour countries like
Vietnam. In an unusual alliance, Mr Obama has teamed up with Republican rivals like Paul Ryan, a former US vice president candidate and chair
of the House ways and means committee. Unless
Mr Obama is granted TPA, also known as fast track, trade experts say the
TPP won't be concluded by the negotiating countries. TPA allows Mr Obama to finalise a trade pact with other countries, and
prevents Congress changing the details of a deal, only giving lawmakers a yes or no vote on the TPP. The House on Friday tried to pass two
pieces of trade legislation, after the Senate approved the bill this month. The package fell apart after Democratic House minority leader Nancy
Pelosi and her colleagues reneged on approving the proposal. Democrats,
largely for political tactical reasons, rejected a
trade adjustment package of about $US1 billion intended to compensate workers disrupted by trade. The final vote tally was 126-302.
"Its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we would be able to slow down the fast track," Ms Pelosi said. The rebuff shocked the White House,
because the measure was proposed by Democrats to offset the ostensible negative impacts on local jobs in return for granting Mr Obama TPA.
While the TPA part of the bill subsequently won a narrow majority of support in the House by a margin of 219-211, including 28 Democrats, the
vote was in effect irrelevant. TPA and trade adjustment authority for worker-aid both need to both be passed together, to match identical
legislation approved by the Senate. Mr Obama
on the weekend urged lawmakers to reverse their opposition. "These
kinds of agreements make sure that the global economy's rules aren't written by countries like China; they're written
by the United States of America," Mr Obama said. If the US fails to secure the TPP with the 11 other countries, it would be a
major blow to President Obama's "rebalance" to Asia and help tip the balance in favour of emerging
rival China for influence in the region. The 12 TPP countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New
Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Virtually every US president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940s had been granted
the power to set trade deals, including most recently George W Bush and Bill Clinton.
Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new surveillance limits
uniquely drains PC
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what
critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers
may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week
passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama
signed the bill hours later. After that action , expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of
Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-andfile lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor
Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get
“broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau,
managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance
programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed
to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not
accept that.” Other activists
are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting
more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public
outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach
for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater
we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass
surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual
physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
TPA key to TPP – solves multiple scenarios for conflict throughout asia and east
asia – impact D and thumpers don’t apply trumps every alt cause, thumper, and impact d - - it’s the
necessary and sufficient condition for every internal link – 11 reasons
-
Pivot
Institutions and Rules that moderate and constrain Territorial disputes and escalation
US regional leadership
Perception and credibility of US regional commitment
-
Perception and Regional credibility of US-Japan alliance effectiveness
Economy
Trade
Economic interdependence
Peaceful china rise and transition
Rule of law
Outweighs US military shift
Economist 14. [11-15-14 --- http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21631797-americaneeds-push-free-trade-pact-pacific-more-vigorously-americas-big-bet]
In September, just
days after Mr Abe reiterated in America that TPP was crucial for raising Japan’s agricultural competitiveness
down. Each side blamed the other, though
Americans continue to suspect that the problem is not Mr Abe’s own commitment but the weight the farmers carry with his bureaucrats. The
Japanese, for their part, realise that their best offer may never be good enough for Congress, so without TPA
there is unlikely to be TPP. Mr Froman, the trade tsar, puts TPP into a dauntingly ambitious context. He calls it
central to America’s pivot to Asia , a chance to show the country’s commitment to creating
institutions that moderate territorial disputes, and an opportunity to show emerging economies
(meaning China) what economic rules the global economy should follow . “At a time when there is
uncertainty about the direction of the global trading system, TPP can play a central role in setting
rules of the road for a critical region in flux,” he says. The flipside of this is that failure becomes an even
bigger risk , which Mr Froman acknowledges. Perhaps in an effort to prod a somnolent, introspective Congress into action, he makes the
dramatic claim that failure could mean America “would forfeit its seat at the centre of the global economy”.
Many pundits in Washington agree that American leadership in Asia is on the table . Michael Green of the Centre
for Strategic and International Studies says TPP failure would “undermine the impression of the United States
as a Pacific power and look like an abdication of leadership”. It would also take pressure off Japan
and China to reform their economies. Mireya Solís, a Japan expert at the Brookings Institution, says it would be
a “devastating blow to the United States’ credibility ”. Those views are echoed in East Asia. Mr Tay in
Singapore says TPP failure would be a disaster: “If the domestic issues of these two countries cannot be
resolved, there is no sense that the US-Japan alliance can provide any kind of steerage for the
region.” Deborah Elms, head of the Singapore-based Asian Trade Centre, suggests that so far the American pivot has manifested itself
mainly as an extra 1,000 marines stationed in Australia. “ Without TPP, all the pivot amounts to is a few extra boots
on the ground in Darwin,” she says. Even members of America’s armed forces are worried. As one senior serving
officer in the Pacific puts it, “the TPP unites countries that are committed to a trade-based future,
transparency and the rule of law. It is the model that the United States and Europe have advanced
versus that advanced by China. It is an opportunity to move the arc of Chinese development, or identify it as
a non-participant.” Yet when Mr Obama mentions TPP, he talks mostly about protecting American jobs rather than safeguarding
America’s place in the world. The president has never fully put his back into forcing a congressional vote on
TPA. There is still time for him and Mr Abe to rescue the trade talks. But unless Mr Obama leads from the
front, America’s own leadership in the Pacific will seem less convincing than he has repeatedly promised.
and helping it adjust to an ageing society, TPP talks between the two countries abruptly broke
Nuclear war
Landay 00 (Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight Ridder/Tribune
News Service, 3-10, Lexis)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight.
But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a
nuclear war . India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks
the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in
Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile ,” said Bates Gill, director
of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “We see the convergence of great
power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are
elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and
National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There
are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the U nited S tates
would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has
no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear
weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable
Asia, with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous
U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the
Commerce Department.
Uniqueness/Internals – TPA Mechanics
Revote Specific
Yes Pass/PC Key
TPA Passage still likely but obama PC key – arm twisting and horse trades can
swing votes in mass – vital to TPP
Korte, 6/12 -- Gregory Korte is a White House reporter for USA TODAY, 6/12/15,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/12/first-take-obama-trade-deal/71133464/
First take: Can
Obama's trade deal be salvaged? House Democrats overwhelmingly rejected a key provision in President Obama's
a moment at least, a cornerstone of Obama's second-term legacy appeared to be in ruins.
And then Obama's agenda was dramatically salvaged — for the moment — by House Republicans. The trade deal is
not a done deal. But it's not dead, either . By a bipartisan vote of 126-302, the House rejected a provision expanding trade
trade deal Friday. And for
adjustment assistance for workers who will inevitably be buffeted by the unforgiving winds of the global economy. That vote came moments
after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced her own opposition to the plan, even after she had worked to pave the way for its
passage all week. Without her support, conservative
House Republicans bailed, reasoning that they no longer had
any reason to go along with a program that necessitated an increase in taxes (through an increase in the late-filing
fee) to make a trade vote more palatable to Democrats. So there were really only two possible outcomes
going into the vote: It would either pass by one vote, or it would fail overwhelmingly . Pelosi stood on
the tipping point . And because the trade adjustment assistance provision was an indispensable part of the Senate-passed package,
Obama's trade agenda appeared to be dead. Without trade adjustment assistance, there would be no vote on a "fast-track"
trade promotion authority. And without fast-track, there would likely be no Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Game. Set ... What now? Like Hulk Hogan in a headlock, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly pulled off a bold, highstakes legislative maneuver. His chief lieutenant, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called for an immediate vote
on "fast track" even without the job training sweetener intended to gain Democratic votes. It passed, 219211. That vote kept the trade package alive, but it still needs some form of trade adjustment assistance
in order to win Senate support. Practically speaking, that needs to come next week, or it probably won't come at all. But when
the congressional leadership and the president agree that when something must pass, it usually does —
even if some arms are broken in the process. Pelosi suggested one path out of the tangle: Tying
passage of the trade deal to a job-creating highway bill that Democrats would support. Obama did not speak publicly after
the votes. He likely had two speeches prepared: One if the packaged passed, the other if it failed. It remains in limbo. But half an hour
later, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest entered the room with a smile, putting an optimistic face on the extraordinary series of events in
Congress, dismissing the initial rebuke by House Democrats as another "procedural snafu." "We're obviously gratified that we were able to
advance that legislation with bipartisan support," he said, noting that the
28 House Democrats who voted for fast-track bill
"exceeded expectations ." The Democratic magic number was assumed to be closer to 20. "That's a
strong endorsement of the president's strategy," Earnest said. "But what I would concede is that our
work is not done yet."
TAA passage more likely in revote – context is different and votes still swing, but
Obama PC and legislative horsetrading is key
Daugherty, 6/12 – Carter, 6/12/15, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/201506-12/obama-s-trade-plan-needs-almost-100-votes-to-pass-u-s-house
Obama Makes Fresh Plea to Dissenting Dems on Trade Bill The White House remains optimistic that
Democrats will help pass the measure next week. President Barack Obama is scrambling to persuade almost 100 fellow
Democrats to support a landmark trade bill, a centerpiece of his second-term agenda, that most of them
sought to block. In his weekly radio address, Obama called on Democrats in the House of Representatives to reconsider
their votes, which on Friday stalled a sweeping agreement with Pacific Rim nations and came despite earlier appeals from
the president. “I urge those members of Congress who voted against Trade Adjustment Assistance to reconsider, and stand up for American workers,” Obama said on Saturday. “Simply put,
America has to write the rules of the 21st century economy in a way that benefits American workers. If
we don’t, countries like China will write those rules in a way that benefits their workers,” Obama said.
Supporters of Obama’s fast-track trade proposal will try to rescue it in a new House vote as soon as Tuesday, after
Democrats scuttled final action on the plan Friday. White House press secretary Josh Earnest called the embarrassing defeat a “procedural snafu” and said he was optimistic
that Democrats ultimately would help send the fast-track trade negotiating measure to Obama. Meanwhile, the
House’s majority Republicans said it will be up to Obama to turn around Democratic skeptics. ‘Isn’t Over’ “ The president
has some work yet to do with his party; this isn’t over yet ,” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican,
said at a news conference after the vote. Democratic opponents included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who criticized the trade plan in
a dramatic floor speech. Pelosi signaled, though, that prospects for passage will increase if Republicans act on other
Democratic priorities , such as a highway funding bill. Democratic backers of the trade bills said they would spend the
coming days trying to persuade colleagues to revive the worker assistance bill. Democrats blocked final passage of the fast-track
trade measure hours after a rare visit by Obama to the Capitol to seek their support. In a 126-302 vote, they helped reject a displaced workers’ aid program they have supported for decades.
Under procedures adopted for the vote, it had to pass for a final vote on fast-track authority to be binding. The House then voted for the fast-track measure, 219-211. It won’t go to Obama’s desk
unless the worker aid bill also passes. Business Lobby The Trade Benefits America Coalition, the main business lobby behind fast track, urged Republicans and Democrats to win final approval
together. “We encourage members of the House of Representatives to quickly forge an agreement so that TPA can be enacted into law,” David Thomas, president of the coalition, said in a
statement, referring to the fast-track bill. O
bama has lobbied for months for the trade measure, which would let him submit agreements to Congress for
an expedited, up-or-down vote without amendments. The president wants the authority to aid completion of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many Democrats remain stung by the 1994
Fast-track supporters
settled on a strategy for the next few days based on reminding colleagues of their long-term support for
aiding workers who lose their jobs because of free trade agreements, known as trade adjustment
assistance. Democrats who support the worker aid and fast-track authority said they would tell skeptical party
members that they should back TAA because it’s no longer directly linked to trade negotiating
authority. Union Opposition “ The reason not to vote for TAA is gone ,” said Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat.
“Hopefully as temperatures cool, they will see a different context.” Labor unions will urge Democrats to remain steadfast in their
opposition, said Celeste Drake, director for trade policy at the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation. She said Democrats could win renewal of the
worker aid program, which otherwise expires Sept. 30, by attaching it to another measure later this year. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said
June 10 that the Trans-Pacific Partnership won’t wrap up without passage of trade promotion authority and other
agreements aimed at opening markets to U.S. goods and services. “ None of the other countries are willing to come to the table , have
another meeting and put their final offers on the table until they see us having TPA,” Froman told a group of business executives. Republican
North American Free Trade Agreement, linking the U.S., Mexico and Canada, which labor unions blame for a decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Support Republicans provided most of Obama’s support in Friday’s votes. They control the House 246-188, and support from 218 lawmakers is needed to pass a bill when all members are
Some members who
would have backed the bill switched their votes when Pelosi announced her opposition, suggesting that
at least some of them may be willing to change again. Obama blamed Republicans and Democrats in a statement on Friday that said, “inaction will
voting. In the vote on the worker aid program, 86 Republicans and 40 Democrats supported passage while 156 Republicans and 144 Democrats opposed it.
directly hurt about 100,000 workers and their communities if those members of Congress don’t reconsider.” The bill, H.R. 1314, would give Obama and the next president expedited trade
negotiating authority for six years. The Senate passed it in May.
Revote changes the game – passage possible but new lobbying wave and horsetrade
opportunities increase importance of Obama PC – its vital to TPP
Hughes, 6/12 -- Siobhan, Capital Hill Reporter, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-deals-blow-to-obamasbid-for-trade-deal-rejects-worker-aid-program-1434131589
the onus was on Democrats to devise a way forward. “Republicans did our part, and we remain committed to free
trade because it is critical to creating jobs and growing our economy. I’m pleased that a bipartisan House majority supported trade promotion
authority,” Mr. Boehner said, referring to a separate vote on fast track on Friday. Democrats’ ability to take
down the trade bill was made possible by House Republican leaders’ decision to hold two separate votes on
Mr. Boehner said after the vote that
the legislation that was passed by the Senate last month. The calculus was that Democratic votes on the first part, the workers-aid program, would compensate for opposition from Republicans.
Democrats abandoned the first part in droves, raising questions about whether they
While most of them support the workers-aid measure, they knew its rejection
would take down the fast-track bill. “Its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we would be able to slow down the fast track,” said House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D., Calif.), who ended months of neutrality to side with liberals who voted against the worker-aid program as a way to sink Mr. Obama’s trade agenda. Derailing fast
track, even temporarily, further strains the negotiations that the U.S. is trying to wrap up with 11 countries around
the Pacific, including Australia, Japan and Vietnam. Discernible progress on the remaining difficult issues in the deal, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, has all but halted recently as officials from U.S. trading partners wait for Congress
to act on fast-track legislation, which is also known as trade promotion authority. “Unless this is promptly remedied with an
affirmative vote cast soon, it is doubtful that TPP partners will be willing to seriously re-engage,” said
Daniel Price, former economic adviser to President George W. Bush and managing director at Rock Creek Global Advisers ,
a consultancy. The coming days are expected to include a new frenzy of lobbying by both sides, as Mr. Obama
and his allies on trade get a second chance. There were signs on Friday of potential horse trades. Mrs. Pelosi
said prospects for passage of a fast-track bill would “greatly increase” if bolstered by another
Democratic priority, such as a “robust highway bill.”
GOP votes for fast track, meanwhile, would offset Democratic opposition there. Instead,
would be any more supportive next week.
Naysayers are wrong – prospects for passage in revote still solid, Obama PC key
Bradner, 6/13 -- Eric, CNN, Trade reporter @ Politico and reporter for CNN Politics, tracking 2016's
presidential race, hot statewide campaigns, Capitol Hill and breaking news stories,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/white-house-tpp-trade-deal-congress/index.html
Friday's vote doesn't mean the package of trade bills are dead. House Republican leaders have called
for re-votes by Tuesday, and noted that they could even delay those votes further if necessary, buying Obama
a little more time to lobby his own party and GOP leaders time to twist arms . In fact, the most
controversial element of the package -- trade promotion authority, which allows Obama to submit deals like the 12country Trans-Pacific Partnership to Congress for a vote without amendments, which trade negotiators say is crucial to
finalizing the deal -- actually narrowly passed. That vote, though, was meaningless because of House procedural rules that said a
separate bill that included Trade Adjustment Assistance -- a program that helps workers who lose their jobs due
to trade shifts, and that's typically favored by Democrats -- also had to pass, but it was defeated, 302-126. But the
prospect of a re-vote gave the White House reason for optimism on Friday. White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest termed the trade failure a "procedural snafu," adding that it still reflected a success that lawmakers were
able to pass promotion authority. Earnest called Obama's visit with House Democrats on Friday "productive" and said the
President would continue working with lawmakers to advance his trade agenda.
TAA revote up in the air – Obama PC is key
Brown, 6/12 -- Alex, National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-gambles-he-can-persuade-democrats-on-trade-20150612
Leaving the meeting, Obama was cautious about making predictions. " I
don't think you ever nail anything down around here," he said.
"It's always moving." But the debate isn't over yet. After the TAA vote, the House's GOP majority, to
loud cheers, then passed language to support the fast-track provision, 219-211. And Speaker John Boehner said
he will bring back the TAA language early next week, giving everyone another bite at the apple. "We just
passed a major trade agreement so we have done our part," said Rep. Steve Scalise. "Obviously, TAA is a piece that the president is
going to have to deliver the votes on and we delivered more of the votes than we were expected to, but
at the end of the day, this is now up to the president if he is going to get this thing over the finish
line." The president will have to see "if he can overcome the strong opposition from labor bosses and actually deliver
on something that is gonna get our country back in the game to be competitive with countries that are cutting deals with China right now," he added. TAA
was
the key. A program to help workers hurt by the impact of trade, the bill was expected to pass with
mostly Democratic support, but it has quickly become a flashpoint for progressives who argue it's paid for with a cut to
Medicare—even though House leaders say they have a fix in place that will find the revenue elsewhere . Without its passage, the larger fasttrack bill coveted by the White House and House GOP leaders will likely die.
Passage still feasible, Obama PC and horsetrading uniquely important for TAA
revote
Hughes, 6/12 – Krista, Columnist on Trade Issues for Reuters, 6/12/15,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/12/usa-trade-idUSL1N0YY0MN20150612
Democratic, Republican opposition kills worker aid * House Republican leaders hope to revive bill next week
* Setback could spark fresh round of horse-trading (Adds quotes from Obama, congressional aides) A raging battle over
President Barack Obama's request for "fast-track" authority central to improving U.S. ties with Asia resumes in
the House of Representatives next week when lawmakers are expected to try to reverse Friday's defeat of linchpin trade
legislation. House Democrats disregarded Obama's personal pleas and teamed up with Republicans, for different reasons, to overwhelmingly defeat a program that
Supporters were heartened , however, when the House
narrowly approved a separate measure to give Obama "fast-track" authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) trade deal. But the legislation is stuck in the House because of the defeat Obama and House Speaker John Boehner suffered on the first vote. Both
measures are included in one bill and both need to be approved before the legislation can clear the House. A House Republican aide told reporters Republican
leaders hope to stage a vote again Tuesday to pass the worker aid portion of the bill. That would allow the
entire bill to be signed into law by Obama, but its chances were unclear. Obama, who made a last-ditch
personal appeal to congressional Democrats to support the worker aid program, urged lawmakers to get
behind the twin initiatives. "New trade agreements should go hand in hand with support to American
workers who've been harmed by trade in the past," he said in a statement, noting the program helps about 100,000 workers per year.
Republican Steve Scalise, a member of the House leadership team, said the president had to work with recalcitrant
Democrats to get the numbers for the program. "They took a hostage that they might realize now they
can't afford to shoot," he said. The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from
both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against. Trading partners such as
Japan have urged the U.S. Congress to pass fast-track to help wrap up a Pacific Rim trade deal covering
40 percent of the world's economy. PERSONAL PLEA FALLS FLAT Hours before lawmakers were due to vote on the legislation, Obama arrived
helps American workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals.
at Capitol Hill with Labor Secretary Thomas Perez for the culmination of a short but intense blitz to counter union efforts to use the worker support program to kill
fast-track. The AFL-CIO, the country's largest labor organization, claimed that funding for the worker aid program would be insufficient. But it also rallied support for
its cause by arguing that a vote against worker aid would be the perfect tactic for stopping fast track. Fast-track authority would let lawmakers set negotiating
objectives for trade deals, but restrict them to only a yes-or-no vote on the finished agreement. Many Democrats worry that giving Obama fast-track authority to finish
the TPP would result in job losses in their home districts just as the United States makes economic gains that have led to a brightening jobs picture nationally.
Boehner, the top Republican, in consultation with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi - who voted against the worker program is expected to weigh next steps. A House Republican leadership aide said that leading up to Tuesday, when another vote could
occur, Obama had to speak to Pelosi and House Democrats to get them on board . "They have the weekend" to
build support for the worker aid program and allow the whole bill to be signed into law, said the aide, who
also left open the possibility of searching for additional Republican votes. But a House Democratic aide said it was
unlikely that anything would transpire between Friday and Tuesday to get Pelosi's vote, or the votes of many more Democrats. Meanwhile, Pelosi sent a
letter to fellow Democrats saying that prospects for passing a fast-track trade bill "will greatly increase"
if Congress were to pass a "robust" bill authorizing highway construction projects, which expire at the end of July. Those road, bridge and mass
transit projects are chock full of good-paying union jobs repairing crumbling infrastructure. Pelosi also demanded stronger protections in the trade legislation for
workers and the environment, which are not easy to craft in the few days leading to Tuesday's vote. T he
Senate, in a strong bipartisan vote, has
already approved the package of trade measures, which includes a customs enforcement bill. That piece of the puzzle passed the House too,
but with provisions which upset many Democrats, for example on giving countries deemed soft on human trafficking a way to still participate in fast-tracked trade
deals. Differences
will have to be ironed out in a joint meeting of House and Senate negotiators.
Passage feasible – Obama PC and horsetrading key, can still swing enough votes but
outcome uncertain
Bradner, 6/13 -- Eric, CNN, Trade reporter @ Politico and reporter for CNN Politics, tracking 2016's
presidential race, hot statewide campaigns, Capitol Hill and breaking news stories,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/white-house-tpp-trade-deal-congress/index.html
Republicans pushed hard for the trade package, but indicated it would largely be up to Obama to convince
Democrats to change their mind on the Trade Adjustment Assistance portion of the set of bills. House Speaker John Boehner
called Friday's rejection of that bill "disappointing." "Republicans did our part, and we remain committed to free trade because it is critical to creating jobs and
growing our economy," he said. "I'm pleased that a
bipartisan House majority supported trade promotion authority. This is
an opportunity for the Democratic Party to take stock and move forward in a constructive fashion on behalf of the American people." The
next steps Going into the weekend, it was unclear what exactly could change over the weekend to lead to a different result early next week, and which, if any,
Democrats would vote differently if the TAA portion of the bill were to be reconsidered. Pelosi already had her demands in mind. In a letter to House
Democrats, she said the prospects for trade promotion authority would "greatly increase with the passage of a robust
highway bill." Other Democrats made the case that Democrats might realize their gambit could result in the
elimination of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program after the symbolic vote in favor of trade
promotion authority -- the bill Democrats really want to kill. "If members of my caucus come to the belief that ... you
could end up getting fast track without Trade Adjustment Assistance, I think many of my colleagues would
reconsider Trade Adjustment Assistance ," New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel said. But, he added, "I don't think anybody
knows where we're going right now. Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, the point person for House Republicans on trade, told reporters after
Friday's votes, "this isn't over yet." "America is being watched by the rest of world," Ryan warned, adding, "now the
President has some work yet to do with his party to complete this process."
prospects for TPA passage substantially increased in revote – increased willingness
for vote switching but Obama PC and legislative deal-making on other issues is key
Bloomberg News, 6/12 – newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obamaneeds-100-votes/2015/06/12/id/650326/
White House press secretary Josh Earnest
called the embarrassing defeat a "procedural snafu" and said he was
optimistic that Democrats ultimately would help send the fast- track trade negotiating measure to
Obama’s desk. Key Democratic opponents including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who criticized the
trade plan in a dramatic floor speech, signaled that prospects for passage will increase if Republicans act on
other Democratic priorities , such as a highway funding bill. A new House vote on trade will come as soon as
Tuesday. "We look forward to working in a bipartisan way for a trade promotion authority bill that has better
transparency, more consultation with Congress and stronger protections for congressional priorities," she said
in a letter to colleagues on Friday after the votes. Obama has lobbied for months for the trade measure, which would let him submit
agreements to Congress for an expedited, up-or-down vote without amendments. He contends it is needed to help complete a 12-nation TransPacific Partnership and other agreements that would keep the U.S. competitive with overseas rivals. Republicans provided most of his support in
Friday’s votes, in which defeat of a displaced-worker aid plan blocked the fast- track trade bill from being sent to the president. Obama Statement
Obama blamed Republicans and Democrats in a statement that said, "inaction will directly hurt about 100,000 workers and their communities if
those members of Congress don’t reconsider." Democrats, who say previous free-trade agreements have cost U.S. jobs, kept the fast-track bill
from going to Obama Friday by helping defeat, 126-302, a measure providing aid to displaced workers. Although the House passed the fast-track
bill 219-211, procedures adopted for the vote required both parts of the package to be passed. That means trade bill backers must gain support
from almost 100 more House members to pass the displaced worker bill before the trade package can go to Obama’s desk. Trade
bill
opponent Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said plans
for a new vote give Democrats an opportunity for a "substantive" conversation on how to shape the proposed TransPacific Partnership. Changing Vote If talks were successful, Levin said, he could change his vote on the aid to
workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals. His spokeswoman, Caroline Behringer, said he is leaving Washington for
the weekend and has no meetings planned with members of the Obama administration. Earnest said the strategy by House Democrats
to block fast-track didn’t work and that they will relent to support the worker aid measure, something
Democrats have almost unanimously backed in the past. Obama made a rare visit to Capitol Hill to seek House
Democrats’ support in a private meeting. Pelosi, who had worked out the voting procedure with House Speaker John Boehner, accompanied the
president to the meeting. Only 40 Democrats voted for the worker aid bill, while 144 voted no. After months of keeping her views secret, Pelosi
announced her opposition to the trade bills in a dramatic speech just before the vote. "Our people would rather have a job than trade assistance,"
said Pelosi, a California Democrat. "We have to slow down" on the fast-track bill, she said. "Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a
better deal for America’s workers." Climate Change While praising Obama’s efforts to promote trade, she said the plan also fell short by
preventing U.S. trade officials from negotiating measures to prevent climate change. Earnest declined to criticize Pelosi. "The
president
has enjoyed a very long, warm and productive relationship" with Pelosi, he said, citing her work to usher
through Obama priorities including the economic stimulus, Dodd-Frank financial regulations and the Affordable Care Act. House
Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas said the vote on the fast-track measure shows it will pass
one way or another, and that Democrats should realize they need to save the worker aid program they have
supported in the past. " The president has some work yet to do with his party; this isn’t over yet ,"
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said at a news conference after the vote.
Battles not over – revote coming, Obama PC key to passage
Kane, 6/12 -- Paul, Covers White House and Politics for Washington Post, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-hislegacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html
The fate of the trade legislation now depends on Obama’s ability , along with business-friendly interests, to persuade
dozens of Democrats to switch their votes before a planned do-over vote early next week. The key roll call came on a measure to grant
financial aid to displaced workers, with 144 Democrats linking arms with 158 Republicans in a rout that left the overall package of trade bills stalled. Despite
Obama’s entreaty to “play it straight,” Democrats rejected a program that they had almost universally supported in the past because its failure also ensured the failure
of the centerpiece measure, the “fast-track” negotiating authority. House leaders structured the voting so that it required passage of three separate measures for the
legislation to advance. “I will be voting to slow down fast-track,” Pelosi said on the floor moments before the vote. “Today we have an opportunity to slow down.
Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for American workers.” Friday’s setback dimmed hopes at the White House that Obama will be able
to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping free-trade and regulatory pact that he has called central to his economic agenda at home and his foreignpolicy strategy in Asia. Obama’s loss came after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president invested significant personal credibility and political capital.
Republican leaders, who had backed the president’s trade initiative, pleaded
with their colleagues to support the deal or risk
watching the United States lose economic ground in Asia. Afterward, GOP leaders said the battle was not over ,
but they made clear the onus was on Obama to sway his fellow Democrats. “The president has some
work yet to do with his party to complete this process,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
“ This isn’t over yet .”
Passage still feasible, Obama pushing hard but PC and horsetrading are key – aff
claims ignore senate history and house fast track vote
Kane, 6/12 -- Paul, Covers White House and Politics for Washington Post, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-hislegacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html
president’s trade agenda is still alive and vowed that Obama
will continue to urge passage of the package in the coming days. Earnest said that the Senate approved the
fast-track legislation last month after initially voting to block it. The silver lining for Obama and his
White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the
unusual Republican allies is that the balance of the trade package narrowly won support. The House
voted 219 to 211 to approve fast-track, also known as trade promotion authority, which had been expected to be the
most crucial vote. On that vote, 219 to 211, 28 Democrats joined 191 Republicans in supporting the
president. But because House leaders split the bill into several pieces, approval of the worker assistance program — known as trade
adjustment assistance, or TAA — is needed to advance fast-track. The problem for Obama is that he must still get enough
Democratic votes to entice a sufficient number of Republicans to vote for TAA, which they generally do not
support. In his first visit to the Democratic caucus in two years, Obama pleaded for their support, particularly on a bill that they would
otherwise back on the merits. “Play it straight,” Obama said, according to several attendees. The president recounted his previous
efforts on behalf of workers and the environment to loud applause audible in the hallway outside. “I don’t think you ever nail anything down
around here,” Obama told reporters on his way out of the Capitol. “It’s always moving.” According to an aide familiar with the discussion,
Pelosi told the president she was “leaning no” on the trade assistance vote at a meeting before Obama went before the entire Democratic caucus.
Several hours later, Pelosi walked onto the chamber’s floor and indicated she would do the opposite of what Obama had asked her and her
colleagues to do — vote against a program she otherwise supports in order to obstruct the overall package. Pelosi
said she still thinks
there is a “path to yes” on fast-track authority, as she has said for months, but that it must be “lengthened” in order to address
“sinkholes.” That ended days of private deliberations for Pelosi. She personally negotiated the precise fixes to the TAA bill with House Speaker
John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who then set up the series of votes to take place exactly as she had asked. Exiting the Obama meeting, some
of
Pelosi’s closest lieutenants thought she would support the worker assistance program and nudge it to
passage. “She would not have gone through the efforts — these heroic efforts — to get this deal and then just to vote against this,” Rep. Steve
Israel (D-N.Y.), an appointed member of her leadership team, said before the key vote. “I’m voting for trade adjustment assistance. I believe that
the vast majority of leadership will be voting for trade adjustment assistance.” Israel, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) and House Minority Whip
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) were the only members of leadership to support the president on the TAA vote. After Pelosi delivered the final blow to
the legislation, she
sent a letter to all Democrats saying that stopping the fast-track bill was their way to
leverage support for a massive infrastructure bill. However, in a sign of their disjointed posture, other Democrats had
other ideas about what they were trying to get by stopping the trade package. “The real issue here is TPP, and
this is an effort to get TPP on the right track,” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means
Committee. Levin said “the focus of these next days” would be to force the Obama administration to reopen portions of the
negotiations with Pacific Rim nations on worker organizing rights and currency ma-nipu-la-tion.
Yes Pass
Passage likely and Obama PC Key for TAA Revote - widespread vote switching
feasible, dems fear permanent TAA loss and can reframe the issue as a vote on
TAA’s merits
Huff Post 6/12 [“After Handing Obama A Crippling Defeat, House Eyes Next Moves On Trade,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/next-trade-battle_n_7573512.html]
"'Republican House passes massive spending bill at behest of Democratic leader' -- a headline you will never read," said one Democratic aide.¶ "I
don't even know what her ransom is, but I know she is a non-player in trade going forward," said a GOP leadership aide, suggesting proTPA forces would find a way forward without her.¶ With TAA defeated, there are a variety of paths
Obama and Boehner can try to take, starting with calling for a new vote Tuesday on TAA.¶ "POTUS has
the weekend to work the vote ," said one GOP leadership aide.¶ At one point during the TAA roll call, 93
Republicans were voting yes. Once it became clear the bill was going down, seven switched sides and
voted no, but now Republican leaders know they're there if they need them in a pinch in the next vote.
Theoretically, Republicans could pass TAA on their own and assure passage of the TPA bill they
desperately want, but many aren't willing to swallow the TAA piece. That means that to get to the 218 votes needed for
final passage, Democrats would need to provide 125 votes. They only produced 40 votes Thursday. ¶ "They have a mountain to climb," Rep.
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of Republicans searching for Democratic votes on TAA.¶ That mountain would become much easier to climb if
Pelosi signaled to her troops that it was OK to ascend, and it appears she'll only do so in exchange for significant concessions. Still, some pro-
fast track Democrats seemed to believe their colleagues could reconsider.¶ "What I’ve told my colleagues:
there’s some chance this program goes away forever. It needs to get reauthorized," said Rep. John Delaney (DMd.). "If we don’t support this program, we the Democrats have killed a program that’s available for
workers that are displaced by globalization. No Democrat has ever voted in opposition to this before."¶
Indeed, many Democrats are worried that if they continue to vote against trade assistance, the program
will disappear. With no action, TAA is set to expire Sept. 30.¶ " We care about this. [Republicans] don't
really care about this," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), suggesting that Democrats could flip-flop and
simply reframe the issue as a vote on TAA's merits.¶ "What leverage do we have over Republicans,
really, when you say 'Stop me, or I'll kill myself.' I mean, go ahead. It's like that scene in 'Blazing Saddles,' you know? Back
away! I might shoot myself," he said, pointing his finger at his temple.¶
TPA will pass – fear of losing TAA permanently
Roll Call 6/12 [Emma Dumain and Matt Fuller “Rebuffing Obama, Pelosi and Democrats Scuttle
Trade Deal (Video)” http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/rebuffing-obama-pelosi-democrats-scuttle-tradedeal/?dcz=]
If TAA doesn’t pass the second time around, there are more questions than answers on what happens
next.¶ The procedural hurdles to bring TPA back to the floor are significant and unwieldy, but because
there are currently the votes to pass that component of the trade package — as members saw Friday —
GOP leaders will likely work to find a way to move it along in the days ahead.¶ One thing is certain,
Democrats and Republicans alike warned anti-TPA crusaders in advance of the showdown Friday: Let
TAA sink at your own peril.¶ “For our caucus now to draw the line on something that to our core we’ve
always believed in, and that’s giving people a hand up when they are down, and that’s what TAA has
always been about, is making sure that when you are affected by globalization forces that are beyond your
control, there will be programs there to help you up,” said Rep. Ron Kind, the chairman of the moderate
New Democrat Coalition who has been a liaison between the White House and pro-trade Democrats in
the absence of Democratic leadership taking a proactive whip role in advance of the vote.¶ “Now, for us as
a party to threaten to bring that down and face the risk that we will lose it in its entirety in the future,
because the other side won’t bring it up again — we would own that fact as a party,” the Wisconsin
Democrat said.¶ “I’ll give you a scenario,” Kind continued, growing more animated. “If this goes down, I
think the administration continues to go forward to negotiate a [Trans-Pacific Partnership] agreement. It
will be a much worse agreement than if he gets this authority, and chances of it passing are probably
slimmer than they would if he had the authority. I’ll also guarantee you this: TAA goes away. And
there’s no scenario on bringing that back again and I hope my colleagues are thinking through this
a little bit because that’s what’s at stake right now.”
TPA will pass – Obama is devoting all his focus to meeting with key dems
Rebecca Nelson, writer for the National Journal, 6/12 [“White House Says It's Not Ready to Give Up
After Getting Smashed in the House,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/white-house-says-its-not-ready-to-give-up-after-getting-smashed-in-the-house-20150612]
Shortly after House Democrats dealt President Obama's trade agenda an embarrassing blow Friday, Press
Secretary Josh Earnest had a decidedly cheerful view of the setback.¶ "The hardest part has gotten done,"
Earnest told reporters, asserting that he was "pleased" that the Trade Promotion Authority bill, or fasttrack authority, passed in the House.¶ Less than an hour before, more than 300 House Democrats and
Republicans came together to sink Trade Adjustment Assistance, a piece of legislation crucial to the
president's trade agenda—and one that's tied to the fate of TPA, which would allow Congress to give a
simple up-or-down vote on trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Though TPA passed by a
narrow margin immediately afterwards, it still is tied to TAA, which could be put up to another vote next
week. Because TAA lost by more than 80 votes Friday, there are no guarantees that a second vote will
turn out differently.¶ Though House rules prevent TPA's passage without TAA, Earnest declined to say
directly whether Obama would veto TPA without TAA.¶ But Earnest said the White House is confident
that TAA will pass in a revote. Calling the impediment—specifically, the crafty pairing of the two bills—
"the hallmark of a legislative procedural snafu," he said the administration still can make a strong case
for passing TAA.¶ "We're going to go and make the case to them that they should support a policy that
they have strongly supported in the past," Earnest said. He argued that those Democrats who voted
against TAA Friday had made their point, and could be convinced to swing their votes next week.¶
The outpouring of votes against TAA wasn't quite the bipartisan effort the president had hoped for.¶
Obama tied the trade agenda to his legacy, and campaigned fervently to convince House Democrats to
support the fast-track bill over the past few months. He ramped up the effort in the past 24 hours, abruptly
visiting the Congressional baseball game at Nationals Park on Thursday night (tweeting this gem) and
even visiting Capitol Hill on Friday morning to deliver a last-minute plea to a Democratic caucus
meeting.¶ "The president had a productive visit with the House Democratic caucus today," Earnest said.
"And he delivered a very strong case about helping those Democratic Members of Congress understand"
why TPA is important.¶ But Obama's closed-door talks with Democrats didn't move the needle far enough.
Announcing her "no" vote in a nervous and meandering floor speech just before the vote, House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi hammered the final nail in the TAA coffin, subverting the White House's very
public pleas to support both bills and providing a model for others in the caucus to follow.
Obama can still get TPA passed – pro trade forces are strong
The Economist 6/12 [“Obama's agenda in the balance,”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/politics-trade]
But regardless of what members of Congress believe personally, trade unions and left-wing grassroots
campaign groups have done an effective job of intimidating House Democrats into a defensive crouch on
trade, threatening to punish members who defy them by withholding campaign funds and help from grassroots activists. ¶ Union bosses, populist
Democrats and some populist Republicans crowed with triumph after Friday’s votes, saying that TPA had to be stopped to prevent more jobs
from being outsourced to Asia, and—in the words of Richard Trumka, the president of the vast AFL-CIO union—to “send a message that our
government belongs not to the highest corporate bidders but to the working people who make our country run.” ¶ Opponents of Mr Obama’s plans
for global trade have no trouble painting a picture of how they would like the world to function. Mr Trumka says that working America wants
“fair wages, safe working conditions and a real opportunity to compete in the global economy.” Mrs Pelosi told House colleagues that:
“Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for America’s workers.” ¶ Opponents do not offer concrete suggestions about
how America might unilaterally achieve much more favourable conditions for its workers in an age of intense global competition. They are
conspicuously uninterested in trying to recruit foreign governments as allies. Instead they attack Mr Obama for failing to sue foreign governments
often enough over their local environmental and labour standards. They accuse previous trade pacts of hollowing out American manufacturing
(though as trade defenders note, America has no free-trade deal with China, and that did nothing to slow China’s rise as an export powerhouse).
Above all, they scorn the argument that lowering barriers to trade might be to the benefit of a large, rich, innovative country such as America.¶
The irony is that—in presidential elections at least—Democrats rely increasingly on the votes from
Drawbridge Down bits of America to win. The Obama coalition that handed the White House to
Democrats in 2008 and 2012 is built on groups whose members stand out in opinion polls for their
confidence that free trade helps the country more than it hurts it, such as college graduates and non-whites. Meanwhile
Democrats have already lost many of the blue-collar white voters who are most sceptical of trade (and whose relative weight in the electorate
goes down with each passing year). Alas, in congressional elections those same shifting demographic forces work differently. Non-whites and
other Obama fans, such as the young, rarely vote in non-presidential contests, leaving Republicans to pick up blue-collar white districts that once
elected centrist Democrats. That
has left the Democratic Party smaller and more uniformly left-wing, which helps
to explain why today’s House members are taking such a sceptical line on trade with Asia.¶ Barack
Obama faces a showdown with his party over trade¶ Republican leaders in the House have effectively
given Mr Obama three days to persuade a few more of his members to back him. By his somewhat chilly
standards the president has already been on a charm offensive with House Democrats for weeks, flying chosen members on Air Force One and
even dropping in on the annual congressional baseball game on June 11th. Mr Obama has promised to campaign for any members who face
rebellions in their home districts as a result of backing him on trade. That promise has less potency than it once did.¶ Meanwhile
Mrs
Pelosi is demanding that Republicans bribe Democratic members to support TPA and TAA (which pass
together in a single bill, for procedural reasons, to avoid a conflict with the bill already passed by the
Senate). In a letter to her members, Mrs Pelosi says the prospects of a trade bill passing would be “greatly improved” if Republicans were to
support a big package of federal funding for highways and other transportation infrastructure. It is unclear whether Mrs Pelosi is offering a
lifeline by suggesting this price for her help: many Republicans may find her intervention deeply provocative. ¶ A
Democratic member
of Congress thinks there is a "decent" chance the trade measures could still be revived, not least
because business and pro-trade lobbies now know how important TAA is to getting a deal done, and
will push Republicans harder to back it.¶ Asian allies could be forgiven for watching this debate with despair, as Mr Obama’s
grand strategy for rebalancing America’s economic and strategic focus towards the Pacific region is bogged down by rows about crumbling
interstate bridges. China is not one of the 12 countries in the TPP pact, and Chinese leaders would love to think that America’s democracy is too
dysfunctional to offer Asia an alternative model of economic governance. Congress
friends and rivals wrong.
does not have long to prove foreign
PC Key/Horse Trade Key
PC and horsetrading uniquely key
Feehery, 6/10 -- John Feehery is president of QGA Public Affairs and a former spokesman for then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
Wall Street Journal, 6/10/15, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/10/why-trade-promotion-bill-is-so-hard-to-pass-through-congress/
Passing trade legislation is always controversial . One man’s job-creating trade agreement spells the end of another man’s job. Mr.
Obama waited until the last two years of his presidency to push for fast track, when he didn’t have to run again in the face
of angry union opposition. It helped that the Republicans had seized the reins of power in the Senate and are largely
sympathetic to the arguments of free traders. Trade is much more complex than broadly understood. Every country with which we trade has laws designed to
help domestic manufacturers. There are tax provisions and subsidies and favorable regulatory breaks and no-interest loans and a list of other things that foreign
governments do to help their workers. We do some of that stuff ourselves. Making sense of these complex laws to help constituents and domestic industries in the face
of international competition is the job of Congress. Some purists
might want Congress to butt out, to let the invisible hand of the free
market to work its will. But that’s not realistic from either a political standpoint or from a policy
standpoint. At its heart, trade policy is a political matter and the politicians have to have the ability to represent their constituents.
So, if a member of the House needs a provision to buffer the impact of lower tariffs for Vietnamese textiles, so be it. If a senator needs
to point to additional tools to protest against illegal dumping of products from overseas, that’s the way it should be. On trade votes, you really get a
chance to see the legislative process work. To the casual observer, this might seem like the usual sausage making.
But to those in the middle of the scrum, all of this horse-trading makes the sausage taste better to their
constituents.
PC and horsetrading on unrelated legislation key – uniquely swings votes on TPA –
overcomes opposition and outweighs trade ideology
Becker, 6/12 ISAAC STANLEY-BECKER, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/12/fast-track-votes-have-long-difficult-history/
And Thursday, ahead of a vote on granting President Barack Obama so-called fast-track negotiating authority, lawmakers
who want to
see the agreement sealed had one word to sell the legislation: “Bipartisan.” They make it sound easy. But
in fact, it hasn’t been. Fast-track in its present form dates to the Trade Act of 1974, which gave Gerald Ford, a Republican, power to
complete the Tokyo Round of negotiations aimed at removing export subsidies and other impediments to free trade. The expedited negotiating
authority was reauthorized several times over the next two decades. There have even been signs of agreement across party lines. In 1993, more
than 100 Democrats voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which organized labor today cites as the epitome of what it dislikes
about free trade. By 1997, when President Bill Clinton’s administration sought to reauthorize fast-track authority, which had expired in 1994, the
Republican majority took positions on labor and environmental standards that the White House wouldn’t accept, said Mickey Kantor, the U.S.
Trade Representative from 1993 to 1996. The administration had the legislation pulled. By that time, the president, facing the threat of
impeachment proceedings toward the end of the decade, lost much of his pull with lawmakers, who were deciding whether to try to eject him
from office. Another reauthorization attempt failed in 1998, by a vote of 180-243. The Clinton administration’s early success, Mr. Kantor said,
stemmed from the priority the president put on trade, but also from the benefits promised to certain
members, which sweetened the deal . A Bush administration official who was closely involved in trade
negotiations said Republicans used similar tactics in 2002, narrowly convincing Congress to grant Mr. Bush
fast-track authority. The vote in the House, the chamber that on Friday will decide the fate of Mr. Obama’s fast-track authority, was
gaveled in at 3:30 a.m. The count was 215-212. Final passage depended on making promises to lawmakers who
were on the fence , the administration official said. “You get to a point where you’re 10 votes shy, and you identify the 10
members who are willing to trade and cut deals, ” said the official. “In a way it’s frustrating because it’s not about the
merits. It’s about horse-trading.” Today there are rules that bar some of the lucrative goodies, known as earmarks. Mr. Obama
has used personal appeals in aiming to sway Democratic lawmakers, including members of the moderate,
pro-growth New Democrat Coalition and the Congressional Black Caucus. Four House Democrats
who’ve pledged their support traveled on Air Force One to the Group of Seven Summit in Germany, touting
international economic opportunities.
PC Key - Both Dem+GOP votes matter
Obama PC key to revote passage – must woo both dem and GOP votes for TAA
passage
Hughes, 6/12 -- Siobhan, Capital Hill Reporter, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-deals-blow-to-obamasbid-for-trade-deal-rejects-worker-aid-program-1434131589
While stinging, the vote was not the last word in the trade fight, as House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said there
would be a re-vote by Tuesday on extending the aid program, which is designed to help workers hurt by international trade. But Friday’s
defeat showed the degree to which Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is on shaky ground in Congress. The House voted against the workers-aid
program by 126-302. To improve those numbers, House Republican leaders, the White House and pro-trade businesses will need to
find ways to win over a combination of Democrats who are skeptical of the overall trade push and
Republicans leery of supporting the aid package.
A2: House Vote proves PC Fails
Their lessons from House vote are backwards - Obama’s PC and congressional
relations vital to passage and still feasible, setback only proves better Obama
outreach efforts are key going forward
Rhodan, 6/12 -- Maya, Reporter @ Time Magazine, 6/12/15,
http://time.com/3920000/barack-obama-congress-lobbying/
Members have long argued that if
the President were to reach out more, he could gain more traction during hardwrought fights on Capitol Hill. Friday’s votes gave some weight to that argument. Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar
said after Friday’s meeting there was a feeling among some members that Obama had waited until the last minute to try to sway votes. “I wish
vote on trade isn’t dead. By this time next week,
the bill may have passed and the wounds from Friday’s beating may be healed. White House spokesman
Josh Earnest said Friday the President would continue reaching out to members to ensure the bill gets
passed, while Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy signaled that the battle wasn’t yet finished . In a statement
released Friday, Obama urged Representatives to vote for TAA on behalf of “about 100,000 workers and their
communities” who would be hurt by Congressional inaction. That means Obama is likely to keep
schmoozing Congress. But if he wants his trade effort to succeed, he’ll need to get better at it, and
there would have been much better outreach by them,” he said. Still, the
soon.
failed pitch on 1st TAA vote caused by specific and contextual errors that obama can
easily avoid, he already knows better - PC works on trade and obama CAN use it –
George E. Condon Jr. 6/12 [“Why Can't Obama Get Along With Congress?”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-can-t-obama-get-along-with-congress-20150612]
No one really accuses the president of not taking those concerns seriously. But there
are members who believe that a president who
can be enormously charming seemed to lose his touch when he sat down with members of the
Democratic caucus on Friday.¶ According to reports from some Democrats, he made few converts and
may even have lost votes by seeming to challenge the motivations of many Democrats and refusing to
take any questions. Obama was a senator long enough to know that could be counterproductive.¶ This is
not a setback that can be blamed on staff. While this has not been the case throughout his time in office, Obama currently has a
highly regarded and effective head of congressional liaison in Katie Beirne Fallon. On an issue as highprofile as trade, and in a political environment that Earnest called "toxic," the closer has to be the
president himself. He has until next week to persuade more than 80 Democrats in the House to flip their
votes.¶ The stakes reach far beyond Capitol Hill. A defeat, said Matthew P. Goodman, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, "would be catastrophic for the U.S. position in Asia" and would be "hugely damaging" to
the president overseas. Jeremy Shapiro, a senior adviser in the State Department in Obama's first term, said Europe's leaders are also
watching intently because a defeat here would doom any proposed broader trade deal with that continent.
A loss, he said, "would be a disaster for the president's trade agenda and for his foreign policy agenda in the
second term."
Criticisms of Obama are uninformed –nature of congressional politics has changed,
TAA setback just a hiccup, and dem yes votes on fast track prove PC does work
George E. Condon Jr. 6/12 [“Why Can't Obama Get Along With Congress?”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-can-t-obama-get-along-with-congress-20150612]
Almost nothing annoys Obama loyalists more than the recurring criticism of how only the third sitting
senator in American history to become president interacts with his former colleagues. To them, the critics
are living in a different age, when schmoozing was king, and presidents drank bourbon and branch water
and swapped tall tales with members of Congress after hours. ¶ That will never be Obama's style. To the White House, the critics
are mired in the last century and have missed the way partisanship has altered the dynamic along
Pennsylvania Avenue. More immediately, the president's aides don't want to admit that what happened in the House on Friday was a lasting defeat and
certainly don't see it as something to be blamed on their approach. ¶ Shortly after the vote, press secretary Josh Earnest dismissed
the lopsided defeat of trade assistance as "a procedural snafu" similar to the first vote on trade in the
Senate. Earnest preferred instead to hail the fact that there were 219 votes for Trade Promotion Authority and that 28 of
those 219 votes came from Democrats. "TPA has passed," he said. "That was supposed to be the hard
one."¶ Earnest may turn out to be right . It is very possible that the House next week will have the
votes for Trade Adjustment Assistance and that TPA could land on the president's desk. That would
leave Friday's vote as a mere legislative hiccup . But even such a rebound will not assuage the hard feelings of so many House
Democrats. Nor will it erase the memory of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi voting against the president only a few hours after he personally appealed to her. ¶
Obama PC Key and uniquely works for TAA revote – perceived in different context,
no longer directly linked to trade authority, propensity for vote switching high –
reasons it failed first time don’t apply –
Daugherty, 6/12 – Carter, 6/12/15, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/201506-12/obama-s-trade-plan-needs-almost-100-votes-to-pass-u-s-house
Obama Makes Fresh Plea to Dissenting Dems on Trade Bill The White House remains optimistic that
Democrats will help pass the measure next week. President Barack Obama is scrambling to persuade almost 100 fellow
Democrats to support a landmark trade bill, a centerpiece of his second-term agenda, that most of them
sought to block. In his weekly radio address, Obama called on Democrats in the House of Representatives to reconsider
their votes, which on Friday stalled a sweeping agreement with Pacific Rim nations and came despite earlier appeals from
the president. “I urge those members of Congress who voted against Trade Adjustment Assistance to reconsider, and stand up for American workers,” Obama said on Saturday. “Simply put,
America has to write the rules of the 21st century economy in a way that benefits American workers. If
we don’t, countries like China will write those rules in a way that benefits their workers,” Obama said.
Supporters of Obama’s fast-track trade proposal will try to rescue it in a new House vote as soon as Tuesday, after
Democrats scuttled final action on the plan Friday. White House press secretary Josh Earnest called the embarrassing defeat a “procedural snafu” and said he was optimistic
that Democrats ultimately would help send the fast-track trade negotiating measure to Obama. Meanwhile, the
House’s majority Republicans said it will be up to Obama to turn around Democratic skeptics. ‘Isn’t Over’ “ The president
has some work yet to do with his party; this isn’t over yet ,” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican,
said at a news conference after the vote. Democratic opponents included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who criticized the trade plan in
a dramatic floor speech. Pelosi signaled, though, that prospects for passage will increase if Republicans act on other
Democratic priorities , such as a highway funding bill. Democratic backers of the trade bills said they would spend the
coming days trying to persuade colleagues to revive the worker assistance bill. Democrats blocked final passage of the fast-track
trade measure hours after a rare visit by Obama to the Capitol to seek their support. In a 126-302 vote, they helped reject a displaced workers’ aid program they have supported for decades.
Under procedures adopted for the vote, it had to pass for a final vote on fast-track authority to be binding. The House then voted for the fast-track measure, 219-211. It won’t go to Obama’s desk
unless the worker aid bill also passes. Business Lobby The Trade Benefits America Coalition, the main business lobby behind fast track, urged Republicans and Democrats to win final approval
together. “We encourage members of the House of Representatives to quickly forge an agreement so that TPA can be enacted into law,” David Thomas, president of the coalition, said in a
statement, referring to the fast-track bill. O
bama has lobbied for months for the trade measure, which would let him submit agreements to Congress for
an expedited, up-or-down vote without amendments. The president wants the authority to aid completion of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many Democrats remain stung by the 1994
Fast-track supporters
settled on a strategy for the next few days based on reminding colleagues of their long-term support for
aiding workers who lose their jobs because of free trade agreements, known as trade adjustment
assistance. Democrats who support the worker aid and fast-track authority said they would tell skeptical party
members that they should back TAA because it’s no longer directly linked to trade negotiating
authority. Union Opposition “ The reason not to vote for TAA is gone ,” said Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat.
“Hopefully as temperatures cool, they will see a different context.” Labor unions will urge Democrats to remain steadfast in their
opposition, said Celeste Drake, director for trade policy at the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation. She said Democrats could win renewal of the
worker aid program, which otherwise expires Sept. 30, by attaching it to another measure later this year. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said
June 10 that the Trans-Pacific Partnership won’t wrap up without passage of trade promotion authority and other
agreements aimed at opening markets to U.S. goods and services. “ None of the other countries are willing to come to the table , have
another meeting and put their final offers on the table until they see us having TPA,” Froman told a group of business executives. Republican
North American Free Trade Agreement, linking the U.S., Mexico and Canada, which labor unions blame for a decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Support Republicans provided most of Obama’s support in Friday’s votes. They control the House 246-188, and support from 218 lawmakers is needed to pass a bill when all members are
Some members who
would have backed the bill switched their votes when Pelosi announced her opposition, suggesting that
at least some of them may be willing to change again. Obama blamed Republicans and Democrats in a statement on Friday that said, “inaction will
voting. In the vote on the worker aid program, 86 Republicans and 40 Democrats supported passage while 156 Republicans and 144 Democrats opposed it.
directly hurt about 100,000 workers and their communities if those members of Congress don’t reconsider.” The bill, H.R. 1314, would give Obama and the next president expedited trade
negotiating authority for six years. The Senate passed it in May.
GOP Key - revote
GOP key to TAA revote – Obama PC can still swing their votes – even if PC won’t
work on dems
Tankersley, 6/12 -- Jim Tankersley, Economic Policy Correspondent, The Washington Post,
Washington Post, 6/12/15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/12/who-obamaneeds-most-to-win-on-trade-now/
Who Obama needs most to win on trade now After a pair of dramatic votes in the House left President
Obama's trade agenda dangling by a thread on Friday, most of the attention turned to Democrats: They had
bucked their president in big numbers, despite a last-minute, in-person appeal. That's true. It is also not very
surprising, in the context of recent history. The bigger historical surprise was how many Republicans
opposed a landmark bill on free trade. About three-quarters of the House GOP sided with Obama on so-called "fast track" trade
promotion authority. You have to go back to a pair of votes under Bill Clinton -- NAFTA in 1993 and a failed fast-track push
in 1998 -- to find the last time such a small share of Republicans supported a major trade bill. Two-fifths of
House Democrats backed Clinton on NAFTA. That's the high-water mark for the party's support for major trade deals in the House in the last two
decades. When
only 15 percent of House Dems backed Obama on Friday, they weren't on the low or high end
of that historical spectrum. They were about in the middle:2 Obama effectively needed the House to
approve two things Friday: a provision to spend money helping some workers after their jobs were hurt by freer trade, and so-called "fasttrack" trade authority that would allow the president to send trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote. The first vote failed overwhelmingly
-- only a third of Republicans and a fifth of Democrats supported it. The
broader measure squeaked by, though. There's a lot
of attention, and rightly so, on how few Democrats Obama brought along for either vote. (Especially when you compare
him to Clinton in 1993.) It's also fair to note, though, that House Democrats have shown little appetite for trade bills
since NAFTA. About a third of them voted for the Panama and Korea agreements in 2011. But fewer than 1 in 10 of them backed the
Central American Free Trade Agreement under President Bush in 2004, and a slightly smaller share of them voted to give trade promotion
authority to Bush than they just did to Obama. House
Republicans, on the other hand, had hovered at or above 90
percent of support for major trade bills since 1998, including previous bills under Obama. But some conservative
activists have opposed this trade push, on a variety of grounds, contributing to the GOP defections this time. For Obama's trade
agenda to progress, he needs the worker-reimbursement provision - something conservatives have
tended to oppose, historically - to pass on a re-vote , likely next week. That vote is now the proxy vote for
"should the trade agenda move ahead under Obama?" The president would certainly like more Democrats
to join his cause for it. But to win, he probably needs a lot more support from Republicans. NAFTA
numbers would suffice.
GOP votes matter and aren’t certain – fights with obama on unrelated legislation
threaten support
Peterson, 6/12 -- Kristina, Congressional reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal,
6/12/15, http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-trade-agenda-faces-crucial-votes-in-house-1434101402
Passage of the trade legislation would deliver a rare, second-term political gift from a GOP-controlled
Congress to Mr. Obama—who squared off against labor groups in a bruising Democratic battle—as well as to business groups and
Republican leaders who put aside their suspicion of the White House to advocate for the trade legislation. The president’s excursion to Capitol
Hill comes after a surprise appearance Thursday night at the congressional baseball game. There, he made a personal pitch to House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) Approval of fast track would give Mr. Obama the power to submit trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down
vote, without amendments, as previous presidents have done. Such
power would ease passage of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a near-final deal between the U.S. and 11 other nations around the Pacific Ocean that would
cover nearly 40% of the world economy. The Senate approved trade legislation late last month, but its fate remained in jeopardy in
the House as Democrats Thursday night raised late concerns over the bill, which many in the party oppose. In the latest twist, many Democrats
were expected to oppose a measure extending a workers’ assistance program long championed by their party. Democrats had balked at a
provision in the Senate bill that pays for the program with cuts to Medicare providers. In a deal painstakingly negotiated and refined this week by
Mrs. Pelosi and Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), the program, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, would be funded by a different
source. But some Democrats still had qualms because the fix would be made through a separate piece of legislation, and they worried the
structure of the deal could open them up to political attacks over the Medicare cuts. The House will hold two fast-track votes Friday, one on the
portion of the Senate bill that deals with
worker aid legislation and—if that passes—one on the part of the bill providing fast-track
two issues were split up in a procedural maneuver known as “dividing the question” to allow
conservatives opposed to the workers aid to vote against it. The chamber will also vote on altering and passing a customs
and enforcement bill already passed by the Senate. Lawmakers said Mr. Obama entreated them not to sink the workers’ aid
program just to derail the fast-track provisions. The workers’ assistance program expires at the end of September and many
powers to Mr. Obama. The
Democrats worried that this is their best opportunity to extend it. “For us as a party to threaten to bring [TAA] down and face the risk that we will
lose it in its entirety in the future because the other side won’t bring it up again, we would own that then as a party,” said Rep. Ron Kind (D.,
Wis.), chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of more centrist, business-friendly Democrats. “We would have to go home and look
into the faces of those workers who aren’t caught up in all the political squabbles of Washington and wondering why we’re not there to help them
get back on their feet again.” But Democrats who vote for the trade legislation could face political repercussions heading into next year’s
elections. Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, a progressive political-action committee, warned Democrats against supporting either
the workers’ aid program or the fast-track measure. “We will not lift a finger or raise a penny to protect you when you’re attacked in 2016, we
will encourage our progressive allies to join us in leaving you to rot, and we will actively search for opportunities to primary you with a real
Democrat,” Mr. Dean said in a statement Friday. The
notion of fast-tracking a trade bill has also met with resistance
from conservative Republicans, many of them hesitant to help a president they have clashed with over
health care, immigration and other issues. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R. Wis.), an influential conservative,
has put much of his own political capital on the line as he has sought to build support for the trade legislation. “A yes vote would be a huge win
for conservatives, free-market principles and American leadership,” Mr. Ryan wrote in an editorial published late Thursday in the Washington
Examiner. “Many of the president’s
measure] will turn on the lights.”
critics are rightly concerned that he too often keeps Congress in the dark. But [the fast-track
Pelosi Key
Pelosi determines the outcome – Obama vital to get her on board
Huff Post 6/12 [“After Handing Obama A Crippling Defeat, House Eyes Next Moves On Trade,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/next-trade-battle_n_7573512.html]
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama suffered an embarrassing defeat Friday in his push to pass
international trade agreements. But now attention is turning to the next steps, and the president, along
with pro-trade lawmakers, have the weekend to regroup and find a new way to win over House
Democrats ahead of a scheduled do-over on Tuesday.¶ Hours after House Democrats rejected a Trade
Adjustment Assistance bill, which would have aided workers displaced by trade deals, the president
pressed lawmakers to give it another go.¶ "I urge the House to pass TAA without delay so that more
middle-class workers can earn the chance to participate and succeed in our global economy," he said in a
statement.¶ Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Obama's main Republican partner, said the president would have to
step it up and work with Republicans to salvage his trade agenda.¶ "Now, the president has some
work yet to do with his party to complete this process," he said. "This isn’t over yet."¶ But Friday's
faceplant shows that the fate of Obama's trade agenda largely depends on House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Even Democrats frustrated with her decision to oppose a key piece of the trade
package conceded they need her to get it over the finish line.¶ "You'll have to ask her," grumbled Rep.
Ron Kind (D-Wis.), when asked why he thinks Pelosi voted against moving the TAA bill. "Obviously it's
going to be hard to get a TAA bill done without her support."¶ Some Democrats credit Pelosi with coming
up with the strategy of breaking the trade package into three separate votes, the first on TAA. The other
two votes, on the Trade Promotion Authority "fast track" bill that would let Obama expedite trade deals
through Congress and on a grab bag of enforcement measures, passed. But Democrats bolted on TAA,
and TAA and fast-track both had to succeed in order for the whole bill to move forward.¶
Pelosi key – swings overall house dem votes
Bradner, 6/13 -- Eric, CNN, Trade reporter @ Politico and reporter for CNN Politics, tracking 2016's
presidential race, hot statewide campaigns, Capitol Hill and breaking news stories,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/white-house-tpp-trade-deal-congress/index.html
The Pelosi factor It was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who shepherded some of Obama's
most controversial first-term bills like health care reform into law, who hurt the President the most on Friday.
After staying on the sidelines for most of the trade fight, Pelosi took to the House floor and announced her opposition to the
bill -- giving cover to other Democrats who were considering breaking with Obama. She acknowledged the
strangeness of Democrats rejecting a Trade Adjustment Assistance measure they've favored for decades, but said the purpose was to win a
broader fight. "Our people would rather have a job than trade assistance," Pelosi said. "Its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down
the fast track." With Pelosi's opposition and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential race, also keeping mum on trade
promotion authority, Obama had scant high-level support within his own ranks.
Internals – TPA Specific
Capital Key
Capital key to trade – empirics.
Miller and Goodman 15. [Scott, senior adviser and holds the William M. Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS,
Matthew, William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, "Conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership" CSIS -- January -csis.org/files/publication/141223_Green_Pivot_Web.pdf]
What is needed to conclude TPP in 2015?∂ For the United States, trade agreements enter into effect once the U.S.
Congress passes∂ legislation to implement the provisions negotiated by the executive branch. That ∂ action is the end of a process that
begins with building domestic political support for∂ the policy. Advocates in the business community and
elsewhere have a role, but if∂ history is any guide presidential leadership is fundamental to making the
case to the∂ public and managing the political conflicts that are always a part of trade policy.∂ Immediately
following the November midterm elections, incoming Senate Majority∂ Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
made it clear that∂ trade agreements like TPP were an area of potential cooperation with the president. ∂ During President Obama’s first term, the
implementing bills for free-trade agreements∂ (FTAs) with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea passed the Republican-controlled∂ House by
comfortable margins, with over 200 Republicans and 30–60 Democrats∂ voting in favor. This 2011 success gave TPP talks momentum, with
Canada, Mexico,∂ and Japan deciding to join the talks shortly after the FTAs passed. Voting
patterns indicate that trade policy
remains an issue that divides Democrats and∂ unites Republicans. The president must actively manage his
party’s politics while∂ cooperating with Republican majorities in Congress who will provide the majority
of∂ the votes. It’s never easy to advance an issue that divides your usual allies and unites∂ your usual
opponents, but there is no alternative scenario. In short, the next step belongs to the president. He must engage
the public on the∂ issue, underscoring its importance to the economy and, more broadly, the U.S. role in ∂ the world. And he must manage
the delicate relations with Congress, navigating past∂ areas of conflict to form a durable base of support
for his agreements. Presidential∂ leadership will resonate in other capitals, especially Tokyo, where trading partners∂
are looking for evidence of an adequate political consensus in the United States.
Presidential persuasion key to get enough votes for TPA – that guarantees successful
TPP completion – significant delays torpedo everything.
Kehoe 3-29. [John, journalist, "Obama scrambles at home for Asia trade deal" Financial Review -- www.afr.com/news/world/northamerica/obama-scrambles-at-home-for-asia-trade-deal-20150329-1m9u8b]
"It's
going to depend on the administration really ramping up the case forcefully to members that this is
a substantial improvement to the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] model on trade," the aide said.∂ April is
shaping as crucial for House and Senate committee negotiators to finalise the release of a TPA bill into
Congress, ahead of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to the White House at the end of the month. Japan and the US are the two key players in the 12country talks, as they negotiate how to liberalise their protected respective agriculture and automotive sectors. The Japanese chief negotiator has been in Washington
in recent days.∂ Further increasing the pressure to make domestic headway in April, trade ministers are due to meet at APEC in the Philippines in May. Trade Minister
If House Ways and Means Committee chairman Paul Ryan,
Senate Finance Committee chair Orrin Hatch and ranking Democrat Senator Ron Wyden don't table a TPA bill by the August
recess, congressional sources say the presidential primary election cycle will kill off any hope of
Congress agreeing.∂ Ernie Bower, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies said deadlines were fast approaching to strike a domestic and international deal.∂
"Political leaders in other countries negotiating the TPP are not going to spend their political capital at
home on this deal until the TPA is passed here," Mr Bower said.
Andrew Robb is hopeful an international deal on TPP can be reached.∂
Obama PC Key
Maruyama & Kyle 12/18/14 (Warren & Robert, The Hill, “Republican control of Senate boosts prospects for TPA and TPP”,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/227449-republican-control-of-senate-boosts-prospects-for-tpa-and)
despite TPA’s improved prospects, the bill remains a work in progress and could easily
unravel . To pass TPA in the House and Senate, and get over the 60-vote threshold to avoid a Senate
filibuster, a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats will be required . While Republicans
are likely to provide the majority of the votes , particularly in the House, at least some Democrats will be
necessary in both chambers. As a result, both sides likely will have to make accommodations . However,
both sides remain wary of each other’s potential demands. The Republicans are concerned that Wyden
will seek far-reaching changes to Baucus-Camp-Hatch that would generate opposition within the Republican
Caucus. For their part, Democratic staffers are worried that House and Senate Republicans will try to jam a
partisan trade bill through the Committee and floor processes, as occurred with the House-passed version of the Trade
In short,
Promotion Authority Act of 2002, or weaken the so-called “May 10” agreement between the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats
on the treatment of labor and environmental obligations in U.S. FTAs. If either scenario happens ,
the process could go off the rails
again . Obama’s immigration announcement represents a new complication, which could delay or upset
talk of bipartisan cooperation. Finally, TPA will require leadership and support from the President.
While Cabinet members have begun meeting at the White House to discuss TPA strategy, a bill as complex and politically
controversial as TPA will require a major public effort by the president , and a well-organized and
coordinated campaign by the US business community and the White House. In sum, while there is an opening for
TPA (and TPP), the process could easily stall, in which case the responsibility for getting them done could
slip to the next president.
PC key on trade particularly.
Boustany amd Zoellick 12-28. [Charles, senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Robert, former USTR,
president of the World Bank, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress" Wall Street Journal -- www.wsj.com/articles/charlesboustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308]
After the midterm elections, political
commentators identified trade policy as one area for cooperation between
and the Republican Congress. We agree. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority over
trade. But the active direction and use of that authority depends on an energetic executive , in partnership with
Congress.∂ According to a recent Pew Research survey, 66% of Americans believe greater U.S. involvement in the
global economy is a “good thing,” with only 25% thinking it is bad. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is a “good
President Obama
thing” in the eyes of 55% of Americans, versus 25% who consider it bad; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) scores 53%
good and 20% bad. These inclinations offer opportunity.∂ Prof. Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that the
presidency relied on the “power to persuade.” It’s time for Mr. Obama to persuade on trade. He must make
use of the convening power of the executive to bolster his advocacy. His administration must work
closely with Congress—to listen, explain, address problems and cut deals.
Obama involvement key to TPA and trade agreements.
Fulton 12-5. [Deirdre, Common Dreams staff writer, "Obama ready to defy base in order to advance trans-pacific partnership" Mint Press
News -- www.mintpressnews.com/obama-ready-defy-base-order-advance-trans-pacific-partnership/199643/]
President Barack Obama is ready to buck his liberal base in order to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the
pro-corporate international trade deal currently being negotiated in secret by the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries.∂ In a speech
before the Business Roundtable, an association of conservative CEOs of major U.S. corporations, Obama
indicated that he was
ready to go head-to-head with Democrats, labor unions, and environmentalists—core groups that oppose the TPP
and other so-called “free trade” pacts—in order to move the controversial deal forward. He listed trade as one of his
top four economic priorities for the remainder of his presidency, along with tax reform, immigration, and investment in
infrastructure.∂ “With respect to trade, we hope to be able to not simply finalize an agreement with the various parties in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, but also to be able to explain it to the public, and to engage in all the stakeholders and
to publicly engage with the critics, because I think some of the criticism of what we’ve been doing on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership is groups fighting the last war as opposed to looking forward,” Obama said, referring
to trade deals such as NAFTA that have been strongly opposed by the same constituencies. ∂ “Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are
accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers,” he continued. “And I’m
going to have to engage directly with
our friends in labor and our environmental organizations and try to get from them why it is that they think
that.”∂ U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who helped introduce ‘Fast Track’ legislation earlier this year that would hand over the power to
negotiate trade agreements from Congress to the president, praised Obama’s remarks: “This is long overdue,” he said. “The
president’s influence, particularly among members of his own party, will be a vital component to
congressional efforts.”
PC Key to Dems
Obama pressure gets Dems and interest groups on board.
Reuters 12-3-14. ["Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority" -- www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/us-usatrade-obama-idUSKCN0JH24220141203]
U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday committed
to urge lawmakers to back a bill giving trade deals a fast
track through Congress, an effort some think could break a logjam on the issue and help secure major
agreements under negotiation.∂ Speaking to business leaders, he acknowledged differences within his own
Democratic Party on free trade agreements that he supports and said he would also make the case to unions
that trade brought benefits for workers.∂ A bill to give the Obama administration so-called fast-track power, which would allow
only yes-or-no votes on trade deals in Congress without amendments, has been stuck all year. ∂ Obama said he planned to speak to
congressional leaders on both sides to make "a strong case on the merits of why this has to get done."∂
Trade experts said personal intervention by the president would boost support for trade promotion
authority, or TPA, in Congress, where there is opposition from some Republicans as well as Democrats.∂ "It
should help move TPA along both because it will help persuade wavering Democrats that supporting it is
the right thing to do and because it will demonstrate to Republicans that the president is willing to wade
into the fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said.∂ Analysts say fast-track authority would
persuade other countries to make their best offers during negotiations, secure in the knowledge that any pact could not
be reopened by Congress.∂ Obama said free trade is "tough politics" among some lawmakers because many Americans feel their wages and
income have stagnated as a result of foreign trade.∂ He said his argument to U.S. labor unions and environmental groups concerned about the
impact of free-trade agreements is that new trade deals, such as the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership, will help raise labor and environmental
standards.∂ "Part of my argument to Democrats is: don't fight the last war," Obama told the Business Roundtable, noting
that companies wanting to move offshore for cheaper labor had probably already done so. ∂ Fifty percent of Americans think trade destroys jobs
and 45 percent think it lowers wages, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center. Obama said anti-trade sentiment had also increased
among Republicans.∂ Unions were disappointed by the comments, but the incoming head of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Orrin
Hatch, said Obama's
"long overdue" support would be vital to pass TPA in Congress.∂ The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce said Obama should meet with and telephone members of Congress to make the case for TPA.
Obama pc keeps Dems in line – pressure key to the finish line.
Lawson 12-3. [Alex, Associate Editor at Inside Washington Publishers, "Obama Vows To Work On Reviving Fast-Track Trade Deals"
Law 360 -- www.law360.com/articles/601265/obama-vows-to-work-on-reviving-fast-track-trade-deals]
Renewing the lapsed authority is a top priority for Republicans and is therefore a likely area of cooperation for the
president and the GOP-controlled Congress beginning next year. But that also means Obama must put out fires within
the Democratic ranks.∂ The first step in that process, according to Obama, is to convince his own party to be
more open-minded about the real benefits of trade rather than trotting out the same fears of wage stagnation and outsourcing
that dominated the debates over China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement talks.∂ “Part
of the argument that I’m making to Democrats is, don’t fight the last war,” Obama said. “If you want to ... locate
in a low-wage country, with low labor standards and low environmental standards, there hasn’t been that much preventing you from doing so.”∂
In that vein, Obama said that he would also be
coordinating with labor and environmental leaders to convince
them to lend support to the most prominent U.S. trade negotiating effort, the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.∂ “Ironically, if we are
able to get Trans-Pacific Partnership done, then we’re actually forcing some countries to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental
standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption, increase intellectual property protection,” he said. “Those who oppose these trade deals,
ironically, are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers.” ∂ Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is expected to assume the
gavel on the Senate Finance Committee in the next Congress, welcomed Obama's comments on the future of the trade agenda, and TPA renewal
“If past experience has taught us anything, it’s that we need presidential leadership to get
TPA over the finish line,” Hatch said in a statement. “The president’s influence, particularly among members of
his own party, will be a vital component to congressional efforts."
in particular.∂
Active Obama pressure key to get Dems on board.
Shanghai Daily 1-21-15. shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=264177
Traditionally pro-trade
Republicans have urged Obama to round up votes from Democrats for trade
promotion authority and use Tuesday's prime-time address to build congressional support.∂ "We need the
president to engage on this issue with his own party," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said last week.
"We need him to make it a priority in the State of the Union."∂ "If President Obama can be more forward-leaning with
members of his party, starting with tonight's State of the Union address, I think we can get this (fast track
authority) done quickly," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch said Tuesday.
PC Key – Empirics
Empirics prove pc is key to trade.
Behsudi 12-3. [Adam, trade reporter, "Fincher putting the pedal to the metal on Ex-Im — Lawmakers do the TPA tango — EU grapples
with tar sands oil" Politico -- www.politico.com/morningtrade/1214/morningtrade16316.html]
IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO ON TRADE: Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
repeated on Tuesday that he wants
to work with the White House to pass trade legislation, a statement perhaps more notable this time around because it came
amid Republican anger over President Barack Obama’s action on immigration. ∂ “That’s my first choice, to look for the things that we actually
agree on, if there are any,” McConnell (R- Ky.) said at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council meeting. “At least on trade, I think there’s a
potential for agreement. Trade agreements are more popular in my conference than they are in the Democratic conference.” ∂ Speaking at the same
event, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he also hoped the White House and Republicans could work together to “get trade promotion authority
done. … I think it’s very important.” But Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee and an ally of
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, did not mention trade in his remarks even though he has a record of voting for trade
agreements.∂ Scott Miller,
a trade politics specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said
any movement on TPA would require a strong push from the president. “If the White House doesn’t
take the initiative and actually create the political coalition to pass this, including dealing with the politics
of its own party, then Congress is just going to go work on other stuff,” Miller said. “This is the secret of
trade: If the president presses for it, he gets it and he’ll get it with big majorities.”
Dems Key
Dems key to TPA – Obama spending pc to swing votes.
WSJ 1-22-15. blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/22/capital-journal-battles-over-iran-sanctions-gopgovernors-trumpet-successes-focus-turns-to-middle-class-angst/
OBAMA SEEKS TO WOO DEMOCRATS ON TRADE DEALS: President Obama’s push for a new round of
trade deals looks set to hinge on a small swing contingent of House Democratic lawmakers, testing the
president’s ability to woo wary members of his own party. To do that, the White House has deployed
cabinet secretaries and set up a war room to promote fast-track trade legislation on Capitol Hill. The White House hopes
to move ahead on a trade deal under negotiation with Japan and other Pacific nations, as well as a deal officials are eyeing with the European
Union. William Mauldin and Siobhan Hughes report.
A2: Your PC Key is about dems
pc is key to bipart coalition – Dems and GOP are key.
Maruyama and Kyle 12-18. [ Warren, Robert, partners at the global law firm Hogan Lovells, "Republican control of Senate
boosts prospects for TPA and TPP" The Hill -- thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/227449-republican-control-of-senate-boostsprospects-for-tpa-and
In short, despite
TPA’s improved prospects, the bill remains a work in progress and could easily unravel. To
pass TPA in the House and Senate, and get over the 60-vote threshold to avoid a Senate filibuster, a bipartisan coalition of
Republicans and Democrats will be required . While Republicans are likely to provide the majority of
the votes, particularly in the House, at least some Democrats will be necessary in both chambers. As a result, both
sides likely will have to make accommodations. However, both sides remain wary of each other’s potential
demands. The Republicans are concerned that Wyden will seek far-reaching changes to Baucus-Camp-Hatch that would generate opposition
within the Republican Caucus. For their part, Democratic staffers are worried that House and Senate Republicans will try to jam a partisan trade
bill through the Committee and floor processes, as occurred with the House-passed version of the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, or
weaken the so-called “May 10” agreement between the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats on the treatment of labor and
environmental obligations in U.S. FTAs. If either scenario happens, the
process could go off the rails again. Obama’s
immigration announcement represents a new complication, which could delay or upset talk of bipartisan cooperation.
Finally, TPA will require leadership and support from the President . While Cabinet members have begun meeting
at the White House to discuss TPA strategy, a bill as complex and politically controversial as TPA will require a
major public effort by the president, and a well-organized and coordinated campaign by the US business
community and the White House. In sum, while there is an opening for TPA (and TPP), the process could easily stall, in
which case the responsibility for getting them done could slip to the next president.
Obama PC key to revote passage – must woo both dem and GOP votes for TAA
passage
Hughes, 6/12 -- Siobhan, Capital Hill Reporter, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-deals-blow-to-obamasbid-for-trade-deal-rejects-worker-aid-program-1434131589
While stinging, the vote was not the last word in the trade fight, as House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said there
would be a re-vote by Tuesday on extending the aid program, which is designed to help workers hurt by international trade. But Friday’s
defeat showed the degree to which Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is on shaky ground in Congress. The House voted against the workers-aid
program by 126-302. To improve those numbers, House Republican leaders, the White House and pro-trade businesses will need to
find ways to win over a combination of Democrats who are skeptical of the overall trade push and
Republicans leery of supporting the aid package.
AT: Guida “PC Not Key”
Guida is a neg card – we’ll submit our re-highlighted version and the whole article
which concludes that trade is a TOUGH fight but Obama push is key to get it done –
just proves that pc is key to persuade the few swing votes – the margin of error is
small.
Victoria Guida 2/5, trade reporter for Politico, with Doug Palmer, “President Barack Obama amps up
personal trade pitch,” 2/5/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-trade-democrats-congress114933.html
President Barack Obama is stepping up his effort to push his trade agenda within his party, reaching out personally to House freshmen
who have expressed opposition and calling the chamber’s Democratic trade leaders to the White House for some face time. ¶ The president invited Democrats from the
powerful House Ways and Means Committee to the White House on Wednesday so they could air their trade-related worries just days after he made the case for new
trade deals in a letter to freshman Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona. ¶ “I think you’re going to see a lot more” of that kind of advocacy from the president
and his Cabinet, said Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, one of the few House Democrats leading the charge in favor of free trade. ¶ But trade
is not an easy
sell among Democrats, particularly in the House. Already, two freshmen, including Gallego, have indicated they’re still not
buying Obama’s trade pitch.¶ “At times friends have to agree to disagree , and this is one of those times,”
Gallego’s representative said in a statement to POLITICO. “While Congressman Gallego appreciates the president reaching out to him on this issue, the
congressman believes it is critical that Congress maintains its authority to ensure American trade agreements
are a good deal for the American people.Ӧ Gallego sent a letter to Obama last week indicating his opposition to trade promotion
authority, which would allow the president to submit trade deals to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without amendments. It was also signed by fellow
freshmen Democratic Reps. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mark DeSaulnier and Ted Lieu of California, Debbie Dingell and Brenda
Lawrence of Michigan, Kathleen Rice of New York, Mark Takai of Hawaii and Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey.¶ The president
urged them to reconsider. “If they succeed, our competitors would be free to ignore basic environmental and labor standards, giving them an unfair
advantage against American workers,” Obama wrote Gallego in a letter obtained by POLITICO. “We can’t let that happen. We should write the rules, and level the
playing field for the middle class.”¶ Copies of the president’s letter were also sent to the other Democrats who signed Gallego’s letter, but
there’s no sign
yet whether their reaction is any more positive.¶ “Congress has a responsibility to the people it represents to fight for policies that protect
manufacturing jobs,” Dingell said in a statement to POLITICO. “ I continue to be strongly opposed to fast track.” Trade promotion
authority has historically been known as fast-track negotiating authority.¶ The congresswoman went on to highlight one issue that’s not doing the president any favors
manipulation.¶ It’s a hot-button issue within both parties because countries
like China that purposely devalue their currency gain a trade advantage over the U.S. by making their exports
in winning votes on trade: currency
cheaper. ¶ China’s not currently a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a free trade deal the United States is negotiating with 11 Asia-Pacific countries. But the
Asian powerhouse could be someday, and it’s not the only country that lawmakers have raised currency worries about. Japan is another one, and it is in the deal.
Obama told House Democrats at their retreat last week, however, that currency provisions won’t be in the AsiaPacific agreement, according to two sources familiar with the discussion.¶ “My focus will be to continue to fight for currency provisions in the TPA and
TPP,” Dingell said.¶ For now, negotiations on the Asia trade deal are continuing, and a fast-track bill has yet to be introduced. But that all could
change in a matter of months . Lawmakers are planning to begin marking up the legislation later this
month or early next, and once that happens, the trade talks are expected to speed to a conclusion, spurred on by
the existence of legislation that gives participating nations some assurance that their victories on the
negotiating table won’t be undone by Congress.¶ With 246 Republicans in the House and only 218 votes needed to pass the chamber, it’s
unclear how many House Democrats will even be needed to pass the fast-track bill. But just in case, Senate Finance Committee ranking Democrat Ron Wyden of
Oregon has sought input on the forthcoming legislation, which he’s negotiating with panel Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and House Ways and Means Chairman
Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), from the pro-trade House New Democrat Coalition, chaired by Kind, congressional sources said. ¶ One House Democratic aide said there’s
a lot of skepticism among Democrats , who say they haven’t heard the administration say loudly enough
why the fast-track bill and trade in general would be good for workers. But now they are beginning to see
more signs of the White House publicly making the case — such as an op-ed that Labor Secretary Tom Perez recently penned for The
News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington. ¶ Republicans, who largely support the president’s trade agenda, also worry
about defections within
their caucus by tea party members and other conservatives who balk at the idea of giving this president more
authority. For months, the GOP leadership has been calling on Obama to get personally engaged to bring
his own party on board — something he now appears to be doing.¶ Ryan acknowledged that the
administration has “stepped up their game quite a bit on this.”¶ National Economic Council Director Jeffrey Zients “is getting
Cabinet members engaged,” the Wisconsin Republican told reporters at a briefing Wednesday. “The president had four or five Democrats down at the White House
today. He and the vice president I thought gave good remarks at the Democrats’ retreat. And we have lots of bipartisan committee meetings with [U.S. Trade
Representative Michael] Froman and Zients.”¶ “They
need to keep it up,” he said.¶ Bill Clinton perhaps set the standard for
presidential efforts to round up trade votes during the tempestuous debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement, said Greg Mastel, a
former Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee. ¶ “I honestly don’t think it could have passed without his concerted effort,” said Mastel, who’s now a senior
adviser for international trade and tax policy at the Kelley Drye & Warren law firm. “By that I mean he called members personally, talked to them one-on-one and in
groups. He must have spent a couple hundred hours personally rounding up votes, which is a whole lot of time for a president.” ¶ But Mastel said he was
skeptical an all-out push by Obama would have the same impact because 20 years after the vote on
NAFTA, trade is a “very mature” issue, and most lawmakers, even new ones, have already made up their minds
on it.
THEIR CARD ENDS
“The number I’ve heard is [Obama] needs to get 40 Democrats in the House. That’s a piece of work.
Not impossible, but far from easy,” Mastel said.
And empirics go neg.
Behsudi 12-3. [Adam, trade reporter, "Fincher putting the pedal to the metal on Ex-Im — Lawmakers do the TPA tango — EU grapples
with tar sands oil" Politico -- www.politico.com/morningtrade/1214/morningtrade16316.html]
IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO ON TRADE: Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
repeated on Tuesday that he wants
to work with the White House to pass trade legislation, a statement perhaps more notable this time around because it came
amid Republican anger over President Barack Obama’s action on immigration. ∂ “That’s my first choice, to look for the things that we actually
agree on, if there are any,” McConnell (R- Ky.) said at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council meeting. “At least on trade, I think there’s a
potential for agreement. Trade agreements are more popular in my conference than they are in the Democratic conference.” ∂ Speaking at the same
event, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he also hoped the White House and Republicans could work together to “get trade promotion authority
done. … I think it’s very important.” But Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee and an ally of
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, did not mention trade in his remarks even though he has a record of voting for trade
agreements.∂ Scott Miller,
a trade politics specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said
any movement on TPA would require a strong push from the president. “If the White House doesn’t take
the initiative and actually create the political coalition to pass this, including dealing with the politics of
its own party, then Congress is just going to go work on other stuff,” Miller said. “This is the secret of
trade: If the president presses for it, he gets it and he’ll get it with big majorities.”
Neg – Links
Links – Generic
Link Trick – Generic - Docket Crowd Out – TPA specific
Plan specifically derails trade authority, TPP and econ - PC loss, GOP division,
house backlash, legislative stalemate, gridlock, and independent docket crowd out –
even extended house vote delay is enough - intense controversy and fight, house
backlash, legislative stalemate, congressional gridlock, divides GOP, national security
fears
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and
a trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time . Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “ We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “ Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT
Act used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs —
though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it is
an
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
collection program are running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle . McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve . McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the trade
fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in the
House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security . Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time
so we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna
have . I think that is unfortunate.” Top Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone
records and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a shortterm reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP
and the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
Link Trick – Generic – Obama Fights Plan/A2: Link Turns
Obama fights intensely against plan – all their turns are links
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, 11-19-2014, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevance-u-scongress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought to
change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while
leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,
based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95 percent of the
planet called “non-Americans”). There were some mildly positive provisions in the USA Freedom Act: the placement of “public advocates” at
the FISA court to contest the claims of the government; the prohibition on the NSA holding Americans’ phone records, requiring instead that they
obtain FISA court approval before seeking specific records from the telecoms (which already hold those records for at least 18 months); and
reducing the agency’s “contact chaining” analysis from three hops to two. One could reasonably argue (as the ACLU and EFF did) that, though
woefully inadequate, the bill was a net-positive as a first step toward real reform, but one could also reasonably argue, as Marcy Wheeler has with
characteristic insight, that the bill is so larded with ambiguities and fundamental inadequacies that it would forestall better options and advocates
for real reform should thus root for its defeat. When
pro-privacy members of Congress first unveiled the bill many months
ago, it was actually a good bill: real reform. But the White House worked very hard— in partnership
with the House GOP—to water that bill down so severely that what the House ended up passing over the
summer did more to strengthen the NSA than rein it in, which caused even the ACLU and EFF to
withdraw their support. The Senate bill rejected last night was basically a middle ground between that original,
good bill and the anti-reform bill passed by the House. * * * * * All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most important point
from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S. government is . . .
the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and that’s particularly true of
empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform . This Congress is not going
to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance. Even if it somehow
did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the fact that the U.S. intelligence
community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means they’d easily co-opt the entire
reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of the mid-1970s led to the
establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight” court—the committees were
instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence community like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chambliss, and
Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court quickly became a rubber stamp with subservient judges who operate in
total secrecy. Ever since the Snowden reporting began and public opinion (in both the U.S. and globally) began radically changing, the White
has been obvious. It’s vintage Obama: Enact something that is called “reform”—so that he can give a
pretty speech telling the world that he heard and responded to their concerns—but that in actuality changes almost nothing,
thus strengthening the very system he can pretend he “changed.” That’s the same tactic as Silicon Valley, which also
House’s strategy
supported this bill: Be able to point to something called “reform” so they can trick hundreds of millions of current and future users around the
world into believing that their communications are now safe if they use Facebook, Google, Skype and the rest. In pretty much every interview
I’ve done over the last year, I’ve been asked why there haven’t been significant changes from all the disclosures. I vehemently disagree with the
premise of the question, which equates “U.S. legislative changes” with “meaningful changes.” But it has been clear from the start that U.S.
legislation is not going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance, at
least not fundamentally. Those limitations are going to come from—are now coming from —very different places:
That draws Obama into major fight with plan’s supporters - freedom act empirics
prove
Whittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14,
http://www.zdnet.com/house-passes-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)
House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was
designed to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered
down." Next stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act,
which first authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152 co-sponsors,
the bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands, which
according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama
administration by strengthening previously removed provisions. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author
— who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to
counter the "misuse" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House Judiciary
Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After
the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the most
prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However, in
prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the bill he first
introduced. "The
legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s surveillance
authorities," he said. "It bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message
to the NSA: We are watching you."
Ext – Obama Fights Plan
Obama fights against surveillance limits – any prior support was only designed to
INCREASE surveillance in face of immediate sunset provision
Sasso, 14 -- Brendan Sasso, National Journal, 3/25/14, Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed
Their Minds, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds20140325
It was only months ago that President Obama, with bipartisan backing from the heads of Congress's
Intelligence committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program was
key to keeping Americans safe from the next major terrorist attack. They were also dismissing privacy
concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the necessary safeguards were already in
place. But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and the NSA's top
supporters in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. And civil-liberties groups—awash in
their newly won clout—are declaring victory. The question is no longer whether to change the program, but how
dramatically to overhaul it. So what changed? It's not that Obama and his Hill allies suddenly saw the error of
their ways and became born-again privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical section of the Patriot Act set
to expire next year, they realized they had no choice but to negotiate. If Congress fails to reauthorize that
provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's collection of U.S. records would have to end entirely.
And the growing outrage prompted by the Snowden leaks means that the NSA's supporters would almost
certainly lose an up-or-down vote on the program. Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House
Intelligence Committee, said that looming sunset is what forced lawmakers to the bargaining table . "I
think what has changed is the growing realization that the votes are simply not there for
reauthorization ," he said in an interview. "I think that more than anything else, that is galvanizing us into
action."
Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their proposals are now the NSA's best bet
to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror plots. Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated she is on board with the changes, saying
the president's proposal is a "worthy effort." And though the Hill's NSA allies are now proposing reforms to the
agency, they don't seem particularly excited about it. At a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the
Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the panel's top
Democrat, often sounded like they were arguing against their own bill that they were unveiling. "I passionately
believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said. Ruppersberger said if the program had been
in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. But the lawmakers acknowledged there is
broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently structured. "We need to do something about bulk collection
because of the perception of our constituents," Ruppersberger admitted. Under their legislation, the vast database of phone records would stay in
the hands of the phone companies. The NSA could force the phone companies to turn over particular records, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact. But Rogers rejected a reporter's suggestion that the NSA should have never had
control of the massive database of phone records in the first place. "There was no abuse, no illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said. For
all
their hesitance, however, Rogers and company much prefer their version to a competing proposal to change
the way the government gathers information. That would be the USA Freedom Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Rogers and his ilk fear would go too far in hamstringing the
NSA . The USA Freedom Act would require the NSA to meet a tougher standard for the data searches and
would limit other NSA programs, such as Internet surveillance of people overseas. Additionally, President Obama is
expected to unveil his own plan to reform the controversial phone data collection program this week. According to The New York Times,
Obama's proposal would also keep the database in the hands of the phone companies. His plan would
have tougher judicial oversight than the House bill by requiring pre-approval from the court for every targeted phone number, the
newspaper reported. But though the momentum has shifted and officials seem to be coalescing around a
framework for overhauling the NSA program, the question is far from settled . Leahy and
Sensenbrenner are not backing off from their USA Freedom Act, and outside groups will continue their
policy push as well.
Obama Opposes plan – Post Freedom Act status quo IS obama’s preferred middle
ground on surveillance – security concerns ensure he’ll oppose further limits
Shear, 6/3 -- Michael, NYT, White House Correspondent for NYT, Mr. Shear received a B.A. degree from
Claremont McKenna College and a M.A. degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard
University, 6/3/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-programown.html?_r=0
In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance For more than six years, President
Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a
program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress into
reauthorizing the program, with
new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question
that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of
telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies available for
broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the
reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She called
the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate finally passed it.” The president is
trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of equilibrium he has talked about since he
was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government
overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about the system of surveillance at his command. But
Ms. Monaco said that, in
part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the president was also “very,
very focused on the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every day,” she said. The compromise on
collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism
professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the
past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can intrude on the lives of innocent Americans. Either way,
Mr. Obama’s signature on the law late Tuesday night ensures that he will deliver to the next president a method of
hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A.
contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program. “He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under
President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.” Jameel Jaffer,
the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a
very small step forward.” He said his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government
surveillance programs. “Obama has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or
are you going to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is
willing to spend political capital changing those programs .” In the case of the telephone program, Mr. Obama’s
preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the
public’s privacy concerns without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly . In
the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown , Mr. Obama and his national security team insisted that
broad surveillance powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats , while admitting that the new approach to data
collection would not harm that effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right
balance. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some
historians,” said Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the
government access to needed records. “This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is
important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.” Mr. Obama’s
advocacy put him at
the center of a fierce congressional debate over the surveillance program, which officially expired early Monday
morning before lawmakers approved changes on Tuesday. In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader,
railed against the president’s compromise proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow
more sophisticated and aggressive.” At the same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, excoriated Mr. Obama,
saying, “The president continues to conduct an illegal program,” a reference to a recent ruling by a federal appeals court
that the original N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law. What emerged from that debate was a
rare bipartisan victory for the president, whose approach was met with approval by Republicans and
Democrats in the House and Senate. Even some of the president’s most ardent critics in the Republican Party
endorsed the approach. “This is a good day for the American people, whose rights will be protected,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of
Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The compromise on the
telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and-pull for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national
security infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that infrastructure, pledging at
the time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush “to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties, which are unconstitutional,
and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen.” Once
in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s decisions — in one of his
national security team has also embraced some of
Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing that they are necessary to protect Americans against attacks and to
fight threats abroad. Mr. Obama talked about “putting careful constraints” on surveillance even before Mr.
Snowden revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained how his thinking had
evolved. “I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Mr. Obama said. “My team
evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my
assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest
encroachments on the privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that
on net, it was worth us doing.” With the passage of the USA Freedom Act nearly two years later, Mr. Obama
must make his new approach work by maintaining a focus on security while doing more to respect privacy. “Certainly,”
first acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his
Ms. Monaco said, “we are going to be focused on that.”
Link/Turn Shield – Generic – Ratchet effect
Limiting surveillance drains PC – link only one way – strong political support
makes fight bigger - ratchet effect, inertia, and terror fears outweigh Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance
Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
been gathering the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only
targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or
law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a
request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as part
of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original intended
scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I
disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements may
have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that Sensenbrenner
describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the “ratchet effect” in
legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can become
entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely .[1] For example, some
scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline of legal
“normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent with the
ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on how
powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the ratchet
effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet effect],
it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor do I
debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Limiting surveillance drains PC – perception of ties to anti-terror efforts ensure
stickiness – outweighs political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to modify or
repeal portions can prove challenging . An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th terrorist attacks.[5]
At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous letters containing
weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within the United States,
began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded the definition of
terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the Department
of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the recent NSA surveillance
revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act, which relates directly to the NSA’s
collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area is the Act’s permitting searches of personal library records and other
organizational files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand disclosure of certain records from an
organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without judicial review.[8] The number of NSLs drastically increased
after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 8,000 NSLs. In 2004, by contrast, the FBI issued
56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs, though secrecy rules bar their lawyers from discussing the
nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve
years since the Act’s entrance into use, governments, civic organizations, and
citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the Act without success . Two years after the Act
became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia passed resolutions against it.[9] Members of
the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of legislation seeking to scale back the Act’s original
scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe
v. Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the Act’s constitutionality. Yet despite this
steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both Republican and Democratic
administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history reflects the difficulties
governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or repeal portions of the USA
PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason. Al-Qaeda has been degraded significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a
significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly illustrates. In light of the continuing threat
of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why anti-terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act can
prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a
constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism laws in place .
drains PC – inertia, entrenched political and economic interests, agency backlash
and security concerns outweigh – inevitably perceived and linked to soft on
terrorism – regardless of declining public support - can’t avoid getting tied
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because there is increased public deference to government during crises. Legal scholars and
political scientists have explored the effect of terrorism on public deference to democratic governments.[10] While the specific reasons for this vary, the research overwhelmingly points toward
Popular support can provide the political
capital necessary for legislators and executives to quickly craft and implement anti-terrorism laws. Over
time, despite some slippage, public approval of these laws can continue—particularly when the crisis that prompted the laws’
creation continues. The ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws create a new security paradigm . An
aggressive anti-terrorism law can fundamentally alter societal approaches to terrorism. Surveillance may
increase. Police powers can expand. Intelligence efforts may grow. Public expectations of privacy can diminish.
In the aggregate, these types of changes can represent a drastic change in a government’s approach to
terrorism, and effectively create a “new normal” level of security. Because this “new normal” is linked
to the law itself , reversing the law begins to dismantle the new security paradigm. From the public’s
perspective, this might be an unacceptable option because it may increase societal vulnerability to terrorism. Government agencies
also risk losing resources—personnel, money, and political support—by returning to the status quo
ante.
increased trust in government authorities in the immediate wake of terrorist attacks, though this can wane over time.
uniquely drains PC– fear of future political death sentence ensures powerful
opposition - inherent and terminal risk make probability and causal linkage
irrelevant
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because elected officials do not want to risk repealing anti-terrorism laws.
Here is a political nightmare : for whatever reason, a legislator or government executive spearheads an effort to reverse
an anti-terrorism law. The anti-terrorism law is repealed. Within a week, a terrorist attack occurs. Being wrong about terrorism
can carry devastating political consequences for incumbents. But being specifically identified as the one who
“turned off the alarm system” is a political death sentence . Under this scenario, even if there is no direct
causal link between the law’s repeal and the attack, the two are easily correlated because of their temporal proximity to
each other. It makes no sense for an elected official to open herself to the possibility of this scenario without
a clear, compelling reason—and, even then, scaling back an anti-terrorism law may still be too
politically risky a proposition to entertain seriously. For these reasons, anti-terrorism laws can
remain in effect beyond the end of the crisis that brought them into existence.
Link – Generic – Post Freedom Act
Freedom act was delicate balancing act – ANY additional changes drain PC and
guarantee intense opposition – congressional leadership, GOP, law enforcement
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest
overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views,
calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone
records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database
from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts
when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released
to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data
collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and NSA
from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define “specific
search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term and give
the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to congressional intent,
but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the old version of the Patriot
Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom
Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas Internet traffic,
limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will
be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who don’t
including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly
vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs
sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the
expiring sections of the Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S.
surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican
leaders opposed to more changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional
leadership , however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused
to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA. In the House, Republican
leaders threatened to kill the USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to address other
surveillance programs. Still, many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new surveillance limits, with
lawmakers adding an amendment to end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill this
week. Obama’s administration has threatened to veto the appropriations bill for several unrelated reasons, but several House members have
pledged to push hard to prohibit the FBI and CIA from searching the content of reportedly tens of thousands of U.S. communications swept up in
an NSA surveillance program targeting overseas terrorism suspects. Closing that surveillance backdoor is a top priority for civil liberties groups,
said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C., legislative office. “We’ve had this
statute that masquerades as affecting only people abroad, but the reality is that it sweeps up large numbers of U.S. persons,” she said. Other
changes possible Advocates and lawmakers will also push for a handful of other surveillance reforms in the coming months. The
changes
most likely to pass make limited changes to surveillance programs, however. While not tied to NSA surveillance,
lawmakers will press for changes to the 29-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a wiretap law that gives law enforcement
agencies warrantless access to emails and other communications stored in the cloud for more than six months. A House version of ECPA reform
counts more than half the body as co-sponsors. Still, tech companies and civil liberties groups have been pushing since 2010 to have those
law enforcement agencies and some Republican lawmakers have
successfully opposed the changes. Another bill that may gain traction in coming months is the Judicial Redress Act, a bill that
communications protected by warrants, but
would allow citizens of some countries to file lawsuits under the U.S. Privacy Act if government agencies misuse their records. “The Privacy Act
offers limited protections, even to Americans, but passage of this bill would be an important first step to addressing especially European concerns
that US privacy reforms won’t help them,” said Berin Szoka, president of free market think tank TechFreedom. Public pressure, along with
potentially new leaks, will be the key to driving any more surveillance changes, advocates said. “The public will for mass surveillance laws was
made very clear recently, and that’s partly why we saw much of Congress flock to whatever could be called surveillance reform,” said Tiffiniy
Cheng, a founder of digital rights group Fight for the Future. “No one is fooled by USA
Freedom—it’s a weak piece of legislation
that uses exceptions in legislative language to codify the NSA’s practice of surveilling most people.”
Congress has much work left to do, Cheng said by email. “After the recent showdown and public outcry, USA Freedom is at best, seen as a
beginning of surveillance reform, not the end,” she said.
Additional restrictions drains PC post freedom act – massive controversy, upsets
delicate bipartisan compromise, huge flip flop – Obama inevitable gets blame
Shear, 6/3 -- Michael, NYT, White House Correspondent for NYT, Mr. Shear received a B.A. degree from
Claremont McKenna College and a M.A. degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard
University, 6/3/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-programown.html?_r=0
In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance For more than six years, President
Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a
program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress into
reauthorizing the program, with
new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question
that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of
telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies available for
broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the
reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She called
the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate finally passed it.” The president is
trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of equilibrium he has talked about since he
was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government
overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about the system of surveillance at his command. But
Ms. Monaco said that, in part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the
president was also “very, very focused on
the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every day,” she said. The compromise on collections of telephone records may end
up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in
congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can intrude on the lives of innocent Americans. Either
way, Mr. Obama’s
signature on the law late Tuesday night ensures that he will deliver to the next president a method
of hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former
N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program. “He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A.
director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.”
Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA Freedom
Act “a step forward in some
respects,” but “a
very small step forward.” He said his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back
has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these
programs or are you going to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the
president is willing to spend political capital changing those programs .” In the case of the telephone program, Mr.
Obama’s preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy
the public’s privacy concerns without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more
broadly . In the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown , Mr. Obama and his national security team
insisted that broad surveillance powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats , while admitting that the new
other government surveillance programs. “Obama
approach to data collection would not harm that effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he
struck the right balance. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion
from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but
still gave the government access to needed records. “This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president
does believe is important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.” Mr. Obama’s
advocacy
put him at the center of a fierce congressional debate over the surveillance program, which officially expired early
Monday morning before lawmakers approved changes on Tuesday. In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority
leader, railed against the president’s compromise proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies
grow more sophisticated and aggressive.” At the same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, excoriated Mr.
Obama, saying, “The president continues to conduct an illegal program,” a reference to a recent ruling by a federal
appeals court that the original N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law. What emerged from that
debate was a rare bipartisan victory for the president, whose approach was met with approval by
Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Even some of the president’s most ardent critics in the
Republican Party endorsed the approach. “This is a good day for the American people, whose rights will be protected,” Senator
Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The
compromise on the telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and-pull for Mr. Obama, who inherited a
vast national security infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that
infrastructure, pledging at the time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush “to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties,
which are unconstitutional, and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen.” Once
in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s
decisions — in one of his first acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his national security team has also
embraced some of Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing that they are necessary to protect Americans against
attacks and to fight threats abroad. Mr. Obama talked about “putting careful constraints” on
surveillance even before Mr. Snowden revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained
how his thinking had evolved. “I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Mr. Obama
said. “My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the
safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist
attacks. And the modest encroachments on the privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and
not looking at content, that on net, it was worth us doing.” With the passage of the USA Freedom Act nearly two
years later, Mr. Obama must make his new approach work by maintaining a focus on security while doing more to
respect privacy. “Certainly,” Ms. Monaco said, “we are going to be focused on that.”
Link – Generic – Obama PC
Changes in surveillance policy inevitably drain political capital – every decision
triggers backlash and fights - Obama takes the blame
*This evidence is also in “A2 link turns”
Page, 13 (Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, 12-30-2013, "Ex-NSA chief calls for
Obama to reject recommendations", USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/30/gen-michael-hayden-urges-obama-reject-nsacommission-recommendations/4249983/, DA: 5-23-2015)
Snowden's revelations have fueled objections by civil liberties advocates that the NSA goes too far in collecting
information about Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. This month, a federal judge in Washington called the program "almost
Orwellian," although a few days later, another federal judge in New York said it was legal. Hayden's blunt warnings about the
risks he sees in accepting the commission's recommendations underscore the difficult balancing act
Obama faces between ensuring the nation's security and respecting citizens' privacy. No decision he makes is likely
to avoid criticism . "Here I think it's going to require some political courage," said Hayden, 68, a retired Air Force
general whose service in the nation's top intelligence posts gives him particular standing. "Frankly, the president is going to have to
use some of his personal and political capital to keep doing these things."
Drains PC – can’t pass without Obama push
Feaver, 14 (peter, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy @ Duke, Director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies and
Director, Program in American Grand Strategy Foreign Policy,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/17/obama_finally_joins_the_debate_he_called_for
Today President Barack Obama finally joins
the national debate he called for a long time ago but then abandoned: the debate about
how best to balance national security and civil liberty. As I outlined in NPR's scene-setter this morning, this debate is a
tricky one for a president who wants to lead from behind. The public's view shifts markedly in response to perceptions of the
threat, so a political leader who is only following the public mood will crisscross himself repeatedly. Changing one's mind and shifting the policy
is not inherently a bad thing to do. There is no absolute and timeless right answer, because this is about trading off different risks. The risk profile
itself shifts in response to our actions. When security is improving and the terrorist threat is receding, one set of trade-offs is appropriate. When
security is worsening and the terrorist threat is worsening, another might be. It
is likely, however, that the optimal answer is not
the one advocated by the most fringe position . A National Security Agency (NSA) hobbled to the point that
some on the far left (and, it must be conceded, the libertarian right) are demanding would be a mistake that the country
would regret every bit as much as we would regret an NSA without any checks or balances or constraints.
Getting this right will require inspired and active political leadership. To date, Obama has preferred to stay far
removed from the debate swirling around the Snowden leaks. This president relishes opportunities to spend political
capital on behalf of policies that disturb Republicans, but, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's memoir details,
Obama has been very reluctant to expend political capital on behalf of national security policies that disturb his base. Today Obama is
finally engaging. It will be interesting to see how he threads the political needle and, just as
importantly, how much political capital he is willing to spend in the months ahead to defend his policies.
Freedom act passage clears the deck, plan drains PC, forces gridlock and agenda
tradeoff, Obama can’t avoid – 7 reasons - every option triggers major fights, it’s a
losing issue, flip flop, focus and docket crowd out, requires congress, Obama cant avoid
even if he tries – only increases congressional chaos and gridlock
Gerstein, 14 -- Josh Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA
reform, dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will
try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out
reforms to U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil
liberties and national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits . Many of the key reforms he’s expected to
endorse — including changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the
U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks,
all hell’s liable to break loose on the Hill ,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who
will be voting against it because Obama’s reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it
because it doesn’t defend us enough and other people voting against it because it outsources espionage.”
It’s another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks for issues that aides want to highlight
in Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and immigration. The snooping saga has been a
loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret
documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the international community. And disclosures that
widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation as a reformer who would end over-the-top antiterrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — denounced under President
George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain surveillance practices altogether. For
instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so it can be used to trace potential contacts of
the president has said he’s considering replacing that program with a private-sector-based
would require Congress to step
in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some court — involvement
in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis told NPR News last week.
terrorism suspects. But
arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That
“But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral authority to impose dramatic
reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White House has signaled that much
of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of foreign leaders like German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile phone. Administration officials
say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he set up to dig into the issue: the
President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the NSA’s program that has collected
information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that the metadata program — aimed at
running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges have concluded that the effort is lawful.
The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the government on a case-by-case basis with
individual court warrants, something likely to require Congress to impose new requirements on the firms. The review
group also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so judges could hear from an
attorney advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for Americans whose data is swept up in surveillance programs. And
the panel urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the chief justice no longer has the sole power to make such picks. Those
changes, too, would need legislation. All five review group members are set to publicly promote their plans at a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing Tuesday. “There
are a few big things you really need Congress to do. If you want to change the appointment
If you want to
continue the metadata program in some form, but reform it in any way, you need an act of Congress,”
said Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution.
mechanism for the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do any kind of structural reform of the FISC, you need it.
Link – Generic – Divisions/Bipart opposition
Plan’s unpopular – congressional division blocks reform – fights guaranteed, even
supporters get drawn into battles over specific details
Kiefer, Staff Writer and Congressional Correspondent for CS Monitor, 2014
(Francine, NSA reform? Obama faces headwinds in a Congress divided on surveillance policy, January
17, 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0117/NSA-reform-Obama-facesheadwinds-in-a-Congress-divided-on-surveillance-policy)
Obama says he’d like to put the US government out of the business of storing Americans’ phone
records – though he maintains it’s still necessary to collect those records en masse for anti-terrorism purposes. To make this and other suggested changes to the National Security Agency's
surveillance system, he’ll need the help of Congress . Capitol Hill, however, is as divided on the subject as is the American public.
Libertarian-minded conservatives align with liberals in opposing the phone-dragnet program altogether, while other
Republicans and Democrats largely support it. Last July, the House fell short of ending the NSA’s bulk
collection of phone records, on a close, bipartisan vote. On the key House and Senate committees responsible for drafting relevant legislation, members of the judiciary panels tend to want wholesale changes, while those
dealing with intelligence want only tweaks. But even that is a bit of a generalization, as division also marks the committees. The upshot is that Congress
could well have a tough time agreeing on the legislation required to alter the program . President Obama proposes that the
President
government stop holding phone records. In making this recommendation, the president followed the advice of a blue-chip review panel he convened after the furor over massive leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Although the panel found no intentional abuse of the records so far – and the NSA collects data about a phone call but not its content – it warned that the government's storage of the data creates the potential for abuse and public
mistrust. Mr. Obama has asked the attorney general to come up with an alternative storage arrangement. The panel suggested either keeping it with the phone companies or entrusting it with a third party. "While I am encouraged the
president is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, in a statement. The senator, a tea party favorite,
described Obama’s solution as “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.” In the end, Senator Paul told CNN, little changes: Private records will still be collected without a search warrant. He gave Obama an “A
for effort” though. In the House, Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, welcomed the changes. But in a statement – and in legislation he introduced – the congressman says the
government should obtain an individualized court order to get at phone records “already held by phone companies as part of their normal business practices.” He opposes a third party holding records because it would be “perceived as
a subsidiary of the NSA and would do little to build public confidence.” Conversely, letting the phone companies store the records “may create as many privacy problems as it solves,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, at a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing this week. He pointed to recent examples of hacking at Target and Neiman Marcus. Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a strong defender of the NSA's bulk data collection, tweeted, in part: “Pres Obama
NSA speech better than expected. Most programs left intact.” Indeed, the need to keep up the mass collection of phone records has staunch defenders on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, the chair of the
Senate Intelligence Committee. She says that collecting phone records is “important to prevent another [9/11] attack.” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio took on a cautionary tone. "When lives are at stake, the president must
not allow politics to cloud his judgment," he said, in a written response. "The House will review any legislative reforms proposed by the administration, but we will not erode the operational integrity of critical programs that have
helped keep America safe." An independent voice The president also seeks to change the workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), the secret court that provides judicial review of the NSA phone collection
Obama wants Congress to “authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent
voice in significant cases” before the court. This, too, drew criticism from the Hill . Such a “public advocate” can’t be trusted if
program.
it even works for the government or is appointed by the government, said Senator Paul. Representative Schiff echoed that an advocate panel must be “truly independent.” On the other hand, legislation passed by Senator Feinstein’s
committee last year gives the FISA court the ability to select a more sympathetic panel – “friends of the court” – to argue for privacy or to provide an independent legal perspective.
In Congress, it seems, there
are as many views about how to proceed as there are members.
It’s a huge fight – powerful bipartisan opposition and committee resistance – they
buy the national security hype
Hudson, 14 -- John Hudson, The Cable, Foreign Policy, 6/6/14,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/06/hope-fades-for-aggressive-nsa-reform-in-congress/
Hope Fades for Aggressive NSA Reform in Congress Edward Snowden's greatest fear may be coming true. Since disclosing government surveillance
programs last year, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor has said the worst possible outcome would be that "nothing will change." But the odds of that happening
increase daily. This week, a bipartisan chorus of senators poured cold water on the notion that
America's surveillance activities need reforming and even criticized the modest NSA reform bill the
House passed late last month that enjoys strong intelligence community support. Privacy advocates say the final
version of the USA Freedom Act was "watered down" just days before the House approved it, and they looked to the Senate for more
robust legislation. Now the upper chamber appears unlikely to deliver for privacy advocates when it
considers the bill later this summer. "It seems to me that this bill is fixing a lot of things that simply aren't
broken," Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Republican, said Thursday, June 5. "It seems to me that
we're doing something unnecessary," added the committee's former chairman, West Virginia Democrat Jay
Rockefeller. "We should not play to the siren song of a political response," Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) chimed in at a hearing Thursday. The hearing offered the first public venue for
senators to discuss the House bill together, which passed 303-121 on May 22. Broadly speaking, the bill would limit the NSA's ability to collect
Americans' communications data en masse. It also would add transparency and oversight safeguards to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the judicial body that oversees the NSA's surveillance activities. Privacy advocates complain that the House bill lacks clarity about the
types of requests the government can make to phone companies and the "selection terms," which traditionally are discrete items such as a name or phone number, that the government can use to
fear the Senate will follow the House's lead or water down the bill even further.
"One after another, too many lawmakers said, 'Yep, this is constitutional; yep, this is constitutional; yep, this is constitutional,'"
said Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, referring to the NSA's bulk data collection program. " I didn't leave the hearing feeling
that the bill was going to be strengthened." Julian Sanchez, a privacy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, agreed.
"Even this now rather flaccid reform is still more than some on the Senate Intel Committee can handle," he said.
"You are still hearing a Tourette syndrome-like tick that this is a lifesaving program, when every scintilla of public evidence
says otherwise." Besides Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico , few of their committee
colleagues appear eager to build in more privacy safeguards. However, privacy advocates do have a
friend in Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. In a statement issued after the House vote, Leahy vowed to
keep pressing for a tougher final bill. "The House took an important step last month by approving a modified version of our bill, but at this historic moment, we
cannot stop there," he said. "All Senators should support real reform that bans bulk collection of data, provides greater accountability, and improves transparency." Whether Leahy
can overcome the powerful, bipartisan opposition in the Senate is unclear. And not every privacy champion is ready to
concede defeat. "The Senate needs to improve the proposed law to get to real reform," said the American Civil Liberties Union's Gabriel Rottman. "I'd say this is going to be the
fight of the summer."
search huge databases of records. Now they
Link – Generic – Concessions
Curtailing surveillance drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership and requires
political concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence
reform. As lawmakers stare down the
barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence
powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of the reforms — which practically all members of the
House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they would derail a carefully calibrated deal
and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate. The House Judiciary Committee killed an
amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk
collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions — by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of
the good amendment, then this is it,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ... If
this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) would block the spy agency
from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA
has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet. The amendment would
have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the government could access
people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies will continue to use it for
this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens' communication must not
political calculations and sacrifices
lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee member who spoke up was in
support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the overall bill. “We have been
occur.” The discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the
assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This
amendment is objected to by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced
legislation to renew the Patriot Act
without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because Congress
overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of Representatives
has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supported the
amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment to various
appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a debate on them then. Goodlatte
to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little reassurance to critics of the
NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two
also pledged
years,” said Poe.
Link – Generic – Flip Flop
The plan is a flip-flop from Obama’s stance on surveillance
Lizza, 13 (Ryan Lizza, senior political correspondent for The New Yorker, 3-12-2013, "State of
Deception", New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-deception, DA: 530-2015)
Wyden, who said that he has had “several spirited discussions” with Obama, is not optimistic. “It really seems like General Clapper, the
intelligence leadership, and the lawyers drive this in terms of how decisions get made at the White House,” he told me.
It is evident from the Snowden leaks that Obama inherited a regime of dragnet surveillance that often operated outside the law
and raised serious constitutional questions. Instead of shutting down or scaling back the programs, Obama has
worked to bring them into narrow compliance with rules—set forth by a court that operates in secret—that often
contradict the views on surveillance that he strongly expressed when he was a senator and a Presidential
candidate. “These are profoundly different visions ,” Wyden said, referring to his disagreements with
Obama, Feinstein, and senior intelligence officials. “I start with the proposition that security and liberty are not mutually
exclusive.” He noted that General Alexander had an “exceptionally expansive vision” of what the N.S.A. should
collect. I asked Wyden for his opinion of the members of the review panel, most of whom are officials with ties to the intelligence
establishment. He smiled and raised his eyebrows. An aide said, “Hope springs eternal.”
Link – Generic – Intelligence Agency Lobbying
Surveillance reform drains PC - ensures intelligency agency lobbying, they’re super
powerful, outweighs support
Timm, 14 -- Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, columnist @
Guardian, 5/22/14, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/nsa-reform-bill-passedhouse-usa-freedom-act-senators-only-hope
But putting our faith
in Congress, whether it's now or in a year, is a risky proposition either way. As Stanford law
professor Jennifer Granick wrote on Wednesday: [I]t's worth asking why legislative surveillance reform has so
far failed, despite huge support in Congress and in the public for ending bulk collection. What does this
say about our political system, and about the influence of intelligence agency lobbying despite public
sentiment in favor of more restraint?
Intelligence reforms ensure finite PC drain and agenda trade off, multiple structural
factors
Zegart, 9
Amy B. Zegart, co-director of CISAC and professor of political economy @ Stanford, “Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of
9/11”, p. 56-60, 2009, google books,
http://books.google.com/books?id=x59k854wyd0C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=nsa+reform+%22political+capital%22&source=bl&ots=plXd6A
TNi4&sig=5BVCbmnGq5jS0TOeumjSaKq5tE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OkafU_vwLIyxyATg4YHAAw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=nsa%20reform%20%22political%20
capital%22&f=false
Rational Self-Interest of Presidents, Legislators, and National Security Bureaucrats Government officials are constrained by the incentives and
capabilities that come with their positions. Although individuals have their own ideas, skills, and policy preferences,
institutional
incentives and capabilities exert a powerful influence, making some courses of action easier and less costly than others. These
incentives and capabilities explain why, before the September 11 attacks, no president championed intelligence
reform, why legislators largely avoided and blocked it, and why national security agency bureaucrats
opposed it. PRESIDENTS All presidents have strong incentives to improve organizational effectiveness. To make their mark on history/ they
must make the bureaucracy work well for them. Perhaps even more important, presidents are also driven to enhance organizational effectiveness
by the electorate, which expects far more of them than they can possibly deliver. Held responsible for everything from inflation to Iraqi
democratization, presidents have good reason to ensure that government agencies adapt to changing demands as much and as fast as possible.51
The problem is that presidents are weak. With little time, limited political capital , few formal powers, and
packed political agendas, presidents lack the capabilities to make the changes they desire. Instead, they almost always prefer
to focus their efforts on policy issues that directly concern (and benefit) voters rather than on the arcane details of
organizational design and operation. And who can blame them? Tax cuts and social security lock boxes win votes, but no president ever won a
landslide election by changing the CIA's personnel system. Moreover, presidents
are especially reluctant to push for agency
reforms in the absence of a crisis or in the presence of anticipated resistance. Presidents are thus loath to
reform existing agencies through executive action or legislation. Although dozens of investigations, commissions, and
experts identified shortcomings in the U.S. Intelligence Community between 1947, when the CIA was created, and the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, no president attempted major intelligence reform.53 Rational self-interest ex-plains why. LEGISLATORS Self-interest
leads most legislators to avoid tackling intelligence reform altogether or seek to block it. Like presidents,
legislators have little incentive to delve into the messy inner workings of intelligence agency design
because doing so does not provide tangible benefits to voters back home.4 Indeed, the weak electoral connection is
one of the reasons congressional intelligence oversight committees continued imposing term limits for their members throughout the 1990s, long
after it became clear that these regulations severely weakened the development of congressional expertise and after numerous commissions
recommended abolishing them.55 When
crises do arise, intelligence committee members are rewarded more for
airing dirty laundry than cleaning it. They frequently hold hearings but only rarely take corrective action.
The Bay of Pigs, the congressional investigations into CIA abuses during the 1970s, the lran-Contra scandal, and the Aldrich Ames spy case all
triggered major investigations but none produced fundamental change in the Intelligence Community- In addition, members of Congress care
about maintaining the power of the institution. Generally, this means that legislators prefer executive arrangements that diffuse authorities and
capabilities; the more agencies in the executive branch, the more power bases can accrue in Congress to oversee them. NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY BUREAUCRATS Finally,
national security agency bureaucrats have their own interests at stake and
powerful means to pursue them. Whereas most domestic policy agencies operate in relatively autonomous policy domains—the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, has no reason to think about the design or operation of the Social Security
Administration—U.S.
national security agencies are more tightly connected. Policymaking inevitably crosses
bureaucratic boundaries, involving diplomacy, the use of force, economic policy/ and intelligence. In such a complex web, national
security bureaucrats see reform as a zero-sum battle for agency autonomy and power. EPA officials may not be conjuring up
ways to gain advantage over another government agency, but national security bureaucrats are. In the interdependent world of national security
affairs, no agency wants to yield authority or discretion to another.""6 The Problems of Decentralized Democracy Rational
self-interest
makes reform difficult; self-interest coupled with the decentralized structure of the U.S. federal government
makes it more so. Paradoxically, some of the cherished features of American democracy impede effective agency design and raise
obstacles to reform. Separation of powers, the congressional committee system, and majority rule have
created a system that invites compromise and makes legislation hard to pass. This has two consequences for government agencies.
First, political compromise allows opponents to cripple any new agency from the start. As Terry Moe writes, "In the political system, public
bureaucracies are designed ... by participants who explicitly want them to fail."37 Political compromise unavoidably leads to subop-timal initial
agency design, even for critical national security agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency. * Indeed, critics who contend that the CIA is
poorly suited to meeting the needs of the post-Cold War world are only partially right: the agency was not particularly well designed to meet the
United States' Cold War needs, either. In 1947, existing intelligence agencies in the FBI, State Department, and military services succeeded in
stripping the CIA of any strong centralization powers. When the CIA was created, it was flawed by design.59 The decentralized structure of
American democracy also means that the worst agency problems usually are the hardest to fix. Although agencies can make some changes on
their own and can also be altered by unilateral presidential action, the
most far-reaching reforms almost always require new
legislation. But legislative success is difficult even under the best of circumstances because it demands
multiple majorities in both houses of Congress. As Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission put it, "the
most powerful interest group in Washington is the status quo."60 Summary Taken together, these three
enduring realities—the nature of organizations, rational self-interest, and the fragmented federal
government—provide a basic model for understanding why U.S. intelligence agencies failed to adapt to the terrorist threat before
September 11, why they have not done much better since then, and why they are unlikely to improve substantially in the future. Government
agencies are not built to change with the times. Because reform does not generally arise from within, it must
be imposed from the
outside. But even this rarely happens because all organizational changes, even the best reforms, create winners
and losers, and because the political system allows losers multiple opportunities to keep winners from winning completely. Indeed, the
greater the proposed change, the stronger the resistance will be. As a result, organizational adaptation
almost always meets with defeat, becomes watered down, or gets shelved for another day, when the next crisis erupts.
Link – Generic – McConnell
McConnell hates surveillance reform – he’s a key lawmaker and sets the agenda in
the Senate
Hosenball and Zengerle, 15 (Mark Hosenball and Patricia Zengerle, political journalists for
Reuters, 5-14-2015, "The NSA surveillance reform bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate", Business
Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-surveillance-reform-bill-faces-uncertain-senate-fate-2015-5,
DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A
bill to narrow spy agencies' power to collect Americans' electronic data and business
an uncertain fate in the Senate on Thursday, even though it passed the U.S. House of Representatives by an
overwhelming majority. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a group of defense hawks want to renew provisions
of the USA Patriot Act that allowed the bulk collection of Americans' data, rather than approve a new law that would
records faced
allow this, the USA Freedom Act passed by the House on Wednesday. Unless both Houses of Congress approve new legislation before a vacation
break at the end of next week, powers used by the National Security Agency and the FBI to gather records for counter-terrorism purposes will
expire on June 1. Administration officials said President Barack Obama is willing to let those powers lapse, although they say intelligence
capabilities could be weakened if some kind of surveillance authorities are not extended. Congressional officials said any proposal to give
agencies a broader license to spy would almost certainly be dead on arrival in the Senate. And McConnell's proposal to extend current
surveillance powers also has little prospect of success, with at least two senators - Democrat Ron Wyden and his fellow Kentucky Republican,
Rand Paul, both promising to filibuster the measure in order to stop it. Senate
rules give McConnell almost total discretion
to set the agenda in his Republican-controlled chamber. So far he has announced no plan for debate on
either the reform bill approved by the House or his own bill to extend existing spy powers. Senate Democrats insisted they had enough votes
needed for the USA Freedom Act to advance in the 100-member Senate. Senator Richard Durbin, the chamber's number two Democrat, said the
bill's backers had at least 60 votes. But when asked about the measure's fate, he said, "Ask Mitch." McConnell late on Monday
introduced both a two-month extension of the Patriot Act provisions and the Freedom Act in the Senate, meaning both
will be eligible for consideration by the chamber when it returns next week. Congressional officials said McConnell was considering a move to
allow Senate debate on his own bill next week. A spokesman for McConnell could not confirm this. Some officials said this could provide
proponents of reform of surveillance methods an opportunity to amend the bill to contain provisions identical, or similar to, the legislation
approved by the House.
Link – Generic – A2: “Link Assumes GOP, Internal Link Assumes
Dems”
Our Link isn’t just about GOP – plan sparks fights, congressional divisions, and
intense opposition on both sides – ensures PC Drain
Kiefer, Staff Writer and Congressional Correspondent for CS Monitor, 2014
(Francine, NSA reform? Obama faces headwinds in a Congress divided on surveillance policy, January
17, 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0117/NSA-reform-Obama-facesheadwinds-in-a-Congress-divided-on-surveillance-policy)
Obama says he’d like to put the US government out of the business of storing Americans’ phone
records – though he maintains it’s still necessary to collect those records en masse for anti-terrorism purposes. To make this and other suggested changes to the National Security Agency's
surveillance system, he’ll need the help of Congress . Capitol Hill, however, is as divided on the subject as is the American public.
Libertarian-minded conservatives align with liberals in opposing the phone-dragnet program altogether, while other
Republicans and Democrats largely support it. Last July, the House fell short of ending the NSA’s bulk
collection of phone records, on a close, bipartisan vote. On the key House and Senate committees responsible for drafting relevant legislation, members of the judiciary panels tend to want wholesale changes, while those
dealing with intelligence want only tweaks. But even that is a bit of a generalization, as division also marks the committees. The upshot is that Congress
could well have a tough time agreeing on the legislation required to alter the program . President Obama proposes that the
President
government stop holding phone records. In making this recommendation, the president followed the advice of a blue-chip review panel he convened after the furor over massive leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Although the panel found no intentional abuse of the records so far – and the NSA collects data about a phone call but not its content – it warned that the government's storage of the data creates the potential for abuse and public
mistrust. Mr. Obama has asked the attorney general to come up with an alternative storage arrangement. The panel suggested either keeping it with the phone companies or entrusting it with a third party. "While I am encouraged the
president is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, in a statement. The senator, a tea party favorite,
described Obama’s solution as “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.” In the end, Senator Paul told CNN, little changes: Private records will still be collected without a search warrant. He gave Obama an “A
for effort” though. In the House, Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, welcomed the changes. But in a statement – and in legislation he introduced – the congressman says the
government should obtain an individualized court order to get at phone records “already held by phone companies as part of their normal business practices.” He opposes a third party holding records because it would be “perceived as
a subsidiary of the NSA and would do little to build public confidence.” Conversely, letting the phone companies store the records “may create as many privacy problems as it solves,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, at a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing this week. He pointed to recent examples of hacking at Target and Neiman Marcus. Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a strong defender of the NSA's bulk data collection, tweeted, in part: “Pres Obama
NSA speech better than expected. Most programs left intact.” Indeed, the need to keep up the mass collection of phone records has staunch defenders on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, the chair of the
Senate Intelligence Committee. She says that collecting phone records is “important to prevent another [9/11] attack.” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio took on a cautionary tone. "When lives are at stake, the president must
not allow politics to cloud his judgment," he said, in a written response. "The House will review any legislative reforms proposed by the administration, but we will not erode the operational integrity of critical programs that have
helped keep America safe." An independent voice The president also seeks to change the workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), the secret court that provides judicial review of the NSA phone collection
Obama wants Congress to “authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent
voice in significant cases” before the court. This, too, drew criticism from the Hill . Such a “public advocate” can’t be trusted if
program.
it even works for the government or is appointed by the government, said Senator Paul. Representative Schiff echoed that an advocate panel must be “truly independent.” On the other hand, legislation passed by Senator Feinstein’s
committee last year gives the FISA court the ability to select a more sympathetic panel – “friends of the court” – to argue for privacy or to provide an independent legal perspective.
In Congress, it seems, there
are as many views about how to proceed as there are members.
And, both matter for our scenario, not just dems – he needs to woo votes on both
sides of the aisle for TAA revote – PC Key
Hughes, 6/12 -- Siobhan, Capital Hill Reporter, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-deals-blow-to-obamasbid-for-trade-deal-rejects-worker-aid-program-1434131589
While stinging, the vote was not the last word in the trade fight, as House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said there
would be a re-vote by Tuesday on extending the aid program, which is designed to help workers hurt by international trade. But Friday’s
defeat showed the degree to which Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is on shaky ground in Congress. The House voted against the workers-aid
program by 126-302. To improve those numbers, House Republican leaders, the White House and pro-trade businesses will need to
find ways to win over a combination of Democrats who are skeptical of the overall trade push and
Republicans leery of supporting the aid package.
Obama fights intensely against plan – if dems really like the plan and are key to
TPA that’s a neg LINK, not a takeout
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, 11-19-2014, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevance-u-scongress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought to
change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while
leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,
based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95 percent of the
planet called “non-Americans”). There were some mildly positive provisions in the USA Freedom Act: the placement of “public advocates” at
the FISA court to contest the claims of the government; the prohibition on the NSA holding Americans’ phone records, requiring instead that they
obtain FISA court approval before seeking specific records from the telecoms (which already hold those records for at least 18 months); and
reducing the agency’s “contact chaining” analysis from three hops to two. One could reasonably argue (as the ACLU and EFF did) that, though
woefully inadequate, the bill was a net-positive as a first step toward real reform, but one could also reasonably argue, as Marcy Wheeler has with
characteristic insight, that the bill is so larded with ambiguities and fundamental inadequacies that it would forestall better options and advocates
for real reform should thus root for its defeat. When
pro-privacy members of Congress first unveiled the bill many months
ago, it was actually a good bill: real reform. But the White House worked very hard— in partnership
with the House GOP—to water that bill down so severely that what the House ended up passing over the
summer did more to strengthen the NSA than rein it in, which caused even the ACLU and EFF to
withdraw their support. The Senate bill rejected last night was basically a middle ground between that original,
good bill and the anti-reform bill passed by the House. * * * * * All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most important point
from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S. government is . . .
the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and that’s particularly true of
empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform . This Congress is not going
to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance. Even if it somehow
did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the fact that the U.S. intelligence
community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means they’d easily co-opt the entire
reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of the mid-1970s led to the
establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight” court—the committees were
instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence community like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chambliss, and
Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court quickly became a rubber stamp with subservient judges who operate in
total secrecy. Ever since the Snowden reporting began and public opinion (in both the U.S. and globally) began radically changing, the White
has been obvious. It’s vintage Obama: Enact something that is called “reform”—so that he can give a
pretty speech telling the world that he heard and responded to their concerns—but that in actuality changes almost nothing,
thus strengthening the very system he can pretend he “changed.” That’s the same tactic as Silicon Valley, which also
House’s strategy
supported this bill: Be able to point to something called “reform” so they can trick hundreds of millions of current and future users around the
world into believing that their communications are now safe if they use Facebook, Google, Skype and the rest. In pretty much every interview
I’ve done over the last year, I’ve been asked why there haven’t been significant changes from all the disclosures. I vehemently disagree with the
premise of the question, which equates “U.S. legislative changes” with “meaningful changes.” But it has been clear from the start that U.S.
legislation is not going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance, at
least not fundamentally. Those limitations are going to come from—are now coming from —very different places:
Ensures major fight with plan’s supporters - freedom act empirics prove
Whittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14,
http://www.zdnet.com/house-passes-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)
House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was
designed to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered
down." Next stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act,
which first authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152 co-sponsors,
the bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands, which
according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama
administration by strengthening previously removed provisions. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author
— who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to
counter the "misuse" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House Judiciary
Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After
the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the most
prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However, in
prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the bill he first
introduced. "The
legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s surveillance
bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message
authorities," he said. "It
to the NSA: We are watching you."
directly Spills over and Trades off with Obama’s trade agenda, also proves an
independent docket crowd out link
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and
a trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time . Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “ We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “ Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT
Act used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs —
though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it is
an
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
collection program are running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle . McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve . McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the trade
fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in the
House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security . Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time
so we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna
have . I think that is unfortunate.” Top Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone
records and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a shortterm reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP
and the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
Links – Area
Link – Altering Existing Laws
Plan drains PC – link only goes one way – ratchet effect makes repealing current
(programs/laws/authorizations) unique - – inertia and terrorism fears outweigh,
strong political support only sparks bigger fight
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
Surveillance Controversy : How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013,
been gathering
the metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
The NSA
the world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only
targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or
law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a
request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as part
of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original intended
scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I
disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements may
have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that Sensenbrenner
describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the “ratchet effect” in
legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can become
entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely .[1] For example, some
scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline of legal
“normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent with the
ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on how
powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the ratchet
effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet effect],
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor do I
it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Plan drains PC and link only 1 way – terrorism and national security concerns,
political/legal inertia, powerful vested economic interests – repealing existing
provisions is uniquely difficult
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The
ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws are effective. Anti-terrorism laws may stick
simply because they work. If so, then scaling back or reversing an effective anti-terrorism law would increase a nation’s vulnerability to
terrorism, pulling it back toward a condition that existed before the law initially went into effect. This goes against national security
interests, so it makes sense to leave these laws on the books. The ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws
may address multiple threats. Anti-terrorism laws may come about because of a particular terrorist group or
incident. But that does not necessarily mean the laws will work only for that group, or apply only to similar types
of terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 spurred the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act. Yet today the Act’s provisions can
also impede domestic terrorist organizations like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) by
facilitating intelligence sharing for law enforcement purposes. The ratchet effect can occur because it is
challenging to repeal laws in democracies. Absent “sunset” provisions, which force certain portions of a law to
expire after a pre-determined amount of time, it can be difficult to repeal a law under normal circumstances—let
alone when that law concerns something as serious as terrorism. It requires careful political
maneuvering to reverse an anti-terrorism law because the law itself may enjoy popular support, be
seen as effective, or be linked to vested economic interests. These obstacles can promote a legal
inertia that resists efforts to scale back or reverse the law.
Repealing existing surveillance laws drains PC – link only one way – ratchet effect,
political inertia, terror fears
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
What the NSA Surveillance Controversy Can Teach Us about the Ratchet Effect and Anti-Terrorism Laws After
a terrorist attack, creating laws quickly to contend with terrorism is reasonable and appropriate. It is equally reasonable and appropriate, however,
to build hedges into those laws to guard against unsound initial judgments or assumptions. The set of policy recommendations below provides a
starting point to mitigate the potential impact of the ratchet effect upon anti-terrorism laws. Taking these steps does not guarantee that antiterrorism laws will be easy to scale-back or reverse, nor can it completely prevent unintentional interpretations of anti-terrorism laws. But these
recommendations can increase policymakers’ awareness of the ratchet effect, which can lead to more thoughtfully crafted and effective antiterrorism laws. First, initial
changes may be difficult to undo . The early legislative moves after a terrorist
attack are pivotal. They set the tone for future, related legislation. Moreover, as argued earlier in this article,
changing laws can be difficult under normal circumstances, let alone when the laws concern an
issue as serious as terrorism . It is vital for leaders to get the beginning stages of a nation’s anti-terrorism legislation right; a bad start
can lead to a pattern of subsequent bad laws. This is not a call for perfection, but a plea for greater awareness of this reality and for leaders to use
this awareness when drafting laws. Second, policymakers should beware of reflexive legislation. Terror attacks create conditions in which
emotions can run high; feelings of terror, anger, sadness, confusion, and frustration are natural consequences of these circumstances. Behavioral
psychology teaches us that human beings’ higher-order thinking skills (e.g. logic, reasoning, analysis, reflection) are poorly integrated with baser,
emotionally-rooted thinking (e.g. irrational prejudices, unreasonable fears, self-destructive desires).[11] One researcher has gone so far as to say
that the amygdala—the portion of the brain that controls reactive emotion—can hijack the higher-order parts of the brain, impeding effective
decision-making in crises.[12] Considering this, it is reasonable to suggest that laws passed in the immediate aftermath of terrorist attacks may be
rooted more in baser, emotionally-driven thinking than in careful, analytical, higher-order thinking. In other words, they may be mostly reflexive,
not reflective. This is not to say that all laws passed after terrorist attacks are emotionally-driven. Nor is it the case that all laws created in these
circumstances are somehow “bad” laws. But during and after terrorist attacks, leaders’
judgment of what may or may not be
good law can become clouded by emotion. Similarly, terrorist attacks can drive public support for reflexive
anti-terrorism legislation. And this is not an instinct that can be somehow “shut off” or “tuned out .”
Legislators and citizens should be aware of this potential, and must walk a fine line between meeting immediate post-crisis needs and
championing laws that will remain effective for the long haul. Third, “sunset” provisions are prudent and reasonable. Given that anti-terrorism
laws passed in the wake of terrorist attacks may be partly driven by emotion and that initial
laws may prove difficult to undo, it
is wise for government leaders to include “sunset” provisions i n new anti-terrorism laws. Generally “sunset” provisions allow
portions of a law to expire if not renewed by a pre-determined date. In a sense, democracies must deliver a new mandate for the law—
or at least part of the law—to avoid this expiration. With “sunset” provisions in place, unwise, irrelevant, or ineffective components
of a law can be allowed to wither and die when necessary. Letting these provisions lapse requires virtually
no political capital from government leaders, unlike actively changing or removing a law, which can
require a great deal . For elected officials, this means that letting part of an anti-terrorism law expire is relatively easy. Re-examining
and pruning anti-terrorism laws in this way is a healthy practice. It can head off potential abuses of particularly aggressive anti-terrorism
measures and forces a continual re-thinking of anti-terrorism laws as circumstances change over time. The
recent NSA surveillance
controversy highlights the relevance of the ratchet effect to broader discussions of anti-terrorism
laws. The ratchet effect can affect anti-terrorism laws generally, entrenching and expanding them over
time and potentially leading to those laws being interpreted in unexpected and undesirable ways. The USA PATRIOT Act, developed in
the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been difficult to scale back since then, and has now been interpreted in a way that at
least one of the Act’s authors did not intend. This unintended interpretation of the Act led, in part, to today’s NSA surveillance
controversy. Scholars can benefit from future explorations of the ratchet effect, which may help illuminate further why
anti-terrorism laws remain in place and how their influence can expand in unanticipated ways.
drains PC – inertia, entrenched political and economic interests, agency backlash
and security concerns outweigh – inevitably perceived and linked to soft on
terrorism – regardless of declining public support - can’t avoid getting tied
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because there is increased public deference to government during crises. Legal scholars and
political scientists have explored the effect of terrorism on public deference to democratic governments.[10] While the specific reasons for this vary, the research overwhelmingly points toward
Popular support can provide the political
capital necessary for legislators and executives to quickly craft and implement anti-terrorism laws. Over
time, despite some slippage, public approval of these laws can continue—particularly when the crisis that prompted the laws’
creation continues. The ratchet effect can occur because anti-terrorism laws create a new security paradigm . An
aggressive anti-terrorism law can fundamentally alter societal approaches to terrorism. Surveillance may
increase. Police powers can expand. Intelligence efforts may grow. Public expectations of privacy can diminish.
In the aggregate, these types of changes can represent a drastic change in a government’s approach to
increased trust in government authorities in the immediate wake of terrorist attacks, though this can wane over time.
terrorism, and effectively create a “new normal” level of security. Because this “new normal” is linked
to the law itself , reversing the law begins to dismantle the new security paradigm. From the public’s
perspective, this might be an unacceptable option because it may increase societal vulnerability to terrorism. Government agencies
also risk losing resources—personnel, money, and political support—by returning to the status quo
ante.
uniquely drains PC– fear of future political death sentence ensures powerful
opposition - inherent and terminal risk make probability and causal linkage
irrelevant
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because elected officials do not want to risk repealing anti-terrorism laws.
Here is a political nightmare : for whatever reason, a legislator or government executive spearheads an effort to reverse
an anti-terrorism law. The anti-terrorism law is repealed. Within a week, a terrorist attack occurs. Being wrong about terrorism
can carry devastating political consequences for incumbents. But being specifically identified as the one who
“turned off the alarm system” is a political death sentence . Under this scenario, even if there is no direct
causal link between the law’s repeal and the attack, the two are easily correlated because of their temporal proximity to
each other. It makes no sense for an elected official to open herself to the possibility of this scenario without
a clear, compelling reason—and, even then, scaling back an anti-terrorism law may still be too
politically risky a proposition to entertain seriously. For these reasons, anti-terrorism laws can
remain in effect beyond the end of the crisis that brought them into existence.
Link – Soft on Terror
Plan’s unpopular – it gets spun as “letting the terrorists win” which erodes support
– it outweighs outside lobbying
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York
Times best-selling books on politics and law, 11-19-2014, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevance-u-scongress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
The “USA Freedom Act”—which its proponents were heralding as “NSA reform” despite its suffocatingly narrow scope—died in the
august U.S. Senate last night when it attracted only 58 of the 60 votes needed to close debate and move on to an up-or-down
vote. All Democratic and independent senators except one (Bill Nelson of Florida) voted in favor of the bill, as did three tea-party GOP Senators
(Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Dean Heller). One GOP Senator, Rand Paul, voted
against it on the ground that it did not go
nearly far enough in reining in the NSA. On Monday, the White House had issued a statement “strongly
supporting” the bill. The “debate” among the Senators that preceded the vote was darkly funny and deeply boring, in
equal measure. The black humor was due to the way one GOP senator after the next—led by ranking intelligence committee member
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (pictured above)—stood up and literally screeched about 9/11 and ISIS over and over and over, and
then sat down as though they had made a point. Their scary script had been unveiled earlier that morning by a Wall Street Journal op-ed by
former Bush Attorney General Mike Mukasey and former CIA and NSA Director Mike Hayden warning that NSA reform would make the
terrorists kill you; it appeared under this Onion-like headline: So the pro-NSA
Republican senators were actually arguing that
if the NSA were no longer allowed to bulk-collect the communication records of Americans inside the
U.S., then ISIS would kill you and your kids . But because they were speaking in an empty chamber and
only to their warped and insulated D.C. circles and sycophantic aides, there was nobody there to cackle contemptuously or tell
them how self-evidently moronic it all was. So they kept their Serious Faces on like they were doing The Nation’s Serious Business,
even though what was coming out of their mouths sounded like the demented ramblings of a paranoid End is Nigh cult. The boredom of this
spectacle was simply due to the fact that this
has been seen so many times before—in fact, every time in the post-9/11 era
pretends publicly to debate some kind of foreign policy or civil liberties bill. Just
enough members stand up to scream “9/11″ and “terrorism” over and over until the bill vesting new powers is
passed or the bill protecting civil liberties is defeated .
that the U.S. Congress
Link – Soft on Terror
Hindering the NSA is massively unpopular – across the aisle support for
surveillance
Van Dongen, Independent National and International Security Expert, 2014
(Teun, How proponents of NSA’s digital surveillance have won – for now, U.S. and the World,
18/12/2014, http://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/article/how-proponents-nsa%E2%80%99sdigital-surveillance-have-won-%E2%80%93-now)
Already, November 18th was set to be a “do or die” moment for American spy agencies. On that day the
Senate voted on a Bill that
of the
NSA, whose digital mass surveillance program came under fire after the revelations by NSAsubcontractor Edward Snowden. The most important and controversial parts of the Bill, ambitiously called the USA
Freedom Act, were provisions to restrict the NSA’s ability to gather digital data. For instance, had the Bill been
adopted, it would have put a stop to the bulk collection of US domestic phone records, forcing the NSA to
file specific requests for information instead. Additionally, the Bill recommended the introduction of so-called advocates, who
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democratic Senator from Nevada, was hoping would bring about the long-awaited reform
could argue in court against the government. Currently, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which grants or dismisses
government requests for surveillance warrants, only hears the case made by the government, and there is no one to argue the other side. The role
the Bill was shot down , as
only 58 Senators, two short of the 60 necessary to override a filibuster, supported it. Predictably, many of the Bill’s
opponents cited the increased terrorist threat, especially from the Islamic State, as a reason to block the USA
Freedom Act. As Republican Senator Susan Collins put it with more than a touch of pathos, “Why would we weaken the ability
of our intelligence community at a time when the threats against this country have never been
greater ?” Other prominent Senators, including Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Dianne Feinstein of
California, who chairs Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, opposed the Bill on similar grounds, claiming that the
recent emergence of new threats to US national security makes it inopportune to reign in the NSA.
of advocates would have been to fill that gap and to make sure that a real discussion took place. However,
Link – Soft on Terror – Perception
Decreasing surveillance is perceived as soft on terror
Wilstein, Mediate LA Bureau Chief, 2013
(Matt, ‘Principle Or Politics?’ The Five Asks Why Americans Changed Their Tune On Civil Liberties
From Bush To Obama, June 11th, 2013, http://www.mediaite.com/tv/principle-or-politics-the-five-askswhy-americans-changed-their-tune-on-civil-liberties-from-bush-to-obama/)
Fox News’ The Five traveled all the way down to Washington, D.C. Tuesday for a special show in the nation’s capital. And the team used
their new setting to explore the implications of a new Pew research poll that shows how Americans’ views on
civil liberties have shifted depending on which party holds the White House. “ There are a buttload of
hypocrite Democrats and a fair amount of Republicans too ,” Greg Gutfeld said up top, “which is why you must ask,
are they motivated less by principle and more by politics?” According to the polls, 37% of Democrats found the NSA’s surveillance programs
acceptable under President George W. Bush, while 64% find them acceptable under President Obama. Similarly, 75% of Republicans found them
acceptable under Bush while only 52% find them acceptable under Obama. Gutfeld insisted that his support of the programs has been
“consistent” no matter who the president is. “You may think I am wrong,” he said, “but at least I don’t change my tune depending on who’s in
charge.”Andrea Tantaros said she thinks both “politics” and “principles” are at work in the poll results, which show that
people are just more willing to trust the leader for whom they voted. Reacting much like many of the Republicans in the Pew survey, Eric Bolling
argued that because President Obama has escalated the surveillance techniques put in place by Bush, it only follows that he would be more
critical of those tactics. Tantaros got the last word on the issue, using the Pew poll to attack Democrats for being soft on terror. “I
would love
to know how the left expects us to go after terrorists and keep us safe,” she said. “They’re not going to
acknowledge the War on Terror–if they don’t like drone strikes, if they don’t like enhanced interrogation, and now they’re going
crazy about the surveillance program, how do they propose we go after terror?” While she may be right about
“enhanced interrogation,” it seems more clear than ever that the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, is not about to stop using drone
strikes and widespread surveillance to prevent terrorism.
Link – Soft on Terror – Security Hawks
Curtailing surveillance triggers massive fights in congress—backlash from hawks
over national security
*note – also under “Link – Generic”
Volz and Fox, Reporters for the National Journal, 6-3-2015
(Dustin and Lauren, “THE WAR OVER NSA SPYING IS JUST BEGINNING,”
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2015/06/war-over-nsa-spying-just-beginning/114394/)
But while reformers hope Tuesday's victory is an appetizer to a multiple-course meal to rein in the NSA, security
hawks—many of them
Republicans vying for the White House—hope to halt the post-Snowden momentum behind surveillance
reform. And some already are talking about unraveling the Freedom Act. "What you are seeing on the floor of the Senate is just the beginning," said Sen. Ron
Wyden, a civil-liberties stalwart in the upper chamber who serves on the intelligence committee and has worked for more than a decade to reform government
surveillance. "There is a lot more to do when—in effect—you can ensure you protect the country's safety without sacrificing our liberty." Wyden used the Freedom
Act's passage to call for additional intelligence-gathering reforms that he has long advocated, such as closing the so-called "backdoor search loophole" that allows
U.S. spies to "incidentally" and warrantlessly sweep up the email and phone communications—including some content—of Americans who correspond with
foreigners. He added he plans to move quickly on reworking Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before Congress is up backed up against its
renewal deadline in 2017. The Oregon Democrat also supports tech companies in their ongoing tussle with the administration over smartphone encryption as a key
priority. While Google and Apple have begun to build their phones with "too-tough-to-crack" encryption standards, the FBI has warned that the technology locks out
the bad guys and the good—and can impede law-enforcement investigations. Wyden and his allies, though, are bumping up against an impending presidential
campaign, where many Republicans will jockey with one another to look toughest on national security. Few issues divide the GOP White House contenders more than
NSA surveillance, as defense hawks such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio continue to defend the NSA bulk metadata program as necessary to
protect the homeland, while libertarian-leaning agitators such as Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz warn voters of the privacy perils associated with the government's
prying eyes. Rubio, who has said he'd prefer that the NSA's phone dragnet be made permanent, issued a statement after the Freedom Act's passage saying it fell to the
next president to undo its policies. "The
failure to renew the expiring components of the PATRIOT Act was a mistake,"
Rubio said in a statement after the vote. "The 'USA Freedom Act' weakens U.S. national security by outlawing the very programs our intelligence community
and the FBI have used to protect us time and time again. A major challenge for the next president will be to fix the significantly weakened intelligence system that the
current one is leaving behind." Paul, meanwhile, continues to fundraise on social media and in campaign emails off his hardline opposition to "illegal NSA bulk data
collection." The Kentucky senator succeeded in drawing enormous attention to the issue by forcing a temporary lapse this week of the Patriot Act's spy authorities,
and has vowed to limit the agency's mass surveillance practices "on day one" if elected president. But Paul also was a major obstacle for the Freedom Act's passage,
repeatedly voting against it and helping delay its consideration on grounds it didn't go far enough—and codified parts of the Patriot Act he thinks should stay dead.
Cruz, meanwhile, represented the middle ground and was a chief GOP backer of the legislation, setting up a potential argument with Paul debate stages about who has
done more to fight against mass surveillance. Any jockeying between the two will expose them to sniping from candidates on the other side of the debate, including
Paul already
has become a regular punching bag for the GOP field's security hawks. Back on Capitol Hill, many of the same
members who were engaged in defeating metadata reform warn that it only takes one security setback for
Congress to stop taking powers away from the NSA. "The next time there is a terrorist act within the United States, the same people are
potential candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who often goes out of his way to condemn those who criticize government snooping. Rand
going to be coming to the floor seeking changes to the tools that our intelligence community, our law enforcement community has at their disposal because the
American people will demand it," said Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Sen. Susan Collins, who also serves on the intelligence panel,
recognized that reforms and oversight will likely continue now that the USA Freedom Act has passed, but she said she's not so sure supporters of the Freedom Act
won't have buyer's remorse down the line. "I believe it is actually going to expose Americans' data to greater privacy risk and to vulnerability from computer data
breaches," Collins said. The
momentum to end the NSA's phone dragnet snowballed over the past year and a half as two review
panels deemed it ineffective. President Obama pledged to end it "as it currently exists" and a federal appeals court deemed it illegal. But further reforms—
such as to the Internet surveillance program known as PRISM, which Snowden also revealed—are likely to be tougher sells in Congress. For
PRISM especially, that's in part because the program is considered more useful and because it deals primarily with surveillance of foreigners.
U.S. tech companies that are subject to PRISM, including Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, have called for changes to the program. Yet when asked about whether he
would work to take down PRISM, even Wyden bristled at the question. "I am going to keep it to the three that I am going to change," Wyden said. Even reformers
outside the confines of the Senate recognize that ending PRISM is a complicated pursuit. "It is not going to be quite as easy to drum up the same support," says Liza
Goitein, codirector for the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Though PRISM may prove difficult to upend, other efforts, such as
a broadly supported push to update the decades-old Electronic Privacy Communications Act, may prove more palatable. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee, the lead
authors of the Freedom Act in the upper chamber, indicated their desire to move quickly on passing legislation that would update the law to require law enforcement
The immediate next battlefield for civil liberties groups
will find them on the defense , as they attempt to prevent legislation that would increase the sharing of certain cyber
data among the private sector and the government in order to better fend off data breaches. Such
proposals, which already passed the House and are likely to be before the Senate in the coming weeks, could grant the NSA
obtain warrants before accessing the content of Americans' old emails.
access to more personal data, privacy
advocates warn. No matter how the looming debates shake out, for now, one thing is clear: the fight over
the government's surveillance operations is far from over.
Link – Soft on Terror
Soft on terror is political suicide—midterms prove, thanks Obama
National Journal 9/19/2014 Alex Roarty, “Republicans Airing Ads Attacking Democrats as Being
Soft on Terrorism,”http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/republicans-airing-ads-attacking-democratsfor-being-soft-on-terrorism-20140919
September 19, 2014 House
Republicans are making a big bet that in the final weeks of the midterm election they can exploit doubts
about President Obama's foreign policy to persuade late-deciding voters to support Republicans. The National Republican
Congressional Committee announced Friday a quartet of new ads focusing on national security. One, airing against Rep. Dan Maffei of New
York, accuses the congressman of "backing constitutional rights for foreign terrorists." Another, in a bellwether Iowa district, claims that
Democratic candidate Staci Appel supports "passports for terrorists." These ads open with footage from Islamic State fighters. 'DAN MAFFEI
PUTS US AT RISK' (NRCC) At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor the same morning, the group's chairman, Greg Walden,
made clear it's a topic voters can expect to see more of from Republicans before Election Day. Foreign
policy and terrorism, he said,
have seen a "big uptick" in polls, Walden said, and are contributing to a big shift among voters toward the
GOP in recent weeks. "There is just this growing sense that things are a little out of control," he said. "And I
don't mean …. they don't like Washington. Fifty-seven percent of the American people don't think President Obama is doing a good job on the
terrorist question. That points to a real, real problem for all concerned." The NRCC chairman pointed specifically to "security moms"—women
whose worries about national security nudged many of them to vote for the Republican Party in the 2002 midterms—as a bloc who have been
sensitive to the issue. There's a real debate within the GOP, in both Senate and House races, about how prominent a role foreign policy should
play in the campaign's closing weeks. Many of the
party's candidates have used the topic to argue that Obama is
incompetent, but others have shown hesitation to distract their airtight message on domestic issues. The NRCC, apparently, no longer shares
those worries. Asked if foreign policy had overtaken the economy as voters' primary issue of concern, Walden demurred. "I don't know that
I could answer that at this point," he said. "I'd want to see more data." He added that it's a "very potent and important issue." "In
campaigns, you want to be talking about issues people care about."
---Soft on Terror = Political Suicide
Being perceived as soft on terror = political suicide
Humphreys, President and Director of the Human Capital Project, 2-26-2015
(John, President & Director of the Human Capital Project, an Adjunct Scholar at the Centre for
Independent Studies, board member of the Circle Project and the Australian Taxpayers Alliance,
postgraduate representative on the UQ Senate and the UQ Union, deputy secretary at the Economic
Society of Australia (Qld), Director of the Australian Libertarian Society, and a PhD student at the
University of Queensland, The politics of fear, February 26, 2015,
http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2015/02/26/the-politics-of-fear/)
is childishly easy for politicians to win support by promising “strong action” to provide
safety and security. The pesky details are irrelevant. The government is able to sell themselves as your saviour
(rescuing you from unimaginable disaster)… and if the opposition dares to disagree then the government gets the
double benefit of being your protector while also accusing the other side of wanting you to be vulnerable
and in mortal danger. Suffice to say, most oppositions will meekly agree to any change, and they might add their own “fear & security”
rhetoric in an attempt to neutralise the political point scoring. One problem with this political narrative is that the government has
already given themselves massive, intrusive, and pervasive powers. The political dilemma is that while a fear & security
agenda will provide a boost in opinion polls, the state already has nearly all the power you can imagine from all the
previous fear & security campaigns. The balance between “security” and “liberty” has been continuously
pushed in only one direction, and there are only so many times that you can double police powers before
the situation gets absurd. But from a political perspective, this is only a problem of style (not substance) which can easily be solved with
more dramatic rhetoric. The tactic of exaggerating a danger and then saying you will protect people from the
danger does not require effective policy. Indeed, to some degree the political tactic works best if you
propose an absurd solution, since it increases the chance that the opposition may oppose the policy… and
can then be painted as “soft on terror” and unwilling to protect you. Given his precarious political position, it is not
surprising to see Abbott falling back on the politics of fear & security. The simple and sad reality is that it works. But next time somebody
tells you that we need to give up a bit more liberty (and a bit more, and a bit more) to protect us from terrorism…
ask them how much liberty they are willing to give up to protect themselves from the horrors of hot tap
water, catching a bus, and falling off chairs.
At this point, it
Perceptions of being soft on terror = political suicide
Engler, Senior Analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, 2004
(Mark, author and journalist based in Philadelphia, He is an editorial board member at Dissent, a
contributing editor at Yes! Magazine, and a senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, a network of
foreign policy experts, My Political Suicide Note, As a candidate for President, there are certain things
that John Kerry can’t say. But I can, Published on April 13, 2004,
http://www.democracyuprising.com/2004/04/my-political-suicide-note/)
Let’s face it. There
are certain things you can’t say in politics, especially if you want to be elected President of the United States. We
might get tired of politicians taking boring, middle-of-the-road positions on controversial issues. But do we really want it any other way? Take John Kerry.
From a progressive perspective, he’s no Paul Wellstone. Then again, the candidate in the race who is politically closest to late, great Senator from Minnesota is Dennis
Kucinich–and Kucinich has never been a contender. Having emerged from a closely fought Democratic primary, Kerry needs to beat Bush by focusing on core issues
like health care, security, and the economy, without being drawn into wedge-issue debates. But just because John Kerry
can’t take strong stances
on dicey topics, it does not mean that these stances aren’t right. Since I am not running for President, let me take this
opportunity to offer my political suicide note. Whether talking about gay marriage, due process for accused terrorists, or socialized medicine,
I can say what Kerry can’t. Like many politicians, Kerry takes what the Associated Press charitably describes as a “carefully crafted” position on the issue of gay
marriage. The wire service explains that the Senator “personally opposes gay marriage, prefers civil unions, and rejects any state or federal legislation that could be
used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.” It is nice that Kerry recognizes the importance of partnership
rights for same-sex couples, like access to pensions, health insurance, and hospital visitation privileges. But when Kerry then seeks political cover by saying, “I
believe marriage is between a man and a woman” and arguing that “the issue of marriage should be left to the states,” it’s pretty weak. In no need of political cover
myself, I’m happy to promote gay marriage. If the institution of marriage can withstand a divorce rate among its heterosexual participants that hovers around 50%,
plus annulled farces like Britney Spears’ drunken 55-hour Las Vegas nuptial extravaganza, surely it can handle some committed gay and lesbian couples taking the
plunge. In a culture still rife with homophobia, marriage for gay and lesbian couples should be backed by federal protections that will ensure family reunification
immigration benefits and that will keep couples in more conservative parts of the country from suffering discrimination. Unless the government gets out of the
marriage business altogether and starts granting civil unions to all desiring couples, whether or not they are straight, these unions will keep gays and lesbians in a
separate-and-not-equal category. John Kerry himself has noted the “echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago” in current debates. However,
even though standing up for gay marriage is the right thing to do, John Kerry is not the person to do it. The Senator has correctly observed that President Bush has
proposed a constitutional amendment on marriage precisely because of its divisiveness. “This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care,” Kerry
says. “He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American
looking
soft on terrorists is rarely something that helps your political career. Back when Howard Dean was the
front runner for the Democratic nomination, he received a lot of criticism for saying that we shouldn’t
prejudge Osama bin Laden’s guilt for 9/11–that judgement should be left to the justice system. “What in the world were you thinking?” asked
people.” In order to win, Kerry needs to pick his battles. Gay marriage is not the one to pick. That’s not cynicism. It’s reality. To take another example,
John Kerry in a subsequent debate. And the Senator from Massachusetts was right. It was hardly the time and the place for Dean to take that stand. As for me,
someone who is not in the heat of a political campaign, I have little hesitation in declaring that even accused terrorists deserve fair treatment under the law. This is
especially true in light of shocking accusations about the abuse of detainees held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay. In March, British citizen Jamal al-Harith was
released after two years of captivity at Guantanamo, having never been charged with a crime. In interviews with The Mirror of London and with the BBC, the former
detainee told of being shackled for upwards of 15 hours at a time and being beaten by guards in riot gear. He claimed that “religiously devout detainees” were forced
to watch as prostitutes “touched their own naked bodies.” That type of morally repellant treatment clearly violates the better traditions of American due process. As
progressives, we need to draw attention to charges of human rights abuse at Guantanamo Bay. We shouldn’t expect Kerry to do it for us, however. We have reason to
hope that, after he gets elected, Kerry will prove more susceptible to pressure on the issue than Bush. For that to matter, he needs to get elected first. The list goes on.
I’m in favor of “socialized medicine”–a single-payer health care system–not only because health care is a human right, but also because the skyrocketing costs of the
private health insurance system is making American businesses increasingly uncompetitive. But I appreciate the fact that Kerry’s $90 billion health care plan was one
of the better proposals to emerge from the Democratic pack. He will have a hell of a time getting even this limited, for-profit plan through Congress.
Acknowledging the realities of mainstream American politics doesn’t mean abandoning your principles. It means acting
more effectively and strategically. While there are wedge issues where Kerry should stand on pragmatism rather than on principle, there are other
issues where activists are justified in pushing for a more progressive stance. One such issue is the Iraq War. Kerry’s timidity in challenging Bush’s elective invasion
and disastrous occupation represents a missed opportunity for his campaign. Instead of calling out the President on how the Iraq War left al Qaeda untouched and
spread anti-American resentment, Kerry sticks to the safest margins of the issue. He charges that Bush failed to “exhaust the remedies of inspections,” and he proposes
sending 40,000 more troops to Iraq. That’s hardly a recipe for leading an emboldened Democratic Party in taking up the charges of insiders like Richard Clarke and
denouncing the White House’s botched war on terror. Kerry should be slamming Bush for taking advice from neoconservative ideologues rather than counterterrorism experts, and for making the world a more dangerous place. Iraq aside, having
gone on the record in defense of gay marriage, the
rights of accused terrorists, and socialized medicine, I think that–like Kucinich–I’m pretty much dead politically, at least for this
election season. I’m glad to say that Kerry isn’t.
---Soft on Terror – Link UQ
ISIS, Iran, and Snowden caused seismic shifts towards hawkishness—even Rand
Paul and Obama have been forced towards being hard on terror
Rogers, National Journal Contributor, 6-3-2015
(Alex, “McCain Now the GOP Hawks' Mentor, if Not Their Leader,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/mccain-now-the-gop-hawks-mentor-if-not-their-leader20150603)
"The more, the merrier," McCain
said in the Capitol on Tuesday. "The more people we have that are engaged in
national-security issues, the better. I like it." Then for the first several months of the year, McCain must have felt giddy
among the many colleagues who have taken the spotlight to showcase their national-security acumen—or
brazenness. In March, freshman Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas led many of his GOP colleagues, including McCain, to sign
and send a controversial letter to Iranian leaders reminding them that a nuclear deal with President Obama could be modified by
Congress. A few months later, Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker led the passage of the Iran nuclear review bill,
which passed with only one nay —Cotton, who, like McCain, is extraordinarily skeptical of the administration's negotiations. This
week, the Senate passed an NSA-reform bill over the objections of Sen. Rand Paul, a presidential aspirant with Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell's endorsement, and the hawks. McConnell and Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr played the biggest roles in trying to keep
the Patriot Act alive. But along the way, McCain found himself reprimanding Paul—telling his colleague on the chamber floor to "learn the rules
of the Senate"—with almost the entire GOP conference. And while McCain may still top the charts in Sunday show appearances, two of the GOP
presidential contenders—Lindsey
Graham and Marco Rubio—are biting at his heels to showcase their own
muscular brand of global affairs. Graham, a McCain acolyte who this week announced his candidacy to insert a forceful national
security angle into the race, has positions similar to all of the major candidates in the race, save Paul. But even Paul has felt the
pressure, offering a budget amendment this year to increase Pentagon funding to Rubio levels—a stark turnaround
from his own 2011 budget. (Sen. Ted Cruz has characterized his foreign-policy platform as the "third point on the triangle" between Paul and
McCain.) As FiveThirtyEight points out, Republicans'
attitudes have changed dramatically since Edward Snowden's
2013 revelations, favoring much more government intervention to protect the country against
terrorism . "Since 1980 there's probably never been this much emphasis on foreign policy and national
security as there is in this election campaign," said McCain this week. "Which obviously gives some advantage to Lindsey
Graham. And it's not an accident these other candidates are emphasizing—no matter who they are—national security and foreign policy. "I think
that you're going to see things worsen in the world because there's no strategy for winning," he added. "And so I think by the time the real
primary votes start it'll be the one dominant issue, along with the economy." While McCain hasn't been the leader on reforming the National
Security Agency or shaping the Iran nuclear deal—areas clearly in the domain of the Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees—he has been
instrumental in guiding the new crop of military veteran senators. In particular, McCain has taken Cotton under his wing, supporting him during
his competitive House primary and, after Cotton's victory in 2012, taking him to conferences in Munich and Halifax—as he took two other
military veterans on the Armed Services committee, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, on a recent trip to Singapore. "He could
obviously run the entire show and take all the time himself," said Cotton in an interview. "But he never does that. Even when I was a brand new
congressman less than a month in, he gave me just as much time as every congressman and senator that he took. And those are conversations with
heads of state or senior ministers. I think that speaks very well of how he hopes to mentor and coach the next generation of leaders for our
country." McCain's next goal as Senate Armed Services chairman is to guide the major defense authorization bill through Congress. Facing a
White House veto threat because the bill yields to the sequestration caps and a Republican-led House committed to keeping them, McCain has
Democrats adamantly are
behind Obama, who wants to see a roughly 7 percent increase in 2016 over sequestration levels. Nondefense
appropriations have "either fallen or remained essentially frozen" four of the past five years, according to the
decided to boost defense with a budget gimmick: an additional $38 billion in a separate wartime account. But
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and members like Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, see breaking the caps just for defense as "not
as direct and honest as it should be." On Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called the defense bill a "waste of time" due to the veto
threat, and even Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, opposes busting the caps for just the Pentagon.
Link – Soft on Crime
Soft on Crime Label is political suicide – any accusation ensures congressional
opposition
Hancock 14 {Jerry, director of The Prison Ministry Project, “'Soft on Crime' Tactic Works, but at a
High Cost,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30, http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/soft-on-crimetactic-works-but-at-a-high-cost-b99301906z1-265307291.html}
Politicians are addicted to crime. Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives are all addicted to
crime and the politics of fear. I recently received a fundraising request from a liberal Democrat, a candidate whose positions
and career I generally respect. In the request, he accused the incumbent of being "soft on crime." I realize that many of us might
agree that it is wrong not to prosecute campaign finance violations — which was the context of the solicitation — but the phrase itself is
toxic. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the causes and problems of mass incarceration. If a liberal Democrat will
use "soft on crime" when he thinks it will motivate voters, there is very little hope we will ever be
"smart on crime." "Soft on crime" is one of those simple phrases — such as "truth in sentencing" or "three strikes and
you're out" — that so oversimplify complex issues that they suck the life out of people. We see the consequences of
"soft on crime" campaigns every time we visit men and women serving sentences without hope in Wisconsin's overcrowded prisons. Any serious
candidate should know better. Anyone running for public office should read Michelle Alexander's book, "The New Jim Crow." Alexander details
the causes and costs of keeping more than 2 million of our brothers and sisters behind bars and keeping fathers of 2 million children in prison.
Alexander explains that mass incarceration results from two explicit public policies: the war on drugs and tough-on-crime laws (such as "truth in
sentencing") that have led to more people being put in prison for longer sentences with no chance for parole or time off for good behavior.
Accusing an electoral opponent of being "soft on crime" is a powerful weapon. It motivates voters by
preying on their fears — sometimes realistic but often inflated — of becoming victims of crime. The "soft on crime" charge
often works , but it comes with a terrible cost. Candidates who get elected by being "tough on crime" mortgage their political and moral
future and the future of the citizens they claim to serve. Having been elected by calling their opponents "soft on crime," they know the power of
the allegation. Once
elected, they are compelled to do everything they can to show they will never
be
"soft on crime ." More prisons get built. Sentences get longer. Parole is denied. Pardons are refused. In
the end, Wisconsin ends up spending more on prisons than on its world-class university system or on health care, with no justifiable increase in
public safety.
Soft on crime drains capital –
*note – also under “Link – Law Enforcement”
Bump, Political Correspondent for the Washington Post and the Atlantic, 2014
(Philip, Why the police are so politically powerful, August 14, 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/why-the-police-are-so-politicallypowerful/)
For those watching as violence erupted in Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday night, it was impossible not to
notice a voice missing from the conversation. For hours, there was silence from state and federal elected
officials. There's one obvious reason for a politician to be cautious before offering his or her opinion:
Saying the wrong thing or rushing to judgment in a fraught situation with lots of conflicting details
could do much more harm than good in the long run. (An easy example: President Obama's comments
on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.) There's another reason for caution: Police agencies
have long been unusually politically powerful. Politicians never want to purposely alienate anyone, but
they are particularly wary of crossing the cops. It's clear why. First and foremost, the police are
popular. Each year, Gallup polls Americans to evaluate how much confidence they have in various institutions. In the most recent iteration
of that research, police were rated third-highest, behind the military and small businesses. Americans have more confidence in the police than
they do in organized religion. Compare that with confidence ratings for Congress, which have fallen, continue to fall, and don't have much further
they can drop. Branches of the military, the institution in which Americans have the most confidence, can't (and shouldn't, for clear reasons)
People who trust the police
more also vote more. Not only that, but the police have stronger support from groups that vote more
frequently. Below, data from Gallup breaking down how honest the police are perceived to be by political party and age. Gallup also found
endorse elected officials. But local police forces and, more specifically, local police unions, can and do.
that nonwhite Americans were substantially less likely to share white Americans' confidence in the police. Forty-eight percent of nonwhites had a
"great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in cops, compared to 68 percent of whites. Whites, Republicans, and older Americans are also more
likely to regularly vote, including in off-cycle elections where local politicians are on the ballot. Politicians
love to say they're
endorsed by police -- and fear a "soft on crime" image. If you've ever been near a television during October in an evennumbered year, you've seen a police officer on television, describing why Candidate X is backed by the police. If you've ever actually looked at
the mail you receive that same month, you'll see pieces of mail that, somewhere, have a little gold badge prominently displayed.
Being “Tough on Crime” still perceived and matter – assumes all your indicts of the
laws
Butts 14 {Stephen, soon to be J.D/Ph.D. in Law and Psychology (Golden Gate University and Palo Alto
University), J.D. and Master's Degree in Addiction Studies (Hazelden Graduate School), Criminal Justice
and Drug Policy Intern at the ACLU of Northern California, “Lawmaker’s Cookbook: A Recipe for
Tough-On-Crime Laws,” Golden Gate University Law Review, 4/15,
http://ggulawreview.org/2014/04/15/lawmakers-cookbook-a-recipe-for-tough-on-crime-laws/}
Many “tough-on-crime” laws have been enacted over the past fifty years. These laws impose harsh sentences and severely
restrict offenders’ civil liberties under the guise of preventing crime. Sex offender laws, Three Strikes laws, zero tolerance laws, and mandatory sentences are
laws are economically unfeasible, ineffective, and unjust; yet their creation
continues. Chelsea’s law, the newest “tough-on-crime” law, was enacted just over three years ago. Unfortunately, “ tough-on-crime” laws are a
examples. “Tough-on-crime”
lot like chocolate cupcakes at a soccer mom bake sale. When they’re just an idea, everyone
loves them . They’re the
“talk of the town.” Upon presentation, eyes grow wide. People begin to salivate. They seem so
appeasing. People don’t realize
just how
bad an idea they are until they’ve had time to digest one. Once the high is over, the
reality sets in that they just make everyone feel bad and weren’t very good to begin with. A “tough-on-crime” law is similar, and it’s an easy dish to create if you have
the right ingredients. Like flour, the
base ingredient for a “tough-on-crime” law is public fear. It has been said: “Behind every bad law
the context of criminal laws, this fear is of a monstrous villain, and three types of villains are
most often cited: sex offenders, drug addicts, and career criminals. Of these choices, sex offenders are the fiend du jour, with child molesters being
[there is] a deep fear.” In
more villainous than rapists. Sex offenders are seen as monsters and despised by society. Even in prison, “a society unto itself,” sex offenders have the lowest rank in
the social order. The public views sex crimes as the most morally reprehensible crimes and, therefore, sex offenders create a moral panic. Sex offenders may garner
addiction is seen as a “moral failing,” with drug addicts
being confined to prisons rather than treated for a chronic brain disease. While some drug laws have been reformed, the
“War on Drugs” rages on. Only certain career criminals are seen as villains, though. If an offender’s rap sheet is long enough and sufficiently
disturbing, he can become a very powerful villain. A rape, murder, or kidnapping can transform a petty criminal into someone to be feared. The next and
most important ingredient, like the sugar in a cupcake, is the media’s continual stream of fear appeals. Fear
appeals persuade action by highlighting threats to public safety. The strongest fear appeal is provided by the media’s spotlight on
the most attention, but drug addicts and career criminals are also vilified. Drug
the rape or murder of a white child, preferably a female. Many “tough-on-crime” laws have been named after the children whose murders inspired the legal causes:
Chelsea’s law, Megan’s law, Jessica’s Law, Marsy’s Law, the Adam Walsh Act, and the Jacob Wetterling Act. California’s Three Strikes Law was enacted in
response to the media-incited public fear after the murder of Polly Klaas. During
the War on Drugs, there were no specific
horrendous incidents for the media to amplify. Instead, yellow journalism was used. From Reefer
Madness to reports that African-Americans who used cocaine were raping white women, the media used its
power to garner support for “tough-on-crime” legislation . As the focus of the media’s fear appeals has changed, so have the
villains. From the 1870s until the 1990s, drug addicts were the main villains. In the 1990s, career criminals were the focus. Since 1994, sex offenders have been the
focal point. Similar
to our addiction to sugar, people are addicted to the media, and the media continually
spoon-feeds these fear appeals to the masses . Unable to abstain from viewing, fears are aroused. This arousal
is uncomfortable. To
correct this emotional dysregulation, humans instinctively react to the perceived need to
protect themselves by pressuring politicians for change.
fear.
In fact, it
Politicians are also controlled by
is largely due to their fear of not being re-elected that politicians have enacted these unnecessary
laws. Without the addictive media, there would be no “tough-on-crime” laws. For example, a year before Polly Klaas’s murder inspired California’s Three Strikes
Law, Kimber Reynolds, another young white girl, was murdered by a career criminal. But, no one supported the Three Strikes Law Kimber’s father was promoting
because there was no media attention surrounding her murder. While
a personal or political agenda can be helpful in the creation of a
“tough-on-crime” law, it is simply icing on the cupcake. An agenda can have a strong influence on public
perceptions. The media can then promote the agenda. For instance, yellow journalism was used to
support Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs” political agenda and the media promoted Marc Klaas’s personal agenda to rid the streets of career
criminals. Once the media has galvanized the public, pressure can be put on politicians to enact
legislation. Politicians, whose primary agenda is re-election, worry they’ll look “soft-on-crime” unless “tough-oncrime” laws are passed. Unfortunately, after a “tough-on-crime” law is enacted, it can take decades before the ramifications are fully digested and people
recognize how bad the law was in actuality. Once the public realizes the ineffectiveness and vindictiveness of “tough-on-crime” laws, the laws are usually reformed.
Forty years after the “War on Drugs” began, the focus on drug policies is slowly changing from incarceration to treatment. Almost twenty years after California’s
Three Strikes Law was implemented, it was reformed to focus on serious or violent felonies. A
“tough-on-crime” law is a simple dish with
only two main ingredients: our fear of villains and the media’s fear appeals. The media has a debilitating effect on our
independent thinking because it spoon-feeds us fear appeals. To regulate our fear, the public creates fear in politicians. These
ingredients are perfect for a “tough-on-crime” law. Due to their simplicity ,
these laws will
continue to be created . It is only by abstaining from our mindless consumption of the media’s fear appeals that laws will transform from
being reactive to proactive.
Link – Soft on Crime – Dems
fear of soft on crime labeling ensures dems won’t buy in
Bean 12 {Alan, executive director of Friends of Justice, featured in Newsweek, The Washington Post,
USA Today, La Monde and The Chicago Tribune and CNN, “The Conservative War on Prisons: How an
Unlikely Coalition of Evangelicals and Libertarians Changed the Politics of Crime,” 11/13,
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-conservative-war-on-prisons-how-an-unlikelycoalition-of-evangelicals-and-libertarians-changed-the-politics-of-crime/}
I heartily commend this well-crafted article on the unlikely evangelical-libertarian coalition that created the Right on Crime
movement. David Dagan and Steven M. Teles appreciate that liberal organizations like the ACLU, the Open Societies Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation carried the torch for criminal justice reform during the
. But liberal politicians
dark ages (1980-2000) of tough-on-crime politic and ever-expanding prison populations
have been too afraid of the soft-
on-crime label to associate themselves with the reform movement; in fact, Democrats like Bill Clinton built
careers on out-toughing the conservatives. Real political change required a bi-partisan approach, and
this meant that the impetus for reform had to come from the political right. Democrats will vote for
change, but only if conservatives give them political cover. Conservatives, especially in deep-red states like Texas, don’t have to worry about looking soft.
Link - Intelligence Reforms
Intelligence reforms ensure finite PC drain and agenda trade off, multiple structural
factors
Zegart, 9
Amy B. Zegart, co-director of CISAC and professor of political economy @ Stanford, “Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of
9/11”, p. 56-60, 2009, google books,
http://books.google.com/books?id=x59k854wyd0C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=nsa+reform+%22political+capital%22&source=bl&ots=plXd6A
TNi4&sig=5BVCbmnGq5jS0TOeumjSaKq5tE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OkafU_vwLIyxyATg4YHAAw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=nsa%20reform%20%22political%20
capital%22&f=false
Rational Self-Interest of Presidents, Legislators, and National Security Bureaucrats Government officials are constrained by the incentives and
capabilities that come with their positions. Although individuals have their own ideas, skills, and policy preferences,
institutional
incentives and capabilities exert a powerful influence, making some courses of action easier and less costly than others. These
incentives and capabilities explain why, before the September 11 attacks, no president championed intelligence
reform, why legislators largely avoided and blocked it, and why national security agency bureaucrats
opposed it. PRESIDENTS All presidents have strong incentives to improve organizational effectiveness. To make their mark on history/ they
must make the bureaucracy work well for them. Perhaps even more important, presidents are also driven to enhance organizational effectiveness
by the electorate, which expects far more of them than they can possibly deliver. Held responsible for everything from inflation to Iraqi
democratization, presidents have good reason to ensure that government agencies adapt to changing demands as much and as fast as possible.51
The problem is that presidents are weak. With little time, limited political capital , few formal powers, and
packed political agendas, presidents lack the capabilities to make the changes they desire. Instead, they almost always prefer
to focus their efforts on policy issues that directly concern (and benefit) voters rather than on the arcane details of
organizational design and operation. And who can blame them? Tax cuts and social security lock boxes win votes, but no president ever won a
landslide election by changing the CIA's personnel system. Moreover, presidents
are especially reluctant to push for agency
reforms in the absence of a crisis or in the presence of anticipated resistance. Presidents are thus loath to
reform existing agencies through executive action or legislation. Although dozens of investigations, commissions, and
experts identified shortcomings in the U.S. Intelligence Community between 1947, when the CIA was created, and the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, no president attempted major intelligence reform.53 Rational self-interest ex-plains why. LEGISLATORS Self-interest
leads most legislators to avoid tackling intelligence reform altogether or seek to block it. Like presidents,
legislators have little incentive to delve into the messy inner workings of intelligence agency design
because doing so does not provide tangible benefits to voters back home.4 Indeed, the weak electoral connection is
one of the reasons congressional intelligence oversight committees continued imposing term limits for their members throughout the 1990s, long
after it became clear that these regulations severely weakened the development of congressional expertise and after numerous commissions
recommended abolishing them.55 When
crises do arise, intelligence committee members are rewarded more for
airing dirty laundry than cleaning it. They frequently hold hearings but only rarely take corrective action.
The Bay of Pigs, the congressional investigations into CIA abuses during the 1970s, the lran-Contra scandal, and the Aldrich Ames spy case all
triggered major investigations but none produced fundamental change in the Intelligence Community- In addition, members of Congress care
about maintaining the power of the institution. Generally, this means that legislators prefer executive arrangements that diffuse authorities and
capabilities; the more agencies in the executive branch, the more power bases can accrue in Congress to oversee them. NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY BUREAUCRATS Finally,
national security agency bureaucrats have their own interests at stake and
powerful means to pursue them. Whereas most domestic policy agencies operate in relatively autonomous policy domains—the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, has no reason to think about the design or operation of the Social Security
Administration—U.S.
national security agencies are more tightly connected. Policymaking inevitably crosses
bureaucratic boundaries, involving diplomacy, the use of force, economic policy/ and intelligence. In such a complex web, national
security bureaucrats see reform as a zero-sum battle for agency autonomy and power. EPA officials may not be conjuring up
ways to gain advantage over another government agency, but national security bureaucrats are. In the interdependent world of national security
affairs, no agency wants to yield authority or discretion to another.""6 The Problems of Decentralized Democracy Rational
self-interest
makes reform difficult; self-interest coupled with the decentralized structure of the U.S. federal government
makes it more so. Paradoxically, some of the cherished features of American democracy impede effective agency design and raise
obstacles to reform. Separation of powers, the congressional committee system, and majority rule have
created a system that invites compromise and makes legislation hard to pass. This has two consequences for government agencies.
First, political compromise allows opponents to cripple any new agency from the start. As Terry Moe writes, "In the political system, public
bureaucracies are designed ... by participants who explicitly want them to fail."37 Political compromise unavoidably leads to subop-timal initial
agency design, even for critical national security agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency. * Indeed, critics who contend that the CIA is
poorly suited to meeting the needs of the post-Cold War world are only partially right: the agency was not particularly well designed to meet the
United States' Cold War needs, either. In 1947, existing intelligence agencies in the FBI, State Department, and military services succeeded in
stripping the CIA of any strong centralization powers. When the CIA was created, it was flawed by design.59 The decentralized structure of
American democracy also means that the worst agency problems usually are the hardest to fix. Although agencies can make some changes on
their own and can also be altered by unilateral presidential action, the
most far-reaching reforms almost always require new
legislation. But legislative success is difficult even under the best of circumstances because it demands
multiple majorities in both houses of Congress. As Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission put it, "the
most powerful interest group in Washington is the status quo."60 Summary Taken together, these three
enduring realities—the nature of organizations, rational self-interest, and the fragmented federal
government—provide a basic model for understanding why U.S. intelligence agencies failed to adapt to the terrorist threat before
September 11, why they have not done much better since then, and why they are unlikely to improve substantially in the future. Government
agencies are not built to change with the times. Because reform does not generally arise from within, it must
be imposed from the
outside. But even this rarely happens because all organizational changes, even the best reforms, create winners
and losers, and because the political system allows losers multiple opportunities to keep winners from winning completely. Indeed, the
greater the proposed change, the stronger the resistance will be. As a result, organizational adaptation
almost always meets with defeat, becomes watered down, or gets shelved for another day, when the next crisis erupts.
Link – Law Enforcement
Lack of support for law enforcement drains capital – multiple warrants
Bump, Political Correspondent for the Washington Post and the Atlantic, 2014
(Philip, Why the police are so politically powerful, August 14, 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/why-the-police-are-so-politicallypowerful/)
For those watching as violence erupted in Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday night, it was impossible not to notice a
voice missing from the conversation. For hours, there was silence from state and federal elected officials.
There's one obvious reason for a politician to be cautious before offering his or her opinion: Saying the
wrong thing or rushing to judgment in a fraught situation with lots of conflicting details could do
much more harm than good in the long run. (An easy example: President Obama's comments on the
arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.) There's another reason for caution: Police agencies have
long been unusually politically powerful. Politicians never want to purposely alienate anyone, but they are
particularly wary of crossing the cops. It's clear why. First and foremost, the police are popular. Each
year, Gallup polls Americans to evaluate how much confidence they have in various institutions. In the most recent iteration of that research,
police were rated third-highest, behind the military and small businesses. Americans have more confidence in the police than they do in organized
religion. Compare that with confidence ratings for Congress, which have fallen, continue to fall, and don't have much further they can drop.
Branches of the military, the institution in which Americans have the most confidence, can't (and shouldn't, for clear reasons) endorse elected
People who trust the police more also
vote more. Not only that, but the police have stronger support from groups that vote more frequently. Below, data
officials. But local police forces and, more specifically, local police unions, can and do.
from Gallup breaking down how honest the police are perceived to be by political party and age. Gallup also found that nonwhite Americans
were substantially less likely to share white Americans' confidence in the police. Forty-eight percent of nonwhites had a "great deal" or "quite a
lot" of confidence in cops, compared to 68 percent of whites. Whites, Republicans, and older Americans are also more likely to regularly vote,
including in off-cycle elections where local politicians are on the ballot. Politicians
love to say they're endorsed by police -and fear a "soft on crime" image. If you've ever been near a television during October in an even-numbered year, you've seen a
police officer on television, describing why Candidate X is backed by the police. If you've ever actually looked at the mail you receive that same
month, you'll see pieces of mail that, somewhere, have a little gold badge prominently displayed.
Link – Military Industrial Complex
Lack of support for military industrial complex drains capital – national security
trumps all
Avlon, Daily Beast Reporter, 2013
(Jon, The Military-Industrial Complex Is Real, and It’s Bigger Than Ever, 6-12-2013,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/12/the-military-industrial-complex-is-real-and-it-s-biggerthan-ever.html)
But the
military-industrial complex has a trump card to play with members of Congress and the public:
nobody wants to argue with national security , especially when the very real threat of terrorism exists.
This ain’t no phantom menace: more than 45 jihadist terror plots had been stopped before the 10th anniversary of 9/11. But the combination
of real threat and opaque multibillion-dollar budgets leads inevitably to a lack of transparency and
accountability. That’s where the risk of not just information-dragnet overreach but also the risk of leakers
like Ed Snowden comes in. With this level of complexity in the system, security is ironically almost impossible to maintain. There is no
debate that Snowden’s unlikely access to the nation’s security secrets is a reflection of the overextended
partial privatization of our intelligence operations. Better to streamline a still-robust national-security community, leading to
strict lines of accountability while minimizing consultants and their 500,000 top-secret clearances. If too much is top secret, then nothing is,
especially in the digital age when documents can be accessed by any low-level staffer. Moreover, the tsunami of metadata collected might
ultimately be utilized by our enemies, hacking into our system servers, rather than the inevitably disorganized tangle of private contractors and
government workers. Snowden wasn’t the danger Ike imagined in his Farewell Address, given from the Oval Office in the predawn of the
computer age. Some might argue that Snowden represents the “alert and knowledgeable citizenry” that Eisenhower said would be the best check
on the interests of military-industrial complex. But there
is no debate that Ed Snowden’s unlikely access to the nation’s
security secrets in the first place is a reflection of the overextended partial privatization of our intelligence
operations. This is what Ike explicitly warned about more than a half-century ago: “We must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex . The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties.”
Support for the Military Industrial complex outweighs other political concerns
O’Connell, Associate Professor of History at the United States Naval Academy, 2012
(Aaron B., The Permanent Militarization of America, November 12th, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?_r=0)
IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left
office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial
complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument. In his farewell address,
Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the
defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause
economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and
warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health. The
military-industrial
complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous
sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of
our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953. Defense-related research has
not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power to GPS
navigation. The
United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered employment and
economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense spending is the job loss
such cuts would entail. Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower warned. Foreign policy has become
increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’ repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua
and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military action. Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq
war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible. Though it’s true that mercenaries and
contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are made today much as they were in
Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and then more or less rubber-stamped
by Congress. Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet. But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of
permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our
culture has militarized considerably since
Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of
“support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of
Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize
the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for
serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers
— should be immune from thoughtful criticism. Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element
of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than
the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there
are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since
World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own
frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only
unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high.
A2 Link Turns
A2 Link Turn – Generic
Specific details of reform ensure controversy and outweigh ideological support
Baker and Peters, 14 – cites Jane Harman, author of the last major surveillance law and now the
president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Peter Baker and Jeremy W. Peters,
NYT congressional political writers, 1-18-2014, "With Plan to Overhaul Spying, the Divisiveness is in the
Details", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/us/politics/with-plan-to-overhaulspying-the-divisiveness-is-in-the-details.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
roiling debate over security and liberty did not end with President Obama’s newly announced
overhaul of surveillance practices. Rather, it now enters a volatile next phase as intelligence agencies and a divided
Congress try to turn principles into policy . In responding to months of uproar about government spying, Mr. Obama left
to be decided the details that would determine just how meaningful the change he promised would be. He asked security
WASHINGTON — The
officials to develop ways to protect the privacy of foreigners. He asked Congress to help figure out how to store bulk telephone data. He invited
other proposals to restructure a secret intelligence court. All
of which means that the future shape of a surveillance apparatus
whose secrets have been uncomfortably exposed remains far from certain. The assurances Mr. Obama offered his critics
may be made more nebulous by exceptions written into any new policies. The question of what to do with a vast
trove of data on everyday Americans may elude policy makers who cannot agree on much . And yet legislators may find their
usual politics scrambled by an issue that crosses party lines. “It’s the beginning of a long process, and the end on some of
this is still unclear,” said former Representative Jane Harman, an author of the last major surveillance law and now the
president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “But the good news is now there’s a full debate in the Congress
and in the country about our values and how to address security and liberty at the same time.”
Obama will always lose the spin game – ensures he loses PC
Page, 13 (Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, 12-30-2013, "Ex-NSA chief calls for
Obama to reject recommendations", USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/30/gen-michael-hayden-urges-obama-reject-nsacommission-recommendations/4249983/, DA: 5-23-2015)
Snowden's revelations have fueled objections by civil liberties advocates that the NSA goes too far in collecting
information about Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. This month, a federal judge in Washington called the program "almost
Hayden's blunt warnings about the
risks he sees in accepting the commission's recommendations underscore the difficult balancing act
Obama faces between ensuring the nation's security and respecting citizens' privacy. No decision he makes is likely to
avoid criticism . "Here I think it's going to require some political courage," said Hayden, 68, a retired Air Force general
whose service in the nation's top intelligence posts gives him particular standing. "Frankly, the president is going to have to use
some of his personal and political capital to keep doing these things."
Orwellian," although a few days later, another federal judge in New York said it was legal.
No turns – Republican majority and terrorism concerns prevent support
Risen, 14 (Tom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, 11-21-2014,
"Will Surveillance Reform Get a Second Act?", US News & World Report,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/21/will-surveillance-reform-get-a-second-act, DA: 5-232015)
Sensenbrenner, who helped write the Patriot Act, will continue to press for surveillance reform in the next session of Congress despite
the possibility of a loophole. “The fact that this issue exists is further evidence that the NSA is operating far beyond the intent of Congress,”
Miller says.
Building support for a new bill could be tough as the incoming Republican majority in Congress
may also feel political pressure to shy away from limiting spying powers. Sensenbrenner introduced the Freedom
Act in 2013, as reports of broad government surveillance of the Internet and phones, brought to light in documents leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden, dominated the news. Current headlines highlight the terrorist threat of the I slamic S tate group.
Leahy spoke out on the Senate floor, saying that talk of privacy limits damaging national security were “scare tactics.” “Some would have us wait
while American businesses continue to lose tens of billions of dollars in the international marketplace,” Leahy said, citing damage the NSA
program has done to Silicon Valley’s reputation. “Or we could even wait until we are facing down the expiration of [Patriot Act] Section 215 in a
matter of months, thereby creating dangerous uncertainty and risk for the intelligence community.” But Nelson, who supports military action
against the Islamic State group and voted against the Freedom Act on Tuesday, insists that
broad spying powers are still
needed to counter terrorism. "The United States and our allies must leave no stone unturned in going after these
barbarians," Nelson said in a statement on Monday.
A2 Link Turn – Congress/Coalitions
Coalitions are divided and Congressional leadership hates reform – that prevents
broad support
Baker and Peters, 14 (Peter Baker and Jeremy W. Peters, NYT congressional political writers, 1-182014, "With Plan to Overhaul Spying, the Divisiveness is in the Details", New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/us/politics/with-plan-to-overhaul-spying-the-divisiveness-is-in-thedetails.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
But Mr. Obama
had no answer for the biggest question involving the bulk data collection program. Although he
said the government should no longer keep the data, he outlined flaws in the only two alternatives floated so far: leaving
data with telecommunications providers or creating an independent consortium to store it. He assigned the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr.,
and the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., to develop a plan and asked Congress to help. Unlike
many divisive
issues to arrive on Capitol Hill, this one appears unlikely to die after a wait for a floor debate that never happens, or to
be thwarted by the parliamentary maneuver of an uncompromising leader. “Reformers may not get all of what we want,”
said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. “But I think there’s a very real prospect of doing better than the president has
proposed, and he’s acknowledged himself that there may be a need for taking additional steps.” Others were not so certain. “ This
happens
all the time in Washington,” said Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky and a vocal critic of surveillance programs.
“Everybody gets in an uproar — ‘Congress must act! Congress must act!’ But when they do act, they do
something devious and don’t really address the problem .” Indeed, supporters of the N.S.A. programs say
they expect Congress to resist undercutting programs that protect the public. “You will see changes at the
margins with significant ambiguities and exceptions that will provide the executive branch with lots of
flexibility,” predicted former Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, a onetime chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee. What distinguishes the surveillance issue from so many that have stymied a polarized Congress is that it
does not follow easy patterns. The libertarian right, represented by Mr. Paul, has joined the liberal left, represented by
lawmakers like Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who calls himself a socialist. On the other side are the leaders
of both parties , like Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of
Michigan, leaders of the Intelligence Committees and supporters of the surveillance programs. The two attended
Mr. Obama’s speech on Friday at the Justice Department, then lingered together afterward consulting with Mr. Clapper. Within a few hours, the
two issued a joint statement defending the programs. “It’s interesting because there’s splits within both
parties ,” said Peter Swire, a Georgia Tech professor who served on a panel of Mr. Obama’s that reviewed the
surveillance programs. “Potentially it makes it easier, because members are open to persuasion. It’s not a party-line vote.” Senator Angus
King of Maine, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, said: “Ideology is sort of confusing on this one. When you have Rand Paul
and Bernie Sanders on the same side, that makes for a pretty interesting debate.” Indeed, some Democrats seemed eager to use the issue to
distance themselves from an unpopular chief executive. “I don’t believe innocent Alaskans’ personal records need to be collected and analyzed in
bulk in an effort to help catch terrorists,” said Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, who faces a challenging race for reelection this year. “It’s a
violation of our civil liberties and is heavy-handed — like using a shark hook to fish for a salmon.” In
the Senate, the debate sets up a
possible clash among three of the most powerful and headstrong Democrats: Ms. Feinstein; Patrick J. Leahy
of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an advocate for expansive changes; and Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who
feels pinched between the White House and members of his caucus. In the House, the issue pits Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio
against some in his Republican caucus. When the House debated a bill that would have blocked the N.S.A. from collecting bulk
telephone data, the measure came within a dozen votes of passing. Although speakers rarely vote, Mr. Boehner took the
unusual step of voting in opposition. Mr. Boehner has not endorsed the legislation that seems most likely to be the vehicle for the
debate over N.S.A. practices this year, which has been drafted by Mr. Leahy and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who as an
author of the Patriot Act holds considerable sway with his Republican colleagues. The bill would end bulk data collection and establish an
independent counsel to argue against government requests at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. “The bottom line is real reform cannot
be done by presidential fiat,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said, bluntly making the case that Congress has to act where the White House stopped short.
“The president and intelligence community have repeatedly misled Congress and the American people and lack credibility for reform.”
Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who also has sponsored legislation that would curb surveillance programs, said
lawmakers may still not go far. “I’m
not all that sanguine about Congress’s ability to step up to the plate and enact
reform on its own,” he said. “Congress will do some of the easy things,” like require more transparency in surveillance. But
it may not be until next year, when the Patriot Act comes up for renewal, that more significant issues are addressed. “Unequivocal defenders
know the program disappears in 18 months,” Mr. Schiff said. “That may make them more amenable to compromise.”
A2 Link Turn – Public
Public support is irrelevant – doesn’t spill over to Congress and still creates fights
Zakrzewski, 15 (Cat Zakrzewski, 5-18-2015, "Surveillance Reform Stalemate In Congress Doesn’t
Reflect Public Opinion", TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/18/surveillance-reform-stalematein-congress-doesnt-reflect-public-opinion/, DA: 6-2-2015)
The ACLU on Monday released a
survey that found 60 percent of American voters want to see modifications to the
PATRIOT Act, the post 9/11 law that created the nation’s modern intelligence apparatus. The polling comes as the Republican
leadership attempts to halt surveillance reform in the Senate. The debate is becoming increasingly
politicized in Congress, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for clean reauthorization of a PATRIOT Act
provision set to expire on June 1, Section 215. This section provided the mandate for the controversial bulk collection of American phone records
revealed by former government contractor Edward Snowden almost two years ago. The House passed a bill that would reform parts of the Patriot
Act last week, but a spokesperson for the ACLU criticized that portion for not going far enough. From Snowden’s revelations, we know the
government uses other laws — notably Section 702 and Executive Order 1233 — to collect Americans’ communications. This reform would only
affect the bulk collection occurring under the Patriot Act. As other organizations
like Pew have found, the survey shows that calls
for reform are bipartisan. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats surveyed and 58 percent of Republicans
surveyed strongly agreed with modifying the law. That percentage only rose among independents, with 71 percent supporting
reform efforts. In a media call, ACLU legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said these findings highlight the disconnect
between lawmakers on the Hill and the American people . “In order to be more reflective of public’s views on
surveillance and the Patriot Act, members of Congress should more fully support reforms and can fully support more aggressive reforms,” she
said. The ACLU also noted that surveillance reform could become a key issue during the primaries, especially because voters on the far right and
far left are more likely than moderates to support reform efforts. The ACLU said that with the bipartisan support for reform and even greater
support among independents, surveillance reform is an issue that could consistently help candidates appeal to voters no matter their political
affiliation. As we’ve seen with past surveys, younger voters were more likely than older voters to support modifying the Patriot Act. Sixty-five
percent of 18- to 39-year-olds support reform, as compared to only 59 percent of voters over the age of 45. The
overwhelming majority
of respondents — 82 percent — said they were concerned about the government collecting and storing their
information. When given specific examples of government surveillance, respondents were most likely to be concerned about the government
accessing their personal records without a judge’s permission or collecting information without a warrant for purposes other than stopping
terrorist attacks. This
survey of about 1,000 likely American voters comes as the future of surveillance reform remains
uncertain in Washington. Although the reform bill sailed through with a large majority in the House, Senate Republicans
seem intent on lining up with McConnell and calling for a clean reauthorization. But privacy advocates on both sides of the aisle
say they will filibuster any legislation that reauthorizes the program. With the clock ticking, lawmakers will have to break this stalemate quickly
or risk letting the PATRIOT Act provision expire, and with it the most controversial of the NSA programs.
Public opinion is divided and intelligence community influence outweighs for
Congress
Greenwald, 13 (Glenn Greenwald, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York
Times best-selling books on politics and law, 7-29-2013, "Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress,
on NSA surveillance and privacy", Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-privacy-pew, DA: 6-22015)
The primary problem enabling out-of-control NSA spying has long been the Intelligence Committees in both houses
of Congress. That's an ironic twist given that those were the committees created in the wake of the mid-1970s Church Committee to provide
rigorous oversight, as a response to the recognition that Executive Branch's surveillance powers were being radically abused - and would
inevitably be abused in the future - without robust transparency and accountability. But with a few rare and noble exceptions, the Intelligence
Committees in both houses of Congress are filled
with precisely those members who are most slavishly beholden to, completely
captured by , the intelligence community over which they supposedly serve as watchdogs. Many receive
large sums of money from the defense and intelligence industries. There is a clear and powerful
correlation between NSA support and amounts of money received by these members from those
industries, as Wired's Dave Kravets adeptly documented about last week's NSA vote and has been documented before with similar NSAprotecting actions from the Intelligence Committee. In particular, the two chairs of those committees - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in
the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are such absolute loyalists to the NSA and the National Security State
generally that it is usually impossible to distinguish their behavior, mindset and comments from those of NSA officials. In sum, the Senate
and House Intelligence Committees are the pure embodiment of the worst of Washington: the corrupting
influence of money from the very industries they are designed to oversee and the complete capture by the agencies
they are supposed to adversarially check. Anything that comes out of the leadership of those two Committees that is labeled "NSA reform" is
almost certain to be designed to achieve the opposite effect: to stave off real changes in lieu of illusory tinkering whose real purpose will be to
placate rising anger. But that trick seems unlikely to work here. What has made these disclosures different from past NSA scandals - including
ones showing serious abuse of their surveillance powers - are the large numbers of the NSA's own documents that are now and will continue to be
available for the public to see, as well the sustained, multi-step nature of these disclosures, which makes this far more difficult for NSA defenders
to predict, manage and dismiss away. At least as much as they are shining long-overdue light on these specific NSA domestic programs, the
NSA disclosures are changing how Americans (and people around the world) think about the mammoth National
Security State and whether it can and should be trusted with unchecked powers exercised in the dark. Those public opinion
shifts aren't going to disappear as the result of some blatantly empty gestures from Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers masquerading as "reform".
Despite the substantial public opinion shifts , Pew found that Americans are largely split on whether the
NSA data-collection program should continue. The reason for this is remarkable and repugnant though, at this point, utterly
unsurprising: Nationwide, there is more support for the government's data-collection program among Democrats
(57% approve) than among Republicans (44%), but both parties face significant internal divisions : 36% of
Democrats disapprove of the program as do 50% of Republicans. Just as Democrats went from vehement critics of Bush's due-process-free War
on Terror policies to vocal cheerleaders of Obama's drone kills and even Guantanamo imprisonments, the
leading defenders of the
NSA specifically and America's Surveillance State generally are now found among self-identified Democrats. That was embodied by how
one of the most vocal Democratic NSA critics during the Bush years - Nancy Pelosi - in almost single-handedly saved the NSA from last week's
House vote. If someone had said back in 2007 that the greatest support for NSA surveillance would be found among Democrats, many would find
the very idea ludicrous. But such
is life in the Age of Obama: one of his most enduring legacies is transforming his party
from pretend-opponents of the permanent National Security State into its most enthusiastic supporters.
Doesn’t create political mobilization – no one cares enough
Nossel, 13 (Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the Pen American Center and a former deputy
assistant secretary of state for international organizations at the U.S. State Department, 12-4-2013,
"Opinion: After Snowden, we're self-censoring and we don't care", CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effect/, DA: 6-2-2015)
Some Americans' relative
nonchalance toward the government prying into e-mails and calls we long thought were
stem in part from knowing that we have already ceded so much of our privacy voluntarily. Social
media, online shopping, and simple browsing have become semi-public acts. It's hard to know who can see what, and worrying
about it can stand in the way of buying a birthday present, posting a great photo or getting your taxes done. Moreover, for most
Americans, learning that the government is a lurking hidden online "friend" doesn't evoke the fears it would
have in communist Eastern Europe or today's Russia or Iran. Because we are all subject to the NSA's
intrusions, there is no single group -- not Muslims, or African-Americans, or people of Middle Eastern descent -- that has
emerged as a target of these newly revealed programs. While Americans are used to fighting against
discrimination, we are less accustomed to standing up for rights to privacy, expression and association
that belong to us all. Finally, because of the utter secrecy of the programs -- schemes we would not even know about
short of Snowden's astonishing breach -- unless you're Angela Merkel you wouldn't know whether you were under
investigation, questioned at the airport, or denied a visa because of something you said or wrote. It may be years, if ever,
before stories come to light of people done in by their own texts, web-surfing or Facebook posts.
private may
A2 Link Turn – Tech Lobbies
It empirically fails and can’t influence congress
Wilhelm, 14 (Alex Wilhelm, technology writer for TechCrunch, 11-19-2014, "Tech Reacts to the
Demise of Partial NSA Reform in the Senate", TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/19/techreacts-to-the-demise-of-partial-nsa-reform-in-the-senate/, DA: 6-2-2015)
The failure of the Senate to advance NSA reform in the current Congress isn’t too popular with the technology
community. The demise of the USA FREEDOM Act — a half-measure at best — in the Senate is another loss for the
technology industry, which saw many of its leading companies repeatedly call for the bill’s passage . The
FREEDOM Act was aimed at ending the NSA’s collection of American’s telephone metadata, a controversial program
that the Snowden leaks uncovered. The Act was no panacea, but it did appear to be an achievable piece of legislation. The House passed a version
of the bill that was mocked after it was neutered before passage. The Senate’s variant was stiffer. It was called a first step. Even that couldn’t
pass. “A Missed Opportunity” Reaction by tech industry groups to the 58-42 has been negative. The group Reform Government
Surveillance, which counts Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook as members released a small statement saying that it was “disappointed in
the Senate procedural vote.” The influential Business Software Alliance called
it a “missed opportunity.” The big tech
companies appear content to speak through groups that they are members of, sparing them the need to
directly criticize member of Congress that, in many cases, are about to take the majority position in the upper
chamber. “Extremely Disappointing” Companies that have strong cloud focuses are particularly unhappy with the situation. Aaron Levie, the
CEO of Box told TechCrunch that the vote was “extremely disappointing.” What is needed, according to the executive, is “any sign of progress
that shows that the Senate and the government in general understand the gravity of the surveillance situation.” He continued, stating that the
“United States government failing to lead is leading to other governments thinking about Internet management.” In the wake of the NSA
revelations, there have been fears that the Internet could split into regional pieces, with different rules and carving the larger Web into splinters.
That wouldn’t be so good for companies that want to sell their services around the world. Vineet Jain, co-founder and CEO of Egnyte, a company
that provides cloud collaboration services to enterprises told TechCrunch that the failure of the FREEDOM Act sent “very strong message” to
Americans “about our right to privacy.” He went to state that by “continuing to allow NSA surveillance, there is a new level of FUD (fear,
uncertainty, doubt)” in the market that “is inhibiting [the technology industry] from progressive innovation.” Jain also said that if privacy was
better protected from government intrusion through legislative action, companies in tech could “reallocate valuable resources that have been put
into NSA countermeasures.” Ajay Patel, the CEO of HighQ, another company in the enterprise collaboration space, told TechCrunch that the
failure of that Act implied that “U.S. policy on collecting individuals and corporations private information isn’t likely to change anytime soon.”
He noted that United States-based companies will lose some business, as “corporations and governments will seek to contract with non-U.S.
technology based companies that do not use U.S. domiciled data centers to escape the long reach of the Patriot Act.” The Money Team Not
everyone is worried, however. I spoke to a number of venture capitalists this morning, and the tone of response was that the vote wouldn’t change
much in the short term. Given that the failure of the FREEDOM Act is a continuance of the status quo, this is perhaps not too surprising. But
while the capital folks might not be looking to shake up their investment strategies, it doesn’t mean that they enjoy the government’s position, or
actions. Jason Lemkin, a partner at Storm Ventures told TechCrunch that “the current environment is creating a ‘tax’ on many start-ups,
especially [business-to-business] ones, where customers outside the U.S. are deeply concerned about trusting their data to U.S. web companies.”
That impact, he argued is “hard to see in the numbers,” given “the explosive growth of so many companies the past” two years. But that doesn’t
mean that it doesn’t exist, certainly, or that it might not become an increasing point of friction in the future. The Other Perspective Not everyone
is downcast, however. Several important voices in the privacy debate have been critical of the FREEDOM Act, and
have thus been less perturbed over its defeat. Given that, there is perhaps some hope to the point that if the Act had passed, it could have blocked
better reform in the next year, or Congress. Evan Greer and Emptywheel are the two must-reads here. Technology
companies with more
their weight behind a bill that many called too small, and it failed.
When you additionally take into account the fact that the party that was most in opposition to the Act in
the Senate will take up the majority in that chamber next year, the picture becomes a bit more dim . Never say never,
but for this year here’s where we ended. It’s been 531 days since the first Snowden revelation.
than $1 trillion in market cap — far more — threw
Tech lobbying is a PR show to save face with consumers – won’t shield the link or
create change
Anthony, 13 (Sebastian Anthony, ExtremeTech's senior editor, 12-9-2013, "Tech giants team up to
battle NSA surveillance, governmental snooping", ExtremeTech,
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/172286-tech-giants-team-up-to-battle-nsa-surveillancegovernmental-snooping, DA: 6-2-2015)
Eight of the world’s largest tech companies, including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple, have
joined forces to launch the Reform Government Surveillance website and open letter. The website
specifically calls out the US government, and governments worldwide, for their over-reaching and highly opaque
information gathering activities. The open letter asks the US government to lead worldwide efforts to “ensure that government
surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.” The coalition,
which consists of AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo, asks for surveillance reform in five areas: limiting
governments’ authority to collect users’ information, oversight and accountability, transparency about government demands, respecting the free
flow of information, and avoiding conflicts among governments. The Reform Government Surveillance website breaks down these five principles
in further detail, if you’re interested. In essence, though, the eight companies are basically asking for government surveillance to be governed by
some kind of legal framework. At the moment, governmental surveillance operates in secret and without adequate oversight, allowing for gross
overreach by the intelligence community. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if we citizens knew exactly what was going on, but if it wasn’t for
whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, we’d all still be in the dark. The open letter says that, “The balance… has tipped too far in favor of the
state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s
time for a change.” To hammer home its manifesto, the Reform Government Surveillance website also features quotes from seven corporate
bigwigs — with an Apple exec being the mysterious omission. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” says Microsoft’s general counsel,
Brad Smith. “Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States
government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world,” says Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. Something
about the
website doesn’t quite ring true, though. In the middle of the open letter, which is addressed to President Obama and
Members of Congress, is a paragraph that’s clearly aimed at the companies’ customers. The letter says that all eight companies
are “deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks” — a line that is obviously meant
to make us feel safer at night. But look at their use of “unauthorized” — this whole PRISM/Snowden/NSA/surveillance
shebang is predicated on the fact that these big tech companies have willingly granting the US
government access to their networks over the last few years. Once the whistle was blown, the companies came
out in protest, to save face and attempt to regain consumer confidence — but the fact remains that they gave the US
government access. Deploying better and more encryption is certainly a good thing, but there’s still very little evidence that the NSA (pictured
top) and the rest of the intelligence community have actually cracked existing encryption standards. Again, the coalition’s use of the word
“unauthorized” is very pertinent: It doesn’t really matter how good your encryption is, if your government forces you to hand over your
encryption keys, passwords, or otherwise provide some kind of back door. In that regard, this
open letter very much feels like a
PR maneuver to regain the trust of users. But maybe I’m just being too cynical…
Links – Specific
Link – FISA
FISA reform creates backlash – alienates war hawks and intelligence – they’ll blame
Obama
Liebelson, 14 (Dana Liebelson, political reporter for Mother Jones, 1-16-2014, "Obama's NSA reforms
are going to tick off everyone", Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obama-nsareforms-spying-telephone-mad-privacy, DA: 5-23-2015)
If Obama Reforms the Top-Secret Spy Court… Who gets mad? The top-secret spy court and the NSA Some
judges will no doubt be outraged if Obama makes any changes to the F oreign I ntelligence S urveillance A ct
Court, the top-secret spy court that approves or denies many of the government's surveillance requests. Obama is expected to appoint a privacy
advocate to advise the court on civil liberties issues. But on January 13, US district Judge John Bates, the former presiding judge of
the FISA court, wrote in a public letter that "a privacy advocate is unnecessary." Bates also decried the presidential panel's
recommendation that the government require judicial approval for all National Security Letters—secret requests the FBI
and other government agencies use to force businesses to hand over records. According to Bates, subjecting these requests to the FISA court's
scrutiny would be a "detriment to [the court's] current responsibilities." (If the FISA court emerges untouched by Obama's reforms, privacy
advocates will be irate.) Obama
faces a tricky challenge. He clearly believes some NSA reform is necessary, yet, for good or bad, he
doesn't want to alienate the intelligence community. This might lead him to a position that does not produce
sufficient change to allay the concerns of techies, civil libertarians, and Americans who worry the surveillance state has gone too far—but
still manages to tick off the intelligence officials he counts on to defend the nation; and the national security hawks
on and off Capitol Hill who are always ready to assail the president . Obama has often talked about the
need to balance national security and civil liberties. His effort to deal with the Snowden-prompted NSA scandal shows
how tough a political task that is for him.
Link – FISA – A2: Obama Avoids/Plan Not Congress
Freedom act passage clears the deck, plan drains PC and agenda tradeoff, Obama
can’t avoid it – 7 reasons - every option triggers major fights, it’s a loss, flip flop, focus
and docket crowd out, requires congress and Obama cant avoid even if he tries
Gerstein, 14 -- Josh Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA
reform, dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will
try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out
reforms to U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil
liberties and national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits . Many of the key reforms he’s expected to
endorse — including changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the
U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks,
all hell’s liable to break loose on the Hill ,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who
will be voting against it because Obama’s reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it
because it doesn’t defend us enough and other people voting against it because it outsources espionage.”
It’s another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks for issues that aides want to highlight
in Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and immigration. The snooping saga has been a
loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret
documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the international community. And disclosures that
widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation as a reformer who would end over-the-top antiterrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — denounced under President
George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain surveillance practices altogether. For
instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so it can be used to trace potential contacts of
the president has said he’s considering replacing that program with a private-sector-based
would require Congress to step
in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some court — involvement
in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis told NPR News last week.
terrorism suspects. But
arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That
“But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral authority to impose dramatic
reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White House has signaled that much
of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of foreign leaders like German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile phone. Administration officials
say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he set up to dig into the issue: the
President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the NSA’s program that has collected
information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that the metadata program — aimed at
running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges have concluded that the effort is lawful.
The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the government on a case-by-case basis with
individual court warrants, something
likely to require Congress to impose new requirements on the firms. The review
group also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so judges could hear
from an attorney advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for Americans whose data is swept up in surveillance
programs. And the panel urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the chief justice no longer has the sole power to make such
picks. Those changes, too, would
need legislation. All five review group members are set to publicly promote their plans at a Senate
are a few big things you really need Congress to do. If you want to change
the appointment mechanism for the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do any kind of structural reform of the FISC,
you need it. If you want to continue the metadata program in some form, but reform it in any way, you
need an act of Congress,” said Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution.
Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. “There
Link – Drones – Security/FAA/Lobbies
Plan drains PC – powerful lobby and congressional support for domestic drones –
security concerns empirically trump anti-Drone backlash for Congress
*this evidence also speaks to border drone use
Wall, 12 (Tyler Wall, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky
University, “Vertical Policing & Drone Enthusiasts: A Qualitative & Theoretical Exploration of
Unmanned Aerial Drones on the US Homefront”, Final Report for School of Justice Studies 2011-12
Research Grant, http://justice.eku.edu/sites/justice.eku.edu/files/wall_police_drones-_grant_report.pdf,
date not given but was published at some point 2012 or later, PDF published 9-20-2012, DA: 6/5/2015)
Prior to 2012 though there had been one major obstacle to domesticating drones, namely, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations blocking widespread access to national airspace by both public and private institutions.
In February 2012 this significant obstacle, if not completely demolished, was significantly reworked into a much less significant
impediment with Congress passing H.R. 658, requiring the FAA to expedite the process of handing out
COAs to government agencies such as the police and border patrol and also private enterprises. That is, within 90 days (or what was early May
2012) of passing the H.R. 658 the FAA were mandated to make clear guidelines on entering aerial drones into national airspace. The bill
originally granted “public safety agencies” permission to operate any drone that is 4.4 lbs or less, but soon afterwards the
weight limit was increased to 25 lbs. In addition to the prioritizing the drone desires of public agencies, 658 also requires the FAA to expedite
the introduction of drones owned and operated by private companies into national airspace by 2015. It has been estimated that by 2018, there
could be 15,000 drones flying over US skies – a mixture of military, public safety, and private drones. And most recently, one estimate claims
that there could be 30,000 police drones in the next 10 years. The
passing of H.R. 658 was largely due to sustained
pressure by drone stakeholders, primarily Congress’s Unmanned Systems Caucus , the Association of
Unmanned Vehicles International (AUVSI) and domestic policing agencies . These stakeholders argued that the
lack of access to US airspace was a hindrance to both capital accumulation and much needed security measures. As a
spokesperson for the AUVSI has stated, “The potential civil market for these systems could dwarf the military
market in the coming years if we can get access to the airspace.” Michael Huerta, an FAA administrator, has stated: “What
we’re hearing from the Congress and the industry is, ‘This technology is evolving quickly and we
don’t want the FAA to be too cautious so as to hold up technological innovation”. But the mutually-reinforcing
discourses of “law and order” and security remained the most forceful . As the New York Democrat Charles Schumer
stated, “The FAA has been very hesitant to give authorization to these UAVs due to limited air space and restrictions that they have. I certainly
can appreciate those concerns; but when
we’re talking about Customs and Border Protection or the FBI, what have
you, we are talking about missions of national security. And certainly there’s nothing more important
than that ”.
Link – Drones – Tech/Law Enforcement
Drone regulations are controversial – competing approaches, uncertainty about
tech, and law enforcement lobby
Curry, 13 (Tom Curry, national affairs writer, NBC News, 3-20-2013, “Lawmakers voice concerns on
drone privacy questions”, NBC News, http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17389193lawmakers-voice-concerns-on-drone-privacy-questions?lite, DA: 6-2-2015)
It was very clear Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on drones that senators in both parties are worried about
the threat to Americans’ privacy posed by the personal, commercial and law enforcement use of drones, or unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs). Senators expressed deep concerns about the spreading use of a technology that is rapidly evolving and comes at a relatively
it was equally clear that they’ve only just begun to grasp the dimensions of the drone
controversy, and are very far from being decided on whether a federal law is need to regulate the use of
drones inside the U nited S tates -- much less what legislative approach to use. Last year, Congress gave the Federal
affordable price tag. But
Aviation Administration until 2015 to devise rules to integrate drones into the national airspace system. The agency predicted last year that
30,000 drones will be traveling the skies above America in the next 20 years. To some degree senators at Wednesday’s hearing were still
caught up in marveling at the gee-whiz, technological capabilities of UAVs. “How small can these things get?” asked
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. A drone as small as a hummingbird is being developed, replied a witness at the hearing, Amie Stepanovich, director of
the Domestic Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “The technology is increasing at an exponentially rapid
rate.” “Presumably at some point you could have one the size of a mosquito that has a battery that operates for weeks and you could have the
mosquito following you around and not be aware of it,” said Franken. “God help us if an adolescent boy gets hold of one of these.” One witness
at Wednesday’s hearing, Benjamin Miller of the Mesa County, Colo., sheriff’s office, who was representing the
Airborne Law
Enforcement Association, brought a small two-pound UAV with him to the hearing and assured committee members that his
department was using its UAVs for traditional law enforcement functions. His office used a UAV last May to search
for a missing woman, saving much time by searching large areas at low cost. And cost is a major factor in domestic law
enforcement drone use: “drones drive down the cost of aerial surveillance to worrisome levels,” said
University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, adding that he could imagine drones flying around with chemical sensors in order to detect
drug trafficking. Miller estimated that “unmanned aircraft can complete 30 percent of the missions of manned aircraft for two percent of the
cost.” He assured Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that domestic law enforcement agencies would “absolutely
not” seek to arm UAVs with lethal weapons. Miller also testified
that hours and hours of tracking a criminal suspect was
“not affordable” and that need for “persistent surveillance” – whether using an airplane or a drone – was
“relatively low.” But EPIC’s Stepanovich told Leahy “persistent surveillance” was the greatest threat from domestic use of drones. Some
senators’ questions reflected a fear of an Orwellian Big Brother monitoring Americans. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he had “very deep
concerns about the government collecting information on the citizenry, and with the ease and availability of drones, I
think there is real concern that the day-to-day conduct of American citizens going about their business might be monitored, catalogued, and
recorded by the federal government.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voiced similar fears: “I know what drones can do … I’ve seen
drones do all kinds of things and those all kinds of things bring on great caution,” she said, alluding to her role as chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. After she left the hearing Feinstein told reporters more of her worries, “You
can say that you won’t permit
any drone to be armed but how do you see that that (restriction) is carried out? Can a drone look into somebody’s
window and photograph them in the privacy of their home?” She added, “The technology is way ahead of our ability to
know how to cope with it.” Asked whether she supported EPIC’s call for requiring a warrant whenever a domestic law enforcement
agency uses a UAV for surveillance, she said, “It all depends. If it’s surveillance, yes. If it’s traffic guidance, that kind of thing, for which a
have to think this thing out. I don’t really want to commit myself
because I don’t really know at this stage.” While law enforcement agencies can get permission from FAA to use drones, privatesector commercial operators for now are limited to experimental uses for tests, demonstrations and training. But Michael Toscano, the
president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), told the committee that drones are poised to
be one of America’s growth industries, with 70,000 new jobs, just as soon as federal regulations are set in the next few years.
drone, much like a helicopter, can be very useful, we
Asked after the hearing about the possibility that Congress might crimp this commercial development, Toscano said, “I think you’ll find that
we’ll be able to come to a meeting of the minds” to allow commercial use of drones while not violating privacy rights. He
said that
“Congress shouldn’t knee-jerk into passing legislation that would be prohibitive” and should allow the
continued development of unmanned air systems.
Link – Drones – Defense/Constituencies
Curtailing domestic drones links – powerful constituencies and domestic defense
lobbies
Reno, 13 (Jamie Reno, award-winning correspondent for Newsweek for 17 years, 3-31-2013, "San
Diego, Hub of the U.S. Drone Industry", Daily Beast,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/31/san-diego-hub-of-the-u-s-drone-industry.html, DA: 65-2015)
Seemingly everybody’s talking about drones. And arguably no
city is paying closer attention to the national debate over
than San Diego, the undisputed drone capital of America. Best
known for its zoo, sunshine, captive killer whales, and military bases, San Diego is also home to the world’s two leading drone
makers: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, builders of the Predator and Reaper drones that target terrorists around the
world, and Northrop Grumman, makers of the Global Hawk surveillance drones. Several smaller San Diego–area companies,
too, build drones, and additional firms make component parts and engage in research and development.
These companies are looking at a variety of applications for this technology, from law enforcement to mapping to powerline observation. Even underwater drones are being developed. All this means big bucks for the local economy. The drone
industry in the San Diego area, most of which is clustered in the northern part of San Diego County, has doubled in five years,
according to the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation (EDC). It’s expected to double again in the next
seven. Erik Bruvold, the president of the National University System Institute for Policy Research, says drone-related businesses in
San Diego County generate as much as $2 billion in annual revenue and have created as many as 14,000 jobs. He notes that
these controversial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
these are “just estimates.” Exact numbers aren’t publicly known, he says, because “many of these [drone] projects are classified.” Bruvold’s
institute recently released a report on the economic impact of UAVs in San Diego. Commissioned by the San Diego North Chamber of
Commerce, the report, which states that drone production now accounts for more than 12 percent of all Department of Defense contract activity
in the county, concludes rather predictably that drones are very good for local business. But the
growing concerns nationwide
about these aircraft have even staunch boosters of these unmanned vehicles acknowledging that the industry’s future is up in
the air. The FAA predicts that by the end of this decade as many as 30,000 drones will be flying in U.S. airspace. But more than 30
states from Virginia to California have recently introduced or already passed legislation that restricts and in some cases
bans the vehicles. On the federal level, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s recent 12-hour filibuster rant, which was mostly
about drones, intensified the debate . And last week lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
expressed deep concerns about the privacy threats posed by domestic drones—concerns that came from both sides
of the aisle . Some San Diegans worry that the current push-back against drones could lead to a slowdown
in production and stunt the local economy , which is already expected to take a big hit because of sequestration. “This could
have a very negative affect on jobs and commerce here,” says Debra Rosen, the president of the North San Diego
chamber. “We don’t get into the political part of it, but the UAV industry in San Diego County means jobs. Any time an industry is
threatened, an entire community is potentially impacted, especially small business.” Despite the anti-drone fervor, it appears to
be business as usual in San Diego, at least for now. General Atomics would not comment for this story, but Cyndi Wegerbauer, Northrup
Grumman’s director of communications, said the company is transitioning its entire drone program to the new Unmanned Systems Center of
Excellence in Rancho Bernardo, in North San Diego County. Two of Grumman’s existing programs will be moved to the new center: the MQ-4C
Triton program currently in Bethpage, New York, and the NATO airborne ground-surveillance program in Melbourne, Florida. Wegerbauer said
the move, which will bring 300 more jobs to San Diego, “reinforces the company's commitment to this viable market.” Seeking to make it even
more viable, the San Diego EDC and the San Diego Military Advisory Council have filed an application with the FAA to create a so-called drone
test zone, which essentially means drones would be allowed to fly unencumbered in the area. These groups want to have the airspace in San
Diego County and Southern California open for drones in order to make it an even friendlier environment for future drone business. The FAA
reportedly plans to create six test zones in the U.S. as it integrates drones into the U.S. airspace. About 40 applications have been filed from
across the country. “The goal of the drone test zone designation is simply to further stimulate the industry in San Diego County,” says Sarah
Lubeck, a spokeswoman for San Diego’s EDC. “While we understand and respect the concern over our civil liberties, at the end of the day, it’s
all about creating jobs.” But the rallying
cries against drones are getting louder, even in San Diego, where Craig Jones of the
been a “drone awakening” recently from people of all political
stripes. He suggests this comes from “repulsion of unending global war; the killing of hundreds of innocent people; the
San Diego Coalition for Peace and Justice says there’s
claim of national authority to conduct these remote-control killings without public, judicial, or congressional approval or
review; and increasing unease about the deployment of drones at the border and by local police agencies .”
San Diegans have peacefully co-existed with fighter jets, war ships, and bomb-building defense contractors for decades, but this isn’t a
conservative Navy burg any more. The demographics are changing, and some residents are uneasy about having drones in their
backyard and overhead. Already 10 Predator drones patrol the U.S.-Mexico border. Dave Patterson, a Vietnam veteran who coordinates a
boisterous demonstration every Thursday at the General Atomics headquarters to protest the expanding use of drones for both military and
domestic surveillance, says San Diegans are “opening their eyes to what drones represent and how much they potentially threaten our privacy and
what we stand for as a country.” Patterson, who once worked for a San Diego defense contractor, says he understands that drones have been a
shot in the arm for San Diego’s economy. “I don’t want to take away anyone’s job,” he says. “But I do want to see more legislative and judicial
oversight of these drones. The
defense contractors want to sell $13 billion in drones over the next 10 years,
mostly for domestic law enforcement. To do that Congress has mandated that the FAA open the skies to
10,000 drones minimum. If they succeed, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments go up in a cloud of drones.” On April 4, Patterson, who
believes drones also make it “far too easy for the president to kill people,” will be joined by anti-drone activists from across the country who’ll
converge in San Diego to participate in the National Anti-Drone Days of Action. The four-day event kicks off a series of anti-drone activities
around the country and the world. Veterans for Peace in London will hold an anti-drone protest April 6, and there’ll be an anti-drone
demonstration in Pakistan on April 17. Just
how all the protests and pending legislation will impact San Diego’s booming
drone business remains to be seen. But the locals are closely watching. Meantime, San Diego has competition. More than two dozen
states and regions from Florida to the Dakotas are engaged in efforts to lure drone manufacturing and development, according to the National
University report. That’s just about the same number of locations that are considering legislation to limit or ban the aircraft. “It’s critical we keep
the industry here in San Diego,” says Rosen. “It represents a huge workforce, a well-paid workforce, and it means dollars to local communities
and small businesses, increased tax revenues, and more. A lot of people I’ve talked to about UAVs say, ‘They’re scary. We don’t want them
here.’ There are a lot of NIMBYs [‘not in my backyard’] here. But when
they learn more about UAVs, and they realize the
financial impact they have on this community, they change their opinion. A lot of this resistance is just
fear of the unknown.”
Link – Drones
Drone policy drains PC – creates controversy and fights with defense and privacy
lobbies
Uberti, 13 (David Uberti, staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review, 4-7-2013, "Massachusetts,
national drone companies are struggling to gain public acceptance in face of controversy", Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/06/massachusetts-national-drone-companies-arestruggling-gain-public-acceptance-face-controversy/qtCg0CxAIUfrW7applrKWL/story.html, DA: 6-22015)
Other companies producing drones boast of firefighting capabilities and real-time weather analysis. The largest industry trade group — the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International — predicts that most manufacturing growth will be spurred by agriculture demand and
law-enforcement work. But
civil liberties advocates unleashed a torrent of criticism last year when Congress
mandated the F ederal A viation A dministration to craft regulations for drone use in US skies by the end of 2015. Fears of
unwarranted privacy violations, domestic spying, and even questions about armed attacks on US soil reached a crescendo this month and forced
the industry into a defensive posture. How those regulations are shaped will have a major impact on whether the market for domestically operated
drones truly takes off. Markey’s legislation, introduced last week, aims
to prevent “flying robots from becoming spying
robots,” a statement said. His legislation would not permit an FAA license unless the applicant discloses who will operate the drone, where it
will be flown, what sort of data it will collect, how the data will be used, and whether the information will be sold to third parties. Concern about
Rand Paul mounted a 13-hour
filibuster on the Senate floor questioning the Obama administration’s ability to preemptively target American
citizens suspected of terrorist activities. “No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime,
without first being found guilty by a court,” Paul declared. The administration’s response — that it had no power to target citizens
within US borders — didn’t end the argument, and start-up executives, and engineers and inventors around the country have
been shocked by the depth of the controversy . “It comes up in almost every conversation about the products and the
company and the way forward,” CyPhy director of operations Jason Walker said. “The word [drone] has a lot to do with it. The
the potential use of domestic drones reached its peak on March 6 when Kentucky Republican
idea that there are these robots flying around mindlessly doing some nefarious thing is not accurate. From a technical standpoint, it’s silly.”
Advocates of the fledgling domestic industry — ranging from biologists to border patrol agents — are now rallying resources to
stem the tide of bad press. “This happened so fast that it took all of us aback,” Stephen Ingley, director of the Airborne Law Enforcement
Association, said at an unmanned systems conference in March in Arlington, Va. He added that the industry doesn’t have the
political clout or social foothold to shift the conversation from potential dangers to likely benefits. To be sure, UAV
proponents agree that privacy concerns are valid, acknowledging the potential for misuse among criminals, paparazzi, and government agencies.
But they contend the anxiety is overblown, as drone sensors and cameras are no different than those used in manned aircraft. “This is more than a
pilotless vehicle,” Michael Toscano, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said at Leahy’s Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing, convened to consider privacy risks. “There’s nothing unmanned about unmanned systems.’’ Though defense
giants
that produce military drones have been lobbying Congress for years, smaller start-ups and inventors
began seeking to influence lawmakers’ opinions only in 2007. The Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, cochaired by
Representatives Buck McKeon of California and Henry Cuellar of Texas, has grown to nearly 60 members. It aims to “educate” lawmakers on an
industry that will “improve our lives as public acceptance progresses,” according to its website. Caucus
members have garnered
nearly $8 million in campaign contributions from drone firms over the past four years, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money in government. The industry trade group, meanwhile, has doubled its
lobbying expenditures to about $250,000 annually as Congress and government agencies craft regulations. At a trade meeting held at a Virginia
Tech research center last week, industry leaders discussed the need to increase public outreach to overcome drones’ cloak-and-dagger stigma.
Physical Sciences Inc. in Andover is among the firms making the transition from defense to domestic uses, tailoring drones for law enforcement
agencies and anticipating a price tag of $1,000 or less, said Tom Vaneck, vice president of space technologies. Though his firm hasn’t thought of
a catchy replacement for the term UAV, it has begun discussing more proactive ways to laud everyday uses such as aiding first responders. Such
efforts will probably target youth at the local level since “the younger generation is almost always more open to new technology,” he said. “Let’s
go to grade schools and have kids fly one of these things,’’ Vaneck said, “so it’s not the boogeyman anymore.” Mary Cummings, an associate
professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, said
public suspicion will dissipate as the technology becomes more
familiar. She’s one of the few in the industry who doesn’t mind the “drone’’ moniker. “If that’s the name the public wants to call it, then let’s
just make a real definition of it,” the former Navy fighter pilot said. Besides, she added, “it’s not a mouthful.”
Link – ECPA – Post Freedom Act
Freedom act was delicate balancing act – new ECPA reforms drain PC and
guarantee intense opposition – congressional leadership, GOP, law enforcement
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest
overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views,
calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone
records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database
from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts
when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released
to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data
collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and NSA
from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define “specific
search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term and give
the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to congressional intent,
but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the old version of the Patriot
Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom
Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas Internet traffic,
including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will
be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who don’t
vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs
sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the
expiring sections of the Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S.
surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican
leaders opposed to more changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional
leadership , however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused
to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA. In the House, Republican
leaders threatened to kill the USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to address other
surveillance programs. Still, many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new surveillance limits, with
lawmakers adding an amendment to end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill this
week. Obama’s administration has threatened to veto the appropriations bill for several unrelated reasons, but several House members have
pledged to push hard to prohibit the FBI and CIA from searching the content of reportedly tens of thousands of U.S. communications swept up in
an NSA surveillance program targeting overseas terrorism suspects. Closing that surveillance backdoor is a top priority for civil liberties groups,
said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C., legislative office. “We’ve had this
statute that masquerades as affecting only people abroad, but the reality is that it sweeps up large numbers of U.S. persons,” she said. Other
changes possible Advocates
and lawmakers will also push for a handful of other surveillance reforms in the coming
changes most likely to pass make limited changes to surveillance programs, however. While not tied to
NSA surveillance, lawmakers will press for changes to the 29-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a
months. The
wiretap law that gives law enforcement agencies warrantless access to emails and other communications stored in the cloud for more than six
months. A House version of ECPA reform counts more than half the body as co-sponsors. Still, tech
companies and civil liberties
groups have been pushing since 2010 to have those communications protected by warrants, but law enforcement
agencies and some Republican lawmakers have successfully opposed the changes. Another bill that may gain
traction in coming months is the Judicial Redress Act, a bill that would allow citizens of some countries to file lawsuits under the U.S. Privacy
Act if government agencies misuse their records. “The Privacy Act offers limited protections, even to Americans, but passage of this bill would
be an important first step to addressing especially European concerns that US privacy reforms won’t help them,” said Berin Szoka, president of
free market think tank TechFreedom. Public pressure, along with potentially new leaks, will be the key to driving any more surveillance changes,
advocates said. “The public will for mass surveillance laws was made very clear recently, and that’s partly why we saw much of Congress flock
to whatever could be called surveillance reform,” said Tiffiniy Cheng, a founder of digital rights group Fight for the Future. “No one is fooled by
USA Freedom—it’s a weak piece of legislation that uses exceptions in legislative language to codify the
NSA’s practice of surveilling most people.” Congress has much work left to do, Cheng said by email. “After the recent
showdown and public outcry, USA Freedom is at best, seen as a beginning of surveillance reform, not the end,” she said.
Link Trick – Metadata – Docket Crowd Out – TPA specific
limiting Meta-data beyond House bill specifically derails trade authority, TPP and
econ - PC loss, GOP division, house backlash, legislative stalemate, gridlock, and
independent docket crowd out – even extended House vote delay is enough
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and
a trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time . Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “ We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “ Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT
Act used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs —
though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it
is an
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
collection program are running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle . McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve . McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the trade
fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in the
House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security . Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time
so we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna
have . I think that is unfortunate.” Top Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone
records and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a shortterm reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP
and the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
Link Trick – Metadata – Obama Fights Plan/A2: Link Turns
all their turns are links for us - Plan is a loss and Obama lobbies against it –
sparking major political fight with plan’s supporters –
Whittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14,
http://www.zdnet.com/house-passes-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)
House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was designed
to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered down." Next
stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act, which first authorized
massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152 co-sponsors, the bill passed
by a wide majority of 303-121. However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands, which according to
congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama administration
by strengthening previously removed provisions. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author — who also introduced
the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to counter the "misuse" of the
original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month
after months of stagnation. After
the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the most prominent and likely
legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However, in prepared remarks on Thursday
following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the bill he first introduced. "The legislation
passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s surveillance authorities," he said. "It bans bulk
collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message to the NSA: We are watching you."
Empirics prove Obama lobbies hard AGAINST plan – it’s a loss, not a concession –
turns don’t apply
Whitney, 14 (Lance, CNET News reporter, technology writer, and book author, CNet, 6/5/14, http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-googleothers-urge-senate-to-beef-up-nsa-reform-bill/)
Tech leaders urge Senate to beef up NSA reform bill Apple and Google are among the firms saying the bill passed by the House is
watered down. Will the Senate restore some of the original safeguards? A group of nine major tech players is calling
on the US Senate to muster up a stronger version of the USA Freedom Act recently passed by the House of Representatives. Uniting under a
common banner known as Reform Government Surveillance, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, LinkedIn, AOL, and Dropbox have sent a letter to
the Senate expressing their concerns about government surveillance and the current House version of the USA Freedom Act. Bearing the signatures of the CEOs of
each of the nine companies, the letter asks for a version of the bill that "would help restore the confidence of Internet users here and around the world, while keeping
citizens safe." The
USA Freedom Act was drafted in response to promises by the White House to limit the
powers granted to the National Security Agency under the Patriot Act. As such, the bill was supposed to curtail the bulk collection of metadata. But
the version passed by the House of Representatives last month removed some of the original elements, prompting critics to
label it a watered-down version of the initial proposal. In their letter, the tech companies highlight two specific concerns. First, the bill that was passed could still
permit the bulk collection of metadata, such as who you email and who emails you, which the White House and Congress both pledged to stop. Second, the bill
doesn't go far enough in allowing companies to provide greater details about the government requests they receive to share customer information. The nine companies
Congressional sources say the Senate will try to restore some of the
stronger provisions that were removed as a result of lobbying by the Obama administration.
may yet fare better in the Senate than in the House.
Link/Turn Shield – Metadata – Ratchet Effect
drains PC – metadata link only one way – strong political support only ensures
bigger fight - ratchet effect makes repealing current (programs/laws/authorizations)
unique - – inertia and terror fears outweigh,
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance
Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had been gathering the
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only
targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or
law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a
request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as part
of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original intended
scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I
disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements may
have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that Sensenbrenner
describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the “ratchet effect” in
legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can become
entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely .[1] For example, some
scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline of legal
“normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent with the
ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on how
powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the ratchet
effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet effect],
it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor do I
debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Curtailing meta-data surveillance drains PC –perception of ties to anti-terror efforts
and difficulties of repealing existing laws ensure stickiness – despite powerful
political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to
modify or repeal portions can prove challenging . An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th
terrorist attacks.[5] At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous
letters containing weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within the
United States, began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded the
definition of terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the recent NSA
surveillance revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act, which relates
directly to the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area is the Act’s permitting searches of
personal library records and other organizational files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand
disclosure of certain records from an organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without judicial review.[8] The
number of NSLs drastically increased after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 8,000 NSLs. In
2004, by contrast, the FBI issued 56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs, though secrecy rules bar
their lawyers from discussing the nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve
years since the Act’s entrance into use, governments,
civic organizations, and citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the Act without
success . Two years after the Act became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia passed
resolutions against it.[9] Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of legislation
seeking to scale back the Act’s original scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe v. Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the Act’s
constitutionality. Yet despite this steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both
Republican and Democratic administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history
reflects the difficulties governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or
repeal portions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason . Al-Qaeda has been degraded
significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly
illustrates. In
light of the continuing threat of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why antiterrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act can prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not
meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism
laws in place .
Link – Metadata – Expanding Beyond Freedom Act
Expanding scope of Freedom Act reforms drains PC – alienates Congressional
leadership and requires political concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate.
The House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which
would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions
— by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,”
said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ...
If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye ,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications
without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather
data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet. The
amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee
member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the
overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by many in
positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without
changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because
Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment
to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a
debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little
reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and
allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Going beyond freedom act compromise triggers massive fight and drains PC –
house, committees, and most powerful dems hate it - its a loss and flip flop for
obama,
Hattem, 14 -- Julian, Reporter @ The Hill covering tech policy, 5/24/14,
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/207143-nsa-reform-to-be-senate-fight-of-the-summer
NSA reform to be ‘fight of the summer’ Civil libertarians who say the House didn’t go far enough to
reform the National Security Agency are mounting a renewed effort in the Senate to shift momentum in their direction.
After compromises in the House bill, the NSA’s critics are buckling down for a months-long fight in the
Senate that they hope will lead to an end to government snooping on Americans. “This is going to be the fight of the summer,”
vowed Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. If advocates are able to change the House bill’s language to
prohibit NSA agents from collecting large quantities of data, “then that’s a win,” he added. “The bill still is not ideal even with those changes, but
that would be an improvement,” Rottman said. The USA Freedom Act was introduced in both the House and Senate last autumn, after Edward
Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s operations captured headlines around the globe. Privacy advocates like the ACLU rallied around the bill
as the way to rein in the spy agency and more than 150 lawmakers signed on as cosponsors in the House. In recent weeks, though, advocates
worried that it was being progressively watered down. First, leaders
on the House Judiciary Committee made changes in
order to gain support from a broader cross-section of the chamber. Then, after it sailed through both
the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, additional changes were made behind closed doors that caused many
privacy groups and tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple to drop their support. When it passed the House 303-121 last week, fully half of
the bill’s original cosponsors voted against it. “We were of course very disappointed at the weakening of the bill,” said Robyn Greene, policy
counsel at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “Right now we really are
turning our attention to the Senate
to make sure that doesn’t happen again.” Instead of entirely blocking the government’s ability to collect bulk amounts of data,
critics said that the new bill could theoretically allow federal agents to gather information about an entire area code or region of the country.
One factor working in the reformers’ favor is the strong support of Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.). Unlike House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who only came to support the bill after
negotiations to produce a manager’s amendment, Leahy was the lead Senate sponsor of the USA Freedom Act. The
fact that Leahy controls the committee gavel means he should be able to guide the bill through when it comes up for discussion next month,
advocates said. “The fact that he is the chairman and it’s his bill and this is an issue that he has been passionate about for many years” is
comforting, Greene said. “I think this is something he really wants to see get done. He wants to see it get done right. And he wants to see that
Americans are confident that their privacy is being adequately protected,” she added. Moments
after the House passed its bill,
Leahy issued a statement praising the action but said he was “disappointed” that some “meaningful
reforms” were not included. Other surveillance critics such as Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mark Udall
(D-Colo.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) expressed similar dissatisfaction with the House effort. Their sentiments
should be buoyed by the swift outrage from civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle, reformers
hoped. One reason the House bill moved so far away from its early principles, lawmakers and surveillance critics
have claimed, was pressure from House leadership and the Obama administration in the days ahead
of the vote. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pledging to let Leahy and Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) take the lead on how to move forward. “I want Chairman Feinstein and Chairman Leahy to take a very close look at that and
report to the Senate as to what they think should be done,” he told reporters on Thursday. “I believe we must do something and I have no problem
with the House having acted, but I couldn’t pass a test on what’s in their bill. But I guarantee I’ll be able to after Feinstein and Leahy take a look
at this,” said Reid. Feinstein, who is also the
No. 2 Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, could pose the biggest
obstacle for Leahy’s efforts. She previously pushed for a much narrower reform bill, but said late
Thursday that she was “open to considering” the House-passed legislation. House lawmakers, however, might
not be too pleased if the two chambers end up with a significantly different piece of legislation. After
passing its bill on Thursday, Goodlatte warned the Senate not to deviate too far from the compromise that he and
his colleagues had put together. “This has been very carefully negotiated here within the House but also
with the administration,” he said. “And it’s going to be very important that if the Senate does something
different that it is... better and not just different. “Because different can be worse rather than better,” Goodlatte
said.
Further reforms uniquely drain PC – lack of looming sunset, committee opposition,
loss for obama, flip flop, bipartisan congressional leaders oppose, supporters only
trigger larger fight
Sasso, 14 -- Brendan Sasso, National Journal, 3/25/14, Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed
Their Minds, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds20140325
It was only months ago that President Obama, with bipartisan backing from the heads of Congress's
Intelligence committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program was
key to keeping Americans safe from the next major terrorist attack. They were also dismissing privacy
concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the necessary safeguards were already in
place. But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and the NSA's top
supporters in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. And civil-liberties groups—awash in
their newly won clout—are declaring victory. The question is no longer whether to change the program, but how
dramatically to overhaul it. So what changed? It's not that Obama and his Hill allies suddenly saw the error of
their ways and became born-again privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical section of the Patriot Act set
to expire next year, they realized they had no choice but to negotiate. If Congress fails to reauthorize that
provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's collection of U.S. records would have to end entirely.
And the growing outrage prompted by the Snowden leaks means that the NSA's supporters would almost
certainly lose an up-or-down vote on the program. Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House
Intelligence Committee, said that looming sunset is what forced lawmakers to the bargaining table . "I
think what has changed is the growing realization that the votes are simply not there for reauthorization ," he said in an
interview. "I think that more than anything else, that is galvanizing us into action."
Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their proposals are now the NSA's best bet
to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror plots. Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated she is on board with the changes, saying
the president's proposal is a "worthy effort." And though the Hill's NSA allies are now proposing reforms to the
agency, they don't seem particularly excited about it. At a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the
Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the panel's top
Democrat, often sounded like they were arguing against their own bill that they were unveiling. "I passionately
believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said. Ruppersberger said if the program had been
in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. But the lawmakers acknowledged there is
broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently structured. "We need to do something about bulk collection
because of the perception of our constituents," Ruppersberger admitted. Under their legislation, the vast database of phone records would stay in
the hands of the phone companies. The NSA could force the phone companies to turn over particular records, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact. But Rogers rejected a reporter's suggestion that the NSA should have never had
control of the massive database of phone records in the first place. "There was no abuse, no illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said. For
all
their hesitance, however, Rogers and company much prefer their version to a competing proposal to change
the way the government gathers information. That would be the USA Freedom Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Rogers and his ilk fear would go too far in hamstringing the
NSA . The USA Freedom Act would require the NSA to meet a tougher standard for the data searches and
would limit other NSA programs, such as Internet surveillance of people overseas. Additionally, President Obama is
expected to unveil his own plan to reform the controversial phone data collection program this week. According to The New York Times,
Obama's proposal would also keep the database in the hands of the phone companies. His plan would
have tougher judicial oversight than the House bill by requiring pre-approval from the court for every targeted phone number, the
newspaper reported. But though the momentum has shifted and officials seem to be coalescing around a
framework for overhauling the NSA program, the question is far from settled . Leahy and
Sensenbrenner are not backing off from their USA Freedom Act, and outside groups will continue their
policy push as well.
Freedom Act was a sweet spot Bipartisan compromise – plan derails it, triggers
intense controversy and PC drain
Nicks, 14 -- Denver Nicks, Denver Nicks is a U.S. journalist and writer for Time, Nicks' work has appeared in The Nation, The
Huffington Post, This Land, and The Daily Beast. He is the author of Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official
Secrets in American History (2012). Nicks holds a bachelor's degree in political science and international studies from Southern Methodist
University and a master's from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.[3], Time, 5/22/14, http://time.com/109444/nsa-leakssnowden-usa-freedom-act/
Privacy groups unhappy with late changes pulled their support from the bill at the last minute The
House passed legislation Thursday
to curtail the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ phone records, but the compromise bill left civil
liberties groups and privacy advocates unhappy and vowing to fight for stronger reforms in the Senate. The vote came a
year after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden set off a global debate about American surveillance practices by leaking a trove of documents
detailing them. Privacy groups pulled their support for the bill before it came to a vote, but it still passed 303-120. “The House is the beginning of
the conversation,” said Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The House wanted to pass something quickly
and as a result really watered it down. Now we’re at the Senate where we’ll have to present a stronger bill and where hopefully a stronger bill will
move.” In the days before the USA FREEDOM Act passed the House, support for the bill among the civil liberties groups and tech companies
that once championed it all but vanished. Groups that had been lobbying hard on behalf of the bill for months, like EFF, The Center for
Democracy and Technology, and the Reform Government Surveillance Coalition, a consortium on tech giants including Facebook and Google,
all yanked their endorsements at the 11th hour. Reform advocates were steamed about tweaks made in committee that they felt unacceptably
broadened the scope of who and what the NSA can monitor, and also by the elimination of a measure that would have created a privacy advocate
on the secretive court that oversees the NSA. “What happened was the bill changed at the last minute,” said Harley Geiger, senior counsel with
the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It changed at the last stop before going to the house floor.” Lawmakers who supported the measure
took turns Thursday emphasizing that it
would end the “bulk collection” of Americans’ communications. Rep. Mike
Rogers (R-Mich.), who chairs the House committee that deals with intelligence matters, called it a “sweet spot”
compromise with “strong bipartisan” support. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said the bill had its shortcomings but
was a step in the right direction. “Let me be clear, I wish this bill did more,” he said. “To my colleagues who lament changes, I agree with you.
negotiations for this bill were intense,
and we had to make compromises, but this bill still deserves support.” But advocates said the changes left too much
To privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, I share your disappointment. The
open to interpretation and that courts could eventually gut many of the reforms. “What they’re not doing is defining ‘bulk collection,’” Geiger
said. Amendments to the bill were not allowed as it went from the Rules Committee to a floor vote Thursday. “All the House of Representatives
got was an up or down vote on ambiguous reform on an issue that cause a bona fide international scandal,” Geiger said. The
bill will now
go to the Senate, where it will be shepherded by one of its original proponents, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). “Today’s
action in the House continues the bipartisan effort to restore Americans’ civil liberties,” Leahy said in a statement after the bill passed. “But I was
disappointed that the legislation passed today does not include some of the meaningful reforms contained in the original USA FREEDOM Act. I
will continue to push for these important reforms when the Senate Judiciary Committee considers the USA FREEDOM Act next month.”
Whether or not Leahy and his allies will be successful in reinserting some of the reforms that originally
won civil libertarian support for the USA FREEDOM Act remains to be seen. The Senate has a stronger cohort
of establishment Republicans than the House and fewer Tea Party conservatives whose small-government
ethos clashes with the notion of expansive domestic surveillance. On the other hand, the measure will
have a powerful ally in Leahy.
Freedom act was the sweet spot – plan triggers intense controversy, congressional
division, committee backlash, and derails unique bipartisan compromise, it’s a loss
and flip flop
Hawkings, 14 -- David Hawkings, Roll Call, 3/25/14, Hill’s Bipartisan Deadlock on Phone Records May Be Easing,
blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/obama-nsa-reform-plan-could-ease-congressional-deadlock-on-spying/2/
Eight months ago, in one of its most important and fascinatingly nonpartisan votes of recent memory, the House came up just seven members
The roll call revealed a profound
divide in Congress on how assertively the intelligence community should be allowed to probe into the
personal lives of private citizens in the cause of thwarting terrorism. It is a split that has stymied legislative
efforts to revamp the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection programs. Until now, maybe. Senior members
with jurisdiction over the surveillance efforts, in both parties and on both sides of the Hill, are
signaling generalized and tentative but nonetheless clear support for the central elements of a proposed
compromise that President Barack Obama previewed Tuesday and will formally unveil by week’s end. The president, in other words,
may be close to finding the congressional sweet spot on one of the most vexing problems he’s faced
— an issue that surged onto Washington’s agenda after the secret phone records collection efforts were disclosed by former
NSA contractor Edward Snowden. If Obama can seal the deal, which he’s pledged to push for by the end of
June, it would almost surely rank among his most important second-term victories at the Capitol. It also
would create an exception that proves the rule about the improbability of bipartisan agreement on hotbutton issues in an election season. “I recognize that people were concerned about what might happen in the future with that bulk data,”
short of eviscerating the government’s vast effort to keep tabs on American phone habits.
Obama said at a news conference in The Hague, where he’s been working to gain support for containing Russia from a group of European leaders
who have their own complaints about U.S. spying on telephone calls. “This proposal that’s been presented to me would eliminate that concern.”
The top two members of the House Intelligence Committee, GOP Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan and
ranking Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, introduced their own bill to revamp surveillance policy
Tuesday — and declared they expect it would track very closely with the language coming from the
administration. They said they had been negotiating with White House officials for several weeks and viewed the
two proposals as compatible. At their core, both the Obama and House bills would end the NSA practice of sucking up and storing for five years
the date and time, duration and destination of many millions of phone calls placed or received by Americans. Instead, the phone companies would
be required to retain this so-called metadata (and comparable information about email and Internet use) for 18 months, their current practice. And
the government would have to obtain something like a search warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, meaning in each discreet
case a judge would limit how deeply the telecom companies would have to query their databases in hopes of finding calling patterns that suggest
national security threats. Since both
Rogers and Ruppersberger have been prominent defenders of the bulk
collection system, any agreement they reach that has Obama’s blessing can be expected to pass the House. It
should garner support from a lopsided majority of the 217 House members (three-fifths of the Republicans and two-fifths of the
Democrats) who voted to stick with the status quo last July. And it stands a chance to win over at least some on the other
side — an unusual coalition of 94 mostly libertarian-leaning tea party Republicans and 111 liberal Democrats,
who say NSA searches of the databases should be limited to information about existing targets of investigations. But one leader of
that camp vowed to work for the defeat of any measure that looks like either the Obama or Intelligence panel plans. Republican Rep. Jim
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who as chairman of House Judiciary a decade ago was instrumental in writing the Patriot Act, believes that law has
been grossly misapplied by the NSA to invade personal privacy much too easily. Sensenbrenner said he would continue to push his measure to
almost entirely prevent the NSA from looking at telecommunications metadata. But the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, Judiciary Chairman
Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said he would remain open to finding the makings of a deal in the Obama plan. Leahy signaled the legislative negotiating
would be much smoother if Obama suspended the bulk data collection during the talks. Much more enthusiastic was Calfornia’s Dianne
Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who said she generally
supports the House proposal and views Obama’s plan “a worthy effort.” Her committee’s top Republican,
the retiring Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, was a bit more equivocal but gave a strong indication he was eager to
cut a deal based on the ideas from the House and the White House.
Plan drains PC – erodes fragile Freedom Act compromise – it’s a loss for Obama
and congressional leadership opposes
Mascaro, 14 -- Lisa, Columnist covering Congress @ LA Times, LA times, 5/21/14,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-nsa-reforms-legislation-20140522-story.html
Carefully crafted legislation that would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records
is under fire after the White House requested last-minute changes that critics say would water down its protections. A
year after Americans learned from National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA was secretly collecting vast amounts of
Although the bill is
likely to pass Thursday, the changes hammered out in secretive negotiations over the last few days between the
Obama administration and leaders on Capitol Hill have led some privacy groups and civil libertarians to withdraw their
telephone and email data, the House is preparing to vote this week on legislation intended to curtail domestic spying.
support. They warn that the revisions, including changes to what sort of government data searches would be permitted, could provide loopholes
that would allow massive data collection to continue. "I think it's ironic that a bill that was intended to increase transparency was secretly
changed," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which crafted the original legislation. "And it was
altered in worrisome ways." She said she was unsure how she would vote. So far, the c hanges
appear modest enough to avoid
tanking the bipartisan support needed for passage. But meddling with the accord poses inherent
risks in a divided Congress where lawmakers have grown increasingly wary of intelligence
operations . An unusual political alliance of liberal Democrats and small-government conservatives has
thwarted earlier efforts to expand spy agencies' reach into Americans' private lives. Many of those lawmakers
remained undecided Wednesday, suggesting the final vote could be closer than the White House would like.
The White House insisted Wednesday that the changes were intended to meet the shared goal of the
president and Congress to clip the vast collection of bulk "metadata," while ensuring against new directives that
would impede routine investigations or efforts to combat terrorism . Administration officials argued in the closed
discussions, often held in the third-floor Capitol suite of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), that the bill's language originally approved
by the judiciary and intelligence committees was drafted too narrowly and could limit non-bulk data collection operations. "There was no effort
to soften the ban on bulk collection," said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. "Our engagement was to ensure that the
language of the USA Freedom Act would not have any unintended consequences for routine individual investigations." Under the proposed
legislation, the Justice Department and intelligence agencies would no longer be allowed to collect from telephone companies vast amounts of socalled metadata, including the times and lengths of calls but not the contents of conversations. Instead they would need to narrow searches by
making "specific selection" requests based on certain criteria. The bill would also require the government to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court order for any such requests — with an exception for emergencies that would allow data collection up to seven days before
approval must be sought. But at the request of the White House, the definition of "specific selection" was changed. Initially, a search would have
been required to uniquely describe a "person, entity or account." The White House complained that the definition was too narrow and would
impede even routine investigations. The new language more broadly defines "specific selection" as a "discrete term, such as a term specifically
identifying a person, entity, account, address or device." Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the
addition of the words "such as" make the new language "too expansive" and would allow "for much broader orders than privacy advocates are
envisioning." The American Civil Liberties Union said the new bill "leaves much to be desired." In
the Democratic-controlled Senate,
which is considering its own version of the bill, similar bipartisan objections have been raised. The top
Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he was concerned
about the new version, and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he
would seek to restore certain provisions. Those familiar with the negotiations said the lawmakers won
key concessions from the administration in return for the changes — including the appointment of
advocates who can review FISA court decisions. The government would also be required to "promptly" destroy any material
collected that was deemed irrelevant to an investigation rather than be allowed to retain it indefinitely.
Even Watered Down Freedom Act was tough – plan drains PC – triggers bipartisan
congressional and committee opposition
Gross, 14
Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service,
InfoWorld, 6/6/14, http://www.infoworld.com/d/security/senators-question-need-rein-in-nsa-surveillance243872?page=0,1
Senators question need to rein in NSA surveillance Several senators say they oppose reform legislation,
even though many advocates see the USA Freedom Act as too weak The U.S. Congress would endanger the
nation's security by passing even watered-down legislation to limit the National Security Agency's bulk collection of
domestic phone records, several U.S. senators said Thursday. Several members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
voiced opposition to the USA Freedom Act, a bill aimed at reining in NSA bulk collection of telephone and other records, even though
many civil liberties groups and technology companies have questioned whether the bill would work as its sponsors originally envisioned. With
the USA Freedom Act, Congress is "compromising to please a skeptical and frequently misinformed public" that's
mistakenly worried about NSA surveillance, Senator Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, said during a hearing on the House bill, taking place one
year after the first leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden were published. The USA Freedom Act would ban what the NSA and the
U.S. Department of Justice consider "bulk" collection of phone and business records, said James Cole, deputy attorney general at the DOJ. But
Cole parsed the definition of "bulk" collection. Quoting a House Intelligence Committee report on the USA Freedom Act, Cole said, "Bulk
collection means indiscriminate acquisition. It does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communication records." Therefore, the House
bill would allow the NSA collection of large numbers of records, if that collection were approved by the U.S. surveillance court. An amended
definition of what records the bill allows the NSA to collect gives the agency wide latitude, said Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat. The
version of the USA Freedom Act that passed the House "is not the true reform I've demanded, and many other Americans have demanded, for
years," he said. The House bill is "vague enough to still allow the collection of mass information," Udall said. "The NSA has shown time and
time again it will seize on any wiggle room in the law, and there's plenty of that in this bill." The
NSA phone records program
helps protect national security, several senators argued, even though critics have found that many of the examples of
investigations given to justify the program have only a limited connection to it. Nevertheless, the Senate should "step back" and
reconsider whether to pass the USA Freedom Act, said Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican. "It seems to me
this bill is fixing a lot of things that simply aren't broken," Chambliss said. "My name is in [the NSA database] along with everybody else's. But
frankly, I'm not worried because I don't talk to terrorists." The House of Representatives passed a watered-down version of the USA Freedom
Act, approved by Obama's administration, in May despite concerns from privacy advocates that it would allow the NSA to continue to collect
business records under broad categories. The CEOs of Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and other tech companies urged senators to
narrow the definition of records the NSA could search. "Unfortunately, the version that just passed the House of Representatives could permit
bulk collection of Internet 'metadata,' something that the Administration and Congress said they intended to end," the tech CEOs said in a letter to
senators Thursday. Several
former backers of the USA Freedom Act, including some of its original sponsors,
withdrew their support for the bill after lawmakers made changes to it, advocated by the Obama administration, in the
week leading up to the May 22 House vote. A major change to the bill before the House vote was an expanded definition of a 'specific selection
term" that the NSA must use to target its searches. The amended version of the bill allows the NSA to target things such as a "person, entity,
accounts, address, or device," instead of, in the original language, a "person, entity, or account." The words "address" and "device" in the new
language, as well as the open-ended term "such as," would allow the NSA to target wide groups of people, critics have said. The new version of
the bill would allow the NSA to target an entire state, an entire phone network or an entire email provider, Harley Geiger, senior counsel for the
Center for Democracy and Technology, told senators. Still,
several members of the intelligence committee,
Republicans and Democrats, questioned the need for even the watered-down bill. Leaks by Snowden have
led to the "continual demonization" of the NSA, said Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, where the NSA is headquartered.
People working at the NSA "keep America safe," she said. Senator John "Jay" Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, called
the
proposed NSA reform "unnecessary and unpredictable." The USA Freedom Act "might make the public feel better," but
would hurt national security. he said.
Link – Metadata – Ideology/Security
Curtailing meta-data creates massive fights – ideology and national security
concerns – it alienates the GOP
*definitely a 1NC card
Steinhauer, 15 (Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, New York Times political writers, 5-302015, "Surveillance Vote in Senate Is Tangled in G.O.P. Debate", New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/surveillance-vote-in-senate-is-tangled-in-gopdebate.html?ref=topics, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — Since
2011, when Republicans took control of the House, Congress has lurched from one deadline to
the next, as Republicans and Democrats have sparred bitterly over funding for the government, the ability to lift the
debt ceiling and other policy matters. But unlike those fights, the Senate’s showdown this weekend over the future of the
government’s dragnet of American phone records is not the result of a partisan fracas. It is an ideological battle
within the Republican Party, pitting the Senate majority leader against the speaker of the House and, in
the Senate, newcomers against long-serving members, and defense hawks against a rising tide of younger, more
libertarian-minded members often from Western states. Senate leaders are expected to try to assemble a compromise surveillance bill on
Sunday that can get the required votes to proceed before the authorizing law expires Monday. President Obama and his director of national
intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., added more pressure with sharp statements on Friday and Saturday calling for immediate approval of a Housepassed surveillance bill. “A small group of senators is standing in the way, and, unfortunately, some folks are trying to
use this debate
to score political points ,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “But this shouldn’t and can’t be about politics. This is a matter of
national security.” Even if a compromise can be reached in a rare Sunday session in the Senate, all signs point to at least a temporary expiration
on Monday of a key section of the Patriot Act that the government has been using to sweep up vast amounts of telephone “metadata.” Last month,
the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the metadata surveillance exposed
by Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency. But in the Senate, that measure failed on a procedural
vote this month, and efforts to pass a short-term extension collapsed under objections by three senators. On Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell
of Kentucky, the majority leader, will try again. But opponents of a quick resolution, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of
Kentucky, can easily force a delay. “They can take things into the middle of the week,” said Representative Devin Nunes of California,
the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “This is very likely to go on for a few days.” Over the congressional recess last week, Senate
Republican leaders reached out to Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, to see if he would
negotiate a compromise with Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman and a strong opponent of
changes to current law. Mr. Goodlatte declined. Mr. Paul signaled to political supporters that he intended to keep fighting. “We fought
a revolution over this,” he said at a Republican Party meeting on Friday in Rock Hill, S.C. Several factors have combined to force the showdown.
The revelations of the breadth of the program have increased voter distrust of it, members of Congress said. American companies have
complained that foreign customers have been turned off by their products because of fears their privacy would be at risk if they purchased
computers and cellphones made in the United States. Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans make up a growing alliance of
members as concerned with civil liberties as national security. “People who could not agree on anything have come together on this issue,” said
Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. “That has created a different dynamic in Congress, which
has been so partisan over the last several years. These divisions are not along party lines. They are over something else entirely.” Under the
bipartisan bill, known as the USA Freedom Act, changes would be made to the Patriot Act to prohibit bulk collection,
and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called national security letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be
stored by the phone companies and could be retrieved by intelligence agencies only after approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
court. That has
been strongly opposed by Mr. McConnell and more than two dozen other senators who fear
ending the program would endanger national security. Mr. Nunes said negotiators on the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees had laid out a series of options to revise the USA Freedom Act. They included adding a certification process to ensure that the
technology is ready to move metadata storage to the telephone companies, allowing for a longer transition to telephone company storage of the
data and making permanent two other provisions: authority to track a “lone wolf” terrorism suspect not connected to a state sponsor and “roving”
surveillance of a suspect rather than of a phone number to combat terrorists who frequently discard cellphones. Mr. McConnell most likely will
not know what combination of those changes might garner the necessary votes until senators have gathered Sunday. But he was optimistic that a
deal that would pass the Senate and House could be reached, even if that took a few days. “I believe that on Sunday night, they’re going to come
up with a path forward, or take the bill as is,” he said. Among the 12 Republicans who voted for the House bill last weekend, clear trends have
emerged. Ten are freshmen, and all but one are younger than 60, below the average age for senators. The majority are from Western states. Five
— Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Jeff Flake of Arizona, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah and Tim Scott of South Carolina — voted
in opposition to the senior and older Republican senator from their state. The perspective they share “is that if there is any way to do intelligence
and keep us safe but not touch Americans’ private records, we should do that,” said Mr. Lankford, who fits all four categories of trends. In the
House, longstanding national security hawks have bent to the will of younger members or evolved in their thinking about the law. In 2013,
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin and an author of the Patriot Act, wrote to the attorney general at the time, Eric H.
Holder Jr., to say, “I am extremely troubled by the F.B.I.’s interpretation of this legislation.” He is an author of the House bill that would change
the law. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, has been convinced that the House bill would improve the current law, including adding emergency
authority to continue collecting metadata if someone already lawfully targeted by agents then unexpectedly showed up in the United States. In the
search for a compromise, the
biggest issue is a fierce dispute between House Republican leaders and Mr.
McConnell over whether the N ational S ecurity A gency can develop the technology that will allow telephone companies to
store massive amounts of phone records, search that data when the government presents a warrant and then transmit the search results to the
N.S.A. Mr. McConnell and Mr. Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, say it cannot be done in the six-month transition period
mandated by the USA Freedom Act. Mr. Burr has demanded a two-year wait. House leaders from both parties say that is unnecessary, but Mr.
Nunes proposed a compromise: inserting a certification process into the legislation so the technology could be proved before the six-month
window closes. If it cannot, a longer transition would be triggered. Many architects of the USA Freedom Act oppose even that, although they are
confident such a certification could be met. Mr. Nunes said if a compromise like that could win overwhelming Senate support, it would overcome
such reservations in the House.
Link – Metadata – Republicans/2016
Creates fights and divides republicans – gets drawn into 2016 election debates
Peoples, 15 (Steve Peoples and Ken Dilanian, writers on presidential politics for AP, 5-18-2015,
"Republicans clash over NSA surveillance powers", Associated Press,
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_NSA_SURVEILLANCE, DA: 5-30-2015)
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Republicans
clashed over the future of government surveillance programs on Monday,
highlighting a deep divide among the GOP's 2016 presidential class over whether the N ational S ecurity
A gency should be collecting American citizens' phone records in the name of preventing terrorism. Republican White House
hopeful Rand Paul decried the phone data program and other post-9-11 domestic surveillance as unconstitutional at a Monday event outside
Philadelphia's Independence Hall. "We will do everything possible — including filibustering the Patriot Act — to stop them," the Kentucky
senator charged in front of the building where the Declaration of Independence was signed. Three hundred miles to the north, New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie offered an unapologetic defense of NSA phone records collection as he faced voters in the first-inthe-nation primary state of New Hampshire. Christie, who said he used the Patriot Act as a federal prosecutor, argued that
government surveillance powers should be strengthened, not weakened. "When it comes to fighting terrorism, our
government is not the enemy," Christie declared. "Absolutely no one has a single real example of our intelligence services misusing this program
for political or other nefarious purposes." The revelation that the NSA had for years been secretly collecting all records of U.S. landline phone
calls was among the most controversial disclosures by Snowden, a former NSA systems administrator who in 2013 leaked thousands of secret
documents to journalists. The program collects the number called, along with the date, time and duration of call, but not the content or people's
names. It stores the information in an NSA database that a small number of analysts query for matches against the phone numbers of known
terrorists abroad, hunting for domestic connections to plots. Intelligence officials call the program useful, but can point to no single terrorist plot
uncovered because of it. Monday's clash comes just as Congress debates the future of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the
phone records program. The law will expire on June 1 unless Congress acts. The House has passed a bill that would end the NSA's collection and
storage of the phone records, but would allow the agency to gather them from the phone companies on a case-by-case basis. Some
in the
Senate, including Republican leader Mitch McConnell, want to continue the program as is, with the NSA keeping all the
records. Christie and another presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., are in McConnell's camp, arguing that it's critical
to extend the provision to fight terrorism. So is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose aides addressed the issue head on for
the first time Monday. "In light of the growing terrorist threat to the United States, Governor Bush supports extending responsible
intelligence and law enforcement authorities—including the NSA metadata program—in order to help keep us safe against the
asymmetric terrorist threats facing our country," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said. During an interview with The Associated Press,
Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker three times declined to say whether he supported reauthorizing the program. He said it was "important
to be able to collect information like that," as long as there were unspecified privacy safeguards. After the interview, a spokesman
emailed to say that Walker supported continuing the program as it exists, with the NSA storing American phone records. Sen.
Ted Cruz, R-Texas, strikes a middle ground, supporting a Senate version of the House bill that preserves the program while ending NSA bulk
collection and storage. Paul goes the furthest, arguing that the Patriot Act should expire. That would end the phone records program and also
other unrelated counter terrorism provisions, including a provision that makes it easier for the FBI to track "lone wolf" terror suspects. The House
bill would transfer too much power to telephone companies, he said. "They have the votes inside the Beltway," he said. "But we have the votes
outside the Beltway. And we'll have that fight." Obama supports the House legislation, known as the USA Freedom Act, which is in line with a
proposal he made last March. So, too, does Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who on Twitter recently endorsed the
House plan. Overall, however, Clinton has been vague on her position on the surveillance program. The former
secretary of state has also been critical of Snowden, whom she says could have acted as a whistleblower without damaging national security. He
leaked thousands of top secret NSA documents and fled to Russia to escape prosecution. Christie took aim at Snowden during a full-throated
defense of American intelligence gathering. "When Edward Snowden revealed our intelligence secrets to the world in 2013, civil liberties
extremists seized that moment to advance their very own narrow agenda," Christie said. "They want you to think that there's a government agent
listening in every time you pick up the phone or Skype with your grandkids." He called that notion "exaggerated and ridiculous." Paul,
meanwhile, has been less critical of Snowden. He declined Monday to say whether, if elected, he would pardon the former government
contractor. But he equated Snowden and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, whom some say misled Congress about NSA
surveillance. "It would probably be just and informative to put Clapper and Snowden in the same cell for the same period of time," Paul said.
Link – Metadata – Controversy
Bulk data reform controversial despite some agreement – ideology
Cohen 14 [Tom Cohen, Consultant at The World Bank and CNN correspondent, Lisa Desjardins and
Jim Acosta, CNN 3-5-2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/white-house-nsa/]
President Barack Obama and congressional leaders described similar proposals Tuesday for
ending the National Security
Agency's sweeping collection of bulk telephone records. Obama told reporters in The Netherlands that his intelligence team gave
him a "workable" option for NSA reform that he said would "eliminate" concerns about how the government keeps the records known as
metadata. At a news conference in Washington, the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee said they worked out their own bipartisan
compromise on a similar proposal intended to alleviate what they characterized as unfounded fears of excessive government surveillance. The
nearly simultaneous remarks demonstrated progress toward Obama's call in January for NSA changes in the aftermath of
last year's classified leaks by former agency contractor Edward Snowden that revealed the magnitude of surveillance programs created in
response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Congressional
battle coming However, the issue touches on deep
political and ideological fissures between Republicans and Democrats, promising an extended battle in
Congress over the necessary legislation -- especially in an election year.
Link – Metadata – Link Magnifier
Even small changes trigger backlash from security officials and congress
Liebelson, 14 (Dana Liebelson, political reporter for Mother Jones, 1-16-2014, "Obama's NSA reforms
are going to tick off everyone", Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obama-nsareforms-spying-telephone-mad-privacy, DA: 5-23-2015)
If Obama Imposes Modest Limits on the NSA's Telephone Metadata Collection Program… Who gets mad? The
NSA, Feinstein, and other members of Congress The NSA will be happy if, as expected, Obama okays its continued
collection of bulk phone metadata. However, he may well make some modest changes to this program, according to the New
York Times, such as cutting back the number of people whose phone records the NSA can look at and limiting the time the NSA can hold on to
Even such slight reforms will upset folks in the intelligence community. According to the Times, "Some
[intelligence] officials complained that [Obama's] changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder
the hunt for potential terrorists." Some members of Congress also oppose modest limits to the NSA's collection
powers.
the records.
Link – Metadata – A2: Obama Avoids/Plan Not Congress
Freedom act passage clears the deck, plan drains PC and agenda tradeoff, Obama
can’t avoid it – 7 reasons - every option triggers major fights, it’s a loss, flip flop, focus
and docket crowd out, requires congress and Obama cant avoid even if he tries
Gerstein, 14 -- Josh Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA
reform, dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will
try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out
reforms to U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil
liberties and national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits . Many of the key reforms he’s expected to
endorse — including changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the
U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks,
all hell’s liable to break loose on the Hill ,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who
will be voting against it because Obama’s reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it
because it doesn’t defend us enough and other people voting against it because it outsources espionage.”
It’s another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks for issues that aides want to highlight
in Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and immigration. The snooping saga has been a
loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret
documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the international community. And disclosures that
widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation as a reformer who would end over-the-top antiterrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — denounced under President
George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain surveillance practices altogether. For
instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so it can be used to trace potential contacts of
terrorism suspects. But
the president has said he’s considering replacing that program with a private-sector-based
would require Congress to step
in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some court — involvement
in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis told NPR News last week.
arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That
“But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral authority to impose dramatic
reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White House has signaled that much
of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of foreign leaders like German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile phone. Administration officials
say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he set up to dig into the issue: the
President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the NSA’s program that has collected
information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that the metadata program — aimed at
running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges have concluded that the effort is lawful.
The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the government on a case-by-case basis with
individual court warrants, something likely to require Congress to impose new requirements on the firms. The review
group also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so judges could hear from an
attorney advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for Americans whose data is swept up in surveillance programs. And
the panel urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the chief justice no longer has the sole power to make such picks. Those
changes, too, would need legislation. All five review group members are set to publicly promote their plans at a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing Tuesday. “There
are a few big things you really need Congress to do. If you want to change the appointment
mechanism for the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do any kind of structural reform of the FISC, you need it. If you want to
continue the metadata program in some form, but reform it in any way, you need an act of Congress,”
said Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution.
Link – NSLs/Search + Disclosure of Organizational Records
Curtailing law enforcement NSL surveillance drains PC – perception of ties to antiterror efforts and difficulties of repealing existing laws ensure stickiness – despite
powerful political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to
modify or repeal portions can prove challenging . An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th
terrorist attacks.[5] At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous
letters containing weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within the
United States, began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded the
definition of terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the recent NSA
surveillance revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act, which
relates directly to the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area
is the Act’s permitting searches of personal library records and other organizational files via issuance of
National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand disclosure of certain records from
an organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without judicial review.[8] The number of
NSLs drastically increased after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 8,000 NSLs. In 2004,
by contrast, the FBI issued 56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs, though secrecy rules
bar their lawyers from discussing the nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve years since the Act’s entrance into use, governments,
civic organizations, and citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the Act without
success . Two years after the Act became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia passed
resolutions against it.[9] Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of legislation
seeking to scale back the Act’s original scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe v. Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the Act’s
constitutionality. Yet despite this steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both
Republican and Democratic administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history
reflects the difficulties governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or
repeal portions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason . Al-Qaeda has been degraded
significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly
illustrates. In
light of the continuing threat of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why antiterrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act can prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not
meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism
laws in place .
Link Trick – Patriot Act – Docket Crowd Out – TPA Specific
modifying Patriot act surveillance specifically derails trade authority, TPP and econ
- PC loss, GOP division, house backlash, legislative stalemate, gridlock, and
independent docket crowd out - even extended House vote delay is enough
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senatecliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess-118040.html
Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left — and
a trade battle still on the floor — the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law. The mad dash for
Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is — again — barreling toward deadlines on must-pass legislative items, this time
on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP, finds itself in a
bind over surveillance, even as the chamber remains bogged down in a contentious fight over trade
that’s scrambling party lines and eating up valuable floor time . Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding
cliff — though a two-month extension unveiled last week could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee
Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of the week. “ We got too many deadlines and not enough time,” said
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures
earlier this year, he added: “ Legislative time is hard to get back … but we’ll just have to do what has to be done.” The
most pressing — and complicated — hurdle is the stalemate over expiring provisions of the PATRIOT
Act used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency program that collects Americans’ phone
records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last week ending the NSA’s bulk collection programs —
though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations — puts considerable pressure on Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. “I think it
is an
important tool if we’re going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I don’t think the House bill does that,”
McConnell said of the NSA program Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I think it basically leads us to the end of the program.” But McConnell,
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk
collection program are running into resistance from Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a
short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside, time — or the lack thereof — is another major
hurdle . McConnell, who sets the floor schedule, has to contend with a debate over trade that’s expected to drag
out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100 senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto
surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to
resolve . McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this
week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers.
Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the world’s economic output. But many
Senate Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are determined to drag out the trade
fight as long as they can. That effort is meant to blunt support for trade promotion authority in the
House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members short of the number they need to approve it. Meanwhile, a
growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing concerns about the House surveillance legislation and
aligning with McConnell and Burr’s more aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to
protect national security . Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. “There’s some real concerns that haven’t been really publicized to the extent they should be in terms of the
House bill,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee. “I think we need to buy some time
so we have a much better understanding of what we are doing.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government wasn’t collecting enough
data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and
NSA. “My prediction is, we’re not going to be able to pass a reauthorization,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he prefers the straight extension proposed by
House has already spoken. That’s probably about as good as we’re gonna
have . I think that is unfortunate.” Top Senate Republicans — many of whom back the bulk collection of phone
records and would like to see the programs extended until 2020 — have strongly suggested that a shortterm reauthorization may be the only option they can support, considering the deep divisions within the GOP
and the dwindling timeline. McConnell said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week, would allow for
“reassurance” that the House legislation would be effective.
McConnell and Burr. “I think the
Link/Turn Shield – Patriot Act – Ratchet Effect
Limiting Patriot Act drains PC – link only goes one way – ratchet effect – inertia
and terrorism fears outweigh, strong political support only makes fight bigger
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance
Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
been gathering the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had
metadata of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known
information technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only
targeted non-US citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly
opposing the NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times
condemned the NSA surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the
constitutionality of the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely
outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t
bother me one bit for the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations,
credited the NSA surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among
the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the
surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far
came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first
drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or
law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a
request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as part
of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original intended
scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I
disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements may
have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that Sensenbrenner
describes in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the “ratchet effect” in
legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can become
entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely .[1] For example, some
scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline of legal
“normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent with the
ratchet effect, for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or
reverse their provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for
additional future anti-terrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on how
powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the ratchet
effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet effect],
it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s
intelligence collection efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of antiterrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor do I
debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As
Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It
is reasonable to suggest that future
anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from
exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to
unwind.
Altering existing Patriot Act provisions drains PC – link only one way – ratchet
effect, political inertia, terror fears
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
What the NSA Surveillance Controversy Can Teach Us about the Ratchet Effect and Anti-Terrorism Laws After a
terrorist attack, creating laws quickly to contend with terrorism is reasonable and appropriate. It is equally reasonable and appropriate, however, to build hedges into
those laws to guard against unsound initial judgments or assumptions. The set of policy recommendations below provides a starting point to mitigate the potential
impact of the ratchet effect upon anti-terrorism laws. Taking these steps does not guarantee that anti-terrorism laws will be easy to scale-back or reverse, nor can it
completely prevent unintentional interpretations of anti-terrorism laws. But these recommendations can increase policymakers’ awareness of the ratchet effect, which
can lead to more thoughtfully crafted and effective anti-terrorism laws. First, initial
changes may be difficult to undo . The early
legislative moves after a terrorist attack are pivotal. They set the tone for future, related legislation.
Moreover, as argued earlier in this article, changing laws can be difficult under normal circumstances, let alone
when the laws concern an issue as serious as terrorism . It is vital for leaders to get the beginning stages of a nation’s antiterrorism legislation right; a bad start can lead to a pattern of subsequent bad laws. This is not a call for perfection, but a plea for greater awareness of this reality and
for leaders to use this awareness when drafting laws. Second, policymakers should beware of reflexive legislation. Terror attacks create conditions in which emotions
can run high; feelings of terror, anger, sadness, confusion, and frustration are natural consequences of these circumstances. Behavioral psychology teaches us that
human beings’ higher-order thinking skills (e.g. logic, reasoning, analysis, reflection) are poorly integrated with baser, emotionally-rooted thinking (e.g. irrational
prejudices, unreasonable fears, self-destructive desires).[11] One researcher has gone so far as to say that the amygdala—the portion of the brain that controls reactive
emotion—can hijack the higher-order parts of the brain, impeding effective decision-making in crises.[12] Considering this, it is reasonable to suggest that laws
passed in the immediate aftermath of terrorist attacks may be rooted more in baser, emotionally-driven thinking than in careful, analytical, higher-order thinking. In
other words, they may be mostly reflexive, not reflective. This is not to say that all laws passed after terrorist attacks are emotionally-driven. Nor is it the case that all
leaders’ judgment of what may or may not
be good law can become clouded by emotion. Similarly, terrorist attacks can drive public support for reflexive
anti-terrorism legislation. And this is not an instinct that can be somehow “shut off” or “tuned out .”
laws created in these circumstances are somehow “bad” laws. But during and after terrorist attacks,
Legislators and citizens should be aware of this potential, and must walk a fine line between meeting immediate post-crisis needs and championing laws that will
remain effective for the long haul. Third, “sunset” provisions are prudent and reasonable. Given that anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of terrorist attacks may be
partly driven by emotion and that initial
laws may prove difficult to undo, it is wise for government leaders to include “sunset” provisions in
new anti-terrorism laws. Generally “sunset” provisions allow portions of a law to expire if not renewed by a predetermined date. In a sense, democracies must deliver a new mandate for the law—or at least part of the law—to avoid this expiration. With “sunset” provisions in
Letting these provisions lapse
unlike actively changing or removing a law,
place, unwise, irrelevant, or ineffective components of a law can be allowed to wither and die when necessary.
requires virtually no political capital from government leaders,
which can require a great deal . For elected officials, this means that letting part of an anti-terrorism law expire is relatively easy. Re-examining
and pruning anti-terrorism laws in this way is a healthy practice. It can head off potential abuses of particularly aggressive anti-terrorism measures and forces a
continual re-thinking of anti-terrorism laws as circumstances change over time. The
recent NSA surveillance controversy highlights
the relevance of the ratchet effect to broader discussions of anti-terrorism laws. The ratchet effect can
affect anti-terrorism laws generally, entrenching and expanding them over time and potentially leading to those laws
being interpreted in unexpected and undesirable ways. The USA PATRIOT Act, developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks , has been
difficult to scale back since then, and has now been interpreted in a way that at least one of the Act’s authors did not intend. This unintended
interpretation of the Act led, in part, to today’s NSA surveillance controversy. Scholars can benefit from future explorations of the
ratchet effect, which may help illuminate further why anti-terrorism laws remain in place and how their
influence can expand in unanticipated ways.
Modifying Patriot Act drains PC – perception of ties to anti-terror efforts ensure
stickiness – outweighs political supporters
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The USA PATRIOT
Act: a Sticky History A brief survey of the history of the USA PATRIOT Act provides a glimpse of how antiterrorism laws can form after terrorist attacks, how the effects of these laws can quickly expand, and how efforts to modify or
repeal portions can prove challenging . An initial draft of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 developed within a week of the September 11th terrorist attacks.[5]
At approximately the same time, government officials’ and popular media outlets’ offices nationwide received anonymous letters containing
weapons-grade anthrax. After then-President George W. Bush signed the Act, it increased law enforcement powers within the United States,
began to break down historical barriers against information sharing between police and intelligence agencies, and expanded the definition of
terrorism in 18 USC § 2331.[6] Moreover, the Act assigned lead investigative authority in terrorism cases to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). Previously, this responsibility was spread among a number of agencies, including the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the Department
of Defense (DOD), and the DOJ.[7] The
Act provoked controversy after it was passed and, as the recent NSA surveillance
revelations make clear, it continues to do so today. Putting aside section 215 of the Act, which relates directly to the NSA’s
collection of telephone call metadata from Verizon, another contentious area is the Act’s permitting searches of personal library records and other
organizational files via issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). Federal agencies use NSLs to demand disclosure of certain records from an
organization; they are a form of administrative subpoena that can be issued without judicial review.[8] The number of NSLs drastically increased
after the Act took effect. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 8,000 NSLs. In 2004, by contrast, the FBI issued
56,000 NSLs. IT firms like Google, Twitter, and Yahoo have also been issued NSLs, though secrecy rules bar their lawyers from discussing the
nature of these NSLs openly. In the twelve
years since the Act’s entrance into use, governments, civic organizations, and
citizens sought repeatedly to modify and repeal portions of the Act without success . Two years after the Act
became law, local governments in Ann Arbor, Oklahoma City, New York, and Philadelphia passed resolutions against it.[9] Members of
the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced separate pieces of legislation seeking to scale back the Act’s original
scope. The American Library Association (ALA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lobbied against provisions of the Act. Doe
v. Gonzales—a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court—raised serious questions about the Act’s constitutionality. Yet despite this
steady drumbeat of concern around the Act’s expansion of government power, both Republican and Democratic
administrations renewed provisions of the Act that had been set to expire. This brief history reflects the difficulties
governments, civic groups, and citizens face in attempting to modify or repeal portions of the USA
PATRIOT Act. This difficulty is for good reason. Al-Qaeda has been degraded significantly since 9/11, but terrorism remains a
significant threat to the United States, as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing vividly illustrates. In light of the continuing threat
of terrorism in the United States, it is worth exploring the reasons why anti-terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act can
prove difficult to scale back. The list of causes below is not meant to be exhaustive, but to show how a
constellation of variables can help to cement anti-terrorism laws in place .
Link – Patriot Act
Expanding scope of Patriot Act reforms drains PC – alienates Congressional
leadership and requires political concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate.
The House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which
would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions
— by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,”
said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ...
If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye ,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications
without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather
data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet. The
amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee
member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the
overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by many in
positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without
changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because
Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment
to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a
debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little
reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and
allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Plan’s unpopular – divides Congress and requires Obama’s push – FREEDOM Act
proves
DeBonis, 15 (Mike DeBonis and Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post political writers, 5-23-2015,
"Senate rejects compromise bill on surveillance", Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-is-playing-chicken-with-nsa-spy-program-white-housesays/2015/05/22/796e3574-00af-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html, DA: 5-23-2015) – this evidence
has been [modified] for ableist language
Senators left Capitol Hill early Saturday morning without taking action to extend or replace a controversial
surveillance program set to expire at month’s end, paralyzed [immobilized] by a debate over the proper balance between
civil liberties and national security . In an after-midnight vote, the Senate turned back a House-passed bill that would end the
National Security Agency’s bulk collection of private telephone records, the only legislation that offered a smooth transition ahead of a June 1
deadline. A small cadre of senators,
led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.), then rejected a variety of short-term extensions to the current
authority in a dramatic floor exchange. That led Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to recall senators to the Capitol a day
earlier than planned, on May 31, for a rare Sunday session hours ahead of the deadline. An Obama administration official said Saturday that
because Senate did not take action, the process of winding down the surveillance program is now underway. The
rejection of the
compromise legislation was the latest turn in a complex standoff over government surveillance authority
that has pitted Democrats, House Republican leaders, Senate Republican leaders and Paul, a presidential
candidate, against one another as members of Congress eyed a week-long holiday break. It is unclear what difference a week will make.
The positions of national security hawks like McConnell and civil libertarians like Paul have barely
softened, while the House-passed, White House-supported compromise measure was unable to gain the 60 votes
necessary to proceed. A procedural vote on the bill failed 57-42. “Sometimes things change as deadlines approach,” Paul said as he left the
Capitol early Saturday. In floor remarks, he demanded simple-majority votes on two amendments to the House bill, known as the USA Freedom
Act, in order to drop his opposition to moving it forward. “Our forefathers would be aghast,” he said about the spy program. After McConnell
ended debate, Paul tweeted, “The Senate will return one week from Sunday. With your help we can end illegal NSA spying once and for all.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), McConnell’s top leadership deputy, said after the votes that “Sen. Paul
is asking for something that
nobody will agree to.” The amendments Paul is seeking, he said, would not comport with Senate rules. “My hope is in the meantime ...
after everybody gets a good night sleep and is thinking clearly, that we can figure a way forward on this,” Cornyn said. Frustration with Paul —
especially from fellow Republicans — became increasingly obvious as the long night wore on. Paul held the Senate floor for nearly 11 hours
Wednesday to decry any extension of current law, and many had hoped that “performance,” as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called it, would
suffice. It did not. Paul objected to a 7-day extension to the current law, taking advantage of Senate rules protecting the right of an individual
senator to oppose quick action on any question. McConnell then proposed, in turn, four-day and two-day extensions, which were opposed by
Democrats Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (N.M.), respectively. When McConnell finally offered a one-day extension, Paul objected
again, prompting the unusual Sunday session. “There’s
a new breed in the Senate, and we have seen the manifestation of it,” McCain
said.” One or two or three are willing to stand up against the will of the majority. Some time ago, the Senate people
would sit down and try to work things out. And obviously these individuals don’t believe in that. But I’m sure it’s a great revenue raiser.”
Throughout recent days, Paul’s presidential campaign issued a steady stream of e-mail solicitations to supporters and a flurry of tweets to the
world highlighting his efforts to end the NSA surveillance program. Aside from Paul’s parliamentary maneuvers, intrigue surrounded whether the
Senate’s action, when it comes, would gain House approval before the surveillance authority’s expiration. The
House, now on an extended
the White House-backed bill replacing the existing program with one that would keep the phone records in
private hands except under limited circumstances. But McConnell and most fellow Senate Republicans fiercely
opposed that legislation, calling it untested and potentially harmful to national security. In unusually lengthy
floor remarks kicking off the Senate’s business Friday morning, McConnell said the system established under the House bill is
“untried” and would be “slower and more cumbersome than the one that currently helps keep us safe.” “At
a moment of elevated threat, it would be a mistake to take from our intelligence community any of the valuable
tools needed to build a complete picture of terrorist networks and their plans,” McConnell said. “The intelligence
community needs these tools to protect Americans.” Later in the day, White House press secretary Josh Earnest renewed calls to
pass the USA Freedom Act, saying any other legislation would lead to a lapse in legal authority for the phone records program —
which would phase out over a six-month period — as well as other less-controversial investigative tools. “The fact is, we’ve got people in
the United States Senate right now who are playing chicken with this,” he said, adding that “there is no plan B” if the House bill is
recess of its own, passed
not passed. The controversy began in June 2013, when The Guardian newspaper published a document that revealed the National Security
Agency was collecting “all call detail records” from Verizon. The document, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and the
government’s subsequent acknowledgment of the program, touched off a national debate about the proper scale of U.S. surveillance. In
December that year, a presidentially appointed review group recommended that the government end NSA’s storage of phone data, citing
“potential risks to public trust, personal privacy and civil liberty.” In January, 2014, President Obama called for an end to the agency’s bulk
collection and essentially left it to Congress to come up with a replacement that would protect national security while respecting privacy. A year
ago, the House passed a version of the USA Freedom Act, but later that year the Senate failed by two votes to advance its own version — after
McConnell led a filibuster to block it. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Thursday proposed extending the USA
Freedom Act’s six-month transition away from bulk data collection to two years. But Democrats and many House Republicans oppose any
extension to the current legal authority, initially passed under Section 215 of the 2001 Patriot Act, or any substantive changes to the USA
Freedom Act. Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. -(R-Wis.), a lead author of the USA Freedom Act, called Burr’s proposal a “last-ditch effort to
kill” the House bill. “If the Senate coalesces around this approach, the result will be the expiration of important authorities needed to keep our
country safe,” he said in a statement. “[T]he Senate should make no mistake, if it does not pass the bill and the provisions expire — it will have a
lot of questions to answer about why it decided to play legislative chicken with important intelligence tools,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (DCalif.), ranking Democrat of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. But Cornyn said Thursday he believed the other chamber would flinch:
“The House isn’t going to let this go dark,” he said, exiting a lunchtime Republican caucus meeting Friday. The Obama administration has
spent days calling and briefing senators and reporters, arguing that the only path forward that avoids legal and
operational uncertainty is to pass the USA Freedom Act. Extending Section 215 as it is, they say, would be risky legally. This month,
a federal appeals court in New York ruled that the NSA program was unlawful because it was not supported by that statute. It held off on halting
the program only because it recognized that Congress was debating its future and might change the program or change the law to expressly
authorize it. Even a short-term reauthorization, administration officials say, would risk a federal court stopping the program — and there would
be nothing at that point to replace it. The American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiff in the case heard by the appeals court, would likely seek an
injunction if Congress passes a stopgap. “If this program is in place for any longer than June 1, our goal is to get a court order shutting the
program down,” said ACLU staff attorney Alex Abdo. Operationally, officials say, if it is not clear that they will have authority to continue
running the program past June 1, they will have to begin dismantling it in the coming days lest they “run the risk of . . . continuing to collect
McConnell has
criticized the USA Freedom Act for not mandating that companies retain phone records for any period of
time, thus risking that records that might prove important could be lost if they are not all collected upfront, as they are under the
without the authority” to do so, according to an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
current program.
Link – PRISM – Post Freedom Act
PRISM reforms drain PC post Freedom Act – uniquely unpopular and lack
constituency
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest
overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views,
calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone
records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database
from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts
when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released
to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data
collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and NSA
from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define “specific
search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term and give
the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to congressional intent,
but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the old version of the Patriot
Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom
Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas Internet
traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden
leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights
of people who don’t vote in U.S. elections . Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that
authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at
FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the expiring sections of the Patriot Act
covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the committee
will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican
leaders opposed to more changes
Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional leadership , however. Senate Republican
leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused to allow amendments that would
require further changes at the NSA. In the House, Republican leaders threatened to kill the USA
Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to address other surveillance programs. Still, many
House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new surveillance limits, with lawmakers adding an amendment to end socalled backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill this week. Obama’s administration has
threatened to veto the appropriations bill for several unrelated reasons, but several House members have pledged to push hard to prohibit the FBI
and CIA from searching the content of reportedly tens of thousands of U.S. communications swept up in an NSA surveillance program targeting
overseas terrorism suspects. Closing that surveillance backdoor is a top priority for civil liberties groups, said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative
counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C., legislative office. “We’ve had this statute that masquerades as affecting
only people abroad, but the reality is that it sweeps up large numbers of U.S. persons,” she said. Other changes possible Advocates
and
lawmakers will also push for a handful of other surveillance reforms in the coming months. The changes most likely
to pass make limited changes to surveillance programs, however. While not tied to NSA surveillance, lawmakers will press
for changes to the 29-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a wiretap law that gives law enforcement agencies warrantless
access to emails and other communications stored in the cloud for more than six months. A House version of ECPA reform counts more than half
the body as co-sponsors. Still, tech companies and civil liberties groups have been pushing since 2010 to have those communications protected by
warrants, but
law enforcement agencies and some Republican lawmakers have successfully opposed the
changes. Another bill that may gain traction in coming months is the Judicial Redress Act, a bill that would allow citizens of some countries
to file lawsuits under the U.S. Privacy Act if government agencies misuse their records. “The Privacy Act offers limited protections, even to
Americans, but passage of this bill would be an important first step to addressing especially European concerns that US privacy reforms won’t
help them,” said Berin Szoka, president of free market think tank TechFreedom. Public pressure, along with potentially new leaks, will be the key
to driving any more surveillance changes, advocates said. “The public will for mass surveillance laws was made very clear recently, and that’s
partly why we saw much of Congress flock to whatever could be called surveillance reform,” said Tiffiniy Cheng, a founder of digital rights
group Fight for the Future. “No one is fooled by USA
Freedom—it’s a weak piece of legislation that uses exceptions in
legislative language to codify the NSA’s practice of surveilling most people.” Congress has much work left to do,
Cheng said by email. “After the recent showdown and public outcry, USA Freedom is at best, seen as a beginning of surveillance reform, not the
end,” she said.
Restricting PRISM drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership, sparks powerful
opposition, legislative gridlock, and requires political concessions despite popularity
– empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate.
The House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which
would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions
— by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,”
said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ...
If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye ,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (RTexas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to
collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of
Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the
Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so
that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence
agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American
citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the
political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every
committee member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it
would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going
nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by
many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act
without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort
would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said,
because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment
to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a
debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little
reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and
allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
PRISM reforms drain PC – 7 reasons - lack of looming sunset, national security fears,
committee opposition, loss for obama, flip flop, bipartisan leaders oppose, supporters
only trigger larger fight
Sasso, 14 -- Brendan Sasso, National Journal, 3/25/14, Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed
Their Minds, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds20140325
It was only months ago that President Obama,
with bipartisan backing from the heads of Congress's Intelligence
committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program was key to keeping Americans safe from the next
major terrorist attack. They were also dismissing privacy concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the necessary
safeguards were already in place. But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and the NSA's top supporters
in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. And civil-liberties groups—awash in their newly won
clout—are declaring victory. The
question is no longer whether to change the program, but how dramatically to
overhaul it. So what changed? It's not that Obama and his Hill allies suddenly saw the error of their ways
and became born-again privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical section of the Patriot Act set to
expire next year, they realized they had no choice but to negotiate. If Congress fails to reauthorize that
provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's collection of U.S. records would have to end entirely.
And the growing outrage prompted by the Snowden leaks means that the NSA's supporters would almost certainly lose an up-or-down vote on
the program. Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that
looming sunset is what
forced lawmakers to the bargaining table . "I think what has changed is the growing realization that the votes are
simply not there for reauthorization ," he said in an interview. "I think that more than anything else, that is
galvanizing us into action." Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their proposals
are now the NSA's best bet to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror plots.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated she is
on board with the changes, saying the president's proposal is a "worthy effort." And though the Hill's NSA allies are now
proposing reforms to the agency, they don't seem particularly excited about it. At a Capitol Hill press conference
Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Dutch
Ruppersberger, the panel's top Democrat, often sounded like they were arguing against their own bill that
they were unveiling. "I passionately believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said.
Ruppersberger said if the program had been in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.
But the lawmakers acknowledged there is broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently structured.
"We need to do something about bulk collection because of the perception of our constituents," Ruppersberger admitted. Under their legislation,
the vast database of phone records would stay in the hands of the phone companies. The NSA could force the phone companies to turn over
particular records, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact. But Rogers rejected a reporter's
suggestion that the NSA should have never had control of the massive database of phone records in the first place. "There was no abuse, no
illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said. For
all their hesitance, however, Rogers and company much prefer their
version to a competing proposal to change the way the government gathers information. That would be the USA Freedom
Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Rogers and his ilk
fear would go too far in hamstringing the NSA . The USA Freedom Act would require the NSA to meet
a tougher standard for the data searches and would limit other NSA programs, such as Internet
surveillance of people overseas. Additionally, President Obama is expected to unveil his own plan to reform the controversial phone data
collection program this week. According to The New York Times, Obama's proposal would also keep the database in the
hands of the phone companies. His plan would have tougher judicial oversight than the House bill by requiring preapproval from the court for every targeted phone number, the newspaper reported. But though the momentum has shifted and
officials seem to be coalescing around a framework for overhauling the NSA program, the question is
far from settled . Leahy and Sensenbrenner are not backing off from their USA Freedom Act, and outside groups
will continue their policy push as well.
drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership and requires political concessions
despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate.
The House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which
would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions
— by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,”
said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ...
If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye ,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to collect Americans’ Internet communications
without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather
data from major Web companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the Internet. The
amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the
government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies
will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens'
communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political
calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every committee
member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the
overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by many in
positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act without
changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would
become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because
Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment
to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a
debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little
reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and
allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new limits drain PC
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what
critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers
may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week
passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama
signed the bill hours later. After that action , expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of
Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-andfile lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor
Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get
“broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau,
managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance
programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed
to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not
accept that.” Other activists
are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting
more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public
outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach
for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater
we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass
surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual
physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
Link/Turn Shield – PRISM – Ratchet Effect
Limiting PRISM drains PC – link only goes one way – ratchet effect – inertia and
terrorism fears outweigh, strong political support only makes fight bigger
Givens, 13 -- Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/thensa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the
world learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had been gathering the metadata
of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that
PRISM, a top
secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known information
technology (IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only targeted non-US
citizens. But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public
outcry ensued, with some loudly opposing the
NSA’s surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times condemned the NSA
surveillance in an editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the constitutionality of
the NSA telephone call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely outrageous” on Twitter.
But others came out in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t bother me one bit for
the NSA to have my phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, credited
the NSA
surveillance with helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the attacks of September 11,
2001. A Pew Research Center poll suggested that there was significant support among the American
public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the surveillance
debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC)
interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far came from
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first drafted, one of
the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or law
enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a request
for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as part of the
request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is a bridge too far and falls well outside the original intended scope of
the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I disagree. I
authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.” Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements may have been
motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that Sensenbrenner describes
in the context of the NSA surveillance
controversy—is consistent with what is known as the “ratchet effect” in legal
scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal variable that can become entrenched
over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely .[1] For example, some scholars argued
that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline of legal “normalcy” from
which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent with the ratchet effect, for it
suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or reverse their
provisions. Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for additional future antiterrorism measures. There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on how powerful it may be. Posner
and Vermeule call ratchet effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the ratchet effect often ring hollow, for
they “fail to supply an explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet effect], it is not clear that the
resulting ratchet process is bad.”[4] I argue that the recent
controversy surrounding the NSA’s intelligence collection
efforts underscores the relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of anti-terrorism laws. I do not
seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor do I debate the potential strength
or weakness of the ratchet effect as an explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As Sensenbrenner’s recent comments
make clear, part of the original intent of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It is reasonable to suggest that
future anti-terrorism laws may suffer a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from exploring how the USA
PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why anti-terrorism laws can be difficult to unwind.
Link – PRISM – Fights
Curtailing internet surveillance triggers massive fights in congress—backlash from
hawks over national security – PRISM uniquely controversial
*note – also under “Link – Soft on Terror”
Volz and Fox, Reporters for the National Journal, 6-3-2015
(Dustin and Lauren, “THE WAR OVER NSA SPYING IS JUST BEGINNING,”
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2015/06/war-over-nsa-spying-just-beginning/114394/)
But while reformers hope Tuesday's victory is an appetizer to a multiple-course meal to rein in the NSA, security
hawks—many of them
Republicans vying for the White House—hope to halt the post-Snowden momentum behind surveillance
reform. And some already are talking about unraveling the Freedom Act. "What you are seeing on the floor of the Senate is just the beginning," said Sen. Ron
Wyden, a civil-liberties stalwart in the upper chamber who serves on the intelligence committee and has worked for more than a decade to reform government
surveillance. "There is a lot more to do when—in effect—you can ensure you protect the country's safety without sacrificing our liberty." Wyden used the Freedom
Act's passage to call for additional intelligence-gathering reforms that he has long advocated, such as closing the so-called "backdoor search loophole" that allows
U.S. spies to "incidentally" and warrantlessly sweep up the email and phone communications—including some content—of Americans who correspond with
foreigners. He added he plans to move quickly on reworking Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before Congress is up backed up against its
renewal deadline in 2017. The Oregon Democrat also supports tech companies in their ongoing tussle with the administration over smartphone encryption as a key
priority. While Google and Apple have begun to build their phones with "too-tough-to-crack" encryption standards, the FBI has warned that the technology locks out
the bad guys and the good—and can impede law-enforcement investigations. Wyden and his allies, though, are bumping up against an impending presidential
campaign, where many Republicans will jockey with one another to look toughest on national security. Few issues divide the GOP White House contenders more than
NSA surveillance, as defense hawks such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio continue to defend the NSA bulk metadata program as necessary to
protect the homeland, while libertarian-leaning agitators such as Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz warn voters of the privacy perils associated with the government's
prying eyes. Rubio, who has said he'd prefer that the NSA's phone dragnet be made permanent, issued a statement after the Freedom Act's passage saying it fell to the
next president to undo its policies. "The
failure to renew the expiring components of the PATRIOT Act was a mistake,"
Rubio said in a statement after the vote. "The 'USA Freedom Act' weakens U.S. national security by outlawing the very programs our intelligence community
and the FBI have used to protect us time and time again. A major challenge for the next president will be to fix the significantly weakened intelligence system that the
current one is leaving behind." Paul, meanwhile, continues to fundraise on social media and in campaign emails off his hardline opposition to "illegal NSA bulk data
collection." The Kentucky senator succeeded in drawing enormous attention to the issue by forcing a temporary lapse this week of the Patriot Act's spy authorities,
and has vowed to limit the agency's mass surveillance practices "on day one" if elected president. But Paul also was a major obstacle for the Freedom Act's passage,
repeatedly voting against it and helping delay its consideration on grounds it didn't go far enough—and codified parts of the Patriot Act he thinks should stay dead.
Cruz, meanwhile, represented the middle ground and was a chief GOP backer of the legislation, setting up a potential argument with Paul debate stages about who has
done more to fight against mass surveillance. Any jockeying between the two will expose them to sniping from candidates on the other side of the debate, including
potential candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who often goes out of his way to condemn those who criticize government snooping. Rand Paul
already
has become a regular punching bag for the GOP field's security hawks. Back on Capitol Hill, many of the same
members who were engaged in defeating metadata reform warn that it only takes one security setback for
Congress to stop taking powers away from the NSA. "The next time there is a terrorist act within the United States, the same people are
going to be coming to the floor seeking changes to the tools that our intelligence community, our law enforcement community has at their disposal because the
American people will demand it," said Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Sen. Susan Collins, who also serves on the intelligence panel,
recognized that reforms and oversight will likely continue now that the USA Freedom Act has passed, but she said she's not so sure supporters of the Freedom Act
won't have buyer's remorse down the line. "I believe it is actually going to expose Americans' data to greater privacy risk and to vulnerability from computer data
breaches," Collins said. The
momentum to end the NSA's phone dragnet snowballed over the past year and a half as two review
panels deemed it ineffective. President Obama pledged to end it "as it currently exists" and a federal appeals court deemed it illegal. But further reforms—
such as to the Internet surveillance program known as PRISM, which Snowden also revealed—are likely to be tougher sells in Congress. For
PRISM especially, that's in part because the program is considered more useful and because it deals primarily with surveillance of foreigners.
U.S. tech companies that are subject to PRISM, including Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, have called for changes to the program. Yet when asked about whether he
would work to take down PRISM, even Wyden bristled at the question. "I am going to keep it to the three that I am going to change," Wyden said. Even reformers
outside the confines of the Senate recognize that ending PRISM is a complicated pursuit. "It is not going to be quite as easy to drum up the same support," says Liza
Goitein, codirector for the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Though PRISM may prove difficult to upend, other efforts, such as
a broadly supported push to update the decades-old Electronic Privacy Communications Act, may prove more palatable. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee, the lead
authors of the Freedom Act in the upper chamber, indicated their desire to move quickly on passing legislation that would update the law to require law enforcement
The immediate next battlefield for civil liberties groups
will find them on the defense , as they attempt to prevent legislation that would increase the sharing of certain cyber
data among the private sector and the government in order to better fend off data breaches. Such
proposals, which already passed the House and are likely to be before the Senate in the coming weeks, could grant the NSA
obtain warrants before accessing the content of Americans' old emails.
access to more personal data, privacy
advocates warn. No matter how the looming debates shake out, for now, one thing is clear: the fight over
the government's surveillance operations is far from over.
Link – PRISM – Inertia
Plan’s unpopular – no Congressional support for reforming internet surveillance
Wagenseil, 13 (Paul Wagenseil, 12-9-2013, "6 Ways Tech Companies' 'Reform Government
Surveillance' Fails", Tom's Guide, http://www.tomsguide.com/us/reform-nsa-fail,news-17959.html, DA:
6-5-2015)
The newly unveiled public-relations campaign by top technology companies urging governments to
reform Internet surveillance
sounds noble, but other than to reassure foreign customers that American companies aren't the bad guys, it won't achieve much . "It is
time for the world's governments to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their
information," states ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com, a website sponsored and signed by AOL, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft,
Twitter and Yahoo. The same seven companies, plus Apple, placed a full-page advertisement in major American newspapers today (Dec. 9),
consisting of an open letter to President Barack Obama and Congress asking the political leaders "to take the lead and make reforms that ensure
that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law." Neither the website nor the ad mention the National Security Agency (NSA)
by name, but the open letter says "the balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual
— rights that are enshrined in our Constitution." "While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take action to protect
their citizens' safety and security," the website says. "We strongly believe that current laws and practices need to be reformed." The website lists
five principles, some directed at foreign governments, that the seven companies would like to see enshrined in surveillance reform: — "Sensible"
limits on governmental authority to collect user information. — More independent legal oversight of information gathering by intelligence
agencies. — "Transparency about government demands" for information from private companies. — Fewer government restrictions on "the free
flow of information" (i.e. no Internet censorship) and no requirements for "service providers to locate infrastructure within a country's borders"
(as Brazil may soon require). — Standardization of national laws concerning government requests for user information. It's hard to argue against
any of those principles, which are so vague and universally acknowledged that it'd be easy for the NSA and its backers to argue that the agency
already espouses them. "The NSA believes it already complies with points 1-2-3," said Robert Graham, co-founder and CEO of Errata Security in
Atlanta. "Point 4 is a direct response to Brazil's proposed laws to relocate data. Point 5 is asking for increased government control." Furthermore,
there are several reasons this ad, website and set of principles will add little to the effort to substantially reform the NSA, and do nothing to
spread that effort overseas. "It's crap marketing, [written] by marketing departments rather than revolutionaries," Graham said. "We don't need
reform making it easier for corporations to comply with government surveillance, but a dismantling of the surveillance state." 1)The NSA will
continue to find ways around encryption and other forms of communications secrecy. Finding out things that other people don't want anyone to
know is the agency's primary job, and it spends billions of dollars each year cracking encryption. No amount of protest from Silicon Valley will
change that. 2) Despite
the constant chatter of concern in the highbrow media, there doesn't seem to be a lot of
among U.S. politicians for limiting the
NSA's abilities, which have been carefully designed to be entirely legal. A handful of congressmen on the
left and right have called for reform, but the majority will be content to let the status quo continue . Obama
outrage among ordinary Americans about NSA spying. Nor is there much support
has called for "self-restraint" on the part of the NSA, and he will push for minor changes, such as an adversarial process at the secret court that
oversees NSA operations inside the United States. But the essential structure of NSA surveillance will remain the same. The next president,
few politicians get votes by
promising to expand civil rights when none have been demonstrably broken .
whether a Democrat or a Republican, will be no different. Libertarians don't win many elections, and
Link – PRISM – Security
There’s congressional consensus against curtailing internet surveillance – national
security outweighs privacy concerns
Davis, 13 (Julie Davis, Bloomberg Business writer, 6-8-2013, "Privacy Confronts National Security in
Obama Surveillance", Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-07/privacyconfronts-national-security-in-obama-surveillance, DA: 6-5-2015)
June 8 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s newly revealed telephone and Internet
surveillance have reopened a
national debate over balancing personal liberty with security, underscoring the degree to which
American worries about terrorism have trumped concerns about sacrificing privacy. The conversation -quiet if not dormant until recently in the absence of a terrorist attack in the U.S. -- has re-emerged in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings
revelations that Obama’s administration is mining phone and Internet data for
terrorism clues. Yet amid the criticism, there’s little sign of a broader backlash against the president or
his approach, say public opinion analysts and political observers, given that Americans have grown
accustomed to the idea of sacrificing some personal liberty in the interest of staying safe from terrorism.
“There’s a lot of opposition to the specific surveillance tactics, but in general, the balance of opinion is in favor of
protection from terrorism, even at the expense of civil liberties,” said Carroll Doherty, associate director at the
Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling and public policy institute. What’s more, in a digital-technology age in
which it is commonplace for people to instantaneously post photographs and share personal accounts of their
activities on social-media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, Americans no longer expect that much of their lives
will stay private. Personal Boundaries That follows reports in recent years of new and different ways in which private companies and even
and escalated in recent days with
political campaigns are collecting and using personal data for marketing and other purposes, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “The difficulty
is that the world has so changed, and for the public, we’ve gone from a sense of privacy to a sense that we have lost control of our own
information, our own lives,” said Hart, chairman of Washington-based Hart Research and Associates. “To a certain extent, Americans have
created their own set of problems by using social media, and when we voluntarily give up information, we’re more accepting of this invasion,”
Hart said. “But when it’s not being given up of our own volition, we find it more threatening.” Obama, responding publicly to the controversy for
the first time yesterday, said he welcomed the debate and considered it “a sign of maturity” in the post-9/11 age. Democrats and Republicans who
“weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president” in control of government surveillance are now asking questions, he said. Still,
in defending the programs, Obama
suggested that individual rights sometimes must be compromised for
American’s safety. No 100-Percent “It’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent
privacy and zero inconvenience -- we’re going to have to make some choices as a society,” Obama told reporters in San Jose, California. “In the
abstract, you can complain about ‘Big Brother’ or how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, then I think
prominent members of Congress in both parties say they agree. The leaders
of the congressional intelligence committees issued joint statements this week defending the telephonesurveillance program and asserting its legality, saying they had been monitoring the activities regularly. “It has proved meritorious because
we’ve struck the right balance.” Some
we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years,” said Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top
Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The panel’s chairwoman, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, summed
this way: “It’s called protecting America.”
it up
Link – Section 702 (FISA Amendment Act)
Restricting Section 702 powers drains PC – alienates Congressional leadership,
sparks powerful opposition, legislative gridlock, and requires political concessions
despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate.
The House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which
would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions
— by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,”
said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ...
If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye ,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (RTexas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to
collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of
Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the
Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to
include “backdoors” into their devices, so that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit
searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without
a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s
markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in
order to advance legislation. While every committee member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it
ultimately failed because of fear that it would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is
attached to this bill, this bill is going nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said.
“This amendment is objected to by many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the
Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced
legislation to renew the Patriot Act without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new
amendment, backers said, that Senate effort would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all
the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said, because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense
spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that
that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many
suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to
sunset in 2017, which should force a debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the
matter “soon.” But that provided little reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about
postponing the Fourth Amendment and allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Link – “Upstream” Program
Restricting “Upstream” surveillance program drains PC – alienates Congressional
leadership, sparks powerful opposition, legislative gridlock, and requires political
concessions despite popularity – empirics prove
Hattem, 15 (Julian Hattem, staff writer for The Hill, 4-30-2015, "Expansive surveillance reform takes
backseat to House politics", The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240641-expansive-spyingreforms-take-backseat-to-house-politics, DA: 5-23-2015)
Congress is waving the white flag about moving forward with more expansive intelligence reform. As
lawmakers stare down the barrel of a deadline to renew or reform the Patriot Act, they have all but assured that more
expansive reforms to U.S. intelligence powers won’t be included. It’s not because of the substance of
the reforms — which practically all members of the House Judiciary Committee said they support on Thursday — but because they
would derail a carefully calibrated deal and are opposed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate.
The House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment to expand the scope of the USA Freedom Act — which
would reform the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and some other provisions
— by a vote of 9-24. “If there ever was a perfect being the enemy of the good amendment, then this is it,”
said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a supporter of the idea behind the amendment who ultimately voted
against it. “What adoption of this amendment will do is take away all leverage that this committee has relative to reforming the Patriot Act. ...
If this amendment is adopted, you can kiss this bill goodbye ,” he added. The amendment from Rep. Ted Poe (RTexas) would block the spy agency from using powers under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to
collect Americans’ Internet communications without a warrant. The NSA has relied on the powers of
Section 702 to conduct its “PRISM” and “Upstream” collection programs, which gather data from major Web
companies such as Facebook and Google, as well as to tap into the networks that make up the backbone of the
Internet. The amendment would have also prevented the government from forcing tech companies to include “backdoors” into their devices, so
that the government could access people’s information. “Unless we specifically limit searches of this data on American citizens, our intelligence
agencies will continue to use it for this purpose and they will continue to do it without a warrant,” Poe said. “A warrantless search of American
citizens' communication must not occur.” The
discussion during Thursday’s markup offered a fascinating glimpse into the
political calculations and sacrifices lawmakers make in order to advance legislation. While every
committee member who spoke up was in support of the amendment, it ultimately failed because of fear that it
would kill the overall bill. “We have been assured if this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill is going
nowhere,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “This amendment is objected to by
many in positions who affect the future of this legislation.” In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) have introduced legislation to renew the Patriot Act
without changes. If the USA Freedom Act were to be scuttled because of the new amendment, backers said, that Senate effort
would become the default path forward. The move to drop the fix was all the more frustrating, supporters of the amendment said,
because Congress overwhelmingly voted 293-123 to add similar language to a defense spending bill last year. “How can it be when the House of
Representatives has expressed its will on this very question, by a vote of 293-123, that that is illegitimate?” asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.),
who supported the amendment. While lawmakers blocked Thursday’s amendment, many suggested that it would be brought up as an amendment
to various appropriations bills in coming months. The 702 powers
are also set to sunset in 2017, which should force a
debate on them then. Goodlatte also pledged to hold a hearing on the matter “soon.” But that provided little
reassurance to critics of the NSA’s powers. “We’re talking about postponing the Fourth Amendment and
allowing it to apply to American citizens for at least two years,” said Poe.
Link Turns Case
Link Turns Case
Link alone turns case – fights cause the aff to get watered-down and circumvented
in implementation
Greenwald, 14 (Glenn Greenwald, 11-19-2014, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, "Congress Is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance.
Here's what Matters instead", The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevance-u-scongress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/, DA: 5-30-2015)
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought to
change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while
leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,
based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95 percent of the
planet called “non-Americans”). There were some mildly positive provisions in the USA Freedom Act: the placement of “public advocates” at
the FISA court to contest the claims of the government; the prohibition on the NSA holding Americans’ phone records, requiring instead that they
obtain FISA court approval before seeking specific records from the telecoms (which already hold those records for at least 18 months); and
reducing the agency’s “contact chaining” analysis from three hops to two. One could reasonably argue (as the ACLU and EFF did) that, though
woefully inadequate, the bill was a net-positive as a first step toward real reform, but one could also reasonably argue, as Marcy Wheeler has with
characteristic insight, that the bill is so larded with ambiguities and fundamental inadequacies that it would forestall better options and advocates
for real reform should thus root for its defeat. When
pro-privacy members of Congress first unveiled the bill many months
ago, it was actually a good bill: real reform. But the White House worked very hard— in partnership
with the House GOP—to water that bill down so severely that what the House ended up passing over the
summer did more to strengthen the NSA than rein it in, which caused even the ACLU and EFF to
withdraw their support. The Senate bill rejected last night was basically a middle ground between that original,
good bill and the anti-reform bill passed by the House. * * * * * All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most important point
from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S. government is . . .
the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and that’s particularly true of
empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform . This Congress is not going
to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance. Even if it somehow
did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the fact that the U.S.
intelligence community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means they’d easily co-opt
the entire reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of the mid-1970s led to
the establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight” court—the committees
were instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence community like Senators
Dianne Feinstein and Chambliss, and Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court quickly became a rubber
stamp with subservient judges who operate in total secrecy. Ever since the Snowden reporting began and public opinion (in both the
U.S. and globally) began radically changing, the White House’s strategy has been obvious. It’s vintage Obama: Enact
something that is called “reform”—so that he can give a pretty speech telling the world that he heard and responded to their
concerns—but that in actuality changes almost nothing, thus strengthening the very system he can pretend
he “changed.” That’s the same tactic as Silicon Valley, which also supported this bill: Be able to point to something called “reform” so
they can trick hundreds of millions of current and future users around the world into believing that their
communications are now safe if they use Facebook, Google, Skype and the rest. In pretty much every interview I’ve done over the last
year, I’ve been asked why there haven’t been significant changes from all the disclosures. I vehemently disagree with the premise
of the question, which equates “U.S. legislative changes” with “meaningful changes.” But it has been
clear from the start that U.S. legislation is not going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSA’s
powers of mass surveillance, at least not fundamentally. Those limitations are going to come from—are now coming from —
very different places:
AFF Links
Link Turns
Link Turn – Generic
There’s bipartisan momentum for curtailing surveillance
Weisman, 13 (Jonathan Weisman, political writer for NYT, 7-28-2013, "Momentum Builds against
N.S.A. Surveillance", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/politics/momentumbuilds-against-nsa-surveillance.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — The movement to crack down on government surveillance started with an odd couple from Michigan,
Representatives Justin Amash, a young libertarian Republican known even to his friends as “chief wing nut,” and John Conyers Jr., an elder of
the liberal left in his 25th House term. But what began on the political fringes only a week ago has
built a momentum that even
critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting
moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the
House. The rapidly shifting politics were reflected clearly in the House on Wednesday, when a plan to defund the National Security Agency’s
telephone data collection program fell just seven votes short of passage. Now, after initially signaling that they were comfortable with the scope
of the N.S.A.’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet activities, but not their content, revealed last month by Edward J. Snowden,
lawmakers are showing an increasing willingness to use legislation to curb those actions. Representatives Jim
Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, have begun work on legislation in the
House Judiciary Committee to significantly rein in N.S.A. telephone surveillance. Mr. Sensenbrenner said on Friday that he
would have a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a
federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and
Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court. “There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter
here,” Ms. Lofgren said. The sudden reconsideration of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism policy has taken much of Washington by surprise. As the
revelations by Mr. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, were gaining attention in the news media, the White House and leaders in both parties
stood united behind the programs he had unmasked. They were focused mostly on bringing the leaker to justice. Backers of sweeping
surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain control over the extent
of any revisions. Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee met on Wednesday as the House deliberated to try to find accommodations to
growing public misgivings about the programs, said the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. Senator
Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat and longtime critic of the N.S.A. surveillance programs, said he had taken part in serious meetings to discuss
changes. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the panel, said, “We’re talking through it right now.” He added, “There
are a lot of ideas on the table, and it’s pretty obvious that we’ve got some uneasy folks.” Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and
the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has assured House colleagues that an intelligence policy bill he plans to draft in midSeptember will include new privacy safeguards. Aides familiar with his efforts said the House Intelligence Committee was focusing on more
transparency for the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees data gathering, including possibly declassifying that court’s
orders, and changes to the way the surveillance data is stored. The legislation may order such data to be held by the telecommunications
companies that produce them or by an independent entity, not the government. Lawmakers say their votes
to restrain the N.S.A.
reflect a gut-level concern among voters about personal privacy. “I represent a very reasonable district in suburban
Philadelphia, and my constituents are expressing a growing concern on the sweeping amounts of data that the
government is compiling,” said Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican who represents one of the few true
swing districts left in the House and who voted on Wednesday to limit N.S.A. surveillance. Votes from the likes of Mr. Fitzpatrick were not
initially anticipated when Republican leaders chided reporters for their interest in legislation that they said would go nowhere. As the House
slowly worked its way on Wednesday toward an evening vote to curb government surveillance, even proponents of the legislation jokingly
predicted that only the “wing nuts” — the libertarians of the right, the most ardent liberals on the left — would support the measure. Then Mr.
Sensenbrenner, a Republican veteran and one of the primary authors of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act, stepped to a microphone on the House floor.
Never, he said, did he intend to allow the wholesale vacuuming up of domestic phone records, nor did his legislation envision that data dragnets
would go beyond specific targets of terrorism investigations. “The time has come to stop it, and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment,”
Mr. Sensenbrenner said. He had not intended to speak, and when he did, he did not say much, just seven brief sentences. “I was able to say what
needed to be said in a minute,” he said Friday. Lawmakers from both parties said the brief speech was a pivotal moment. When the tally was
final, the effort to end the N.S.A.’s programs had fallen short, 205 to 217. Supporters included Republican leaders like Representative Cathy
McMorris Rodgers of Washington and Democratic leaders like Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina. Republican moderates like
Mr. Fitzpatrick and Blue Dog Democrats like Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon joined with respected voices on national security matters
like Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren. Besides Ms. McMorris Rodgers, Representative Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, another member of the
Republican leadership, voted yes. On the Democratic side, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Representative Xavier Becerra of
California, and his vice chairman, Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, broke with the top two Democrats, Representatives Nancy Pelosi
of California and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who pressed hard for no votes. On Friday, Ms. Pelosi, the House minority leader and a veteran
of the Intelligence Committee, and Mr. Hoyer
dashed off a letter to the president warning that even those Democrats
who had stayed with him on the issue on Wednesday would be seeking changes. That letter included the signature of Mr.
Conyers, who is rallying an increasingly unified Democratic caucus to his side, as well as 61 House Democrats who
voted no on Wednesday but are now publicly signaling their discontent. “Although some of us voted for and others against the amendment, we all
agree that there are lingering questions and concerns about the current” data collection program, the letter stated. Representative Reid Ribble of
Wisconsin, a Republican who voted for the curbs and predicted that changes to the N.S.A. surveillance programs were now unstoppable, said:
“This was in many respects a vote intended to send a message. The vote was just too strong.” Ms. Lofgren said the White House and Democratic
and Republican leaders had not come to grips with what she called “a grave sense of betrayal” that greeted Mr. Snowden’s revelations. Since the
Bush administration, lawmakers had been repeatedly assured that such indiscriminate collection of data did not exist, and that when targeting was
unspecific, it was aimed at people abroad. The movement against the N.S.A. began with the fringes of each party. Mr. Amash of Michigan began
pressing for an amendment on the annual military spending bill aimed at the N.S.A. Leaders of the Intelligence Committee argued strenuously
that such an amendment was not relevant to military spending and should be ruled out of order. But Mr. Amash, an acolyte of Ron Paul, a
libertarian former congressman, persisted and rallied support. Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren said they were willing to work with the House
and Senate intelligence panels to overhaul the surveillance programs, but indicated that they did not believe those panels were ready to go far
enough. “I would just hope the Intelligence Committees will not stick their heads in the sand on this,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
Link Turn – Generic – Tech Lobbies
The tech sector loves and will push for the plan – they’re a key lobby group
Romm, 15 (Tony Romm, senior technology reporter for Politico, 1-21-2015, "Tech giants get deeper
into D.C. influence game", POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tech-lobby-apple-amazonfacebook-google-114468.html, DA: 6-2-2015)
Apple, Amazon and Facebook shelled out record amounts to influence Washington; Google posted one of
its biggest lobbying years ever; and a slew of new tech companies dipped their toes into politics for the first
time in 2014 — a sign of the industry’s deepening effort to shape policymaking in D.C. The sharp uptick
in spending reflects the tech sector’s evolution from an industry that once shunned Washington into a powerful interest
that’s willing to lobby extensively to advance the debates that matter most to companies’ bottom lines —
from clamping down on patent lawsuits to restricting NSA surveillance to obtaining more high-skilled immigration visas and green
cards. Story Continued Below “There is increasingly a sense from companies that they need to engage earlier and smarter,” said Ryan Triplette, a
Republican lobbyist for Franklin Square Group, which represents companies like Apple and Google. “They began opening up their view as their
businesses have grown … and not just looking at traditional technology issues.” Apple, which mostly avoided D.C. under the watch of late
CEO Steve Jobs, grew its lobbying balance sheet to just over $4.1 million last year from $3.3 million in 2013, according to an
analysis of lobbying reports, the latest of which were filed midnight Tuesday. The iPhone giant recently has shown a greater willingness to
engage Washington under CEO Tim Cook: It even dispatched executives to Capitol Hill in September to talk about its new smart watch and
health tracking tools hoping to assuage lawmakers’ fears about the new technology’s data-tracking abilities. Amazon’s
lobbying
expenses — more than $4.7 million, up from around $3.5 million in 2013 — correspond with the company’s own
Washington makeover. The e-commerce giant last year jumped into new lines of business, expanding its pursuit of government contracts
while eyeing a new drone delivery service, prompting it to hire a slew of new lobbyists and move to a bigger downtown D.C. office. Amazon is
also fighting the Federal Trade Commission over how it handled app purchases made by kids. Apple, Amazon and Google declined to comment
on the record. Facebook did not reply to a request for comment. For all their efforts, these tech giants failed to advance their political priorities in
the last Congress — but the fights are sure to return in 2015 under the Republican-majority Congress. GOP leaders in
both chambers have already promised to revive the debate over patent litigation reform — a critical issue for tech companies like Google that
want to curb lawsuits from so-called patent trolls. There’s also talk of boosting the number of foreign high-skilled workers, something industry
titans have coveted as part of broader immigration reform. The looming expiration of key Patriot Act surveillance authorities means Congress
must also wade back into the fight over what data the NSA can collect — a major issue for tech
companies stung by Edward Snowden’s leaks about the agency’s spying via popular Internet services. And lawmakers are plugging
into new issues like drones and wearable technology that are important to Silicon Valley. “No doubt, Internet and tech companies are
a bigger and more important part of the economy — period. It’s natural they’re going to be more involved in the
political process,” said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group whose members
include Amazon, Facebook and Google. “There’s been a growing realization that not only do tech companies have to be in there [in D.C.], to
make a fair pitch, they have to be more actively involved because they have to fight off hostile efforts.“ Google is the leader of the tech pack
when it comes to lobbying: The company, which until October owned Motorola Mobility, spent more than $17 million in 2014 — its secondmost expensive year after 2012, when it battled back a federal antitrust investigation. The search giant’s D.C. operation, led by former GOP Rep.
Susan Molinari, relocated last year to a new, sprawling 54,000-square-foot office steps from the Capitol. Facebook, for its part, spent more than
$9.3 million in 2014, up from $6.4 million in 2013. The company’s most recent lobbying report points to its work on privacy and security issues
along with Internet access and trade, as Facebook aims to expand its service worldwide and avoid foreign rules that might restrict where it stores
user data. Companies like Belkin, a major player in the emerging sector of connected home devices, and Snapchat, an app for disappearing photo
messages, each registered their first-ever lobbyists last year. Snapchat hired its new consultants from the firm Heather Podesta + Partners after a
major data breach registered on Washington’s radar. Other prominent tech companies retained new help, as well. Netflix grew its lobbying roster
amid the fight at the FCC over net neutrality. And Uber added D.C. lobbyists to win new allies for its ride-hailing app, which has triggered fights
with state and local regulators and cab operators nationwide. And a
coalition of tech titans like Apple, Google and
Microsoft banded together to invest in an anti-NSA snooping coalition, Reform Government Surveillance, which spent
$230,000 in 2014. Many of those companies’ executives regularly traveled to Washington to press President Barack
Obama on surveillance reforms, and the group ran frequent advertisements highlighting the need for more NSA transparency.
Link Turn – Generic – Public
Plan’s popular – there’s overwhelming, bipartisan public support for reducing
surveillance – it directly affects Obama’s approval rating
Jaycox, 14 (MARK JAYCOX, Legislative Analyst for EFF, 22-2014, "Update: Polls Continue to Show
Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying", Electronic Frontier Foundation,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying, DA:
5-30-2015)
Update, January 2014: Polls
continue to confirm the trend. In a poll conducted in December 2013 by the Washington Post,
66% of Americans were concerned "about the collection and use of [their] personal information by the N ational
S ecurity A gency." Americans aren't only concerned about the collection. A recent Pew poll found—yet again—that a
majority of Americans oppose the government's collection of phone and Internet data as a part of anti-terrorism efforts.
Since Americans are both concerned with, and opposed to, the spying, it's no surprise that they also want
reform. In a November 2013 poll by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research,1 59% of respondents noted that they wanted surveillance
reform and 63% said they wanted more oversight of the spying programs. While these polls focused on the larger population of
Americans, a Harvard University Insitute of Politics poll focusing on younger Americans (aged 18-29 years old) reaffirmed younger
Americans are both wary of the NSA's activities and that a majority do not want the government to collect
personal information about them. Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if
they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot
Act and collecting phone calls and emails using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a
resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about
privacy has continued. Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their
privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose
the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of
respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in
opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June. What's also important
is that it crosses political
party lines . The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans
believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is
a bipartisan issue . In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy
rights. Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight. In a recent poll,
Rasmusson—though sometimes known for push polling—revealed that there's been a 30 percent increase in people who believe it is now more
likely that the government will monitor their phone calls. Maybe even more significant is that this skepticism carries over into whether or not
Americans believe the government's claim that it "robustly oversees" the NSA's programs. In a Huffpost/You Gov poll, 53 percent of respondents
said they think "the federal courts and rules put in place by Congress" do not provide "adequate oversight." Only 18 percent of people agreed with
the statement. Americans seem to be waking up from its surveillance state slumber as the leaks around the illegal and unconstitutional NSA
spying continue. The
anger Americans—especially younger Americans—have around the NSA spying is starting to
show. President Obama has seen a 14-point swing in his approval and disapproval rating among voters aged 1829 after the NSA spying. These recent round of polls confirm that Americans are not only concerned with the fact that the spying
infringes their privacy, but also that they want the spying to stop. And this is even more so for younger Americans. Now is the
time for Congress to act: join the StopWatching.Us coalition.
That shields the link and builds political capital
Page, 09 – cites H.W. Brands, professor at UTA, and presidential historian who has met privately with
Obama (Susan Page, USA Today reporter, 7-20-2009, "Polls can affect president's hold on party", USA
Today, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm, DA: 5-302015)
WASHINGTON — A
president's standing after his first six months in office doesn't forecast whether he'll have a successful four-year
term, but it does signal how much political juice he'll have for his second six months in office. That's the lesson of
history . Barack Obama, who completed six months in office Monday, has a 55% approval rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, putting
him 10th among the dozen presidents who have served since World War II at this point in their tenures. That's not as bad for Obama as it may
sound: The six-month mark hasn't proved to be a particularly good indicator of how a president ultimately will fare. Two-thirds of Americans
approved of the jobs Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were doing at six months, but both would lose their bids for re-election. And though
the younger Bush and Bill Clinton had significantly lower ratings at 180 days — Clinton had sunk to 41% approval — both won second terms.
Even so, a
president's standing at the moment is more than a matter of vanity. It affects his ability to hold the
members of his own party and persuade those on the other side to support him, at least on the
occasional issue. " Approval ratings are absolutely critical for a president achieving his agenda," says
Republican pollster Whit Ayres. For Obama, the timing of his slide in ratings is particularly unhelpful: He's intensified his push to pass health
care bills in the House and Senate before Congress leaves on its August recess. He'll press his case at a news conference at 8 p.m. Wednesday.
His overall approval rating has dropped 9 percentage points since his inauguration in January, and his disapproval rate has jumped 16 points, to
41%. Trouble at home More people disapprove than approve of Obama on four domestic issues: the economy, taxes, health care and the federal
budget deficit. He scores majority approval on handling Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign affairs. The biggest drop has been on his handling of the
economy, down 12 points since February; his disapproval is up 19 points. The most erosion has come not from Republicans or independents but
among his own Democrats. Support from conservative and moderate Democrats is down by 18 points. Another group in the party's political base
— those earning $20,000 to $50,000 a year — had a drop of 15 percentage points, to 47%. That could reflect one reason why moderate
Democratic senators and the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House are demanding more cost controls in the health care plan
before they'll sign on. "It's
important if a president is trying to accomplish some big stuff legislatively," H.W.
Brands, a professor at the U niversity of T exas- A ustin, says of the approval rating. He was one of several
presidential historians who sat down with Obama at a private White House dinner this month. "Members
of Congress are somewhat reluctant to tangle with a president who seems to have the backing of the
American people." At 55% overall, Obama's approval rating is a tick below that of George W. Bush at six months. It is well above
Clinton and Gerald Ford, who was hammered for his pardon of Richard Nixon. At the top of the list is Harry Truman at 82% — buoyed by the
end of World War II — followed by Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower. The fact that presidents from the 1950s and 1960s
scored better than more recent ones could mean the public's assessments are getting tougher. "Mid-20th-century presidents had higher political
capital and more stable political capital than presidents of the last 20 years," says Steven Schier, a political scientist who is studying presidential
job approval since modern polling began in the 1930s. He wrote Panorama of a Presidency: How George W. Bush Acquired and Spent His
Political Capital. Schier theorizes that the difference in ratings is due to the accelerating speed with which information is disseminated, the
declining number of Americans firmly tied to a political party and a growing desire to see quick results. "There's
less patience with
presidents than there used to be," he says. What's popularity for? Savvy presidents understand that pursuing big
policies will cost them popularity, Brands says. "Presidents have to decide what their popularity is for,"
he says. "Lyndon Johnson probably understood best that political popularity is a wasting asset. You had to use it when you had it." Johnson was
inaugurated after Kennedy's assassination in 1963 and then crushed Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race. LBJ used his high
approval ratings — they didn't fall below 60% for more than two years after his inauguration — and big majorities in the House and Senate to
enact his Great Society programs. Amid growing opposition to the Vietnam War, Johnson's standing fell so low that he decided not to seek
another term. Ronald Reagan may provide a closer parallel to Obama. Both took office as the nation's economy was in perilous times. Reagan
was at 60% at six months, but his standing slipped below 50% by the end of his first year in office as the jobless rate swelled. It would take two
years and economic recovery before a majority of Americans would approve of his presidency again.
---Public Support Key
Most qualified evidence proves the link between popular approval and political
capital – they’re directly influenced by policies
Clawson and Oxley, 13 (Rosalee A. Clawson, Department Head and Professor of Poli Sci at Purdue,
Ph.D. Ohio State, AND Zoe M. Oxley, Professor of Political Science and American Studies at Union
College, Public Opinion: Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice, pp. 109-112, Google Books, DA:
5/30/2015)
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL One
of the most important political attitudes studied by political scientists is
presidential approval.18 Politicians, journalists, and political junkies are also quite interested in this concept. Presidential approval refers
to the public’s level of approval or disapproval of the president’s job performance . For decades, the Gallup
organization has conducted daily telephone surveys with national, representative samples of U.S. citizens to track approval of the president.
Gallup asks, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the incumbent] is handling his job as president?”19 Each day Gallup releases its latest
approval numbers for the president based on a three-day rolling average of these tracking polls. The data are posted online at 1:00 p.m. EST on
the Gallup Web site. Some political observers are so obsessed with these numbers that they glue themselves to their computers or smartphones
each afternoon waiting anxiously for the data to be released. Why are these
approval ratings so important? Because they speak
volumes about a president’s political power . Strong approval ratings are good news for a president’s reelection
chances, and they boost the electoral fortunes of members of Congress in his party who support his agenda.20
Higher approval ratings also enable the president to be more successful in his interactions with Congress.21
In general, high approval ratings can be thought of as a form of political capital that allows the president to
pursue his goals. Presidential approval ratings for George W. Bush and Barack Obama are presented in Figure 4-2. (Take a look at the
Presidential Job Approval Center on the Gallup Web site for job approval ratings from Truman to Obama.22) The first thing that jumps out about
these ratings is the way in which presidential approval declines over time. President George W. Bush started his presidency with approval ratings
in the high 50s and low 60s, but ended eight years later in the high 20s and low 30s. President Obama took office with approval ratings in the
mid-6os, but those declined over time as well. This initial popularity is often referred to as the honeymoon period. Presidents take office with
substantial goodwill from the public and, quite important, from other political elites. As time goes by however, the president is faced with many
difficult and controversial problems, and inevitably he makes decisions that tick off one group of people or another.23 Although
the
average citizen may not track a president’s every move, political elites are paying close attention, and some
begin to complain about the president’s decisions. The media transmit, and may even exaggerate, those
criticisms, so that citizens are increasingly exposed to negative coverage of the president. As a result, public approval for the president falls
over time.24 Another noticeable feature of the presidential approval data is the way the public reacts to foreign policy events. Specifically, a
rally round the flag effect occurs when presidential popularity surges in the wake of a foreign policy event
involving the United States, especially an unexpected crisis.25 After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush’s ratings soared to 90
percent approval as citizens’ patriotism and feelings of unity were activated by the tragedy of that day.26 As expected, over time President Bush’s
ratings declined from this extraordinarily high level, but he received another boost when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The
capture of Saddam Hussein also provided a small lift to President Bush’s ratings in December 2003, and as we already mentioned, President
Obama’s ratings rose in response to the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Foreign policy events clearly benefited President George W.
Bush’s approval ratings on several occasions, but war also took a toll on his popularity. Battle deaths in Iraq, for example, had a significant
negative effect on Bush’s approval ratings.27 More generally, a study of presidential approval ratings from 1948 through 2008 demonstrates that
war casualties and the financial costs of war can dampen a president’s popularity.28 Citizens’
views of presidential job
performance are influenced by another crucial factor—the economy. Whether scholars use objective measures of
economic well-being, such as the unemployment rate, or citizens’ perceptions of the state of the economy or both to explain presidential approval,
it is clear that economic variables have a significant impact on citizens’ evaluations.29 As President Obama is well aware, a poor economy
wreaks havoc on a president’s popularity. The bump in approval President Obama experienced as a result of bin Laden’s death quickly dissipated
as economic conditions weighed heavily on many U.S. citizens during summer 2011. In fact, Obama’s approval ratings reached all-time lows in
fall 2011 as citizens reacted to the acrimonious debate over raising the debt ceiling and the economy continued to sputter. Overall, this
aggregate-level research on presidential approval shows that it is not as stable as collective public opinion on issues tends
to be. Yet at the same time, changes in presidential approval are not random but are reactions to political events
and economic conditions, suggesting at least a somewhat sophisticated and capable citizenry. There is a caveat, however.
Political elites and media organizations play a critical role in interpreting events and conditions for
citizens as they evaluate the president.30 For example, when a group of political elites start hammering a
president on a particular issue and the media pick up that story line and run with it, an issue can quickly become
prominent in the minds of citizens and influence their judgment of presidential performance. This is fine from a
participatory democratic viewpoint if the media and political elites are focusing on important issues in an honest fashion, but what about when
trivial issues arc emphasized or reality is distorted? Citizens are ill served by such discourse and may find their evaluations of the president’s job
performance influenced by faulty evidence and reasoning.
Link Turn – Generic – Congress/Lobbies
Reform’s popular and builds political support – lobbies, lawmakers – their evidence
doesn’t assume new changes in the political environment
Barfield, 14 (Claude Barfield, resident scholar at AEI who researches international trade policy, the
WTO, IP, and science and tech policy, and is former consultant to the Office of the US Trade
Representative, 8-6-2014, "NSA surveillance reform: A tilt toward privacy over security?-CICTP", Tech
Policy Daily, http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/nsa-surveillance-reform-tilt-toward-privacysecurity/, DA: 5-23-2015)
Several months ago, I predicted that in the debate over proposed NSA surveillance reform, NSA’s security defenders would ultimately hold the
line against significant changes in the current mode of operation. Traditionally,
security trumps privacy. But at this point in
time, the tide seems to be going the other way . Last week, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT), introduced a version of the USA Freedom Act that is far more restrictive on intelligence
agencies’ operations than any other competing bill. Surprisingly, given the deep political divisions, Leahy’s bill
seems to have swept the field. As Jodie Liu and Benjamin Wittes write in Lawfare, “It’s the bill. It represents a compromise between
the intelligence community, the administration more generally, civil liberties groups, industry, and a fairly wide range of senators. And it will be
the legislation that moves forward with the sometimes nose-holding support of most of the major parties.” What follows is a brief review of how
we got here – and the future prospects for NSA surveillance reform. One can start with President Obama’s much heralded but ultimately
noncommittal speech on NSA and FISA court reforms in January. In
his “leading from behind” mode, the president laid
down general principles but left it to Congress and various interest groups to fill in the specifics. Reactions to the
president’s speech were decidedly mixed and reflected the strong, opposing viewpoints across the security-privacy spectrum.
Then NSA Director General Keith Alexander had already publicly stated his opposition to ending the government’s control of the metadata
program. His skepticism regarding this and other elements of the administration’s proposed FISA reforms was echoed publicly by the chairmen
and ranking members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. On
the other side, numerous privacy and civil
liberties organizations – the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, et. al. –
immediately clamored for legally binding, tighter restrictions on NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance activities. They
were joined by a Who’s Who of high-tech companies, including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, Facebook, Twitter, and
LinkedIn. Jockeying among congressional committees provides one central focus for the narrative over the past six months. Jurisdiction over
NSA/FISA reform is split between the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees in both houses, with primary power traditionally residing in the
Intelligence Committees. Pursuant to the president’s proposals, the House Intelligence Committee began working on a bill to partially revamp
intelligence community and FISA Court procedures. But in a surprising turn of events, a competing bill from the House Judiciary Committee
developed strong bipartisan support and 163 sponsors. At that point, House Intelligence Committee leadership capitulated and entered into
negotiations with the administration and with Rep. Sensenbrenner and others on the Judiciary Committee. This in turn led to a Judiciary
Committee version of the USA Freedom Act that was revised in late negotiations to assuage concerns among both the administration and
Intelligence committee members. This bill passed the House on May 21, 303-121. Giving
evidence of how far the pendulum has
swung in recent months, however, both civil libertarian groups and high-tech companies came down hard against the
House bill as passed, and demanded further restrictions and changes in current policy and practice. This set
the stage for Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy to seize the lead and rally a broad political coalition behind his own revised bill.
Link Turn – Generic/FISA
Plan’s popular – new Congressional support for curtailing surveillance –
momentum goes aff
*specific lawmakers – Lee (R-UT), Durbin (D-IL), Merkley (D-OR), Wyden (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Udall
(D-CO), Leahy (D-VT)
Everett, 13 (Burgess Everett, congressional reporter for POLITICO, 6-7-2013, "Mounting concern
over NSA in Congress", POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/mounting-concern-over-nsain-congress-92422.html, DA: 5-23-2015)
Concern in Congress is mounting over broad surveillance by the Obama administration as new revelations
surfaced that the National Security Administration is monitoring Internet usage. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is shopping bills
that would address some portions of the government monitoring, an aide said, particularly the NSA collection of Verizon
phone records. His legislation would likely be similar to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments that he pushed last year with
fellow senators like Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The measures, both of which failed last December, would
require the declassification of certain FISA court opinions and require reports on the impact of FISA surveillance on Americans. The Lee aide
said that with
government surveillance so prominent in the news, the legislation may find itself some new
supporters . Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he’s likely to support that legislation. “We should have
done this,” Durbin said of increasing oversight and transparency on government surveillance. “We may not have run into this
surprise breaking story these past few days if we did.” Durbin voted against FISA reauthorization and has worked on transparency issues with
the past, he said, amendments to broaden oversight were “clearly an idea that didn’t sell.” In the wake of the
initial revelations about Verizon records, the general reaction on Capitol Hill was muted. Members of the intelligence
committees said they knew about the surveillance and weren’t alarmed, and that they had been routinely consulted. Civil libertarians such
as Lee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called for strengthening privacy protections. After staying largely quiet this week,
Wyden and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement on Friday afternoon blasting the administration’s use of the
Patriot Act. The two have hinted for years that Americans would be shocked at how some of its provisions are used. “We respectfully but
Lee. In
firmly disagree with the way that this program has been described by senior administration officials. After years of review, we believe statements
that this very broad Patriot Act collection has been ‘a critical tool in protecting the nation’ do not appear to hold up under close scrutiny,” the two
Intelligence Committee members said. “We also disagree with the statement that the broad Patriot Act collection strikes the ‘right balance’
between protecting American security and protecting Americans’ privacy. In our view it does not,” they added. Amid the new reports, there
are new calls for at least further debate about how FISA and the Patriot Act are being implemented. Senate
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lamented that lawmakers were too consumed by the fiscal cliff last
December when FISA came up for renewal. Leahy and Lee both voted against the FISA extension, and Leahy offered a substitute
that failed. “I wish they had paid attention to what I tried to put in legislation,” Leahy said Friday.
A2 Links
A2 Soft on Terror Link
Curtailing security isn’t perceived as being soft on terror
Alexander, Editor for the Southern, 5-14-2015
(Jon, Alexander: Durbin, Congress must defend Edward Snowden,
http://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/editorial/alexander/alexander-durbin-congress-must-defend-edwardsnowden/article_e17a5dfa-6be4-549c-a2c8-fe65275e6d7d.html)
Snowden, a lowly analyst for a private contractor, saw his government abusing its power and did something about it. The shear guts required
to grab the reams of classified documents and bolt is mind-blowing. It's something out of a James Bond film. Yet he pulled it off. And, 14
years after the 9/11 attacks, he's forcing the U.S. to grapple with what it has become. The 9/11 terrorists didn't
expect to conquer the U.S. or topple the government. They only hoped to force us to surrender core values out of fear. And, on that
level, they won. Americans gladly surrendered freedom for a false sense of security. For a short time, we turned on liberty because any open
state will, by definition, be a vulnerable one. But it doesn't have to be a long-term victory for the religious radicals. Snowden's leaks are
returning the U.S. to normalcy, where the First and Fourth Amendments again mean something. Just a
decade ago, any lawmaker who dared question the Orwellian U.S. spy network was branded either soft
on terror or naive. Not any more .
Link’s inevitable – politics are ever changing
Collinson, CNN Reporter and Correspondent, 6-2-2015
(Stephen, Are post-9/11 politics shifting? http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/rand-paul-nsa-2016politics/)
Washington (CNN) Rand Paul has made his point: the
sands are shifting in Washington's perennial debate over the
balance between national security and privacy. In the post-9/11 era, the Kentucky senator's battle over ending
the NSA's phone data collection program would typically set off a familiar convulsion with critics of the
national security state facing accusations that they are willing to forgo America's safety. But while
opponents are flinging such charges Paul's way, they are finding that simply branding him as weak on keeping
America safe is not a sufficient response to the changing politics on the issue.
A2 Flip Flop Link
Plan’s not a flip flop – Obama already supports curtailing surveillance
*specifically for metadata, Section 215, and FISA reform
Lewis and Ackerman, 13 (Paul Lewis, Washington correspondent for the Guardian, AND Spencer
Ackerman, national security editor for The Guardian, 8-1-2013, "Obama touts NSA surveillance reforms
to quell growing unease over programs", Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/obama-nsa-surveillance-reforms-press-conference, DA:
5-30-2015)
Barack Obama
announced the first public review of US surveillance programs since 9/11 on Friday, in what amounts to
the president's first concession that the mounting public concern in response to disclosures by whistleblower Edward
Snowden justifies reform. After weeks in which the Obama and senior intelligence officials have insisted that the
privacy of US citizens was sufficiently protected, the president announced a series of measures aimed at
containing the controversy prompted by the Guardian's revelations. At a White House press conference – his first full
question-and-answer session in three months – Obama said that revelations about the National Security Agency's activities had led
Americans to question their trust in government and damaged the country's reputation abroad. But he made it clear that the
programs themselves would remain in place. Announcing that a panel of independent figures would "review our entire
intelligence and communications technologies", reporting before the end of the year, Obama said: "We need new thinking for a
new era." In an apparent reference to the series of disclosures by the Guardian over the last two months, the president said the "drip by drip"
cascade of stories based on documents provided by Snowden had "changed the environment" and impacted public perceptions. " It
is not
enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them
as well," he said. Obama began his press conference by announcing what he described as "four specific steps" designed to
reassure the public and improve the US's reputation abroad. The proposals included a commitment to work
with Congress to "pursue appropriate reforms" to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which has been used to authorise the bulk
collection of millions of US phone records. He said he would work with legislators to revamp the secretive foreign
intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court, which grants the NSA legal authorization for its mass collection, to make it more adverserial. Obama
conceded the court worked on the basis of biased proceedings which "only hear one side of the story" and "may tilt it too far in favour of security,
may not pay enough attention to liberty". Obama's suggestion that "privacy advocates" would be introduced to some Fisa court proceedings was
not unexpected. Three senators, Richard Blumenthal, Mark Udall and Ron Wyden, last week introduced a bill to create such an advocate – a
proposal that appears to have wide support. Nothing Obama announced is likely to materially alter the NSA's ongoing mass collection of phone
data and surveillance of internet communications in the short term. Neither did the president exhibit much appetite for significantly altering the
surveillance capabilities of the US intelligence community, saying at one point the aim might be to "jigger slightly" the balance between the
intelligence and "the incremental encroachment on privacy". But the
announcement, made shortly before the president departed for his
a significant climbdown for the White House, which for two months has maintained that it
has struck the right balance between privacy and security.
vacation, represents
A2 McConnell Link
McConnell’s toothless on surveillance and outweighed by the majority – Freedom
Act proves
Rosenthal, 15 (Max J. Rosenthal, 6-2-2015, "Congress just passed NSA reform. Here’s how Mitch
McConnell tried—and failed—to thwart it.", Mother Jones,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/mitch-mcconnell-nsa-reform-freedom-act, DA: 6-5-2015)
The USA Freedom Act, the bill that reforms the Patriot Act and stops the US government's bulk collection of phone records, finally
passed the Senate on Tuesday after the chamber rejected three amendments from GOP Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) aimed at weakening the bill's reforms. McConnell originally supported leaving the Patriot Act
with all of its surveillance powers intact, but he faced resistance from both Democrats and Republicans, including
die-hards such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who were happy to let bulk collection simply disappear without creating a
replacement. So McConnell agreed to proceed with the USA Freedom Act, but proposed four amendments to address what
he called the bill's "serious flaws." (He withdrew one of them.) Harley Geiger, chief counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology, called
McConnell's amendments "unnecessary for national security" and said that they would "erode both privacy and transparency." The Senate agreed,
rejecting the three amendments that came to a vote on Tuesday afternoon. McConnell's proposed changes would have: Delayed the shutdown of
bulk collection: The USA Freedom Act calls for bulk collection to shut down within six months of the law's passage. One of McConnell's
amendments would have stretched that out to a full year. Kept arguments before the FISA court a one-sided affair: The FISA court reviews—and
essentially always approves—requests for surveillance from government agencies. Its business is classified, and the only arguments presented are
by government lawyers. The USA Freedom Act establishes a panel of experts to argue privacy concerns before the court, a move that one of
McConnell's amendments would have tried to limit. Offered a potential backdoor for anti-reform efforts: Under the USA Freedom Act, bulk
collection will be replaced by a "query-based" system, in which intelligence agencies would have to ask phone companies for records. That will
take place six months after the bill is signed into law, but McConnell wanted to make the attorney general certify one month before the end of
bulk collection that the new system would not harm national security. That may have given anti-reform lawmakers a final chance to scuttle the
USA Freedom Act if the attorney general's certification didn't happen, or even raised any concerns at all. Even
if the amendments had
passed, McConnell faced an uphill battle in the House: House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
and ranking member Rep. John Conyers (D-Ill.) said in a statement on Monday that "[t]he House is not likely to accept the
changes proposed by Senator McConnell." Other House leaders also warned the Senate away from making changes to the bill.
Geiger called the USA Freedom Act's passage "the most significant national security surveillance reform measure in the past three decades," and
it may be only a matter of hours before President Barack Obama signs it into law. And while
everything they wanted from surveillance reform, McConnell got nothing .
privacy advocates didn't get
POLITICS INTERNAL LINKS CORE
***NEG POLITICAL CAPITAL***
Obama Gets Credit/Blame
Obama is the Velcro president – all agency action links.
Nicholas and Hook 10. (Peter and Janet, Staff Writers – LA Times, “Obama the Velcro president”, LA Times, 7-30,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730/3)
If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the
responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate
Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new
But Obama remains the colossus of his administration —
to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast
ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public.
oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official
fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent predecessors
might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are
measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on
Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily
tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?'
" said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table
conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a smallgovernment advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist
bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the
blame fell on lieutenants. Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded
Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book
But as a candidate in 2008,
he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the
superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said.
Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and
good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long way
off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll
showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7% cited
healthcare — a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in
concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's
evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross
domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has
been rising — from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of
foreclosure — up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when unemployment is
Insulating the president from bad news has proved
impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the
blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man. Obama is the White
House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has
emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary
Steven Chu is prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end. So,
more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him. He has opined on virtually
hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit.
everything in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's
wedding. Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from Democratic Pennsylvania
Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. " Stylistically
he creates some
of those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you
position yourself as being all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with
the capacity to fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things
happen." A new White House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead, aides want to market policies as
more digestible pieces. So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing
and understandable — such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. But at this stage, it
may be late in
the game to downsize either the president or his agenda.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "The man came in
promising change. He has a higher profile than some presidents because of his youth, his race and the way he came to the White House with the
message he brought in. It's
naive to believe he can step back and have some Cabinet secretary be the face
of the oil spill. The buck stops with his office."
Obama will get the blame for all policies passed – the hill is too polarized for any
blame deflection.
Politico 9. [2-13-09 -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18827.html]
The Washington climate, which led to a party-line vote on the stimulus, has big political implications: It means that Obama
will have sole ownership -- whether that means credit or blame -- for all the massive changes in government he
envisions over the coming year.
Presidents are the focal point of politics – they get the credit/blame.
CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer 4/28/02
Networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising the Easter
Bunny. Blitzer: Competing for face time on the cable news networks. Stay with us. Blitzer: Welcome back. Time now for Bruce Morton's essay
Bruce Morton, Cnn Correspondent:
on the struggle for balanced coverage on the cable networks. Morton: The Democrats have written the three cable news networks -- CNN, Fox
and MSNBC -- complaining that the Bush administration gets much more coverage than elected Democrats. They cite CNN, which they say,
from January 1 through March 21, aired 157 live events involving the Bush administration, and 7 involving elected Democrats. Fox and MS, they
say, did much the same thing. The coverage gap is certainly real, for several reasons. First, since September 11, the U.S. has been at war in
Afghanistan, so the president has been an active commander in chief. And covering the war, networks will often air whatever the president says,
even if he's praising the Easter Bunny. Plus, the White House press secretary's briefing, the Pentagon's, maybe the State Department's. Why not?
It's easy, it's cheap, the cameras are pooled, and in war time, the briefings may make major news. You never know. But there's a reason for
the coverage gap that's older than Mr. Bush's administration. In war or peace, the president is a commanding figure -one man to whose politics and character and, nowadays, sex life, endless attention is paid. Congress is 535 people. What it does is
complicated , compromises on budget items done in private, and lacks the drama of the White House. There's a primetime TV
show about a president. None about the Congress. If a small newspaper has one reporter in Washington, he'll cover two things, the local
congressional delegation and, on big occasions, the White House. So the complaining Democrats have a point, but it's worth remembering
that coverage of a president, while always intense, isn't always positive. You could ask the Clintons. 9 Presidents will
always get more coverage than Congresses. They're sexier. But it won't always be coverage they like .
Presidency is the focal point of politics – president gets the credit or the blame,
deserved or not
Rosati 4. [Jerel A., University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor THE
POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 80]
Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents
receive credit when things are perceived as going well
and are blamed when things go badly. Unfortunately, American politics and the policy process are
incredibly complex and beyond considerable presidential control. With so many complex issues and
problems to address – the debt problem, the economy, energy, welfare, education, the environment,
foreign policy – this is a very demanding time to be president. As long as presidential promises and public
expectations remain high, the president’s job becomes virtually an impossible task. Should success occur, given the lack of presidential power, it
is probably not by the president’s own design. Nonetheless, the
president – the person perceived to be the leader of the country – will be
rewarded in terms of public prestige, greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor).
However, if the president is perceived as unsuccessful – a failure – this results not only in a
weakened president but one the public wants replaced, creating the opportunity to challenge an
incumbent president or his heir as presidential nominee.
AT: He’ll Avoid the Plan- Thumper Proves
Our story on the thumper is consistent – presidents make choices about which
initiatives to push and spend capital on.
Beckmann and Kumar 11. [Matthew, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, Vimal, econ prof at the Indian
Institute of Tech, “Opportunism in Polarization”, Presidential Studies Quarterly; Sep 2011; 41, 3]
Returning to our model and its implications, we see a
prerequisite to presidential influence is the president's willingness
and ability to spend political capital lobbying lawmakers. When a president either chooses not to get
involved (A = 0) or lacks political capital to spend (B = 0), the pivotal senator will propose and pass her preferred bill. In such circumstances,
the chamber's preference distribution does not matter; the president will have no influence. In other circumstances - ones
commonplace since Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the Oval Office - the president not only seeks to exert influence on
Capitol Hill, but also wields some political capital to invest to that end. We now turn to these cases and in doing so
uncover how presidents' influence turns on more than his supply of political capital and the location of the pivotal voter; it also depends on the
level ideological polarization. Let us explain.
This agenda prioritization is key to passage.
Beckmann and Kumar 11. [Matthew, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, Vimal, econ prof at the Indian
Institute of Tech, “How presidents pus, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking” Journal of Theoretical
Politics, Vol 23 Issue 1]
The first and perhaps most important prescription is that the White House does not treat all presidential
positions equally: most receive nothing more than a mere comment, a precious few get the White House’s
‘full court press’, and such prioritizing matters . Specifically, our basic hypothesis holds that presidents’
positive influence depends heavily on lobbying to work. The corollary, therefore, is that the crucial test of presidents’
influence is not whether ‘skilled’ presidents fare better than their ‘unskilled’ counterparts, but rather whether Congress responds differently to
bills depending on the presidents’ lobbying, all else being equal.
President has to push the plan – otherwise it never makes the agenda
Cohen and Collier 99 – Jeffrey Cohen, professor of political science at Fordham University, and Ken Collier, assistant professor
at the University of Kansas, 1999, Presidential Policymaking: An End of Century Assessment, ed. Shull, p. 45
Presidential influence over the congressional agenda aims not only to open the gates for some issues but
to block other issues from progressing through the policymaking process. Presidents may try to block
some issues by not addressing them, by being inattentive. Often presidential involvement is required for
a policy to get onto the agenda. Lack of presidential attention may signal that the problem is not as
important as others. Policy advocates seek to prove that their issue is worthy of national attention; getting
the presidential “stamp of approval,” may be a necessary step in making an issue “national.”
Normal Means = Obama Push – Bulk Data
Obama will push Congress to reform – that links
(1) Empirics (2) Gridlock (3) GOP majority (4) Terrorism fears
Hattern 15 [Julian Hattem, Staff Writer at The Hill 2-11-2015
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/232437-obama-defers-to-congress-to-end-nsa-phone-tracking]
President Obama
won’t end the government’s controversial collection of data about millions of Americans on his own, because he’d
rather the matter be dealt with by Congress . “I’m still hopeful that we can actually get a bill passed,” Obama told BuzzFeed News in an
interview this week. “There is bipartisan support for the bill, and, as has been true in a lot of instances — including on immigration — my preference is always to
actually get legislation passed because it’s a little longer lasting.” In the year and a half since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s leaks
revealed how the NSA was secretly collecting “metadata” about Americans’ phone calls — including information about who was calling whom and when — civil
liberties advocates have called on Obama to end the program with the stroke of a pen. The programs needs to be continually reauthorized by the courts every 90 days.
If he wanted to, critics say, Obama could simply end it by neglecting to have it renewed. Instead, he has made some minor changes to the structure of the program,
such as limiting searches to records about people two steps removed from a target, instead of the previous three. In the meantime, Congress
has struggled
with legislation to effectively end the program and require the government to get data from private phone companies. The USA Freedom Act came two
votes shy of overcoming a GOP-led filibuster in the Senate last year, serving as a bitter reminder of the high hurdles
NSA critics need to surmount to rein in the agency. The issue is likely to come to a head in the next four months, before the current
legislative authorization for the program runs out, when a critical part of the Patriot Act expires on June 1. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the head of the House
Judiciary Committee, said on Wednesday that that deadline “will help focus both the House and the Senate on passing this.” Speaking to a tech lobbying group’s
breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill, Goodlatte predicted that final legislation would look “quite similar” to a version of the USA Freedom Act that passed through the
House last year. Civil libertarians said the bill had effectively been gutted by the time it hit the floor of the chamber by including broad definitions that would have
allowed the NSA to search for everyone in a certain area code or some other large category. Goodlatte pledged that new legislation would address some of its critics’
Congress’s inability to pass reform last year and the
new Republican majority in both chambers have darkened the prospects of significant reform in coming
weeks, especially given rising fears about terrorism around the globe.
fears about the definitions in the law. “Stay tuned on that one,” he said. Still,
Obama pushing legislative action – causes backlash
Cassidy 14 [John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He joined the Sunday
Times, in London, in 1986, and served as the paper’s Washington bureau chief for three years, and then as
its business editor, from 1991 to 1993. From 1993 to 1995, he was at the New York Post, where he edited
the Business section and then served as the deputy editor. 1-17-2014
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-n-s-a-strategy-over-to-you-congress]
That was President Obama today, delivering his much anticipated policy response to Edward Snowden’s revelations and to last month’s report by his own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. Credit where credit is due: some of the President’s proposals went
The main takeaway
Congress is
divided
from Obama’s speech, though, was that
further than I had suggested in a post on Thursday that was based on some news reports about the speech.
toss this hot potato to Congress
. And since
hopelessly
the White House is seeking to
, it is perfectly possible that nothing very meaningful will change. The President’s overarching message was that practically
all of the N.S.A.’s activities are necessary for national-security reasons, but some of them need to be tweaked to reflect concerns about privacy, oversight, and public trust. His address was somewhat short on specifics. On all the main issues—the future of the Prism program, in which the
N.S.A. sweeps up the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans; the government’s use of national-security letters to obtain private data without a court warrant; and the operations of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court—the President, rather than spelling out
his own reforms, said that he wanted to work with Congress to map out a way forward. The immediate headline was that Obama accepted his Review Group’s call for a restructuring of the Prism program, and would begin a “transition” toward moving over-all custody of telephone metadata
out of the hands of the N.S.A. But he didn’t spell out how this should be done, and it’s far from clear what, if anything, will end up happening. Under the current system, the phone companies hand over their customer records to the agency at regular intervals, pursuant to orders from the FISA
court. Once the N.S.A. obtains the metadata, its analysts can examine it more or less at will, if they come up with a reason to do so. To prevent possible abuses, the Review Group called for the telephone companies, or a third party of some sort, to store the phone logs, and it also said that the
N.S.A. should have to obtain court approval each time it wants to run queries through them. Obama called for a “mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.” As a first step, he said, the Administration would limit the number of
individuals that N.S.A. analysts can target when querying the Prism databases, and he asked the Attorney General, Eric Holder, “to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that, during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding, or in a true
emergency.” If that sounded a bit vague, it was crystal clear compared with how the second stage of the reform process will proceed. Acknowledging that the phone companies don’t want to act as a government storage depot, and that setting up a third party to do the job would create some
“legal ambiguities,” Obama said that he had asked Holder to consult with the intelligence agencies. “They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28th,” he said. “During this period, I will consult with the
relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.” Privacy advocates were disappointed that he didn’t go still further. “The president’s decision not to end bulk collection and retention of all Americans’ data
remains highly troubling,” the A.C.L.U. said, in a statement. It went on, “The president should end—not mend—the government’s collection and retention of all law-abiding Americans’ data. When the government collects and stores every American’s phone call data, it is engaging in a
textbook example of an ‘unreasonable search’ that violates the Constitution.” As expected, Obama also called for the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy interests in the FISA court, but, evidently, not in all cases, or even in most of them. And, once again, he put the burden on
Capitol Hill: “I am calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” In other important areas, the President didn’t announce any new
proposals. Going ahead, agencies like the N.S.A. and the F.B.I. will still be able to obtain personal data from communications companies without a court order, by issuing national-security letters. Obama rejected the suggestion that the FISA courts should have to approve such letters, saying
that “we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime.” (As you may have guessed, this was another area in which he said he was “prepared to work with Congress.”) And from what Obama said, or didn’t say, the
N.S.A. still appears to be free to hack into the data centers of companies like Google and Yahoo, which, according to documents released by Edward Snowden, it does routinely. Politically, the White House’s strategy is not lacking in cunning. As the President knows all too well,
many senior Democrats and Republicans on the Hill including the heads of the intelligence committees,
don’t think any big changes are necessary
If the
congressional opponents of reform hold their ground, we
end up with political stalemate that
resembles
Guantánamo Bay,
,
. In asking for their coöperation and putting them in the firing line, he is clearly hoping to defuse some of the criticisms that he has faced.
could even
the one surrounding
a
with the White House conveniently able to blame Congress for frustrating its publicly stated intentions.
PC Theory
PC Theory True – General
Consensus of studies
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia
10-25-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
Presidents use a wide
range of tactics to set policy , including their¶ ability to influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to
key independent boards and¶ lower level federal courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents¶ introduce
legislation and define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995;¶ Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). The State of the
Union Address and other public speeches are¶ important venues for this activity (Canes-Wrone 2001; Cohen 1995, 1997; Light
1999; Yates¶ and Whitford 2005), but they are not the only means through which presidents outline their¶ legislative goals.
Presidents also add items to the legislative agenda intermittently in response¶ to issues or events that they believe require
attention. This may be done either by sending¶ messages to Congress or through presidential communication to legislators'
constituents.¶ While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and resources to secure the passage¶ of key
policy proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt 1955, 1960).
The selection of Supreme Court justices is just one of several key powers afforded to the¶ modern presidency.
PC theory true for Obama- empirics
Color Lines, 10-14-2011
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_working.html
But what Obama’s new insistence
on a jobs agenda proves is this: the presidency is, in fact, a powerful bully pulpit.
No, he can’t just wave a magic wand and pass bills . No one credible has ever argued that. What he can do is use the
substantial power of his office to bully Congress into action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The
first step in doing so is, as the president has said, taking the discussion to the voters. Every time a president speaks, it’s news. So he controls
the news cycle every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks about jobs every day, that’s what we’ll all be talking about .
The second step is negotiating from the place of strength that this rhetorical bullying creates. And we will all desperately
need that strength when the deficit-reduction process reaches its grim climax this winter. So let’s hope Marshall is onto something when he says
we might be at a turning point in Washington.
Your evidence oversimplifies political capital- it’s not just about personality and
likeability- it’s about the structural advantages of the presidency
Light 99 – Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the President’s Agenda, p. 24-25)
Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout – they all mean the same thing. The most basic and most important of
all presidential resources is capital. Though the internal resources time, information, expertise, and energy all have an
impact on the domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital. And capital is directly linked to the
congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the composition and the success of the domestic agenda,
without the necessary party support, no amount of expertise or charm can make a difference.
Though bargaining is
an important tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and disadvantages to the table.
Also- studies prove the theory of political capital
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). Policy Priorities and Presidential Success in Congress. Conference
Papers -- American Political Science Association, 1-26. Retrieved from Political Science Complete
database.
Presidential-congressional relations are a central topic in the scientific study of politics. The literature is clear that a handful of variables strongly
Of these variables, party control of Congress is most
important (Bond and Fleisher 1990), in that conditions of unified government increase, while conditions of
divided government decrease presidential success, all else equal. The president’s approval ratings (Edwards 1989)
influence the likelihood of presidential success on legislation.
and a favorable honeymoon (Dominguez 2005) period may also increase presidential success on legislation. In addition, presidential speeches
that reference policies or roll-call votes tend to increase the president’s legislative success rate (Barrett 2004; Canes-Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-
In their landmark examination of presidential success in Congress, Bond and Fleisher
yet another condition that may facilitate presidential success on legislation when
they write that “the president’s greatest influence over policy comes from the agenda he pursues
and the way it is packaged.” Moreover, the policies that the president prioritizes have “a major
impact on the president’s relationship with Congress.” Taken together, these assertions strongly
suggest that the policy content of the president’s legislative agenda—what policies the president
prioritizes before Congress—should be a primary determinant of presidential success in Congress.
Soha 2006).
(1990, 230) identify
Sequencing means bargaining chips are limited – plan trades off
Bernstein, 8/20/11
Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who writes about American politics, especially the presidency, Congress, parties and elections,
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/20/bernstein_presidential_power/index.html
Moreover, the positions of the president and most everyone else are, to look at it one way, sort of opposites. The
president has potential
influence over an astonishing number of things -- not only every single policy of the U.S. government, but policy by state and
local governments, foreign governments, and actions of private citizens and groups. Most other political actors have influence over a very narrow
range of stuff. What that means is that while the president's overall influence is certainly far greater than that of a House subcommittee chair or a
midlevel civil servant in some agency, his influence over any specific policy may well not be greater than that of such a no-name nobody. A
lot
of good presidential skills have to do with figuring out how to leverage that overall influence into
victories in specific battles, and if we look at presidential history, there are lots of records of successes and failures. In other words, it's
hard. It involves difficult choices -- not (primarily) policy choices, but choices in which policies to fight for and
which not to, and when and where and how to use the various bargaining chips that are available.
And- our controversy aversion link—
Empirics prove – it’s not just question of capital - forcing votes on highly a
controversial item means they won't be willing to on others - accesses structural
factors and anticipated voter reaction warrants
Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E reporters, 11-2-2010 Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E
reporters
After Obama was inaugurated as president in 2009, House Democrats unleashed a formidable agenda consisting of a
two-month blitz to pass a $787 billion stimulus bill, which passed in February 2009; four months of pushing the cap-and-trade climate bill, which
passed in June 2009; and, finally, an eight-month slog to pass a financial regulation reform bill in December 2009 and a health care reform bill in
February 2010. But
only the stimulus, health care reform and financial regulation bills made it through the "wet
cement" that is the Senate, as Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has described it. After months of talks, Senate negotiations
on climate came to a standstill this summer as partisan bickering kept the upper chamber from passing even
the smallest of energy bills. Many lawmakers have criticized House leadership for forcing them to take a hard
vote on a cap-and-trade bill without knowing whether Senate Democrats would also be able to take up and pass the bill. "I frankly don't
think the House gave it that much thought. I think they acted on what they thought was an important initiative at a time when the perception was
that the new president and the Democrats in Congress had a lot of momentum," said Leon Billings, a retired lobbyist and former Democratic
Senate staffer who helped write the Clean Air Act in 1970. "It was only later that the leadership in the House began to realize ... that the Senate
was going to become a cemetery rather than a maternity ward," Billings added. "It took awhile, way too long, for the Democrats in the House,
Senate and White House to realize the magnitude of the assault that was going to be launched by the radical right and even longer to realize that it
was going to take a real toll on the country." Frost also blasted Democrats' costly political oversight, saying the
"much harder" than health care.
cap-and-trade vote was
PC Theory True – Dems
Consistent White House pressure key to keep Dems in line.
Lee and Soloman 3-29. [Carol, WH correspondent, Jay, national security reporter, "Barack Obama ramps up lobbying on Iran as
deadline looms" Wall Street Journal -- www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427]
Meanwhile, White House officials are plowing ahead with a behind-the-scenes strategy, tailored more than a year
ago, with key groups who might help overcome opposition to an Iran nuclear agreement. ∂ For example, White House officials have encouraged
liberal groups to put U.S. lawmakers on the spot with the question: “Are you for solving this diplomatically or being forced…to war?” Ben
Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s closest foreign-policy advisers, used those words at a January 2014 meeting with dozens of representatives from
liberal political organizations, according to a transcript reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. ∂ At the time, the Obama administration had just
signed an interim agreement with Iran that called for Tehran to freeze parts of its nuclear program in return for suspension of some economic
sanctions.∂ While a coalition in the Senate, including some Democrats, was pushing for more financial penalties in an effort to win additional
concessions from Iran, Mr. Rhodes told attendees that lobbying against more sanctions wouldn’t be politically effective. Instead, lawmakers had
to be challenged on whether or not they supported another war, he said at the meeting. ∂ That
message helped delay congressional
action on a sanctions bill, allowing the diplomacy to continue. “ When the White House decides to
firmly and consistently press their case, they are successful in getting Democrats to give them
latitude ,” said Mr. Murphy, the Democrat from Connecticut.
Obama cultivating better ties with Dems and GOP leaders ensure successful
outcomes with Congress
Eilperin, 12/3/14 --- White House correspondent for The Washington Post (Juliet, “Obama, looking to
mend fences with Congress, is reaching out. To Democrats,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-looking-to-mend-fences-with-congress-is-reaching-outto-democrats/2014/12/03/3fdf9078-7a40-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html, JMP)
Obama and his closest aides have determined that their best chance of success in the next two
years will depend on improved relationships on Capitol Hill , but their behind-the-scenes efforts are more focused on Obama’s own party rather than the
President
Republicans who are about to take full charge of Congress in January. Obama’s attention on congressional Democrats, allies whom he once regarded as needing little attention, marks a shift in his view on how to deal with Congress.
The president now sees his path to success as running through Hill Democrats, a group that has been disenchanted by the treatment it has
received from the White House over the years. The remedial work has included frequent calls to Democratic leaders since the midterm elections and
comes as Republicans prepare to take control of both chambers for the first time since Obama took office. While the president and GOP leaders have pledged to seek common ground, Obama’s use of executive action to alter
White House officials are looking
to Hill Democrats as a defense against Republican efforts to undo key elements of Obama’s legislative
legacy, including the Affordable Care Act, his immigration action and climate policy. The president’s ability to sustain the vetoes he is likely to issue
will depend on whether he is able to mend relations with congressional Democrats — many of whom blame the president for the
party’s large midterm losses — and persuade Republican legislators to work with him in a way that has eluded the two
parties for the past six years. On Wednesday, the outreach effort began publicly as Obama hosted Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who will lead the Senate starting in January — in the Oval Office.
immigration enforcement procedures and other steps have already angered Republicans, making significant legislative accomplishments more difficult. And
It was the first time the two have met one on one for an extended period in more than four years. The most recent small gathering they had was with Vice President Biden, nearly 3 1/2 years ago. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart
House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has been in near-constant
communication with the White House since the midterm elections. He received back-to-back calls from
Obama on Nov. 24 and 25, the first to discuss the administration’s handling of sanctions against Iran amid ongoing negotiations over that
called the session “a good meeting” but did not release additional details. By contrast,
nation’s nuclear program, and the second to confer on the two men’s shared opposition to a pending proposal extending a series of federal tax breaks. “In the past couple of months, I’ve seen heightened outreach,” Hoyer said in an
interview Tuesday. “To some degree, we become even more relevant than we were before. Now
he needs to rely on both houses to sustain a veto.” Those are not the only calls
Hoyer has received from the White House recently. Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough — who paid a visit to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday — called Hoyer on Nov. 13 to discuss an effort by
lawmakers to force federal approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and on Nov. 25 to talk about tax policy. The White House legislative-affairs staff also called him Nov. 6 to discuss immigration policy, a day after Obama called
him at home in the evening to discuss immigration and ongoing efforts to counter the Islamic State. Hoyer, who was also part of a group of Democratic leaders who had dinner with the president last month in advance of his
immigration announcement, said those discussions have allowed him to have an impact on issues such as how the administration is working to fund its military strategy in Iraq and Syria. “I do believe I was part of the conversation
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), another White House ally, said there
have been “substantial improvements” in the president’s legislative outreach , in large part because Obama’s director of
that has hopefully focused us all on accomplishing the president’s objectives,” he said. Outreach efforts
legislative affairs, Katie Beirne Fallon, has revived an operation that had been moribund for an extended period. “Just speaking as a Democratic senator, that was not a problem-free area,” Casey said, adding that he had this advice for
the White House a few months ago: “My main suggestion is they needed to have more ‘What do you think?’ meetings instead of ‘Here’s what we’re doing’ meetings.” Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), who co-chairs the Congressional
Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, got McDonough to meet with about a dozen members of the bipartisan group in late May. Crowley said the group pushed for more of a focus on India. “Obviously, there has been a tremendous
enhancement in that relationship,” he said.
The White House has dramatically stepped up its use of perks for lawmakers in the
past year. At the president’s request, his staff is making more room for members on Air Force One (eight lawmakers flew with him to Las Vegas for his immigration event there last month), and he now gives a shout-out to
nearly all lawmakers who attend his public speeches. This year his staff issued more than 4,270 invitations to come to the White House, travel with the president or attend his events, almost double the number handed out in 2012, and
it is letting lawmakers use the President’s Box at the Kennedy Center more often.
AT: Alter
Prefer our evidence- Alter is old- talking about Obama before health care and
stimulus successes- Obama has been able to use PC empirically
AT: Beckman and Kumar
Beckman and Kumar conclude neg- proves that PC is key in close votes and, in fact,
is the ONLY thing to explain why there is success given polarization in congress- PC
is a vital determinant
Matthew N Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine,
econ prof at the Indian Institute of Tech, “Opportunism in Polarization”, Presidential Studies Quarterly;
Sep 2011; 41, 3
The final important piece in our theoretical model—presidents’ political capital— also finds support in these analyses, though the results here are
less reliable. Presidents operating under the specter of strong economy and high approval ratings get an important, albeit moderate, increase in
their chances for prevailing on “key” Senate roll-call votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .10). Figure 4 displays the substantive implications of these
results in the context of polarization, showing that going from the lower third of political capital to the upper third increases presidents’ chances
for success by 8 percentage points (in a setting like 2008). Thus, political capital’s impact does provide an important boost to presidents’ success
on Capitol Hill, but it is certainly not potent enough to overcome basic congressional realities. Political
capital is just strong
enough to put a presidential thumb on the congressional scales, which often will not matter, but can in
close cases.
---their card ends---
Lastly, two of the control variables are particularly noteworthy. The first is the president’s public declaration of his preferred outcome (b = .64, se
= .26, p < .05), which shows that presidents fare far better on publicized positions—24 points better, holding all else at its 2008 values. While this
relationship may partly be causal, it is more likely reflects the fact that presidents tend to publicize popular policies (see Canes-Wrone 2005) and
also that public statements are symptomatic of a broader lobbying campaign (see Beckmann 2010). The other significant control variable is the
one accounting for nonideological polarization changes occurring inWashington over the last50years (a secular trend captured by the natural log
of the number of Congresses since the 83rd). Results for this variable show more recent senators have been more willing to defeat the president
on key, contested roll-call votes, all else equal (b = -0.42, se = 0.13, p < .05). To the extent senators’ ideological polarization has intertwined with
the postwar Washington’s more politicized environment, it has muted presidents’ ability to exploit centrist senators’ increased isolation. All told,
the multiple regression results corroborate the basic model and its principal hypothesis: ideological polarization around that pivotal voter’s
position provides presidents with a better opportunity to win key roll-call votes. This is especially true if the president is backed by high public
approval and buoyed by a strong economy. By contrast, a president confronting a far-off pivotal voter surrounded by like-minded colleagues has
few options for achieving legislative success, regardless of his political potency. Discussion The United States’ founders never intended federal
lawmaking to be easy and, in fact, fashioned a constitutional design—including bicameralism and vetoes, staggered terms and separated
constituencies—to ensure the nation’s elected officials could not easily impose new laws on their constituents. As a first point, therefore, it is
worth underscoring that disagreements across Pennsylvania are not necessarily symptomatic of a poorly functioning republic. If anything, George
Will’s insight is apt: “Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement” (Washington Post, November 4, 1999, A 35). Yet
widespread disagreement does not necessarily indicate a broken policy-making process, nor are legislative failures always benign. For even
though the framers did not want congressional coalition-building to be easy, nor did they want it to be impossible— not in addressing the nation’s
pressing problems, not in answering citizens’ considered demands. And this is why the polarization that currently grips the nation’s capital
matters. By making winning coalitions so hard to assemble, a broad swath of status quos effectively impossible to replace, polarization presents a
comparable challenge for practitioners and political scientists alike: understanding how, even amidst vast divisions, the nation’s representatives
can corral the votes needed to avoid “doing nothing.” A modest step in this direction is what this paper sought to offer. First, building on previous
research that shows congressional polarization frequently produces legislative gridlock, we augmented this work in ways that helped uncover
polarization’s conditional impact on lawmaking. We did so by first highlighting presidents’ key coalition-building role in postwar America and
second, incorporating it into familiar voting models while varying both presidents’ political capital and Congress’s polarization. Theoretical
results showed that even as polarization renders coalition building more difficult when the president lacks
political capital (or chooses not to use it promoting legislation), also uncovered was an interesting and somewhat counterintuitive
prediction: polarization around the pivotal voter can actually provide presidents a unique opportunity to win key
votes, secure legislative success, and influence national legislation. Using CQ’s key Senate votes from 1954 to 2008, a
first test of our opportunism in polarization model corroborated these principal hypotheses, including the prediction that polarization qua
polarization can actually boost presidents’ chances for prevailing on important, contested roll-call votes,
especially when enjoying
high approval ratings and strong economic growth. In doing so, these results also shed light on familiar empirical
findings showing presidents often, but not always, help pass important legislation even when confronted with
substantial polarization, divided government, or both (Beckmann 2010; Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Mayhew 2005; Peterson
1990). Going forward, then, we hope this study spawns follow-up work on the relationship between polarization, presidents, and policy making.
For our argument and evidence suggest that in today’s polarized political environment—where winning coalitions rarely emerge effortlessly—
key to understanding policy-making outcomes is understanding what policies presidents support and, even
more, what policies they are willing to invest resources promoting on Capitol Hill . Thus, research better capturing
presidents’ lobbying and political capital would offer more precise estimates of presidents’ attempts at exerting influence, while developing better
measures of policy outcomes (especially ones not inferred from roll-call votes) would permit more robust tests of those efforts’ effectiveness. All
of this would shine new light on the conditions that shape national policy making in today’s polarized environment, particularly presidents’ vital
role therein.
AT: Bouie
Prefer our evidence to Bouie
This is talking exclusively about the popularity of the president- doesn’t account for
other factors in political capital
It’s written by a blogger- we have qualified studies that prove the president is
relevant
AT: Cameron and Park Study
it’s about Supreme Court nominations and ‘public appeals’ – presidents only go
public when the opposition is mobilized against their candidate which makes it
harder to win from the outset –that’s why there’s more negative results.
Bond and Fleisher 11. [Jon, Professor @ Texas A&M, Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Richard,
Professor of Political Science, Fordham University, “Editor’s Introduction” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 41 Issue 3 September -- p.
437-441]
In "Going Public When Opinion Is Contested: Evidence from Presidents' Campaigns for Supreme Court Nominees, 1930-2009," Charles
Cameron and Jee-Kwang Park add new insight to the analysis of going public. Two innovations advance our understanding. First, the analysis of
Supreme Court nominations permits examination of presidential and congressional behavior back to 1930, a longer period of time than usual.
Second, the analysis incorporates the observation that presidents' efforts to influence the public do not occur in a vacuum. Instead, going public is
often an "opinion contest" in which the president often competes against opponents who also go public. The
confirmation process for
Supreme Court nominees was traditionally low key, and we do not see presidents' going public in
support of their before the mid-1960s. The authors find that presidents go public when groups mobilize against
the nominee. As a result, going public is associated with more negative votes in the Senate, because
presidents go public over Supreme Court nominees only when battling active opposition to a
controversial nomination. This study shows the limits of the standard "political capital" model and helps explain why we often
fail to find the expected positive effects.
AT: Dickinson/Ideology
Their ev is just a blog post, not peer reviewed and solely in the context of Supreme
court nominations – Dickinson concludes neg
Dickinson, 2009 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College. He taught previously at Harvard University, where
he also received his Ph.D., working under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New
Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research, Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 no4 736-70 D 2009)
Small wonder, then, that initial efforts to find evidence of presidential power centered on explaining legislative outcomes in Congress. Because
scholars found it difficult to directly and systematically measure presidential influence or "skill," however, they often tried to estimate it
indirectly, after first establishing a baseline model that explained these outcomes on other factors, including party strength in Congress, members
of Congress's ideology, the president's electoral support and/or popular approval, and various control variables related to time in office and
political and economic context. With the baseline established, one could then presumably see how much of the unexplained variance might be
attributed to presidents, and whether individual presidents did better or worse than the model predicted. Despite differences in modeling
assumptions and measurements, however, these studies came to remarkably similar conclusions: individual presidents did not seem to matter very
much in explaining legislators' voting behavior or lawmaking outcomes (but see Lockerbie and Borrelli 1989, 97-106). As Richard Fleisher, Jon
Bond, and B. Dan Wood summarized, "[S]tudies that compare presidential success to some baseline fail to find evidence that perceptions of skill
have systematic effects" (2008, 197; see also Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996, 127; Edwards 1989, 212).
To some scholars, these
results indicate that Neustadt's "president-centered" perspective is incorrect (Bond and Fleisher 1990, 221-23). In
fact, the aggregate results reinforce Neustadt's recurring refrain that presidents are weak and that, when dealing with Congress, a president's
power is "comparably limited" (Neustadt 1990, 184). The
misinterpretation of the findings as they relate to PP stems in part
from scholars' difficulty in defining and operationalizing presidential influence (Cameron 2000b; Dietz 2002,
105-6; Edwards 2000, 12; Shull and Shaw 1999). But it is also that case that scholars often misconstrue Neustadt's analytic perspective; his
description of what presidents must do to influence policy making does not mean that he believes presidents are the dominant influence on that
process. Neustadt writes from the president's perspective, but without adopting a president-centered explanation of power. Nonetheless, if
Neustadt clearly recognizes that a president's influence in Congress is exercised mostly, as George Edwards (1989) puts it, "at the margins," his
case studies in PP also suggest that, within this limited bound, presidents do strive to influence legislative outcomes. But how? Scholars
often argue that a president's most direct means of influence is to directly lobby certain members of
Congress, often through quid pro quo exchanges, at critical junctures during the lawmaking sequence. Spatial
models of legislative voting suggest that these lobbying efforts are most effective when presidents
target the median, veto, and filibuster "pivots" within Congress. This logic finds empirical support
in vote-switching studies that indicate that presidents do direct lobbying efforts at these pivotal voters,
and with positive legislative results. Keith Krehbiel analyzes successive votes by legislators in the context of a presidential veto
and finds "modest support for the sometimes doubted stylized fact of presidential power as persuasion" (1998,153-54).
Similarly, David Brady and Craig Volden look at vote switching by members of Congress in successive
Congresses on nearly identical legislation and also conclude that presidents do influence the votes of
at least some legislators (1998, 125-36). In his study of presidential lobbying on key votes on important domestic legislation during the 83rd
(1953-54) through 108th (2003-04) Congresses, Matthew Beckman
shows that in addition to these pivotal voters,
presidents also lobby leaders in both congressional parties in order to control what legislative
alternatives make it onto the congressional agenda (more on this later). These lobbying efforts are correlated with a
greater likelihood that a president's legislative preferences will come to a vote (Beckmann 2008, n.d.). In one of the most concerted efforts to
model how bargaining takes place at the individual level, Terry Sullivan examines presidential archives containing administrative headcounts to
identify instances in which members of Congress switched positions during legislative debate, from initially opposing the president to supporting
him in the final roll call (Sullivan 1988,1990,1991). Sullivan shows that in a bargaining game with incomplete information regarding the
preferences of the president and members of Congress, there are a number of possible bargaining outcomes for a given distribution of legislative
and presidential policy preferences. These outcomes depend in part on legislators' success in bartering their potential support for the president's policy for additional concessions from
the president. In threatening to withhold support, however, members of Congress run the risk that the president will call their bluff and turn elsewhere for the necessary votes. By
capitalizing on members' uncertainty regarding whether their support is necessary to form a winning coalition, Sullivan theorizes that presidents
can reduce members of Congress's penchant for strategic bluffing and increase the likelihood of a legislative outcome closer to the president's
preference. "Hence, the
skill to bargain successfully becomes a foundation for presidential power even
within the context of electorally determined opportunities," Sullivan concludes (1991, 1188). Most of these
studies infer presidential influence, rather than measuring it directly (Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996,128-29; see also Edwards 1991).
Interestingly, however, although the vote "buying" approach is certainly consistent with Neustadt's bargaining model, none of his case studies in
PP show presidents employing this tactic. The reason may be that Neustadt concentrates his analysis on the strategic level: "Strategically the
question is not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he does to boost his mastery in any instance" (Neustadt 1990, 4). For
Neustadt, whether
a president's lobbying efforts bear fruit in any particular circumstance depends in
large part on the broader pattern created by a president's prior actions when dealing with members
of Congress (and "Washingtonians" more generally). These previous interactions determine a president's
professional reputation--the "residual impressions of [a president's] tenacity and skill" that accumulate in
Washingtonians' minds, helping to "heighten or diminish" a president's bargaining advantages.
"Reputation, of itself, does not persuade, but it can make persuasions easier, or harder, or impossible"
(Neustadt 1990, 54).
Ideology doesn’t outweigh – presidential success dictates votes
Lebo, 2010 (Matthew J. Lebo, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD
Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Journal of Politics, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional
Arena” forthcoming, google)
Keeping this centrality in mind, we
use established theories of congressional parties to model the president’s
role as an actor within the constraints of the partisan environment of Congress. We also find a role for the
president's approval level, a variable of some controversy in the presidential success literature. Further, we are interested in both the causes and
the president’s record as a key component of the party
politics that are so important to both the passage of legislation and the electoral outcomes that
follow. Specifically, theories of partisan politics in Congress argue that cross-pressured legislators will
side with their parties in order to enhance the collective reputation of their party (Cox and McCubbins
1993, 2005), but no empirical research has answered the question: "of what are collective reputations made?" We demonstrate that it is the
success of the president – not parties in Congress – that predicts rewards and punishments to
parties in Congress. This allows us to neatly fit the president into existing theories of party competition in Congress while our analyses
consequences of success. We develop a theory that views
on presidential success enable us to fit existing theories of party politics into the literature on the presidency.
Prefer our studies – examines both presidential and congressional influence – their
studies don’t.
Lebo 10. [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate,
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena” Journal of Politics -online]
A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. His observation that
‘‘When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally,’’ is indicative of a view in Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative
outcomes. This view is echoed in theories of political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger
2007). But the
consequences of presidential failure to members of his party are largely unexplored in
empirical research. Also, while the fairly deep literature on the causes of presidential success has focused a lot
on the partisan environment within which the president’s legislative battles are won and lost, it pays less
attention to theories of congressional parties. Our attempt to combine these theories with a view of the
president as the central actor in the partisan wars is meant to integrate the literatures on the two
institutions . Even as the study of parties in Congress continues to deepen our understanding of that branch, the role of the president
is usually left out or marginalized . At the same time, research that centers on the president’s success has developed with little
crossover. The result is that well-developed theories of parties in Congress exist but we know much less
about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between models of conditional party government (Aldrich and Rohde
2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008), we have an advanced
understanding of how parties are important in Congress, but little knowledge of where the president fits.
As the head of his party, the president’s role in the partisan politics of Congress should be central.
AT: Edwards
Presidential leadership still key- facilitates coalition building and important at the
margins- conclusion of their card
Edwards, 9 – Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, holds the George
and Julia Blucher Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies and has served as the Olin Professor of American
Government at Oxford [George, “The Strategic President”, Printed by the Princeton University Press, pg.
149-150]
Even presidents who
appeared to dominate Congress were actually facilitators rather than directors of change. They
advantage of opportunities in their environments. Working at the
margins, they successfully guided legislation through Congress. When their resources diminished, they reverted to the
understood their own limitations and explicitly took
stalemate that usually characterizes presidential-congressional relations. As legendary management expert Peter Drucker put it about Ronald
Reagan, "His great strength was not charisma, as is commonly thought, but his awareness and acceptance of exactly what he could and what he
could not do."134 These conclusions are consistent with systematic research by Jon Bond, Richard Fleisher, and B. Dan Wood. They have
focused on determining whether the presidents to whom we attribute the greatest skills in dealing with Congress were more successful in
obtaining legislative support for their policies than were other presidents. After carefully controlling for other influences on congressional voting,
they found no evidence that those presidents who supposedly were the most proficient in persuading Congress were more successful than chief
executives with less aptitude at influencing legislators.135 Scholars studying leadership within Congress have reached similar conclusions about
the limits on personal leadership. Cooper and Brady found that institutional context is more important than personal leadership skills or traits in
determining the influence of leaders and that there is no relationship between leadership style and effectiveness.136 Presidential legislative
leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the president's control and must compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting
in Congress in addition to party. These include ideology, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and the interests of
constituencies. By the time a president tries to exercise influence on a vote, most members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of
these other factors. Thus, a president's legislative leadership is likely to be critical only for those members of Congress who remain open to
conversion after other influences have had their impact. Although the size and composition of this group varies from issue to issue, it will almost
always be a minority in each chamber.
<<<their card ends>>>
It is important to note that it is not necessary to take an ex-treme position to obtain a better understanding of the nature of presidential leadership.
There are times, of course, when presidents do persuade some members of Congress to change
their votes. A famous example of apparent large-scale changeoccurred over the Panama Canal treaties, ratified in 1978. Inthe fall of 1976,
shortly before Jimmy Carter became president,forty-eightsenatorsintroducedaresolutionpledgingnottoap-prove any change in the existing treaties
regarding the canal. After a full-court press, Carter obtained the two-thirds vote inthe Senate to ratify the new treaties.¶ 137¶ The issue for us is
not whether persuasion is¶ ever ¶ successful in moving a member of Congress. Instead, the question is whether persuasion is typically the key to
presidential success in Congress. Examples such as the Panama Canal treaties are rare. Whatever the circumstances, the impact of persuasion on
the outcome is usually relatively modest. As Calvin Mouw and Michael MacKuen concluded, “presidential
influence in Congress
does not rely on persuasion.”¶ 138¶ Although potentially important, conversion is likely to be at the margins of
coalition building rather than at the core of policy change. Presidential legislative leadership is more useful in
exploiting discrete op-portunities than in creating broad possibilities for policy change
And- Edwards votes neg- agenda setting is critical given finite PC
Edwards, 9 – Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, holds the George
and Julia Blucher Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies and has served as the Olin Professor of American
Government at Oxford [George, “The Strategic President”, Printed by the Princeton University Press, pg.
149-150]
Setting priorities.¶ New presidents are wise to resist the tempta-tions to try to deliver on all their campaign
promises immedi-ately following their elections and to accede to the many de-mands that interests make on a new administration.
Instead, it
is important to establish priorities among legislative proposals.In addition, because the Washington community
pays dispro-portionate attention to the first major legislative initiatives , it is especially critical to choose early battles wisely .
Setting priorities in the early weeks of a new administrationis also important because during the first months in office thepresident has the greatest
latitude in focusing on priority legis-lation. After the transition period, other interests have moreinfluence on the White House agenda. Congress
is quite capa-ble of setting its own agenda and is unlikely to defer to thepresident for long. In addition, ongoing policies continually force
decisions to the president’s desk.If the president is not able to focus Congress’s attention onhis priority programs, they may become lost in the
complex and overloaded legislative process. Congress needs time to di-gest what the president sends, to engage in independent analy-ses, and to
schedule hearings and markups. Unless the presi-dent clarifies his priorities, Congress may put the WhiteHouse’s proposals in a queue. Setting
priorities is also important because presidents and their staff can lobby effectively for only a few bills at a
time. The president’s political capital is inevitably limited , and it is sensible to focus on the issues he
cares about most. Setting priorities early also can reduce intra-administration warfareover the essence of the administration
AT: Hirsch
Hirsh is just an internet “correspondent” complaining about the term political capitala. There’s still an agenda crowd out link- concedes tradeoffs happen - especially if a policy is
unpopular and out of sync with the country’s mood—ie the plan
b. Despite the ev’s hype, it concedes it is a real thing
c. Concludes Obama messaging on immigration is a relevant factor for GOP support
Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as
the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweek’s
Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, “The World from Washington.” Earlier on, he was
Newsweek’s foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war on terror. He has done
on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau
Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-politicalcapital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response,
the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing
on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of
his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had
been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third
rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “political
capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with
bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun
lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D -Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then
she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible
to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal
immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the
breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the
movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death
The point is not that “political
capital” is meaningless Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum
and just
about every politician
has tried to claim a mandate
Many still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. It’s an unquantifiable but
meaningful concept,” says Ornstein
You can’t
say he’s got 37 ounces of
political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and momentum
The real problem is that
political capital
is poorly defined
Presidents
over-estimate it,”
in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.
a
” in the aftermath of a decisive election—
term.
ever elected
country’s mood and direction.
than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the
more of
“
pundits
of the American Enterprise Institute. “
Norman
really look at a president and
some
side.”
—or mandates, or momentum—
the idea of
on your
that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “
so
usually
says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in
1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change
everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in
history.
Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits
. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present.
And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any
concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as su ddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital
masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time,
he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such a s when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some
political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing,
like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the
calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein
a clever practitioner can get more done
because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well
Edwards is right
says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶ ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes,
of power
. Texas A&M’s
just
to say that the outcome of the 1964 election,
Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his
ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated
John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has
only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was wha t political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, a nd he got the Civil
Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as
Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that
is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly
demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his
political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes,
he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or
stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism.
The mistake that Bush made with Social Security says
Sides, an associate professor of political science
there was no sense of
urgency on Social Security
I don’t
think Obama’s going to make that mistake Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t
understand how steep the hill was Obama has more momentum
because of the
Latino
Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it.
,
John
at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But
reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one.
any kind of public
.…
. I think
on his side
Republican Party’s concerns about the
vote
REAL LIMITS ON POWER¶ Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention
much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate
health care
problem was that the plan was unpopular
THE
just as
and the shooting at Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls.¶
span, of course,
. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up
too much political capital passing the
, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the national mood
law in his first term. But the real
(yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal
spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling.
Obama
, like
had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood
the political problem with health care was that it distracted
from other issues people cared
about
Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room,
Bush,
. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But
bigger
the government’s attention
reform
that
more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really ha ve the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation
with loopholes.
the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic
moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying
to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing
times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. “The reason I think the idea of
political capital
is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really
oversimplifies
why you
elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great
Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented
Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an
unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and
momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully
In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda what all these shifting tides of
momentum and political calculation mean is this:
Obama
needs to worry about the
support he will have in the House and Senate
recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.
,
Anything goes.
has no more elections to win, and he
only
after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—there is no reason to think he can’t win
far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in
mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.” Obama himself learned some hard
lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan” president who somehow had been given the
electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood
better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying
on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal imprimatur
on any plan—from deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He
When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he
delivered another new message
take a hard look at where
I’m saying
you
lost because of the rising Hispanic vote Obama was pointing the GOP
toward conclusions
seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit.
as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t worry about who’s got the political capital. Just
this: in a state
were supposed to have won but
.
cleverly
that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.
Wins don’t spill over- bruising effort doesn’t generate capital- their author
Michael Hirsch, Daily Beast, 1-19-2010 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/19/thepolitics-of-hubris.html
There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got Achilles and Agamemnon in trouble with the
gods. Obama apparently did
buy into the idea that he was a Man of Destiny and, being one, possessed bottomless supplies of
political capital. But he really had no more political capital than any first-year president, and he was straining his reserves just dealing
with the stimulus and financial reform, much less fixing Afghanistan.¶ I first became worried about this bridge-too-far problem last year while
covering financial reform on the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was
riddling the legislation with loopholes.
Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room —and from their brains, the aides
said. Obama and his team seemed barely focused on transforming the financial system—except now, belatedly—and left a lot of the infighting to regulators like Gary
Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald Reagan as a transformational president. And yet at
what would seem to be a similar historical inflection point—what should have been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a laserlike scourging of
Wall Street—Obama seemed to put this once-in-a-lifetime task on a back burner. ¶ It is only now, a year later, when he
has a terrific fight on his
hands over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will dig in big time of course,
and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill, which means that the president will need even more political capital that he no longer has.¶ Just as bad, when the
president did do health care—whatever version of it squeaks through now—he seemed to be getting such a meager result
for so bruising an effort that it will be a long time before anyone has the stomach to set it right legislatively.
<<INSERT AT: WINNERS WIN, PC FINITE AND PC KEY TO IMMIGRATION>>
AT: Jacobs and King
Jacobs and King does NOT say that political capital is irrelevant-Proves our argument that it’s about more than personality but also structural
factors
Concludes that presidential leadership DOES matter in close votes
Criticisms of Obama’s PC are from people who expected him to be the secular
messiah- there ARE instances where he can seize opportunities and be successful
Jacobs and King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, (Lawrence and Desmond, “Varieties
of Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,” Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 793802)
But personality is not a solid foundation for a persuasive explanation of presidential impact and the shortfalls or accomplishments of Obama's
presidency. Modern presidents have brought divergent individual traits to their jobs and yet they have routinely failed to enact much of their
agendas. Preeminent policy goals of Bill Clinton (health reform) and George W. Bush (Social Security privatization) met the same fate, though
these presidents' personalities vary widely. And presidents like Jimmy Carter—whose personality traits have been criticized as ill-suited for
effective leadership—enjoyed comparable or stronger success in Congress than presidents lauded for their personal knack for leadership—from
Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan.7 Indeed, a personalistic account provides little leverage for explaining the disparities in Obama's record—for
example why he succeeded legislatively in restructuring health care and higher education, failed in other areas, and often accommodated
stakeholders. Decades of rigorous research find that impersonal, structural
forces offer the most compelling explanations
for presidential impact.8 Quantitative research that compares legislative success and presidential personality finds no overall
relationship.9 In his magisterial qualitative and historical study, Stephen Skowronek reveals that institutional dynamics and ideological
commitments structure presidential choice and success in ways that trump the personal predilections of individual presidents.10 Findings point to
the predominant influence on presidential legislative success of the ideological and partisan composition of Congress, entrenched interests,
identities, and institutional design, and a constitutional order that invites multiple and competing lines of authority. The widespread presumption,
then, that Obama's personal traits or leadership style account for the obstacles to his policy proposals is called into question by a generation of
scholarship on the presidency. Indeed, the presumption is not simply problematic analytically, but practically as well. For the misdiagnosis of the
source of presidential weakness may, paradoxically, induce failure by distracting the White House from strategies and tactics where presidents
can make a difference. Following a meeting with Obama shortly after Brown's win, one Democratic senator lamented the White House's delusion
that a presidential sales pitch will pass health reform—“Just declaring that he's still for it doesn't mean that it comes off life support.”11
Although Obama's re-engagement after the Brown victory did contribute to restarting reform , the senator's
comment points to the importance of ideological and partisan coalitions in Congress, organizational combat, institutional roadblocks, and
anticipated voter reactions. Presidential sales pitches go only so far.
---their card ends---
Yet if presidential personality and leadership style come up short as primary explanations for presidential success and failure,
this does not render them irrelevant. There is no need to accept the false choice between volition and structure—between explanations
that reduce politics to personality and those that focus only on system imperatives and contradictions. The most satisfying explanations lie at the
intersection of agency and structure—what we describe as structured agency. Presidents have opportunities to lead, but not under
the circumstances they choose or control. These circumstances both restrict the parameters of presidential impact and highlight the significance of
presidential skill in accurately identifying and exploiting opportunities. Indeed, Obama himself talks about walking this tightrope—exercising
“ruthless pragmatism” in seizing opportunities for reform while accepting the limits and seeking to “bridge that gap between the status quo and
what we know we have to do for our future”.12 The extraordinary economic and political circumstances under which Obama took office as well
as the dramatic disparity between his administration's successes and failures underscore the need to synthesize the study of presidency with the
analysis of political economy, American political development, and comparative policy analysis.13 Such an analysis would focus on the
intermeshing of government policy making with differentially organized interests; the relative advantages or disadvantages that different
institutional settings provide to different organized groups; and the ways in which substantive policy decisions both reflect and shape political
struggles. Such structural constraints and differences in organizational power do not literally prohibit Obama, or any president, from taking
initiatives—say, nationalizing the banks—but they do create two significant barriers to dramatic policy change: a political environment in which
members of Congress, independent regulatory bodies, and officials in his administration (especially in the Department of Treasury) can reject,
stymie, or sabotage policies that threaten key relationships (such as sources of campaign contributions or future employment); and an economic
environment in which private firms and their customers could respond to policy proposals by taking actions that drive down profitability or by
shifting capital out of the US, as happened in Latin America during its debt crisis and in France after the election of Socialist Francois Mitterrand
as president. Obama's presidency can thus be viewed as a delicate dance to formulate policies that navigate these barriers and blunt conflicts with
established economic/political relationships. Such a politics of compromise has thus far generated dueling frustrations: liberals and progressives
steam that Obama's policy proposals are too tepid and too easily stymied by stakeholders, while conservatives fume at his temerity in successfully
challenging the basic market-deferring precepts of American political economy. In short, the structured agency perspective integrates two critical
components of social science analysis. First, it situates Obama's initiatives within the existing political economic structure of organizational
combat, institutions, and policy. Second, it scrutinizes Obama's strategic and tactical decisions to mobilize coalitions that are targeted at points of
political economic vulnerability and to use his expressive powers to manage the political narrative, to control expectations, and to frame
challenges to the existing power structure in ways that sustain and broaden support. A political economy perspective offers distinct contributions
to analyzing the Obama presidency and especially his domestic policies. The first is to recalibrate expectations of presidential leadership and, in
particular, Obama's capacity for change. The
initial expectation that Obama would transform America—which he himself
encouraged—needs to be refocused on the opportunities and constraints within the existing US political economy.
This shifts attention from Obama as a kind of secular messiah to the strategic challenge of seizing
opportunities within existing institutional and economic structures and instituting changes that instigate future developmental
paths in desired directions.
AT: Klein
PC theory true- empirics prove deal making matters- Klein is overly pessimistic
Seth Mandel is Assistant Editor of Commentary magazine. He was a 2011 National Security Fellow at
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Prior to that, Mandel was Managing Editor of The Jewish
State, The Jewish Journal, and The Speaker, where he won Investigative Reporting awards for his
coverage of the Second Lebanon War and the Iranian nuclear program, as well as Column Writing and
Editorial Writing awards for his coverage of the Middle East. His work has also been published by
National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, and many other publications. 3-23-2012
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/23/presidential-persuasion-commander-in-chief-obamareagan-clinton/
I finally got around to reading Ezra Klein’s interesting take on what I consider to be a fascinating subject: the power of
presidents to persuade the public. Klein’s piece, in the March 19 New Yorker, takes a dim view of the practical uses of
presidential rhetoric, using mostly presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama as case studies. Reagan, Klein
notes, was considered to be a great communicator (or, as he is remembered, the Great Communicator), yet his approval ratings were average and
many of his primary policy prescriptions never caught on with the public. Overall, he writes, the same is true of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Bush
was unable to convince the country to accept social security reform, and Obama has been unable to sell additional fiscal stimulus and most
notably his health care reform law, which remains broadly unpopular. The overestimation of the power of the bully pulpit, he finds, is more likely
to harm a president’s domestic policy agenda than advance it. But I think the key word there is “domestic.” Switch the subject to foreign policy,
and the power is somewhat restored. Bush may not have been able to sell Social Security reform, but it would be difficult to conjure a more
memorable scene from Bush’s eight years in office than his speech atop the fire truck at Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It was—
and remains—both moving and inspiring to hear the president emerge brilliantly from the shell of his tendency toward the folksy, and sometimes
awkward, when ad-libbing, at that scene. It all could have gone very differently, since the bullhorn he was using worked only intermittently, and
the crowd began losing patience. Yet, as they shouted that they couldn’t hear him, Bush remained calm, steady, and delivered a fine moment
when he responded, “I can hear you. I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear
all of us soon.” Reagan’s most famous line, obviously, was “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” It is what he is remembered for as well—not
just the words, but the sentiment, and the political risk involved. Very few conversations about Reagan center on what he said before or after his
first-term tax deal with the Democrats. It’s fitting, because though presidential elections usually turn on the economy, the chief executive has
more influence on foreign affairs. This is no different for Obama. After Obama announced a troop “surge” in Afghanistan in December 2009,
polls showed a 9-percent jump in Americans who thought staying in Afghanistan was the right course of action, and a 6-percent drop in those
who opposed the war. Americans favored the speech itself by a 23-point margin. And the president saw a 7-point jump in public approval of his
handling of the war. None of this is out of the ordinary. When I interviewed James Robbins about his book on Vietnam, This Time We Win, he
argued that polls at the time showed Lyndon Johnson to have more support for the war effort—especially its escalation—than most people think
in retrospect. “According to opinion polls at the time taken directly after Tet and a few weeks after Tet, the American people wanted to escalate
the war,” Robbins told me. “They understand that the enemy had suffered a terrible defeat, so there was an opportunity if we had taken concerted
action to actually win this thing.” Even on college campuses, he said, more people identified as hawks than doves: “The notion that young people
were long-haired dope smoking draft resisters in 1967-68 is not true. The ‘Forrest Gump’ view of history is wrong.” If you expand the category to
national security in general, Clinton gets a boost as well. This one is more difficult to measure than support for a war, but leading up the
Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton had been marginalized to such a degree by Newt Gingrich’s masterful ability to control the narrative that
Clinton offered his much-mocked plea at a briefing: “The president is still relevant here.” The bombing happened the next day, and Clinton’s
ability to project empathy and his portrayal of opposition to his presidency as right-wing anti-government excess partly to blame for any dark
mood in which someone bombs a federal building completely changed the pace and tone of the coverage of his presidency. Speeches delivered in
the service of selling a tax increase or even solving a debt-ceiling showdown are often treated as the president taking his eye off the ball. The
president as commander-in-chief, however, is a role for which voters consistently express their support. I
want to offer Klein one more
writes: Back-room bargains and quiet negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring
vision of the Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama spent much of last summer sitting in a room together, but, ultimately,
note of optimism. He
the Speaker didn’t make a private deal with the President for the same reason that Republican legislators don’t swoon over a public speech by
him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and if he wins they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may
become increasingly difficult for a President to govern—and there’s little that he can do about it. I
disagree. The details of the deal
matter, not just the party lines about the dispute . There is no way the backroom negotiations Clinton
conducted with Gingrich over social security reform could have been possible if we had prime ministers, instead
of presidents. The president possesses political capital Congress doesn’t. History tells us there are
effective ways to use that capital. One lesson: quiet action on domestic policy, visible and audible leadership on national security.
Klein is quite wrong – empirics cuts both ways.
Drum 3-12. [Kevin, political blogger, “Presidents and the Bully Pulpit” Mother Jones -- http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2012/03/presidents-and-bully-pulpit]
I also think that Ezra
doesn't really grapple with the strongest arguments on the other side. For one thing, although
there are examples of presidential offensives that failed (George Bush on Social Security privatization), there are also
example of presidential offensives that succeeded (George Bush on going to war with Iraq). The same is true
for broader themes. For example, Edwards found that "surveys of public opinion have found that support for
regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to
minorities increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure." OK. But what about the notion that tax
cuts are good for the economy? The public may have already been primed to believe this by the tax revolts of the late '70s, but I'll bet
Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the Republican tax jihad has been one of the
most influential political movements of the past three decades. More generally, I think it's a mistake to focus
narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of legislation . Maybe those really don't do any good. But
presidents do have the ability to rally their own troops, and that matters . That's largely what Obama has done in the
contraception debate. Presidents also have the ability to set agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq
until George Bush revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed like the most natural thing in the
world to a lot of people. Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a
few speeches. It's more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and his supporters and doing it over the
course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as much influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I
think they do. Truman
made containment national policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon program a
bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made working-class resentment the driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the
rising tide of the Christian right and turned that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and George Bush forged a bipartisan
consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense. It's true that in all of these cases presidents were
working with public opinion, not against it, but I think it's also true that different presidents might have shaped different consensuses.
Partisanship is about politics not ideology – proves our link story true – this cites the
study your card cites.
Mellow 11. [Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @ Williams College, “Book Reviews:
American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate” Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723]
In 2008, Barack Obama's calls for a new postpartisan era struck a chord with many Americans. Yet President Obama has struggled with Congress
to produce even bipartisan outcomes. The reigning wisdom on partisanship would suggest that this is because the ideological divide between the
parties is simply too stark. Frances Lee's thoughtful new book, which is a study of Senate voting behavior from 1981 through 2004, offers
an alternative interpretation, one that validates public skepticism of inside-the-beltway party politics. Her claim is that much of the
congressional partisanship is about politics and power, rather than ideological differences. Collective political
interests within each party predispose Democrats and Republicans to oppose each other, even on votes with no ideological content. If true, then
public distaste for “partisan bickering” is reasonable, and much of the conventional scholarly understanding of congressional partisanship is
wrong. Lee begins by historicizing and challenging the methodological individualism now dominating studies of Congress for ascribing
legislator vote behavior to individual policy preference and treating party cohesion as ideological
cohesion and party difference as ideological difference. As she astutely points out, the problem with this
conceptualization is that it reads ideology into every partisan dispute. Rather than assuming ideological content based
on the observed behavioral patterns of votes, Lee uses legislative language and Congressional Record debates to distinguish, a priori, those roll
call votes that bear on liberal/conservative debates over the economy, social issues, and foreign policy from those that do not. What she discovers
is that a
full 44% of party votes are over issues of no identifiable ideological significance (p. 65).
Fights occur to score political points – context of each particular fight is key – prefer
our issue specific capital key warrants.
Mellow 11. [Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @ Williams College, “Book Reviews:
American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate” Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723]
Lee's findings lead her to conclude that
Democrats and Republicans often fight to advance their party's political
interests in being perceived as effective or being associated with popular outcomes. The party, in her view, is a “political institution” (p.
party will
regularly disagree with the other simply to make the president look bad (or good), to discredit the opposition's
integrity, to attempt to control the debate , or to burnish its image. In short, today's parties fight because there is
political payoff even if there is no ideological reward. When we understand this, we see why bipartisanship is so hard to come
182), a team of members who have gotten better at working together to advance collective electoral and political goals. Thus, one
by. Lee designs her research carefully and rigorously. For example, in determining whether to count a vote as ideological, she digs deeply into the
public record to learn if senators discussed any aspect in ideologically identifiable terms. In coding nonideological votes, such as “good
government” votes, Lee excludes those that may be even partially about ideology, such as nomination fights in which part of the debate was
about the nominee's policy views and part was about credentials or ethics. Expansive ideological categories make for a harder test of her
argument, as do narrower nonideological categories. There are some elements of the research, though, where greater clarification would be
especially useful (some might claim critical). Most important is the description of nonideological votes. According to the author's method, these
votes account for a sizable majority—nearly 60%—of all Senate votes in her time period (p. 65), and thus are central to her argument. She
provides some textual description of the types of issues included (e.g., good government, institutional powers, some federal programs), but
knowing more about these votes and how they break down, similar to what she usefully provides for ideological votes, would be helpful in
evaluating her argument. One suspects that in any given political moment, a putatively “nonideological” partisan battle over an ethics
investigation or presidential power is actually a proxy war about the party-in-power's liberal (or conservative) agenda. While the nominal issue at
Context is
everything, and without knowing more details of this broad category, it is difficult to ascertain whether
an issue is as free of ideological portent as the public record suggests.
hand may, in principle, defy left/right categorization, the vote is nevertheless very much about ideological commitments.
Public appeals aren’t even the main source of capital – your article’s generalizations
are wrong.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New
Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770]
If higher approval ratings can augment a president's persuasive power in select cases, Neustadt
remains skeptical that presidents
can substitute "going public" for bargaining as a general means of influence. "Public appeals," he argues instead,
" are part of bargaining , albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than before in reputation" (Neustadt 1990, xv). A key
reason why presidents cannot expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that approval levels are
largely governed by factors outside their control. "[L]arge and relatively lasting changes [in Gallup Polls measuring popular
approval] come at the same time as great events with widespread consequences" (81).
Ext: Klein = Wrong
Reagan disproves Klein’s arguments.
Drum 3-13. [Kevin, political blogger, “Presidential Persuasion, Take 2” Mother Jones -- http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2012/03/presidential-persuasion-take-2]
There are some important points to be made about this. First: we
should be careful not to take opinion polls too seriously.
Gallup may say that attitudes toward taxes didn't change a lot pre- and post-Reagan, but the real world
says different. Before 1980, it was possible to raise taxes both locally and at the federal level. After 1980 it
became virtually impossible , and after the early 90s it became very nearly literally impossible. In Congress and at the polling
place, where it really matters, public opinion was loud and clear: higher taxes were a killer. Second: it's not just
broad public opinion that matters. Persuading the base matters. Ramping up intensity matters, even among a minority.
Raising money matters. And persuading the chattering classes matters. Those are all things that presidential
persuasion can affect, even if they don't get picked up in the latest Gallup poll. Third, there's always a pendulum effect. If
your campaign to lower taxes succeeds in lowering taxes, it's natural that even the tax fighters will start to relax
some and become more open to the idea that existing tax rates are OK. That doesn't mean persuasion on taxes has failed. Just
the opposite: it means it worked ! But no amount of persuasion will keep people heated up no matter how low taxes go. That's just
not a realistic bar. Now, I don't want to pretend that the tax revolt of the past 30 years was all Ronald Reagan's doing. It
wasn't. He came into office on a wave of anti-tax sentiment that was already ramping up, and there was a big institutional movement to back him
up. But did
he really have no effect at all? That's a tough nut to swallow. He was the most important public
face of the anti-tax crusade, and I think his choice to talk about taxes endlessly for eight years made a
difference. Three decades later, it still does.
AT: Going Public
Going public works- public opinion critical to determining presidential successgives leverage as Congressional members try to avoid electoral repercussions
Gibbs, '09, Christine, James H. Dunn Memorial Fellowship Program in Illinois government, a political
science and international studies double major at Wesleyan Illinois 'Presidential Success in Congress:
Factors that Determine the President's Ability to Influcence Congressional¶ Voting"¶
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/polisci_honproi/35
The weakening of president -party relations has given more leverage to the president to act independently.
This has allowed the president to use his unique resources, such as media attention, to further policy
proposals. It has also allowed the president to bully members of Congress by essentially threatening their
popularity in their electoral districts if they do not support the president. It is necessary to understand how the president can
boost the office's powers in the legislative arena to increase voting preferences for his policies in order to understand how the president, in
general, can influence policies.¶ Presidential Effort¶ Scholars have also attributed presidential success
to the president's ability
to "go over the heads" of members of Congress to take their message directly to the people (Tulis 1987,4). Jeffrey
Tulis states that the President acts as a spokesperson for "the people," bringing their proposals not only to the people but also to members of
Congress. Edwards and Wood claimthat presidents have the ability to use their elevated position to create attention where none exists (Edwards
and Wood 1999).¶ Due
to the limited resources of presidents, Steger, Prins and Marshall have stated that presidents need to
allocate their resources carefully in order to make them useful. Steger claims that "[resource] limitations compel
presidents to set priorities and choose fights selectively [because] they cannot afford to waste scarce resources
and political capital pursuing futile legislation" (Steger 2005, 315). If a president is using his resources on a particular policy
measure, it can be assumed that the issue is of particular importance to the president. ¶ Samuel Kernell has stated that presidents will use
their "bully pulpit" powers to influence the populace to become more activated on a particular topic or to
influence Congress directly. In similar studies, Jacobs and Shapiro have found that politicians "attempt to change public opinion not by
directly persuading the public on the merits of the policy choices" but by priming public opinion (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000, xiv). Priming refers
to the politicians' aim to increase publicity of certain poticy themes in order to boost favor for particular policies (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000).
Jacobs and Shapiro came to the conclusion that presidents use public opinion polls not to create policies that reflect the opinions of the nation, but
in order to craft speeches and allocate resources to package their proposals in a way that will convince the public and members of Congress to
support their proposals (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000).¶ By
taking his influence directly to the people, the president has the
ability to target constituents of the politicians who depend on their vote. This puts significant power in the
hands of the president in that what he needs to do "is convince a sufficient number of politicians that the political cost of resisting his
policy is greater than any potential gain" (Kernell 1997,250). This power is so strong, says Kernell, that at times, even when the representatives
knows that their position is not the same as the president's, they
may vote with the president in order to avoid the poEtical
backlash that may occur should the president 'lake his case to the people" (Kernell 1997, 250). The assumption that
Kernell makes is that when the president takes his message directly to the people, they will be more aware of how their representative will vote in
regards to the policy issue. The
representative, being aware of this increased focus on the issue, will feel pressured to vote in
favor with the president in order to avoid electoral repercussions .¶ Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were
two of the first to use the strategy of "going public" to win favor for poEcy measures. The diverging strategy, as opposed to simple
negotiations that were previously used, was necessary to use for these presidents due to their progressive proposed reforms that would have
stripped power from the politicians that would need to vote to enact them (Kernell 1997). Since it was first employed by these presidents, it is
now seen to be used by presidents to appeal to the public for support and in turn to influence Congress to support the president's policies.
Aff’s generalizations about going public are irrelevant – not the only factor.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New
Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770]
More systematic efforts
to test the utility of going public produce mixed empirical results. Again, much of the research
studies claim a
positive correlation between increases in aggregate levels of presidential approval and presidential
influence in Congress (Brace and Hinckley 1992, Rivers and Rose 1985). But others find a more variable effect, with the
employs quantitative analysis and focuses on legislative outcomes as a measure of presidential influence. Some
impact of presidential approval depending on the legislators' partisan affiliation (Edwards 1989; Bond and Fleisher 1990), and some see no
relationship at all (Mouw and MacKuen 1992b; see also Collier and Sullivan 1995). It
is not clear, however, whether studies
utilizing aggregate levels of presidential popularity are appropriate tests of Neustadt's more nuanced claim
regarding the power of a president's public prestige. Neustadt warns that " one rarely finds a one-to-one
relationship between appraisals of his general popularity and responses from some public in
particular " (1990, 77). Instead, he argues that the relationship between a president's public prestige and bargaining
effectiveness varies based on several factors, including the parties involved, the issue saliency and complexity,
the affected publics' level of interest and knowledge, and prior presidential statements (78-85). The latest scholarly studies
support Neustadt's more textured assessment; they find that rather than a direct correspondence between
presidential popularity and legislative outcomes, a president's prestige influences congressional behavior
in a more nuanced, less direct fashion. Simple generalizations regarding prestige and power, then, are
difficult to make.
Public appeals aren’t even the main source of capital – your article’s generalizations
are wrong.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New
Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770]
If higher approval ratings can augment a president's persuasive power in select cases, Neustadt
remains skeptical that presidents
can substitute "going public" for bargaining as a general means of influence. "Public appeals," he argues instead,
" are part of bargaining , albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than before in reputation" (Neustadt 1990, xv). A key
reason why presidents cannot expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that approval levels are
largely governed by factors outside their control. "[L]arge and relatively lasting changes [in Gallup Polls measuring popular
approval] come at the same time as great events with widespread consequences" (81).
Going public is not the same as political capital theory – doesn’t disprove it.
Cameron and Park 11. [Charles, jointly appointed in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, M.P.A. and Ph.D. (Public Affairs) from Princeton University, Jee-Kwang, Associate Professor of Political Science at Penn
State, “Going Public When Opinion Is Contested: Evidence from Presidents' Campaigns for Supreme Court Nominees, 1930-2009” Presidential
Studies Quarterly41. 3 (Sep 2011): 442-470.]
Progress in theory development has been somewhat slower. Early
studies of going public adopted a "political capital"
theory in which the president could move public opinion rather easily, simply through the exertion of effort (Kernell 1986). A major
refinement came with conditional escalation theory in which the popularity of issues acts as a constraint on the tactic's effectiveness and hence the
president's willingness to employ it (Canes- Wrone 2001b, 2006). However, both approaches implicitly
assume an uncontested
information environment - the president's opponents do not initiate a public fight or countermobilize in
response to a presidential initiative. Some scholars have begun to explore a further development, which we call opinion contest
theory. This approach assumes the president faces competition in messages and hence a struggle over public
opinion (see, e.g., Jacobs and Shapiro 2000; Rottinghaus 2010). Contested opinion theory adds a new level of strategic complexity to going
public and makes its effectiveness more problematic. In this article, we explore opinion contest theory and contrast it with
political capital theory,
using new data on going public and new data on interest group mobilization against the president. The data come from the same policy event repeated many times across multiple presidencies: presidential nominations to the
U.S. Supreme Court. This research design may be distinguished from those involving repeated instances of the same speech (e.g., the State of the Union speech; see Cohen 1997), repeated instances of the same type of rhetoric (e.g., economic appeals; see Wood 2007), or multiple kinds of
rhetoric across many programs or events (Canes- Wrone 2006; Edwards 2003; Rottinghaus 2010). By focusing on the same policy event, we implicitly control for many factors that vary across issues, programs, or policy arenas. In addition, we can tailor the predictions and our empirical
models to the specific context of Supreme Court nominations. By the same token, however, our findings may be somewhat special to Supreme Court nominations. That acknowledged, we examine the triggers for going public over Supreme Court nominees, the content of the president's
messages, and their impact on Senate voting on nominees. Because we collect consistent data on interest group mobilization, we are able to explicitly address opinion contest theory. In addition, the length of our data - covering some 80 years, from 1930 to 2009 - allows us to examine the
historical development of going public over much of the 20th century and into the early 21st century, at least in this one arena. There is little prior research on presidents going public on behalf of Supreme Court nominees. We discuss the principal study, Johnson and Roberts (2004), below.
However, useful comparisons come from work examining going public on lower court nominations (Holmes 2007, 2008) and work examining interest group activity during nominations (Scherer 2005); for broader comparisons across types of nominations, see Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond 1998.
More generally, we know of no other work that contrasts the predictions of political capital theory and opinion contest theory and applies them systematically to data from a single frequently recurring policy event. Our principal empirical findings are the following. Prior to about 1965,
presidents virtually never went public over Supreme Court nominees, even (as in the case of Herbert Hoover's 1930 nominee, Judge Parker) when the nominee ran into serious trouble. But this changed thereafter, with presidents going public defensively when interest groups mobilized
against the nominee. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, presidential efforts became significantly more intense. In addition, Republican presidents went public more aggressively when their nominee would move the median justice on the Supreme Court in a conservative direction. In explaining
the intensity of going public,
models based on opinion contest theory substantially out-perform political capital models. In fact,
formal nonnested F-tests reject political capital models based on filibuster pivots or opposition seats in favor of an opinion contest model based on interest group mobilization against the
nominee. In essence, presidents went public over Supreme Court nominees when - and almost only when - groups mobilized against the nominee. We also find that when presidents do go public
over the nominee, they engage in what Jacobs and Shapiro call "crafted talk": they emphasize the nominee's professional qualifications and positive personal qualities, not his or her often extreme
ideological commitments. Finally, as predicted by opinion contest theory, going public in an opinion contest is associated with more negative votes in the Senate, not fewer. This is because
at least for understanding going public over
Supreme Court nominees, the data strongly favor an opinion contest perspective.
presidents go public over Supreme Court nominees only when battling a vigorous and active opposition. In short,
AT: Newsweek
This card is just an editorial reflective of one journalist’s opinion – it cites no
statistical facts or even credible data – if we win Obama is fighting for and pushing
our agenda item it disproves this argument.
Pepsi challenge – the card doesn’t even say political capital.
Newsweek concludes neg- Obama’s strategy is a nuanced and successful deployment
of PC- campaign-style presidency is his strong suit- contextualizes to our jobs
internal link
Newsweek 10 (“Learning from LBJ,” 3-25, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/25/learning-fromlbj.html)
Obama entered politics as a community organizer, and as a presidential candidate he oversaw an operation that brilliantly organized from the
ground up. So it was a puzzle to Marshall Ganz, a longtime community organizer, that Obama seemed to neglect the basic rule of a grassroots
organizer: to mobilize and, if necessary, polarize your popular base against a common enemy. Instead, President Obama seemed to withdraw and
seek not to offend while Congress squabbled. "It was a curiously passive strategy," says Ganz, who worked for 16 years with Cesar Chavez and
the United Farm Workers and now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School. In a way, he says, Obama's "fear of a small conflict made a big conflict
inevitable."
---their card ends---
The health-care battle "was a political near-death experience for the president and congressional leaders," says Bill
Galston, formerly Clinton's domestic adviser and now an old Washington hand at the Brookings Institution. Galston describes Obama's
style as "drift and mastery." He recalls early in Obama's presidential campaign, in the summer of 2007, when the candidate seemed
oddly inert as he dropped in the polls. Then he perfected a rousing stump speech, just in time for the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. Obama, says
Galston, seems to have his own "inner gyroscope," but he also shows a distaste for the messy business of governing in fractious
Washington. "He has something approaching contempt for the hyperreactional government in Washington, where people pay way too much
attention to the crisis of the moment," says Galston. The president doesn't have all that much use for the niceties of international diplomacy,
either. Early in his term, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke of renewing the "special relationship" between Britain and the U.S. When
he came calling in Washington in the winter of 2009, Brown brought a penholder crafted from the timbers of a 19th-century British ship that
blockaded the African slave trade. Obama's Oval Office desk is made from the timbers of a sister ship. In return, Obama gave Brown a lame gift
of some Hollywood DVDs and blew him off without a dinner or press conference. Brown has stayed miffed. More recently, Obama has given the
cold shoulder to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. That may have been more calculated—a rebuff intended to get Israel to act more in line
with U.S. interests. One can imagine LBJ exercising the same manipulative disdain. Even
on domestic issues, Obama may be
playing a more subtle game than is readily apparent. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin recalls that when she met
with candidate Obama in 2007, she expected to talk about his hero Lincoln, the subject of Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. Yet he also quizzed
her and her husband, former Kennedy and Johnson speechwriter Richard Goodwin, about LBJ. He was interested in learning about Johnson's
philosophy for dealing with Congress. Goodwin says she now realizes that by working so closely and deferentially with Congress on health care,
Obama was taking a page from LBJ's oft-expressed philosophy: "If they're with you at the takeoff, they'll be with you in the landing." At
times
the haggling irked him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recalled for journalists that in mid-January, when health reform seemed nearly
sunk, Obama grew impatient as she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bickered before him. Pelosi said she told the president he
should "ignore some of our, shall we say, frankness with each other." But all the while Obama was paying close attention,
says his chief adviser, David Axelrod. "Most people treat lulls when they're not speaking as a place to rest and gather their thoughts until they
make the next point. He actually listens," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. In the afterglow of the health-care success, Goodwin thinks that Obama
has amassed some good will and mo-mentum he can use to gain more victories. "The telling moment was in the signing ceremony when [Obama]
said, 'You've taken your lumps.' And then a congressman yelled out, 'You're right, we did, and we still stood.' When you've been in the trenches
together as they were in this fight, it does create relationships that he can now build on and they can build on too," she says. Goodwin also
expects Obama to have a stronger appetite for change now that he's had one big success. "Once you've achieved
something that everyone admits is a historic achievement, it does something, I think, inside a president's heart," she says. "LBJ said after he got
the Civil Rights Act through in 1964, knowing that he had done something that would be remembered in time only emboldened him to want to do
more, because the feeling was so extraordinary…cThe next year, when he proposed voting rights, people around him said, 'No way, you have to
let the country heal'…cjust as people might be saying that about Obama. My guess is that what happens when you feel that sense of fulfillment
It will only, it
it more likely that he will continue now to go forward with the rest of his agenda." A
knowledgeable White House aide, who did not want to be named, expects Obama to get financial reform out of the
inside is that it makes you remember what the presidency is about, to use power to change the lives of people in a positive way.
seems to me, make
Senate—"and then we'll have to surprise everyone on energy." (Translation: getting a climate-change bill through Congress is a much bigger
challenge.) But going forward, listening won't be enough. Obama
will need to feel the passion of the presidency. At some
is going to have to go to the people in full campaign mode , and he may have to learn to twist
arms, LBJ style, even if he doesn't like to.
point he
AT: Neustadt Study
Neustadt outdated- newest consensus is PC theory is true
Gibbs, '09, Christine, James H. Dunn Memorial Fellowship Program in Illinois government, a political
science and international studies double major at Wesleyan Illinois 'Presidential Success in Congress:
Factors that Determine the President's Ability to Influcence Congressional¶ Voting"¶
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/polisci_honproi/35
Richard Neustadt's Presidential
Power\ published in 1962, set the basis for continued studies on the president, the president's
authority and the factors limiting his authority. Although he claimed that the presidency "amounted to little more than
a clerkship," it appears that scholarly thought has moved away from that idea towards the thought that the
president has significant legislative powers , but that those powers are often very limited by Congress (Pika, Thomas and Watson
1994, 207). By clerkship, Neustadt meant that the president was expected to be at the service of the rest of the government. He wrote that the
president's "authority and status" were his means to getting his legislation passed through Congress by way of negotiation and persuasion
(Neustadt 1962, 35). As
time has progressed and new studies have been done on the presidency and presidential powers,
scholars have come to believe that the president is much stronger than Neustadt gave the position credit
for. Stephen Skowronek describes the president as having the ability to "seize control of the powers of his office to try... to establish order anew
on his own terms" (Skowronek 1994, 20). Baumgartner and Jones have found that the "president is the dominant leader
if he wants to be" indicating that the president is able to be a powerful legislator if he possesses the will and creates the environment to be
successful (Thurber 1996,113). Rudalevige claims that the president has more influence in legislative agenda setting
than any other political actor. He has written that "the president's legislative initiatives almost invariably receive congressional
attention and agenda space - and that the scope and content of the president's program will frequently form the backbone of national policy
debate" (Rudalevige 2002, 3). If this is true, it
puts significant power in the hands of the president, not only in forming
policy but also in capturing the demands of the electorate.
AT: Ornstein
Ornstein concludes neg- there is an agenda setting impact and the president matter
in close votes
Norman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a contributing editor and
columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an election eve analyst for BBC News. He served
as codirector of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch
series. 5-8-2013 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-ofpresidential-leadership/
The theme of presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an enduring mythology about great figures rising to the occasion. The term “mythology”
doesn’t mean that the stories are inaccurate; Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real sense of that president’s remarkable character and drive, as well as his ability to
shape important events. Every president is compared to the Lincoln leadership standard and to those set by other presidents, and the first 100 days of every term becomes a measure of how a
president is doing.¶ I have been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obama’s failure to lead. Of course, that question
has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental
leadership task—not building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not “working his will” the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did.¶ Now, after the failure to get
the background-check bill through the Senate, other reporters and columnists have picked up on the same theme, and I have grown increasingly frustrated with how the mythology of leadership
has been spread in recent weeks. I have yelled at the television set, “Didn’t any of you ever read Richard Neustadt’s classic Presidential Leadership? Haven’t any of you taken Politics 101 and
read about the limits of presidential power in a separation-of-powers system?Ӧ But the issue goes beyond that, to a willful ignorance of history. No one schmoozed more or better with legislators
in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican votes did it get him on his signature initial priority, an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight months to get enough Democrats
to limp over the finish line. How did things work out on his health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House?¶ No one knew Congress, or the buttons to push with every key
lawmaker, better than LBJ. It worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress, largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own party in both houses. But after the
awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen majorities receded, LBJ’s mastery of Congress didn’t mean squat.¶ No one defined the agenda or negotiated more brilliantly than Reagan. Did he
“work his will”? On almost every major issue, he had to make major compromises with Democrats, including five straight years with significant tax increases. But he was able to do it—as he
was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reform—because he had key Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises.¶ For Obama, we knew from the get-go that he had no
Republicans willing to work with him. As Robert Draper pointed out in his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, key GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan determined on
inauguration eve in January 2009 that they would work to keep Obama and his congressional Democratic allies from getting any Republican votes for any of his priorities or initiatives.
Schmoozing was not going to change that.¶ Nor would arm-twisting. On the gun-control vote in the Senate, the press has focused on the four apostate Democrats who voted against the ManchinToomey plan, and the unwillingness of the White House to play hardball with Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska. But even if Obama had bludgeoned Begich and his three colleagues to vote for
the plan, the Democrats would still have fallen short of the 60 votes that are now the routine hurdle in the Senate—because 41 of 45 Republicans voted no. And as Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has
said, several did so just to deny Obama a victory.¶ Indeed, the theme of presidential arm-twisting again ignores history. Clinton once taught Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama a lesson, cutting out
jobs in Huntsville, Ala. That worked well enough that Shelby switched parties, joined the Republicans, and became a reliable vote against Clinton. George W. Bush and Karl Rove decided to
teach Sen. Jim Jeffords a lesson, punishing dairy interests in Vermont. That worked even better—he switched to independent status and cost the Republicans their Senate majority. Myths are so
much easier than reality.
---their card ends--All this is not to say that leadership is meaningless and the situation hopeless. Obama has failed to use
the bully pulpit as effectively as he could, not to change votes but to help define the agenda, while his adversaries have
often—on health care, the economy, stimulus, and other issues—defined it instead. Shaping the agenda can give your allies traction and
legitimize your policy choices and put your opponents on defense. And any of us could quibble with some
of the strategic choices and timing emanating from the White House. But it is past time to abandon selective history and wishful
thinking, and realize the inherent limits of presidential power, and the very different tribal politics that Obama faces compared with his
predecessors.
AT: Rockman
Their Rockman evidence is a straw-person argument- Rockman votes neg- thinks
that presidential influence is OBVIOUSLY relevant and that strategies matter
Rockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential
Studies Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”,
volume 39, issue 4, Academic OneFile. accessed 7-15-10)
There is, however, a matter that he and I are apt to continue to disagree about, and that is the role of individual
leaders. This is a focus that Moe tends to heavily discount or perhaps disparage. This should hardly come as a surprise to
anyone who is familiar with Moe’s work or his efforts over the years to set presidential studies on a more theoretical course. I think I am not
stretching matters too far to say that Moe believes that theorizing and research in presidency studies ought to proceed without presidents and that
the “revolution” in presidential studies has succeeded precisely because it has. Correspondingly, although Richard Neustadt’s reputation scarcely
needs to be defended by me, Moe’s
misplaced.
long-standing critique of Neustadt on presidential behavior is, I think,
These differences reflect conversations, panel discussions, conference repartee, and the like that have been going on between us for more than two decades. Although I doubt that we are apt to change one another’s minds, the fact is that we share quite a few
critical assumptions about how to peel away the hard shell of presidential studies. We apparently differ as to whether or not we get to the spongier and softer stuff inside. I cannot speak for Terry on this, but it is possible that he thinks we can forgo getting deeply inside the shell, if I may use
that metaphor. I think that depends on what we want to find out. That certainly should be driven by theory, but it also may be driven by substantive importance or by a problem. I sympathize with Moe’s view that a focus on people is apt to go nowhere if we begin with it. People are the
residue left over from what it is we can explain in more coherent theoretical ways. Psychologists and biologists often use the language of “individual differences” when they have no theoretically coherent explanation of why some seemingly like individuals, be they mice or men, respond
differently to similar treatments or stimuli. The question is whether the residual variance is important at all. For most students of political leadership, we get to the individual only after we have gone through everything else. I would argue that this was Neustadt’s premise when the iconic
Presidential Power (1960) was first published. I am sure that Moe disagrees with that, and I doubt that there is any definitive way of settling this argument. Nevertheless, Neustadt begins Presidential Power with the contention that because the system denies presidents straightforward levers of
power, a president had better be politically adept if he (or she) is to figure out the levers and tactics that might enhance his (or her) capabilities. True enough, as Moe says, the insights that Neustadt gleans about the levers of power derive from no systematic theory at all. Neustadt uses
observations, some of which are the product of his own firsthand perceptions of how power was exercised or frustrated. I agree fully with Moe that while there is no specific theory here—and, to be sure, Neustadt intended none—there is an effort to depart from the arid institutionalism of its
day. Neustadt told us that his book was not about powers but about power. Moreover, his intent was not to build a theory for political scientists but to provide advice to a real-world occupant of the White House and, indirectly, to those who help choose new presidents. Neustadt was a fox, not
a hedgehog—to use Sir Isaiah Berlin’s metaphor (derived from Tolstoy) to distinguish between those who see complexity in their environment (the foxes) and those who see the big and overarching picture (the hedgehogs). He was interested in the particulars and the nuances. That, to my
mind, is no criticism at all once it is placed in an institutional context—a context that Neustadt hammers home as the source of the president’s power problem. Taking him for what I believe he intended, Presidential Power remains a brilliant, if sometimes flawed, book. People, he claimed, are
not just marginal elements in the successes or failures of leadership. The claim, of course, is not easily testable because it is often argued in the form of counterfactuals.We know what X did; we can only speculate as to what Y might have done. Nor, as I previously pointed out (Rockma n
1984), is it at all self-evident where the politically gifted are to be found. Fred Greenstein (1994) made the point even more directly in his book depicting Dwight D. Eisenhower as an astute politician rather than the political oaf he resembles in Neustadt’s characterization. Neustadt concludes
his book by noting that, more likely than not, the search for the politically adept would have to focus on a small subset of the class of professional politicians. In fact, the search may have to be both more expansive and random than that. While the needle may still be tiny, the haystack is
larger. Psychology (the individual) is likely to provide more clues than recruitment pools predicated on professional experiences. Neustadt thought that the adept individuals would most likely be found within the recruitment pool of professional politicians. Would that there were solid
evidence of that. Political astuteness, incidentally, is not just a matter of getting your way, as I think Neustadt meant it; it is figuring out the long run, not painting yourself into a corner, and working to keep your options open. It was not confidence that Neustadt was trying to instill in
presidents; it was skepticism. Confidence can lead a president into being ambushed by reality. The second Bush presidency was a prime example of this. Skepticism about what others want and about the likelihood that if anything can go awry, it will, leads a president to look at what is at
stake for him (or her). Judicious assessment of the possibilities likely leads to better decisions, and optimizing information likely reduces the prospect that someone else’s “best case” scenario may become the president’s “worst case” reality. Presidential Power was not a theory of the
presidency. It was a response to a problem, and thus was problem driven rather than theory driven. If one goes back to the era in which Neustadt wrote Presidential Power, very little of what we think of today as theory had actually made its way into political science. There were theoretical
frameworks such as systems theory and communications theory but precious little theory, as Moe articulates that. Some middle-level theories did develop in political science, for example, pluralism stemming especially from Robert Dahl’s analytic work A Preface to Democratic Theory
(1963) and his empirical work Who Governs? (1961). And there were theories that drew from social and cognitive psychology tha t informed the studies of voting of Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes (1960, 1967). Some of that quartet also drew on
probability theory and spatial theory, as well as the sociology of communication and the role of institutions, in producing more or less decisive political outcomes. I think it would be fair to say, however, that none of these monumental empirical studies was driven purely by deductive or
axiomatic theorizing other than the borrowing of Downsian spatial theory (1957) to demonstrate its limited empirical applicability. Only William Riker and Herbert Simon, as members of that same generational cohort, might be said to have been theory driven in the fundamental sense that I
think Moe means it, and Simon was certainly skeptical of the sort of assumption-heavy axiomatic theorizing reflected in homos economicus. Neustadt was problem driven, praxis oriented, and, not surprisingly, essentially focused on knowing what could affect the wisdom of choices that
leaders have to make. Presidential Power was not the only volume in which that orientation was at work. His book with Ernest May (1986), for example, was an effort to apply the lessons of history to the avoidance of policy traps. For better or worse—and Moe, no doubt, believes for the
worse—praxis continues to be an orientation that influences students of the presidency and undoubtedly also students of public administration, the latter of which Moe wrote about critically in his notable 1985 essay on presidential politicization.
---their card starts--Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980,
1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990) have tested Neustadt’s ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with
other actors. In this, Neustadt’s ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of empirical scientists that
public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president’s agenda and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt—where they
are at all—among a president’s support base. We know now, too, that a president’s purported skills at schmoozing, twisting arms, and
congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from Congress. That was a lot more than we knew prior to the
publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared
on Neustadt but armed with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test. That the empirical tests
demonstrate that several of these propositions are wrong comes with the territory. That is how science progresses. But the reality is that there was
almost nothing of a propositional nature prior to Neustadt.
---their card ends--As well, some of Neustadt’s examples are also misplaced. From an organizational standpoint, Neustadt’s story of Eisenhower’s lack of decisiveness in getting his treasury secretary, George Humphrey, on board with the
administration’s budget plans or making an example of Humphrey by dismissing him highlights the wrong lesson. Humphrey was obviously not speaking alone. He had a good bit of support from the congressional wing of his party
for a more austere budget than the administration recommended. Neustadt portrays Eisenhower as indecisive and incompetent at protecting his stakes by defending both his budget and Humphrey’s criticism of it. Eisenhower had to
contend with the Democrats’ criticism of too little spending and the congressional Republicans’ criticism of too much. As matters played out, Humphrey eventually left his post in less than a year’s time, and Eisenhower saw no reason
to heighten tensions over this controversy. Why make a bigger fuss when the objective is to reduce the fuss? Humphrey was gone after a decent interval without bloodletting. The contrast should be noted with Richard M. Nixon’s
firing of Walter Hickel, his first interior secretary, after Hickel publicly protested about never meeting alone with the president. All Nixon truly achieved, in the short run at least, was more adverse publicity. Nixon may have been the
more political of the two presidents, but Eisenhower probably was the more politically adept. Moe’s fundamental criticism of Neustadt and of those of us who found value in his book is that, objectively, it set presidency scholars off in
the wrong direction in pursuit of the personal, the idiosyncratic, and the complex when the objectives should have been on making the long story short by pursuing the “fundamentals.” Of course, the “fundamentals” may change as
they run into problems they are unable to resolve. That is, in part, also the message of Moe’s current essay. Nevertheless, in order to get anywhere, from Moe’s perspective, the presidency needs to be depersonalized. Presidents need
to be detached from the presidency. As I have indicated, I accept this notion—up to a point. Obviously, we need to know the forces that would constrain any president (and that conceivably would lead them to try to find ways to
overcome those constraints), as well as the cognitive regularities that would help us understand how presidents (as would any person) assess opportunities and risks in decision making and frame incoming information. Such
regularities certainly must be our starting point. Will they, in turn, be sufficient? That depends on what we want to find out. Surely, structures and rules set limits. Political outcomes, such as elections, also set limits and, to a lesser
degree, provide opportunities. In market transactions, a plethora of rules and restrictions are likely to lead either to black markets or loophole searching. When confronted with restrictions on their discretion, presidents look for the
loopholes. It is important to understand what the incentives are, and that is the underlying basis of structural choice. But the incentives may play out differently for presidents with different agendas and strategic situations. Presidents
of different parties, for example, tend to face different strategic situations because their agendas tend to differ, at least initially. They also tend to organize their presidencies differently at the outset. One party’s presidents tend to focus
on control and discipline; the other on an active flow of ideas, producing potentially less coherence and discipline. The reason mainly has to do with the parties having quite different agendas and interests in public policy. One
typically wants to do less, while the other typically wants to do more (Rockman 1993). The debate as to the extent to which leaders are incarcerated by nonmanipulables or are able to see and take advantage of opportunities is an old
one, even if the language with which it is being carried out is different. In a well-aged but still superb summary of these streams of theory, published more than 40 years ago, Donald Searing (1969) divided theories of elites into ones
that were organic and those that were mechanistic. Organic theories emphasized the deep structure of forces that determined elite behavior. Marxist theory fit that pattern, but so, too, did classical theories of elites set forth by Mosca,
Pareto, and Michels. Alternatively, mechanistic theories provided some play for voluntaristic behavior, strategic manipulation, and leadership. Pluralism, as Dahl explained it in Who Governs? allowed for leadership. The initiatives
that occurred in New Haven, according to Dahl, mainly were the product of the mayor’s persistence rather than some evident pent-up demand. Alternatively, when leadership swings do bring about change, as Stephen Skowronek
(2008) has pointed out, it may be principally because the leaders are the products of deeper currents in the political system rather than their being attributable to the specific skill sets of the individuals brought to power by these
currents. The arguments over how much is predetermined and how much remains open to manipulation continues. Another well-aged body of work by Fred Greenstein (1969) notes upon reviewing the research literature underlying
the interplay of personality and politics that the more a person’s role is structured, the less of an opportunity there is for individual characteristics to come to the fore, and vice versa. Thus, one can infer that where presidents need the
help of others, such as congressional support, their personal skills or temperaments matter little. The Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt mythologies of congressional mastery were the product of extraordinary majorities
that had limited longevity. Jimmy Carter’s difficulties with Congress certainly were not eased by his lack of camaraderie with its members, but they probably were not appreciably worsened by it either. In all likelihood, these
Nevertheless,
even here, presidents have choices to make—as do other politicians. Do they try to build oversized coalitions and
induce buy-in through compromises on controversial legislation? Or do they seek a minimum winning
coalition strategy to preserve the essentials or the purity of their ideas? Or will they govern by veto? Or, alternatively, will they employ
executive-only strategies? It is hardly clear what one might do without knowing the political circumstances. They obviously shape the
choices . Does the president have majorities in his (or her) favor? How big are they? What are the interchamber differences? A president
problems had a lot to do with the complexity of Carter’s proposed legislative agenda, the interests antagonistic to it, and his being out of step with his party’s traditional labor and social welfare interests.
without majorities more likely will have to use the veto chip to help shape legislation. Or, plausibly, as George W. Bush did, use signing
statements to avoid vetoes but also avoid legislative oversight. The structural institutional literature that Moe cites certainly defines the strategic
conditions, limits, and opportunities that inform presidential choices. Individual variability, however, remains
relevant. Despite the fact that
George W. Bush had working majorities in Congress for all but his last two years, and despite the fact that all presidents have resorted to unilateralism, Bush did so to an unparalleled degree
(Shane 2009). Several administration officials in the Justice Department warned the White House against doing through the executive that which they could accomplish through legislative
process (Goldsmith 2007). Their advice was spurned and the careers of those advisors cut short. We can only speculate as to why, and this is not the place to engage in that. My point is that even
though the logic of the president’s strategic situation may be clear, it may not be consistent with the logic the president is carrying in his head (or, plausibly in this case, the vice president).
Drawing from cultural anthropology, Fred Greenstein comments that “[e]very human being is in certain ways like all other human beings, in certain ways more like some human beings than
others, and in certain ways unique” (1992, 119). I suspect that Moe would find extending beyond the first of these conditions to be unworthy of the hunt. There are instances in which presidents
may take the advice of others and consult with others but ultimately bear the burden of making the decisions that count. In fact, the situations in which the president is the “decider” are typically
matters of life and death. They are less structured than the conditions of mutual dependency that a president has with Congress. Given the constraints that otherwise govern a president’s
legislative agenda, here is where a president earns his (or her) spurs. How carefully does a president think about options? How open is a president to serious debate among his (or her) advisors?
How likely is it that a president will think about what can go wrong and either avoid it or prepare for it? Because a president’s legislative agenda can be regarded as iffy at best, it is these very
limited but vitally important situations in which a president’s intellect, wisdom, and temperament can make all the difference in the world. In other words, where structural constraints are limited,
there is greater play for personal characteristics to influence outcomes. Unfortunately, there is no theory that we can presently point to that helps us deal with individual differences of this nature.
But it did not take a theory to observe the differences between George Bush the former and George Bush the latter. One was prudent, and the other, to be charitable, less so. One understood the
limits of power, while the other tended to see the world as his oyster. Could we have seen it coming? I think we could see the characteristics of the first George Bush based on his experiences and
diplomatic engagements. It was probably less plausible that we could have detected the leadership theory of the younger George Bush and the confidence he placed in his judgments, which
leaned toward taking the bold stroke. His résumé was thin, and he left little on the public record. Observation rather than theory will be our best bet as to how any given president is apt to pan out
in the most singularly important aspects of the presidency. It may well be that our best sources for observation and clues as to future behavior will come from the journalists who covered the prior
beat of the particular president, as Lou Cannon (1982) had done for Reagan. I do not pretend that this is theoretical; I do claim that it is vitally critical to understanding the most important aspects
There are circumstances in which the president tends
to be the exclusive decider, or at least the most critical one, and in which his (or her) interaction with others
comes on his (or her) terms. These occasions just happen to be the main reasons we need a president,
because this is where it counts. We have come to know more about crisis situations: fewer actors are involved, and interactions tend to
of the presidency.We are now well past the hard shell and to the squishy but vital stuff inside.
have a very high density function around a core actor who just happens to be the president (Link 2000). We also know that when presidents tip
their hand at the outset, the incentive for an advisor to be an outlier is exceedingly low. Thus, we do need to know more about how presidents act
and, above all, think in these situations. Admittedly, theories of personality have gotten us nowhere because they tend to be overdrawn, overly
simple, frequently circular, and permanently fixed. We need to be more focused, first, in understanding the organizational and communication
logics of crisis situations; second, in thinking about the uniformities that influence choices; third, in thinking about the historically conditioned
patterns of thought influencing responses; and finally, in considering what it is that the decision makers, preeminently the president, bring to the
table. Moe emphasizes that the second and third conditions are likely to be essential components of gaining a stronger theoretical grasp. I infer
that he would accept the first condition as a plausible basis for theory. I am pretty sure that he would reject the fourth. Ironically, no one has
mined this condition better than Neustadt.
***A2: Winners Win
PC finite- legislative wins don’t spillover –empirics, true for Obama, too polarizednewest ev
Todd Eberly is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of
Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is
excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular
Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-systemparty-support-public-opinion/2
Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to
accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass . Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like
so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s American political
system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs support — or
As Barack
at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public
If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of
inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions.¶ What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines
opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements.
contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Longstanding party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968
two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that resulted in intense
polarization in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest groups
and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a
marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the
combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to
In recent years, presidents'
political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making the president a volatile player in the national political system.¶
claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past.
Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in
office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of
a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national
security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with
obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing
statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional
recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital. ¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008
seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong
public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea
party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.¶ By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and
Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president
relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student
loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or
Obama's narrow reelection victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic majority Senate, hardly signals a grand resurgence of his
political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the
imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack
president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power
trap.
Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political capital from eroding . When it did, their power assertions
often got them into further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill
Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes — in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax
short-term legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but
do not serve as an antidote to declining political capital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate.
None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted
by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.
cuts and education reform — that at the time received popular approval. ¶ However,
Uniquely true of second term presidents
Bert Atkinson Jr., Independent Review Journal, 3-12-2031 http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/41467love-affair-ending-obamas-political-capital-declining/
The second term is notoriously tough for two term candidates. Clinton had a little snafu on his …hands during his second term that led to
impeachment, and George W. Bush was demonized time and time again. ¶ Now, it could be that Barack Obama is facing a similar fate… ¶ If President Barack
Obama had piled up political capital with his impressive re-election, it’s largely gone.¶ His approval rating has dropped to the
lowest level in more than a year, with more voters now turning thumbs down on his performance than thumbs up, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll. The
measure of how much people like him also has dropped. ¶ He’s still vastly more popular than Congress, particularly congressional
Republicans. But in the biggest political clash of the year – over the federal budget and how to curb deficits – voters split 44 percent to 42 percent between preferring
Congress or Obama. ¶ What? There’s no Mitt Romney to be held up against?¶ Blame Congressional Republicans all you want, but in 50 years when children are
reading American history books about the infamous fiscal cliff/debt ceiling/sequestration debacles of 2013, they will certainly not remember names like Mitch
McConnell or John Boehner; they will absolutely read about President Obama and how all of this happened under his lack of leadership.¶ “This may be the downside
of him coming out of the box stronger in the second term,” Miringoff said. “People are now looking for him to lead us out of this stalemate, provide more leadership.
People see him as a strong figure and in the driver’s seat. During the election, it was him versus Romney. Now it’s him versus people’s expectations for the country.”¶
Expectations: Obama will have a tough time meeting them. I know the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama for a halfdecade now, but they still answer to ratings. If I had to take a guess, I would say that there will be more negative news stemming from the growing discontent of his
ability to follow through on his promises. I’m not saying we’re about to see MSNBC go all Fox News on the guy, but the broken promises and evolutions and flipflops can only go on for so long before people start catching on. Let’s just say that if Obama is still sending a thrill up your leg at this point, you’ve got some issues.
(Looking at you, Chris Matthews.)
PC is finite- need to pick and choose battles to preserve capital
Sanghoee, 13 Sangay Sanghoee, Political Commentator, has worked at leading investment banks as
well as at a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. He has an MBA from Columbia Business School, Huffington
Post, 4/10/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/compromise-reform-howoba_b_3055100.html
There is only one thing that President Obama can truly rely on, and that is to get attacked no matter what he does. When he stands up for
Democratic principles, he is criticized by the Republicans for betraying the nation's values. When he tries to be bipartisan, he is criticized by the
Democrats for being weak and a turncoat. It
seems he just cannot win. But he can, and whether his critics realize it or not,
Obama is doing it right now. To understand this, however, it is important to recognize what motivates this particular president. Some
presidents are caretakers. In their view, the best leadership is to make sure that nothing goes terribly wrong and that the ship remains stable. As
long as they do that, they consider themselves successful. But that is not this president. This
president wants to accomplish
something tangible, dramatic, and lasting, and that is to institute reform. Reform in healthcare, reform in marriage equality,
reform in immigration, reform in education, reform in campaign finance, and reform in clean energy. In all these areas, Obama sees
the potential for dramatic change and lasting long-term effects, and that is why he is willing to go to the mat
on these issues. On other things, including Social Security and Medicare, the budget deficit, and even gun control, he
sees less room for dramatic improvement - either because of circumstances or political reality - and so is more willing to
compromise. Is this good or bad? It is neither, really. It is just the nature of this presidency and perhaps Obama's destiny. Leaders pick
and choose their battles based on the nation's circumstances, unexpected contingencies, and their own instincts. President Obama's
instincts led him to fight for healthcare, so he did - ferociously, and he will do the same for
immigration , education, and clean energy. He is being roundly criticized for proposing a budget that agrees to
cuts in Social Security by tying it to a Chained CPI, and for agreeing to a softer gun control bill than the one his party
promised after Newtown, in order to reach compromise with the Republicans. But what I believe is really happening is that
Obama is making some very tough choices. Political capital is a finite resource and this president
will use it where he feels it will do the most good. We can disagree with him on his priorities, but I also see where he is
coming from. Preserving Social Security is important but so is getting a budget passed and reaching some type of compromise to keep the
government running. Gun control is urgent but so are immigration and education. History
will decide whether the benefits of
Obama's reforms on some fronts will outweigh the costs of his bipartisan compromises on others, but in the
meantime, the Democrats should remember that governing has always been about horse-trading, and that Obama has
only a short time left to address the major facets of his agenda. Obama is prepared to lose a few
battles in order to win the war . That is not being weak or a turncoat. It is being pragmatic and smart. It is also
being Presidential.
Their ev is only about CENTRAL Obama issues like health care and immigrationsmall, single issues don’t spill over
Ryan Lizza, 1/7/13, Will Hagel Spike the G.O.P.’s Fever?,
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/how-much-will-the-nomination-of-chuck-hagelhurt-obamas-second-term-agenda.html
Obama’s victory has made almost no difference in changing the psychology or incentives of the
members of the G.O.P. who matter most: the House Republicans. The idea that a bloc of conservative, mostly Southern, Republicans would start to coöperate
with the President on issues like tax policy and immigration may have rested on a faulty assumption.¶ The past few weeks of fiscal-cliff drama have taught us that “ breaking the
fever” was the wrong metaphor . There is no one event —even the election of a President—that can change a political
party overnight. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and House Republicans feel that they have as much of a mandate for their policies as Obama does for his. Shouldn’t
But
House Republicans care that their views on Obama’s priorities, like tax cuts for the rich and immigration, helped cost Romney the White House and will make it difficult for their party’s
nominee to win in 2016? In the abstract, many do, but that’s not enough to change the voting behavior of the average House Republican, who represents a gerrymandered and very conservative
A better metaphor for the coming battles with Congress may be what Woody Hayes, the college-football coach, famously called
“ three yards and a cloud of dust”: a series of grinding plays where small victories are earned only after
lots of intense combat. While the fiscal-cliff showdown demonstrated that there’s potential for bipartisan
deal-making in the Senate, passing any Obama priority through the House of Representatives is nearly
impossible unless the political pressure is extremely intense .¶ The fiscal-cliff bill passed the House only when Speaker
district.¶
John Boehner’s members realized that their only alternative was blowing up the settlement negotiated by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell—and accepting all the blame and consequences.¶ That
offers the White House a general template for the coming fights over spending, immigration, and gun control—three
issues where there is very little consensus between Obama and most House Republicans. Deals will have
to be negotiated in the Senate and gain the imprimatur of some high-profile Republicans. Then a
pressure campaign will have to be mounted to convince Boehner to move the legislation to the floor of the
House under rules that allow it to pass with mostly Democratic votes. It’s easier to see how this could
happen with the coming budgetary issues, which have deadlines that force action, than for the rest of Obama’s agenda, which is more likely than not to simply
episode
die in the House.¶ Err neg- their ev is hype and wishful thinking¶ Jackie
Calmes, NYTimes, 11/12/12, In Debt Talks, Obama Is Ready to Go Beyond Beltway,
That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats,
holds that Mr. Obama is too passive and deferential to Congress , a legislative naïf who does little to nurture personal relationships with
potential allies in short, not a particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most important
quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney.¶ George C. Edwards III, a leading scholar of the presidency at Texas A & M University who is currently
teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such criticisms as shallow and generally wrong . Yet Mr. Edwards, whose book on Mr.
Obama's presidency is titled "Overreach," said, "He didn't understand the limits of what he could do ."¶ "They thought
they could continuously create opportunities and they would succeed, and then there would be more
success and more success, and we'd build this advancing-tide theory of legislation," Mr. Edwards said. "And that was
very naïve, very silly . Well, they've learned a lot, I think."¶ "Effective leaders," he added, "exploit opportunities rather
than create them."¶ The budget showdown is an opportunity. But like many, it holds risks as well as potential rewards.¶ "This
mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/politics/legacy-at-stake-obama-plans-broader-push-for-budget-deal.xml¶
election is the second chance to be what he promised in 2008, and that is to break the gridlock in Washington," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff, who voted for
Mr. Obama in 2008 and later expressed disappointment. "But it seems like this is a replay of 2009 and 2010, when he had huge majorities in the House and Senate, rather than recognizing that
'we've got to figure out ways to work together and it's not just what I want.' "¶ For now, at least, Republican lawmakers say they may be open to raising the tax bill for some earners. "We can
increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody in this country," said Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia and a leader of House conservatives, on "Fox News Sunday."
The challenge for Mr. Obama is to use his postelection leverage to
persuade Republicans or to help Speaker John A. Boehner persuade Republicans that a tax compromise is in their
party's political interest since most Americans favor compromise and higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce annual deficits.¶ Some of the business leaders the president will
"We can lower the rates, broaden the base, close the loopholes."¶
meet with on Wednesday are members of the new Fix the Debt coalition, which has raised about $40 million to urge lawmakers and their constituents to support a plan that combines spending
cuts with new revenue. That session will follow Mr. Obama's meeting with labor leaders on Tuesday.¶ His first trip outside Washington to engage the public will come after Thanksgiving, since
Mr. Obama is scheduled to leave next weekend on a diplomatic trip to Asia. Travel plans are still sketchy, partly because his December calendar is full of the traditional holiday parties.¶
Democrats said the White House's strategy of focusing both inside and outside of Washington was smart. "You want to avoid getting sucked into the Beltway inside-baseball games," said Joel
The
president must use his leverage soon, some Democrats added, because it could quickly wane as Republicans look to the 2014 midterm
Johnson, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and the Senate. "You can still work toward solutions, but make sure you get out of Washington while you are doing that."¶
elections, when the opposition typically takes seats from the president's party in Congress.
Win doesn’t spill over fast enough
Silber 07 [PhD Political Science & Communication – focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential PolicyMaking – Prof of Poli Sci – Samford, [Marissa, WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?, Prepared for
delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30thSeptember 2nd, 2007, UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE
MEDIA AND POLITICIANS]
Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term . If
a President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced? Light suggests that “capital declines over
time – public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur” (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent.
The decline of capital makes it difficult to access information, recruit more expertise and maintain
energy. If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital, this paper helps determine if such
capital can be replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President
must be
developed.
Comparative- our internal link is MORE likely
David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 1/19/13, Obama 2.0: Smarter, tougher -but wiser?,
www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Smarter, tougher, bolder -his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps -and for the country's sake, let's
hope so. Yet, there
are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.¶ Ultimately, to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration,
guns and energy, the president and Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term. Over
the past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama, and the
White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections.¶ But a growing number of
Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move away from extremism
toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama. It's not that they
suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail. ¶ House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on
the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a
ruinous GOP stance.¶ One senses that the
hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to
tackle the big issues is now slipping away.¶ While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives
increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and
negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support
his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to
Conceivably , Obama's tactics could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely,
they will be spoiling for more fights . Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a thread.
64%.¶
Obama thinks that pol cap is finite – he’ll back off subsequent controversial issues
even if he’s winning
Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos, author of "Obama's
Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, 4/28/’9
(Robert, “Obama Has Amassed Enormous Political Capital, But He Doesn't Know What to Do with It,”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/138641/obama_has_amassed_enormous_political_capital,_but_he_does
n%27t_know_what_to_do_with_it/?page=entire)
We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the
release of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's torture policy, but then
backtracked and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama's
political self wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was
surprisingly muted. Thus the most important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change:
Barack Obama's conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during
the campaign that he would govern as a consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of
achieving consensus. One is to split the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The
other is to use presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days,
Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.
Ext. PC Finite – General
There is spillover --political capital is finite and the time and energy necessary to
pass the plan trades off with other priorities. Getting the plan makes Congress less
likely to grant Obama other favors.
Moore, 13 --Guardian's US finance and economics editor (Heidi, 9/10/2013, “Syria: the great
distraction; Obama is focused on a conflict abroad, but the fight he should be gearing up for is with
Congress on America's economic security,”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester, JMP)
Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite
resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but it also eats up credibility in
asking for the next favor. It's fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, have
no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the reason the White
House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the
domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time.
Most robust studies prove PC is finite and spills over- spending PC on controversial
items hurts Obama’s legislative agenda- err neg- likely that we UNDERESTIMATE
that impact
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia
10-25-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
presidents are less likely to be successful enacting their policy proposals¶ and filling lower court vacancies when
they are forced to expend greater relative effort on¶ a Supreme Court nominee. Using data on all presidential
proposals from 1967 to 2010, our¶ results show that the more a president is forced to go public on a nominee's behalf, the less¶ successful he
is at enacting important policy initiatives from his agenda in the U.S. Senate.¶ Additionally, data on all lower federal court nominations
We have argued that
from 1977 to 2010 indicate that the¶ more effort a president dedicates to promoting a Supreme Court nominee, the less successful¶ he is at achieving senatorial consent to his district court
political capital is a valuable commodity for the president .¶ Furthermore, because we
include presidential proposals and nominations only after the¶ president has made them, it is likely that we underestimate the collateral damage
caused by¶ presidents' relative efforts on Supreme Court nominations. It seems likely that presidents¶ faced with a Supreme Court vacancy are slower in proposing
nominees. All of this fits with the¶ broad idea that
agenda-items and vetting po-¶ tential nominees to lower federal courts. Indeed, Republican senators criticized President¶ Barack Obama for nominating potential judges more slowly than his
predecessors. Respond-¶ ing to this, President Obama pointed to “other priorities," including the two Supreme Court¶ nominations.20 Future work should consider the effect of Supreme Court
vacancies on the¶ executive branch's output.¶ Our analysis highlights the important role played by transaction costs and has important¶ implications for scholars who examine policy-making in
either the U.S. Senate or separation¶ of powers context. There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that once a bill or nomination is on the ¶ floor, its success or failure is in large part
no legislative or
nomination battle is fought in a vacuum.¶ The amount of time and resources devoted to the enactment
of a given bill or nomination¶ directly influences the success of pending agenda items. This implies that the enactment of a¶
particularly salient piece of legislation or a lengthy battle over a controversial lower-court or¶ executive branch nomination likely has
substantial consequences on the broader presidential
determined by the underlying¶ content of the measure (or the ideal point of a nominee) in relation to the ideological loca-¶ tion of key legislative pivots. But
or legislative agenda.
Time and resources devoted to spending PC on items are finite and trade off with
Obama’s legislative agenda
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia
10-25-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
When faced with aggressive opposition, presidents
can spend large amounts of political¶ capital to secure victory (Johnson and Roberts
2004; Cameron and Park 2011). We argue¶ that this use of time and resources is not likely to be costless .10 A confirmation
process in¶ which the president frequently engages the public reduces his personal resources and distracts¶
elites from other policy priorities. Thus, hard-fought wars over Supreme Court nominees can¶ cause substantial
collateral damage to both the president's legislative agenda and his ability¶ to fill vacancies on lower federal courts. We hypothesize
that presidents who expend more¶ effort, and thereby spend more political capital, to advocate confirmation of a Supreme
Court¶ nominee are less likely to experience success in enacting legislative agenda items and getting¶ their nominees to lower
federal courts confirmed than presidents who devote less effort to promote confirmation. This proposition is untested despite widespread speculation that ¶ the
confirmation process weakens the president's bargaining position in other policy areas¶ (Groseclose and McCarty 2001; Mackenzie 1981; Shipan and Shannon 2003).
Controversies hurt
Gerson 10– 12/19, Washington post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604039.html
In some areas - such as education reform or the tax deal - Obama's governing practice is better than his political skills.
But these skills matter precisely because political capital is limited. The early pursuit of ambitious
health-care reform was a political mistake, as former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel internally argued. But every president
has the right to spend his popularity on what he regards as matters of principle. Political risks, taken out
of conviction with open eyes, are an admirable element of leadership. Yet political errors made out of
pique or poor planning undermine the possibility of achievement. Rather than being spent, popularity is
squandered - something the Obama administration has often done.
Statistically proven
Bond & Fleisher 96
[Jon R. and Richard. professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham
"The President in Legislation" p.223]
Presidency-centered variables, however, provide an even weaker explanation of presidential success. We found little support for the thesis that
the weakness of legislative parties increases the importance of presidential skill or popularity for determining presidential success on roll call
votes. Our analysis
reveals that presidents reputed to be highly skilled do not win consistently more often
than should be expected given the conditions they faced. Similarly, presidents reputed to be unskilled do
not win significantly less often than expected. The analysis of presidential popularity reveals that the president's standing in the
polls has only a marginal impact on the probability of success or failure.
Ext. Not True – Long Term
Wins trigger backlash and only build long term capital
Purdum 10, Columnist for Vanity Fair, (Todd, “Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not
Despite Them,” 12-20 www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/12/obama-is-suffering-because-of-hisachievements-not-despite-them.html)
With this weekend’s decisive Senate repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gay service members, can anyone seriously doubt Barack Obama’s
patient willingness to play the long game? Or his remarkable success in doing so? In
less than two years in office—often against the odds and the
smart money’s predictions at any given moment—Obama has managed to achieve a landmark overhaul of the nation’s
health insurance system; the most sweeping change in the financial regulatory system since the Great
Depression; the stabilization of the domestic auto industry; and the repeal of a once well-intended policy
that even the military itself had come to see as unnecessary and unfair. So why isn’t his political standing
higher? Precisely because of the raft of legislative victories he’s achieved. Obama has pushed through large and
complicated new government initiatives at a time of record-low public trust in government (and in institutions of any sort, for that matter), and he has suffered
not because he hasn’t “done” anything but because he’s done so much—way, way too much in the eyes of
his most conservative critics. With each victory, Obama’s opponents grow more frustrated, filling the
airwaves and what passes for political discourse with fulminations about some supposed sin or another. Is it any wonder the guy is bleeding a bit? For his part,
Obama resists the pugilistic impulse. To him, the merit of all these programs has been self-evident, and he has been the first to acknowledge that he has not always
done all he could to explain them, sensibly and simply, to the American public. But Obama is nowhere near so politically maladroit as his frustrated liberal
supporters—or implacable right-wing opponents—like to claim. He proved as much, if nothing else, with his embrace of the one policy choice he surely loathed: his
agreement to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for wealthy people who don’t need and don’t deserve them. That broke one of the president’s signature campaign
promises and enraged the Democratic base and many members of his own party in Congress. But it was a cool-eyed reflection of political reality: The midterm
election results guaranteed that negotiations would only get tougher next month, and a delay in resolving the issue would have forced tax increases for virtually
everyone on January 1—creating nothing but uncertainty for taxpayers and accountants alike. Obama saw no point in trying to score political debating points in an
argument he knew he had no chance of winning. Moreover, as The Washington Post’s conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer bitterly noted, Obama’s
agreement to the tax deal amounted to a second economic stimulus measure—one that he could never otherwise have persuaded Congressional Republicans to
support. Krauthammer denounced it as the “swindle of the year,” and suggested that only Democrats could possibly be self-defeating enough to reject it. In the end, of
course, they did not. Obama
knows better than most people that politics is the art of the possible (it’s no accident that he
became the first black president after less than a single term in the Senate), and an endless cycle of two steps forward, one step back.
So he just keeps putting one foot in front of the other, confident that he can get where he wants to go, eventually. The short-term results are often
messy and confusing. Just months ago, gay rights advocates were distraught because Obama wasn’t
pressing harder to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now he is apparently paying a price for his victory
because some Republican Senators who’d promised to support ratification of the START arms-reduction treaty—identified by Obama as a signal priority for this
lame-duck session of Congress—are balking because Obama pressed ahead with repealing DADT against their wishes.
everything in politics, and Obama knows that, too.
There is a price for
Ext. Not True – Obama
Winners-win empirically false for Obama
Klein, 10/10/14 (Ezra, “Obama ditched a key campaign promise. And it saved his presidency,”
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6953889/paul-krugman-obama-historic-success, JMP)
Hate Obama or love him, on this, Krugman is clearly correct. Obama
has passed more major legislation than perhaps any
president since Lyndon Johnson — and, at least as of yet, there's no Vietnam War to mar his legacy. The history of the Obama administration will
be hard to write, as so many of its chapters will demand their own books (indeed, some, like the stimulus, have already gotten them). Most crucially, Obamacare itself
looks headed for success — and that, plus preventing the financial crisis from turning into another Great Depression, is a legacy in itself. That said, Obama's greatest
successes — and his most serious failures — lie in the dense mass of his first two years. This is the time, in Krugman's telling, before Obama grokked the nature of the
Republican opposition and "began dealing with it realistically." I think the story there is more complicated — and more interesting. From 2009 to 2010, Obama, while
seeking the post-partisan presidency he wanted, established the brutally partisan presidency he got. Virtually
every achievement Krugman
recounts — the health-care law, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, the financial rescue, the stimulus bill — passed in these first two years when Democrats held
huge majorities in congress. And every item on the list passed over screaming Republican opposition. The first two years of
the Obama administration are the story of Obama being haunted by his promises of a postpartisan
presidency, and choosing, again and again, to pass bills at the cost of worsening partisanship. The irony of
Obama's presidency As Reid Cherlin, a former Obama administration staffer, put it, "[T]hey have managed over six years to accomplish much of what Obama
promised to do, even if accomplishing it helped speed the process of partisan breakdown." The engine of Obama's political rise, going all the way back to his 2004
keynote at the Democratic National Convention, was that the conflictual nature of politics was the product of the people who knew no politics other than conflict. The
central irony of Obama's presidency is he proved himself wrong. Obama promised to reform the health-care system and regulate the financial sector by fixing
American politics. Instead, he did it by breaking American politics further. The candidate who ran for office promising to heal Washington's divisions became the
most divisive president since the advent of polling: [graph omitted] It's not just partisanship. Obama ran as the scourge of special interests. "We can't keep playing
the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result," he said. "Because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing. It's a
game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk." Lobbyists still write
their checks in Obama's Washington. The health-reform bill got done by cutting side deals with pharmaceutical companies and insurers. Dodd-Frank got done by
cutting side deals with auto dealers and mutual funds. The Obama administration has put no political capital behind major campaign-finance reforms or, really, any
other ideas that would fundamentally change how Washington works. It's the same old Washington game with the same old Washington players — but Obama, when
Obama spent his first two years keeping many of his policy promises by sacrificing
his central political promise. That wasn't how it felt to the administration at the time. They thought that success would build momentum;
that change would beget change. Obama talked of the "muscle memory" Congress would rediscover as it
passed big bills; he hoped that achievements would replenish his political capital rather than drain
it. In this, the Obama administration was wrong, and perhaps naive. They overestimated their ability to convert
the raw exercise of political power into more political power. It was a mistake, but not a very postpartisan one. And, as a
he had his big congressional majorities, managed to secure a different result.
theory, it was the one they needed to build their legacy — a legacy, at this point, that even their early critics admire.
Structurally impossible for Obama can’t generate more wins
RYAN 9. [1-18 -- Selwyn Professor of Social Science at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of West
Indies. Ph.D. in Political Science from Cornell, http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968]
Like many, I expect much from Obama, who for the time being, is my political beast of burden with whom every other politician in the world is
unfavourably compared. As a political scientist, I however know that given the structure of American and world politics, it would be difficult for
him to deliver half of what he has promised, let alone all of it. Reality will force him to make many "u" turns and detours which may well land
him in quick sand. Obama
will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps
more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe that his inauguration is one
of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's
world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political
leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did
not know how to husband the political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They squandered it
as quickly as they emptied the contents of the public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets and
liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's face inscribed with the plaintive words,
"I Trust You." Despite the general optimism about Obama's ability to deliver, many groups have already begun to complain about being betrayed.
Gays, union leaders, and women have been loud in their complaints about being by-passed or overlooked. Some radical blacks have also
complained about being disrespected. Where and when is Joshua going to lead them to the promised land, they ask? When is he going to pull the
troops out of Iraq? Civil rights groups also expect Obama to dis-establish Guantanamo as soon as he takes office to signal the formal break with
Dick Cheney and Bush. They also want him to discontinue the policy which allows intelligence analysts to spy on American citizens without
official authorisation. In fact, Obama startled supporters when he signalled that he might do an about-turn and continue this particular policy. We
note that Bush is signalling Obama that keeping America safe from terrorists should be his top priority item and that he, Bush, had no regrets
about violating the constitutional rights of Americans if he had to do so to keep them safe. Cheney has also said that he would do it again if he
had to. The safety of the republic is after all the highest law. Other groups-sub-prime home owners, workers in the automobile sector, and the
poor and unemployed generally all expect Obama to work miracles on their behalf, which of course he cannot do. Given the problems of the
economy which has not yet bottomed out, some promises have to be deferred beyond the first term. Groups, however, expect that the promise
made to them during the campaign must be kept. Part of the problem is that almost every significant social or ethnic group believes that it was
instrumental in Obama's victory. White women felt that they took Obama over the line, as did blacks generally, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, rich
white men, gays, and young college kids, to mention a few of those whose inputs were readily recognisable. Obama also has a vast constituency
in almost every country in the world, all of whom expect him to save the globe and the planet. Clearly, he is the proverbial "Black Knight on a
White Horse." One
of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all
system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically, even when the
President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups to negotiate, bargain and
engage in serious horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral or political suasion and promises of
future support for policies or projects. The system was in fact deliberately engineered to prevent overbearing
majorities from conspiring to tyrannise minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse and plural, but socially and
geographically so. As James Madison put it in Federalist No 10, one of the foundation documents of republicanism in America, basic institutions
check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests, and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own
power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party discipline which
translated, means you do what I the leader say you do. Although Obama is fully aware of the political limitations of the office which he holds, he
is fully aware of the vast stock of political capital which he currently has in the bank and he evidently plans to enlarge it by drawing from the
stock held by other groups, dead and alive. He is clearly drawing heavily from the caparisoned cloaks of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Obama seems to
believe that by playing the all-inclusive, multipartisan, non-ideological card, he can get most of his programmes through the Congress without
having to spend capital by using vetoes, threats of veto, or appeals to his 15 million strong constituency in cyberspace (the latent "Obama Party").
WINNERS WIN NOT TRUE FOR OBAMA.
GALSTON 10. [William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy
Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]
Second, the
administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative
The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became
harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House
members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation
turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.
victory would spill over into the next.
WINNERS LOSE FOR OBAMA – LOSES THE SPIN GAME.
BAKER 10. [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, “Education of a
President” New York Times]
But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game. In their darkest moments, White House aides
wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills
he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in
collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a culture that demands solutions yesterday, a
societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard. Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on
Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this environment,
they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be, at best, average. “We’re all a lot more cynical now,” one
aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at their
own misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. “It’s not that we believed our own press or press
releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington,” another White House official told me. “
‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right word, but we were overconfident.” The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers was the
assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand against
Obama, his early efforts to woo the opposition also struck many as halfhearted. “If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to roll over,
we were just terribly mistaken,” former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside adviser to Obama, told me. “I’m not sure anybody really
thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the Republicans would go away. And obviously they didn’t do that.” Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2
Democrat in the upper chamber and Obama’s ally from Illinois, said the Republicans were to blame for the absence of bipartisanship. “I think his
fate was sealed,” Durbin said. “Once the Republicans decided they would close ranks to defeat him, that just made it extremely difficult and
dragged it out for a longer period of time. The American people have a limited attention span. Once you convince them there’s a problem, they
want a solution.” Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who grade
Obama harshly for not
being more nimble in the face of opposition. “B-plus, A-minus on substantive accomplishments,” he told
me, “and a D-plus or C-minus on communication.” The health care legislation is “an incredible
achievement” and the stimulus program was “absolutely, unqualifiedly, enormously successful,” in Rendell’s judgment, yet
Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on both
major initiatives, and they lost it early,” said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who later became an Obama supporter.
“We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”
Ext. Not True – Second Term
Wins don’t spillover—capital is finite and decreases—prioritizing it is key to 100day agenda success
David Schultz, professor at Hamline University School of Business, 1/22/13, Obama's dwindling
prospects in a second term, www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/obamas-dwindlingprospects-second-term
Four more years for Obama. Now
what? What does Barack Obama do in his second term and what can he accomplish?
Simply put, his options are limited and the prospects for major success quite limited. ¶ Presidential power is the power to persuade , as
Richard Neustadt famously stated. Many factors determine presidential power and the ability to influence including
personality (as James David Barber argued), attitude toward power, margin of victory, public support, support in Congress, and one’s sense of narrative or purpose. ¶
Additionally,
presidential power is temporal , often greatest when one is first elected , and it is contextual,
affected by competing items on an agenda. All of these factors affect the political power or capital of a
president.¶ Presidential power also is a finite and generally decreasing product . The first hundred days in
office – so marked forever by FDR’s first 100 in 1933 – are usually a honeymoon period, during which presidents often get
what they want. FDR gets the first New Deal, Ronald Reagan gets Kemp-Roth, George Bush in 2001 gets his tax cuts.¶ Presidents lose political capital,
support¶ But, over time, presidents lose political capital. Presidents get distracted by world and domestic events, they lose
support in Congress or among the American public, or they turn into lame ducks. This is the problem Obama now faces.¶ Obama
had a lot of political capital when sworn in as president in 2009. He won a decisive victory for change with strong approval ratings
and had majorities in Congress — with eventually a filibuster margin in the Senate, when Al Franken finally took office in July. Obama used his political capital to
secure a stimulus bill and then pass the Affordable Care Act. He eventually got rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and secured many other victories. But
was a lousy salesman, and he lost what little control of Congress that he had in the 2010 elections.
Obama
Ext. Not True – Too Partisan
WINNERS DON’T WIN ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES – THE HILL IS TOO
POLARIZED.
MANN 10. [Thomas, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, “American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections” Brookings Institute -November]
That perception
of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by which Obama’s
initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years developed a highly polarised party
system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and unusual unity within each. But these parliamentary-like parties operate in
a governmental system in which majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place. Republicans adopted a strategy
of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major component of the President’s
agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has
been the indispensable weapon in killing, weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation
proposed by the Democratic majority.
A2: Dickerson – Emory
Dickerson is a liberal hack- overstates Obama’s potential
Tom Blumer is president of Monetary Matters, a training and development company in Mason, Ohio.
He presents workshops on money management, retirement, and investing. 1-21-2013
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/01/21/cbs-political-director-john-dickerson-calls-obamadeclare-war-republican
These days, we usually don't have to wait too long for reporters' biases to show. Over the weekend at Slate, CBS Political Director John
Dickerson, whose leftist advocacy disguised as journalism has been evident for at least nine years, mapped out a strategy
for his beloved President Obama, writing a 2,000-word battle plan disguised as a column begging the president to "declare war on the Republican Party'"
(Slate's current headline tease on its "Most Popular" list is "Why Obama Should Seek To Destroy the Republican Party"; bolds are mine):¶ Go for the Throat!¶ Why if
he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party. ¶ ... A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being
bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the
same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will
end soon.¶ ... The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s
legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing
government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms
about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.¶ ...
Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his
opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause
a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.¶ ... This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and
tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official
second-term photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed. ¶ The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he’s not going to spend much
time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political
operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able
to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his
early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.¶ Readers with strong stomachs should read the whole thing to comprehend the visceral disdain
Dickerson has for Americans who have the nerve to point out that the nation can't possibly continue as it is if it continues to run trillion-dollar annual deficits and pile
up debt at an even greater rate.¶ Dickerson's biases have been obvious since 2003, when he co-authored a hit piece in Time Magazine trying to make something out of
absolutely nothing in the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson affair.¶ In
addition to his favorable views of thuggishness (only if practiced by his
side, of course), Dickerson also has an active political fantasy life if he believes Barack Obama ever had the least bit of interest in
"bipartisanship" not involving the other side surrendering their principles.¶ Dickerson became Political Director at CBS News in November 2011. Now we specifically
know why that network's output was horribly biased during the 2012 primaries and presidential campaign. ¶ The default assumption
political coverage at CBS from here on out will complement, encourage, and even assist the Obama
birth of Organizing for Action, "the next chapter") it implements the strategy Dickerson has articulated.
has to be that
administration if (really when, given the
Obama can’t implement that Dickerson strategy effectively
Tom Blumer is president of Monetary Matters, a training and development company in Mason, Ohio.
He presents workshops on money management, retirement, and investing, 1-22-2013
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/obamas-startling-second-inaugural-admission/
Though it was indeed, as the Politico’s Glenn Thrush correctly noted, “ the most liberal speech he has delivered as president,” it clearly
disappointed some of those in the establishment press who wanted to hear Obama go for his opponents’ jugulars. That
group includes John Dickerson, who has been Political Director at CBS News since November 2011. ¶ Dickerson put on his best game face at Slate after the
speech, but it’s clear from reading his previous 2,000-word battle plan disguised as a column on Friday that Obama didn’t go as far as he
would have liked .¶ The column’s headlines called for Obama to “Go for the Throat!” and “declare war on the Republican
Party.” In his content, Dickerson claimed that Republican recalcitrance meant that “Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize,” and that the president “can only
cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP.” Slate was so thrilled with the piece that it amped up its “most popular” tease list title to read: “Why Obama Should Seek
To Destroy the Republican Party.” Dickerson’s occupation of such an influential perch at CBS and the presence of so many others like him at other news outlets
largely explain why last year’s establishment press coverage of the GOP primaries and the general election was so ruthlessly biased against Republicans and
especially conservatives.
A2: Fortier
Ununderlined parts prove overreach possible- especially true in second terms and
that you can only win with your own party on publicly popular items
Fortier 9 [John, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, January 14th, Spend Your
Political Capital Before It's Gone, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17395.html]
Bush came into the presidency after a protracted election dispute but acted like a man with a mandate. His election victory,
no matter how small, was a form of political capital to be spent, and he pushed his tax and education reform
packages through Congress. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Republican victories in the 2002 midterm election and the initial phase of the
Iraq war, Bush gained more political capital. And each time, he spent it, going to Congress for more tax cuts, the
creation of a Department of Homeland Security and other domestic priorities. Bush developed the image of a winner . Despite
narrow Republican majorities in Congress, he succeeded in holding his party together and pulling out one
legislative victory after another. He famously did not veto a bill in his first term. Even when Bush veered from a typical
conservative agenda on education reform and Medicare prescription drugs, Republicans voted with him, although some held
their noses. Republicans in Congress did not want to break the string of Bush’s first-term legislative juggernaut .
Bush was spending his political capital and, by winning, was getting repaid . Bush’s 2004 reelection was
the apex of his presidency. He won a spirited, high- turnout contest by a clear margin, he brought more Republicans to Congress, and he
was ready to spend his latest cache of political capital on two big domestic priorities: Social Security reform and tax reform. But 2005 saw
Bush lose all of his political capital. His domestic priorities were bold, but he had overreached and did not
have plans that Congress could get to work on immediately. The legislative vacuum in Congress stood in contrast to Bush’s first
term, where Congress was almost always busy at work on Bush priorities. More importantly, conditions in Iraq deteriorated, and the public
began to lose confidence in the president and his ability to win the war. Bush himself said that he had spent his political capital in
Iraq and had lost it there. Republican scandals and the president’s lack of leadership immediately after Hurricane Katrina further damaged Bush.
The winning streak was over, the president’s job approval numbers had dropped and his days setting the
legislative agenda were over. Even though Bush had his biggest Republican majorities in the 109th Congress, Republican
leaders staked out their own agenda, not wanting to tie themselves to a now unpopular president. Bush never
regained political capital after 2005. Ronald Reagan had early heady days when he controlled the agenda; his
popularity waned, but he was able to regain his footing. Bill Clinton famously bounced from highs to lows
and back again. But for Bush, there was no second act. Reagan and Clinton could counterpunch and thrive as
president without control of Congress. The Bush presidency had only two settings: on and off. In his first term, Bush
controlled the legislative agenda like a prime minister ; in the second, others set the agenda. President-elect
Barack Obama won election more convincingly than Bush, and he will have larger congressional majorities than Republicans had.
No doubt he will begin with some political capital of his own. But as the Bush presidency has taught us, that capital will
run out someday, and a real test of leadership will be how Obama adjusts.
A2: Green
Green is a NEG article- says Obama CAN’T effectively use wins to generate successhe’s too timid and deferential- it’s irreversible
Green 10 [David Michael, Professor of political science at Hofstra University, The Do-Nothing 44th
President, June 12th, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-MichaelGree-100611-648.html]
What do nine dead Gaza activists in the Mediterranean, nine-plus percent unemployment, and ninety years of oil catastrophe clean-up have in
common?¶ How about one
astonishingly tepid president?¶ How about one guy in the White House who squirms in his
chair anytime someone uses the word "bold" and actually means it?¶ How about one dude in the Oval Office who seems
much more interested in making deals to determine who should be the Democratic candidates for various state offices than in
actually solving national problems?¶ We could hardly have a president more ill-suited to our time if we
were to dig up Herbert Hoover and prop his weary bones up on the presidential throne. ¶ Barack Obama has five major problems as
president. The first is that he doesn't understand priorities. The second is that he seems to have little strong
conviction on any given issue. The third is that to the extent he stands for anything, it is for maintenance of a status quo that continues
to wreck the country in order to service the greed of a few oligarchs. The fourth is that he fundamentally does not understand the
powers and the role of the modern presidency. And the fifth is that he maintains the worst communications
apparatus in the White House since Jimmy Carter prowled its corridors. In fairness to his communications team, though, he has
given them almost nothing to sell. You try singing the praises of bailing out Goldman Sachs one hundred cents on the dollar, or of a health care
plan that forces people to buy plans they don't want from hated insurance vultures. It ain't easy, pal. Yet, on the other hand, Bush and Cheney had
far less than nothing to sell when it came to the Iraq war indeed, they had nothing but lies and their team handled that masterfully.¶ The
fundamental characteristic of the Obama presidency is that the president is a
political forces, rather
reactive object, essentially the victim of events and other
than the single greatest center of power in the country, and arguably on the planet. He is the Mr. Bill of politicians. People sometimes
excuse the Obama torpor by making reference to all the problems on his plate, and all the enemies at his gate. But what they fail to understand and, most crucially, what he fails to understand is
the nature of the modern presidency. Successful presidents today (by which I mean those who get what they want) not only drive outcomes in their preferred direction, but shape the very
character of the debate itself. And they not only shape the character of the debate, but they determine which items are on the docket.¶ Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal
relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than
succeeding dramatically on the last go around.¶ This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over
bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by
simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to
preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception
of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.¶ But the game of successfully governing is substantive as well as psychological. More often than not, timidity turns out not to
yield the safe course anticipated by those with weak knees, but rather their subsequent undoing. The three cases mentioned at the top of this essay are paradigmatic.¶ By far and away the most
crucial problem on the minds of most Americans today is the economy, as is often the case, but now more than ever. It's hard to quite figure where Barack Obama is on this issue. What is always
most puzzling with this guy is reconciling the fundamentally irrational behavior of his presidency with the obvious intellectual abilities of the president and the administrative masterfulness of the
campaign he ran to obtain that office. It seems to me that there are four options for understanding Obama's self-defeating tendency when it comes to the economic disaster he inherited. One is
that he simply isn't so smart, and doesn't get the ramifications of continued unemployment at the level it's currently running. The second option is that he's just a policy bungler, who has the right
intentions but makes lousy choices for trying to get there. The third possibility is that Obama recognizes this latest recession as the capstone (we hope) of a three decade long process by the
economic oligarchy seeking nothing less than the downsizing of the American middle class, and he simply lacks the courage to attempt any reversal of this tsunami of wealth redistribution. The
final, and scariest but by no means least probable explanation for Obama's behavior is that he is ultimately no less a tool in that very piracy project than was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.¶
Obama's timidity early in his presidency not only failed to solve the problem, but more crucially, now
precludes him from introducing any meaningful subsequent attempt at solving the problem. Obama's
Whatever the explanation,
management of the economic stimulus bill in the first weeks of his presidency was the very model of how a president should govern provided,
that is, that the nineteenth century hadn't actually ended over a hundred years ago. This
others including to his sworn enemies into an art form,
president, who has turned deference to
told Congress that he wanted a stimulus bill and let them fill in the details. What he got, accordingly, was a giant monstrosity filled with pet projects for each
congressional district in America, with about one-third of it constituted by tax cuts in order to buy Republican votes which never came anyhow. Nor has there been, to this day, any urgency about the spending of those funds.¶ The upshot of all of this is threefold, all of it hugely negative.
First, the government spent an enormous amount of money on the stimulus without solving the problem of the recession and unemployment. Second, it therefore massively exacerbated the national debt problem, with little gain to show for it. And, third, the combination of the first two factors
effectively precludes any subsequent stimulus package from emerging out of Congress for the foreseeable future, the politics of spending in general and the stimulus in particular having become altogether radioactive.¶ And here we see how Obama's failure to lead in the first instance has
succeeded above all in digging him into a hole subsequently. We are likely looking at nine or ten percent unemployment for years to come, and O bama's legislative cowardice has created a situation in which the only remaining meaningful tool by which to transcend this deep recession has
been taken off the table. The public looks around and asks, "Why should we spend more money on economic stimulus, when all it does is fail to produce results, while simultaneously increasing the national debt?" It's a legitimate question, except that it omits consideration of a third
alternative, which is to actually do a stimulus correctly, pumping money into infrastructure, alternative energy projects, unemployment compensation, retraining programs and the like, all of which would positively impact the economy in both the short, medium and long terms.¶ You see the
same phenomenon in virtually everything Obama touches. Lots of spiffy rhetoric. But then lots of deference to every other actor in the play (except, of course, for the interests of the American public or for his base of progressive voters), including those who are overtly trying to destroy the
president. "You say that Republicans want to remove the public option from the health care bill? Okay, let's give that to them. It's bound to buy, golly, what? ... zero whole votes from their caucus!" "You say they demand yet more tax cuts be included in the stimulus bill? Let's do that! And
watch them vote against it almost without exception." Brilliant.¶ In the Middle East, Obama has spent his first year-and-a-half in office getting b*tch-slapped by Noxious Netanyahu, with nothing to show for it but total embarrassment. It's gotten so bad that you can no longer tell which
country is the client state of the other. Is it the one with the economy, military, territory, population and political power that dwarfs the other, or is it the one that continually receives financial, military and political support from the other, no matter what it does? Including, for example,
regularly invading its neighbors, strangling a population of over a million people, pissing off the whole world, and humiliating both the president and vice-president of its benefactor country by continuing to build more illegal, peace-preventing settlements, in direct, intentional and arrogant
contravention of their expressed preference to the contrary. If Obama could possibly be more passive in this situation, it's difficult to know how. Perhaps he could strap on a construction belt and assist the Israelis himself in building some apartment complexes in East Jerusalem. While he was
at it, maybe he'd take his shirt off in the hot Mediterranean sun, and get in another one of those hunky president photos he seems so fond of.¶ The story is the same back in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama recently had his very own Michael Dukakis moment. Trying to look tough, like
Dukakis did haplessly riding around on that tank in the picture that spoke a million words (and sank a presidential campaign), Obama decided to use a four-letter word to show how serious he is about those mean fellows at BP and their errant flow of oil. Except that this president is so inept
that he could only manage three of the requisite four letters. He told NBC's Matt Lauer that he has been visiting the oil spill region "so I know whose ass to kick". I mean, raise your hand if you think that that little display of anger for the cameras was about as authentic as Cheese Whiz. And
simultaneously both far less and far more cheesy. But it gets worse. It then turns out that during all of the last 45 or so days, the president hasn't yet had a phone conversation with the CEO of British Petroleum. Turns out Obama traveled all that way to New Orleans and still couldn't get a
postal code for the limey ar*e to which to fax over his presidential boot.¶ Like he would use it if he had it, anyhow. Can you imagine the conversation he might have with Tony Hayward?¶ Obama: "Hey, Tony, your oil spill is really causing me problems, so I thought I'd call to kick your ass a
little."¶ Hayward: "Screw you, punk. You do what I tell you."¶ Obama: "Oh god, you're right. Christ! Sorry. I forgot myself. For a minute there I thought I wa s talking to my daughter about her homework."¶ Hayward: "Get your facts straight, pal. Starting with who here works for whom."¶
Obama: "Yes, sir. Right away, sir. What can we do for you?"¶ Hayward: "Nothing at all would be perfect, just like you have been doing. Just let us drill where we want, spill where want, thrill as is our wont to the sheer brazenness of our lies, and bill your account for the damages. We're not
greedy we won't ask for more than that."¶ Obama: "You got it, Mr. Hayward. We'll get right on it. Raaaahhm!!!"¶
The only thing more grim than the visage of the pathetic Obama
administration in non-action is a consideration of the opportunity lost here. Obama had all the cards stacked
in his favor, ranging from a destroyed opposition party, to a series of crises, to a public demanding change, to massive majorities in Congress,
to global good will. He's pissed it all away in his unrelenting dedication to mediocrity and inoffensiveness. ¶
And the only thing more grim than that is to consider where this all leads. Every day I shudder a little more as yet another two-by-four is crowbarred out from the edifice of America's experiment in liberal democracy. Every time the Supreme Court hands down a decision, it means more
power for the state, more power for the imperial president (whom they also select when they feel like it), and especially, more power for the rich.
Every day more people are dying in the stupid and endless wars of the twilight empire, for which nobody can even articulate a purpose. Every
election cycle more lethally vicious regressives are victorious, crushing common sense and human rights in tandem, moving the country further in
the direction of mindless fascism.
A2: Kuttner
This makes no sense- wins with Dems not key- this ev is from before the midterms
that the GOP made huge gains in- Obama CANT get wins in the House and Senate
with only Dem support any more
Increased partisanship means PC is finite- that’s Eberly
A2: Mitchell
Mitchell doesn’t assume second term president and it’s all about healthcare- the
plan isn’t the kind of win it’s talking about- only popular, moderate proposals build
capital
Mitchell 9 [Lincon, Assistant Professor of International Law @ Columbia University, July 18th, Time
for Obama to Start Spending Political Capital, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/time-forobama-to-start-s_b_217235.html]
Throughout his presidential campaign, but more notably, during his presidency, President Obama
has shown himself to have an
impressive ability to accumulate political capital. During his tenure in the White House, Obama has done this by
reaching out to a range of constituencies, moderating some of his programs, pursuing middle of the road
approaches on key foreign policy questions and, not insignificantly, working to ensure that his approval rating remains
quite high.
---their card starts--Political capital is not, however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the right moment to spend it. Political
capital has a shelf life, and often not a very long one. If it is not used relatively quickly, it dissipates and becomes useless to its owner. This is the
moment in which Obama, who has spent the first few months of his presidency diligently accumulating political capital, now finds himself. The
next few months will be a key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this political capital during the next months, it will likely be gone by the
New Year anyway.¶ Much of what President Obama has done in his first six months or so in office has been designed to build political capital,
interestingly he has sought to build this capital from both domestic and foreign sources. He has done this by traveling extensively, reintroducing
to America to foreign audiences and by a governance style that has very cleverly succeeded in pushing his political opponents to the fringes. This
tactic was displayed during the effort to pass the stimulus package as Republican opposition was relegated to a loud and annoying, but largely
irrelevant, distraction. Building political capital was, or should have been, a major goal of Obama's recent speech in Cairo as well.¶ Significantly,
Obama has yet to spend any of his political capital by meaningfully taking on any powerful interests. He declined to take Wall Street on
regarding the financial crisis, has prepared to, but not yet fully, challenged the power of the AMA or the insurance companies, nor has he really
confronted any important Democratic Party groups such as organized labor.¶ This strategy, however, will not be fruitful for much longer. There
are now some very clear issues where Obama should be spending political capital. The most obvious of these is health care. The battle for health
care reform will be a major defining issue, not just for the Obama presidency, but for American society over the next decades. It is imperative that
Obama push for the best and most comprehensive health care reform possible. This will likely mean not just a bruising legislative battle, but one
that will pit powerful interests, not just angry Republican ideologues, against the President.¶ The legislative struggle will also pull many
Democrats between the President and powerful interest groups. Obama must make it clear that there will be an enormous political cost which
Democrats who vote against the bill will have to pay. Before any bill is voted upon, however, is perhaps an even more critical time as pressure
from insurance groups, business groups and doctors organizations will be brought to bear both on congress, but also on the administration as it
works with congress to craft the legislation. This is not the time when the administration must focus on making friends and being liked, but on
standing their ground and getting a strong and inclusive health care reform bill.¶ Obama will have to take a similar approach to any other major
domestic legislation as well. This is, of course, the way the presidency has worked for decades. Obama is in an unusual situation because a
similar dynamic is at work at the international level. A major part of Obama's first six months in office have involved pursuing a foreign policy
that implicitly has sought to rebuild both the image of the US abroad, but also American political capital. It is less clear how Obama can use this
capital, but now is the time to use it.¶ A cynical interpretation of the choice facing Obama is that he can remain popular or he can have legislative
and other policy accomplishments, but this interpretation would be wrong. By early 2010, Obama, and his party will, fairly or not, be increasingly
judged by what they have accomplished in office, not by how deftly they have handled political challenges. Therefore, the only way he can
remain popular and get new political capital is through converting his current political capital into concrete legislative accomplishments. Health
care will be the first and very likely most important, test.
A2: Rachman
This is about INTERNATIONAL perception of weakness- no mention of legislative
victories- those don’t regenerate
A2: Intrinsicness
1. Intrinsicness arguments are bad—
a. Hurts neg ground—there is no brightline-they can just perm any disads
b. Fairness and reciprocity- no good way to test what advantages are
intrinsic to the aff
c. Logical policy maker argument isn’t objective- no reason that’s
necessarily better for debate
2. The disad IS intrinsic- our link and internal links prove that there is a
germane political backlash to doing the plan
3. Politics disads are good—
a. They are a key neg generic, and it is important to neg ground and
flexibility- especially on an aff- leaning topic
b. Real world education—process, current events and political system all
have unique educational benefits
c. We should have discussions about which CP or plan would cost the less
politically – we need the DA to do that
(optional)
4. Intrinsicness is dumb – a logical judge should evaluate the politics disad
VOLOKH 03 Professor of Law at UCLA – former clerk for Justice O’Connor
[Eugene Volokh, The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1026,
1136-37 (2003)]
When should you oppose one decision A, which you don't
much mind on its own, because of a concern that it might later lead others to enact another decision B,
which you strongly oppose? One possible answer is “never.” You should focus, the argument would go,
on one decision at a time. If you like it on its own terms, vote for it; if you don't, oppose it; but don't worry about the slippery
slope. And in the standard first-order approximation of human behavior, where people are perfectly informed, have firm,
well-developed opinions, and have single-peaked preferences, slippery slopes are indeed unlikely. People
Let me return to the question with which this article began:
decide whether they prefer 0, A, or B, and the majority's preferences become law without much risk that one decision will somehow trigger
another. Likewise, in
such a world, law has no expressive effect on people's attitudes, people's decisions are
context-independent, no one is ignorant, rationally or not, and people make decisions based on thorough analysis rather than on
heuristics. Policy decisions in that world end up being easier to make and to analyze. But as behavioral
economists, norms theorists, and others have pointed out, that is not the world we live in, even if it is
sometimes a useful first-order approximation. The real world is more complex, and this complexity makes possible
slippery slopes and their close relative,path dependence. We can't just dismiss slippery slope arguments as
illogical or paranoid,330 though we can't uncritically accept them, either.*1137 The slippery slope is in some ways a
helpful metaphor, but as with many metaphors, it starts by enriching our vision and ends by clouding it.331 We need
to go beyond the metaphor and examine the specific mechanisms that cause the phenomenon that the metaphor describes--mechanisms
that connect to the nature of our political institutions, our judicial process, and possibly even human
reasoning. These mechanisms and their effects deserve further study, even if paying attention to them
will make policy analysis more complex .So long as our support of one political or legal decision today can
lead to other results tomorrow, wise judges, legislators, opinion leaders, interest group organizers, and citizens have to take
these mechanisms into account.
A2: Thumpers- General
Can’t cost capital until it’s at the finish line
Drum, 10 (Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this
attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political
issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to
Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare
reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often
take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part,
they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of
months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or
two, but once
Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush
when the polling
will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now.
Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007,
when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a
Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's
John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be
very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at
the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.
**AFF POLITICAL CAPITAL**
2AC
Political capital doesn’t exist and isn’t key to their DA- more likely winners win
Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as
the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweek’s
Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, “The World from Washington.” Earlier on, he was
Newsweek’s foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war on terror. He has done
on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau
Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-politicalcapital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response,
pundits will do what they always do
talk about
how much
political capital Obama possesses to push his program through this talk will have no bearing on
what actually happens
Three months ago
if someone had talked about
capital to oversee
both immigration and gun-control
this person would have been called crazy
In his first term
Obama didn’t
dare to even bring up gun control
And yet, for
reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s
political capital chances are
fair that both will now happen What changed In the case of gun control
Newtown
the
this time of year: They will
“
how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of
”
. Most of
over the next four years. Consider this:
having enough political
, just before the November election,
passage of
reform
seriously
Obama
legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and
and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.)
5 million votes (the actual final tally)—
, in a starkly polarized
country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years.
, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law.
personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “
.
in
”—
, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered
?
, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the
National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is
still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to
curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political
Meanwhile
immigration
turnaround has
very little to do with Obama’s personal influence
It has almost entirely to do with
the
Hispanic vote
movement on immigration has come out of the Republican Party’s
introspection
tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.
, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on
reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this
—his political mandate, as it were.
That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney,
breakdown of the
just two numbers: 71 and 27.
in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in
Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the
mainly
recent
, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first
time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and
just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful
metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some
momentum on your side.” The real problem is that
the idea of political capita
often get it wrong.
“Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In
1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political
do about ever-elusive
the
capital
political power
is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits
l—or mandates, or momentum—
conveys that we know more than we really
unforeseen events can suddenly change everything
is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It
concept of
, and it discounts the way
the idea
.
Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.
Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more
momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and guncontrol issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until
depending on Obama’s handling of any
issue, even in a polarized
time he could still deliver on his second-term goals depending on
the breaks
political capital
is, at best, an empty concept that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or
even defines it.
Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any
known amount of capital
Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s
a bandwagon effect.Ӧ
¶
you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice,
,
a lot of
particular
,
his skill and
. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can
dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that
, and
“It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far
more complex than the term suggests.
. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors”
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the
1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that
election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the
assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the
presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he
got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the
right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until
Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush
promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of
his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital.
Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or
stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism.
Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed
political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think
Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.”
Obama may get his way
not because of his reelection,
but because Republicans are beginning
to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea
¶
¶
also
Sides says, “
on the debt ceiling,
,” as the party suffers in the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents are limited in what they can
do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his
first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For
Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the
idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political
problem with health care reform was that it distracted the government’s attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have
the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the
historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes votebuying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the
changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what
Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an
astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and
Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from
newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank
vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more
election victories. In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014.
if he picks issues
there is no reason to think he can’t win far more
victories than
careful calculators of political capital believe is possible
If he can get some early wins
that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins
that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—
But
any of the
now
Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly.
fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—
, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s atmosphere of
—as he already has, apparently, on the
.” Obama himself
learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan” president who somehow had
been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had
he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash.
But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal
imprimatur on any plan—from deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was
different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen
to what I say anymore. And don’t worry about who’s got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where I’m saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is
already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.
PC
PC Not Key – General
8% chance of the internal link
Beckman and Kumar, September 2011 (Matthew – associate professor of political science UC Irvine,
and VImal – economic professor at the Indian Institute of Tech, Opportunism in Polarization, Presidential
Studies Quarterly, 41.3)
The final important piece in our theoretical model—presidents'
political capital— also finds support in these analyses, though
the results here are less reliable. Presidents operating under the specter of strong economy and high approval
ratings get an important, albeit moderate, increase in their chances for prevailing on "key" Senate roll-call
votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .10). Figure 4 displays the substantive implications of these results in the context of polarization, showing that
going from the lower third of political capital to the upper third increases presidents' chances for success
by 8 percentage points (in a setting like 2008). Thus, political capital's impact does provide an important boost
to presidents' success on Capitol Hill, but it is certainly not potent enough to overcome basic
congressional realities. Political capital is just strong enough to put a presidential thumb on the
congressional scales, which often will not matter, but can in
Capital not key to the agenda – limited impact.
SKOCPOL AND JACOBS 10. [Theda, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, former
Director of the Center for American Political Studies, Lawrence, Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the
Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science at the University of
Minnesota, “Hard Fought Legacy: Obama, congressional democrats, and the struggle for comprehensive health reform” Russell Sage Foundation
-- October]
Although presidential
power is widely credited with dictating public policy, the truth is that
presidential influence over domestic law making is quite limited. Presidential speeches (as in the case of
Obama‘s nationally televised September address to restart health reform) can influence the agenda of issues for DC insiders
and all Americans. But Constitutional checks and balances prevent any president from having his
way with Congress – and this situation was exacerbated in 2009 and 2010 by Republican obstructionist tactics. In practice, Obama
and his aides were often little more than frustrated witnesses to Congressional maneuvers and
delays.
Political capital is irrelevant -- empirically proven.
Bond & Fleisher 96. [Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham
- 1996. "The President in Legislation”]
In sum, the
evidence presented in this chapter provides little support for the theory that the president's perceived leadership,
skills are associated with success on roll call votes in Congress. Presidents reputed as highly skilled do not win
consistently more often than should be expected. Even the effects of the partisan balanced Congress, the president's popularity, and,
the cycle of decreasing influence over the course of his term. Presidents reputed as unskilled do not win consistently less often
relative to. Moreover, skilled presidents do not win significantly more often than unskilled presidents on either
important votes or close votes, in which skills have the greatest potential to affect the outcome . Because of the difficulty
of establishing a definitive test of the skills theory, some may argue that it is premature to reject this explanation of presidential success based on
the tests reported in this chapter. It might be argued that these findings by themselves do not deny that leadership skill is an important component
of presidential-congressional relations. Failure to find systematic effects in general does not necessarily refute the anecdotes and case studies
demonstrating the importance of skills.
Studies prove PC makes no difference
Rockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”, volume 39,
issue 4, Academic OneFile. accessed 7-15-10)
Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more
scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980, 1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990)
have tested Neustadt's ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with other actors. In this,
Neustadt's ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of empirical
scientists that public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president's agenda and that the
effects of approval are most keenly felt--where they are at all--among a president's support base. We
know now, too, that a president's purported skills at schmoozing, twisting arms, and congressional
lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from Congress. That was a lot more than
we knew prior to the publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a
newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared on Neustadt but armed with the tools of
scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test. That the empirical tests
demonstrate that several of these propositions are wrong comes with the territory. That is how science
progresses. But the reality is that there was almost nothing of a propositional nature prior to Neustadt.
PC Not Key – Ideology
PC not real- it’s a myth- vote based on ideology
Frank Moraes is a freelance writer with broad interests. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in
Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, and throughout the computer
industry. And he has taught physics. 1-8-2013 http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2013/01/political-capitalis-myth.html
Yesterday, Jonathan Chait metaphorically scratched his head: "Nominating Hagel Most Un-Obama Thing Ever." He can't understand this nomination given that (1)
Hagel will be a hard sell and (2) Obama doesn't much listen to his advisers anyway. It is interesting speculation, but I wouldn't have even thought about it had he not
written, "Why
waste political capital picking a fight that isn't essential to any policy goals?"¶ This brought to mind something that
has been on my mind for a while, as in posts like "Bipartisan Consensus Can Bite Me." I'm afraid that just like Santa Claus and most conceptions of
God, " Political Capital" is a myth. I think it is just an idea that Villagers find comforting. It is a neat narrative
in which one can straightjacket a political fight. Otherwise, it is just bullshit .¶ Let's go back to late 2004, after Bush Jr was re-elected. He said,
"I earned capital in the political campaign and I intend to spend it." What was this thing that Bush intended to spend? It is usually
said that political capital is some kind of mandate from the masses. But that is clearly not what Bush meant. He got a mandate to fuck the poor and kill the gays. But
he used his political capital to privatize Social Security. One could say that this proves the point, but does anyone really think if Bush had decided to use his political
capital destroying food stamps and Medicaid that he would have succeeded any better? The truth was that Bush's political capital didn't exist.¶ Let's
look at
Cliff. Obama didn't win that fight because the people who voted for him demanded it. He won it
because everyone knew that in the new year he would still be president. Tax rates were going up. Boehner took the Fiscal Cliff
deal because it was the best deal that he felt he could get. He didn't fold because of some magic political
capital that Obama could wave over him.¶ There is no doubt that public opinion does affect how politicians act. Even politicians in small safe districts have to
worry that larger political trends may end up making them look stupid, out of touch, or just cruel. But beyond that, they really don't care. If they did, then
everyone in the House would now be a Democrat: after all, Obama won a mandate and the associated political capital. But they don't, because
presidential elections have consequences -- for who's in the White House. They don't have much consequence for the representative from the
more recent events: the Fiscal
Third District of California.
Presidential capital isn’t significant – party support and divisions are key
Bond & Fleisher 96. [Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham
- 1996. "The President in Legislation”]
Neustadt is correct that weak
political parties in American politics do not bridge the gap created by the constitutional
separation of powers. We would add: neither does skilled presidential leadership or popularity with the public. In fact, the
forces that Neustadt stressed as the antidote for weak parties are even less successful in linking the president and Congress than are weak parties.
Our findings indicate that members
of Congress provide levels of support for the President that are generally
consistent with their partisan and ideological predispositions. Because party and ideology are relatively stable,
facing a Congress made up of more members predisposed to support the president does increase the
likelihood of success on the floor. There is, however, considerable variation in the behavior of the party factions. As expected, crosspressured members are typically divided, and when they unify, they unify against about as often as they unify for the president. Even
members of the party bases who have reinforcing partisan and ideological predispositions frequently fail
to unify for or against the president's position. Our analysis of party and committee leaders in Congress reveals that support from
congressional leaders is associated with unity of the party factions. The party bases are likely to unify only if the party and committee leader of a
party take the same position. But party and committee leaders within each party take opposing stands on a significant proportion of presidential
roll calls. Because
members of the party factions and their leaders frequently fail to unify around a party
position, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the outcome of presidential roll calls.
Ideology statistically outweighs PC
Beckmann and Kumar 11(Matthew N Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Associate Professor of Political
Science at UC Irvine, econ prof at the Indian Institute of Tech, “Opportunism in Polarization”,
Presidential Studies Quarterly; Sep 2011; 41, 3)
First, as previous research has shown, the further away the pivotal voter's predisposition from the
president's side, the lower his chances for prevailing on "key" contested Senate votes (b = -2.53, se =
.79,p < -05). Holding everything else at its 2008 value, the president's predicted probability of winning a
key, contested vote runs from .42 to .77 across the observed range of filibuster pivot predispositions
(farthest to closest), with the median distance yielding a .56 predicted probability of presidential success.
Plainly, the greater the ideological distance between the president and pivotal voter, the worse the
president's prospects for winning an important, controversial floor vote in the Senate.
Prefer qualified evidence – PC is irrelevant
Dickinson 9 professor of political science at Middlebury College (Matthew, “Sotomayor, Obama and
Presidential Power,” May 26, 2009 Presidential Power
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/]
Political scientists, like
baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in
Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box
scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the
executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power.
Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll
measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better
indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative
item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus
on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred
legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control
for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her
constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without
needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto
power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during
the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that
call outcomes? These
presidents lack influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the
power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting – not
arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme
alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential
Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in
order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying
from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee. If we want to
measure Obama’s “power”, then, we need to know what his real preference was and why he chose Sotomayor. My guess – and it is only a guess –
is that after conferring with leading Democrats and Republicans, he recognized the overriding practical political advantages accruing from
choosing an Hispanic woman, with left-leaning credentials. We cannot know if this would have been his ideal choice based on judicial
philosophy alone, but presidents
are never free to act on their ideal preferences. Politics is the art of the
possible. Whether Sotomayer is his first choice or not, however, her nomination is a reminder that the power of the presidency often resides in
the president’s ability to dictate the alternatives from which Congress (or in this case the Senate) must choose. Although Republicans will
undoubtedly attack Sotomayor for her judicial “activism” (citing in particular her decisions regarding promotion and affirmative action), her
comments regarding the importance of gender and ethnicity in influencing her decisions, and her views regarding whether appellate courts
“make” policy, they run the risk of alienating Hispanic voters – an increasingly influential voting bloc (to the extent that one can view Hispanics
as a voting bloc!) I find it very hard to believe she will not be easily confirmed. In structuring the alternative before the Senate in this manner,
then, Obama reveals an important aspect of presidential power that cannot be measured through legislative boxscores.
Presidential leadership’s irrelevant
Jacobs and King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, (Lawrence and Desmond, “Varieties of
Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,” Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 793-802)
But personality is
not a solid foundation for a persuasive explanation of presidential impact and the shortfalls or
accomplishments of Obama's presidency. Modern presidents have brought divergent individual traits to their jobs and yet they have
routinely failed to enact much of their agendas. Preeminent policy goals of Bill Clinton (health reform) and George W. Bush (Social Security
privatization) met the same fate, though these presidents' personalities vary widely. And presidents like Jimmy Carter—whose
personality traits have been criticized as ill-suited for effective leadership—enjoyed comparable or stronger success
in Congress than presidents lauded for their personal knack for leadership—from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald
Reagan.7 Indeed, a personalistic account provides little leverage for explaining the disparities in Obama's record—for example why he
succeeded legislatively in restructuring health care and higher education, failed in other areas, and often accommodated stakeholders. Decades
of rigorous research find that impersonal, structural forces offer the most compelling explanations for presidential
impact.8 Quantitative research that compares legislative success and presidential personality finds no overall
relationship.9 In his magisterial qualitative and historical study, Stephen Skowronek reveals that institutional dynamics and
ideological commitments structure presidential choice and success in ways that trump the personal predilections of
individual presidents.10 Findings point to the predominant influence on presidential legislative success of the
ideological and partisan composition of Congress, entrenched interests, identities, and institutional design, and a
constitutional order that invites multiple and competing lines of authority. The widespread presumption, then, that
Obama's personal traits or leadership style account for the obstacles to his policy proposals is called into question by
a generation of scholarship on the presidency. Indeed, the presumption is not simply problematic analytically, but practically as well.
For the misdiagnosis of the source of presidential weakness may, paradoxically, induce failure by distracting the White House from strategies and
tactics where presidents can make a difference. Following a meeting with Obama shortly after Brown's win, one Democratic senator
lamented the White House's delusion that a presidential sales pitch will pass health reform—“Just declaring that he's
still for it doesn't mean that it comes off life support.”11 Although Obama's re-engagement after the Brown victory
did contribute to restarting reform, the senator's comment points to the importance of ideological and partisan
coalitions in Congress, organizational combat, institutional roadblocks, and anticipated voter reactions. Presidential
sales pitches go only so far.
PC Not Key – Gridlock
PC fails – polarization and Obama controversy
PBS, 12-15 [2014 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-outlook-compromise-next-congress/]
On the Democratic side, there is much more unity around policies. Procedure, they may have differences. So that’s number one. The second part, when
we talk
about the polarization of Congress and why it’s getting to be as bad as it is, there just are simply no
moderates left. There are five Democrats in the House right now, five, who sit in a district that Barack Obama didn’t carry. When we talk about, how
does John Boehner find allies, how does Mitch McConnell find allies, they’re gone. The other big piece of this too is, in more than 100
years, we have never had this many House members serving in the United States Senate, which is why the House is looking — I mean the Senate — I’m sorry
— is looking a lot more like the House in terms of its behavior, the all or none, the not compromising,
the not working sort of behind the scenes in a clubby way. JUDY WOODRUFF: Taking it to the brink. AMY WALTER: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Taking it to the brink. AMY WALTER: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: And so that’s what we have to look forward to.
TODD ZWILLICH: Well, I think a lot of that, Barack Obama is controversial . He’s controversial on the right. He’s got two
more years. He still ties House Republicans especially, congressional Republicans, in knots. Look, they this
know how to make deals. Their base, their constituency — constituency doesn’t want any deals with Barack Obama.
That’s not going to change . And that’s going to pull both Speaker Boehner as he tries to deal with the reaction to immigration
and Mitch McConnell as he tries to steer his party towards a successful run in 2016, it’s going to pull them to the right. It’s not easy.
Obama PC fails post-election – low approval ratings, no compromise, controversial
XOs, summit travel and 2016 election focus
Clark and Kumar 11-4 [Lesley Clark and Anita Kumar, McClatchy Washington Bureau 11-4-2014
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/04/245686_president-obama-is-now-truly-a.html?rh=1]
Now, President Barack Obama
limps into his final two years in office . All second-term presidents lose considerable clout at this mark.
But Obama’s time as a lame duck comes amid a political climate so fractured that compromise between
Congress and him is all but impossible . And the Republican takeover of the Senate only further complicates his
power to confront a confounding array of foreign and domestic policy challenges. The range of crises is daunting. Though the U.S. economy is
growing at a healthy clip, wages are stagnant and the global economy is faltering. The Islamic State group has racked
up victories in Iraq and Syria, testing the administration’s policies, even as the U.S. rains down airstrikes. The appearance of the deadly Ebola virus in the
United States has rattled Americans and raised questions about whether a weary White House can handle several crises at once. A budget deal that
bought peace with Congress for a while is nearing its end. Against that backdrop, Obama will head to Asia and Australia next week
for summit meetings, even as the old Congress returns to Washington for its own lame-duck session to finish work on the budget and other
issues. And a new Republican-led Senate looms over the horizon. Obama will make one move without Congress. Aides said Tuesday that he’d sign an
executive order by the end of December giving temporary legal status to help some of the 11 million immigrants who are in the
country illegally stay and work in the U.S. He’d delayed the order earlier this fall, when endangered Democrats feared that a backlash would cost them their jobs.
With that, he might have little room left to work with a GOP-led Congress . Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said after he
won re-election Tuesday and appeared poised to become Senate majority leader that he and Obama “have an obligation to work together on issues on which we
agree.” But he also was defiant. “I don’t expect the president to wake up tomorrow morning and view the world any differently,” McConnell said. “He knows I won’t,
either.” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said after his party took control of the Senate that voters rejected Obama’s “failed polices” and that
he hoped Obama would “listen to the American people” just like the Republicans planned to do. Obama is likely to speak publicly Wednesday about the election
results. A meeting on Friday with congressional leaders at the White House could be chilly. “ There
would have to be some really
exceptional set of events to get people who have shown no interest in cooperating to get something done,”
said Ken Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies the presidency. “ It is very hard to see how
there is any substantial legislation .” All this while much of Washington and the political world tunes out
Obama and starts looking in earnest for his successor. The political calendar renders the outgoing
president “yesterday’s news” as soon as the midterm elections are over and the 2016 presidential race begins, said Lou
D’Allesandro, a veteran New Hampshire state senator and Democratic operative. “If you’re the president, what big initiatives are you going to do here?” asked
D’Allesandro, who’s already seen a parade of 2016 hopefuls courting voters in New Hampshire. “ Republicans
will do everything they can
to accomplish nothing.” Obama enters these final months already hampered by low approval ratings that made
him radioactive to most Democrats running in close elections this year. He spent the last two days leading up to Election Day in meetings at the White
House.
Nothing will pass and Obama PC fails
WSJ, 10-15 [Wall Street Journal, 2014 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/15/low-expectationsfor-congresss-lame-duck-session/]
There are two schools of thought about the coming lame-duck session. The Optimist School believes that
Congress will work on a whole slew of must-pass legislation, including an omnibus appropriations bill, a host of tax extenders,
terrorism risk insurance, perhaps some trade bills, and other cats and dogs. The optimists are all about scoring last-minute
touchdowns. The Pessimist School believes that nothing will get done during the lame duck, with the possible exception
of a continuing resolution that has some agreed-upon updated spending bills attached to it. The pessimists are all about punting. Over and over again. The optimists
think that the new Republican Senate majority would want to get several things off the docket so it can start fresh in the president’s final two years in office. The
pessimists think that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would burn up most of the time in the lame duck pushing through
nominations and judicial appointments, including the replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder. My heart aligns
me with the optimists, because I want to see Congress actually do its job. My head, however, has learned to be realistic
about the dysfunction that now rules the United States Senate. President Barack Obama should want Congress to get
the mundane stuff finished so that he can focus on his legacy in his final years in office. But he is so ineffectual , beleaguered ,
and disengaged that his opinions are unlikely to matter much . With so much in the world going to pieces these days, it’s hard
to be optimistic about anything–especially the coming lame duck.
PC Not Key – Doesn’t Spillover
PC doesn’t spill over – compartmentalization
Timothy Sherratt 12-1, Capital Commentary, 12/1/14, “Governing After the Midterms: Intransigence
or Productivity?,” http://www.capitalcommentary.org/midterm-elections/governing-after-midtermsintransigence-or-productivity
There is reason to think that President Obama may survive his executive action on immigration given the
incentives for Republican leadership to lead the party firmly away from intransigence towards
productivity. What will guard against spillover effects from the immigration struggle is that each of the
congressional committees is a separate fiefdom with its own dynamics, and Republican committee chairs
will be eager to put their own imprint on their respective policy domains, especially in the Senate where
the G.O.P. assumes control in January. For some of those Republicans, among them Senators Paul,
Rubio, Cruz and a few others, presidential aspirations for 2016 will lend extra urgency to these efforts.
So, Senator Hatch at Senate Finance will want repeal of the medical device tax whether or not Senator
Inhofe at Environment and Public Works successfully steers the Keystone XL Pipeline to the president.
The new House Ways and Means chair, Paul Ryan, will press for renewing Trade Promotion Authority,
which “fast tracks” trade agreements through a simple up-or-down vote in Congress. President Obama
will support such a move irrespective of attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Bipartisan support
for tax reform can survive Republican intransigence on judicial appointments.
PC Not Key – Obama Can’t Use
Obama won’t fight – he has never used political capital
Newsweek 10 (“Learning from LBJ,” 3-25, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/25/learning-fromlbj.html)
It's called "the treatment." All presidents administer it, one way or another. The trick is to use the perks of
the office and the power of personality to bring around doubters and foes. LBJ was the most outlandish and sometimes outrageous
practitioner. With three televisions blasting in the background, Johnson would get about six inches away from the face of some beleaguered or balky senator or cabinet secretary. Sometimes LBJ
With much
guffawing and backslapping, recalcitrant lawmakers are led to a luxurious cabin where they are granted a
presidential audience and bestowed with swag, like cuff links with the presidential seal (Johnson gave away plastic busts of himself). Dennis Kucinich,
would beckon the man into the bathroom and continue to cajole or harangue while he sat on the toilet. Air Force One is a favorite tool presidents use to inspire and overawe.
seven-term congressman from Ohio and potential vote-switcher for health reform, was invited aboard Air Force One a couple of weeks before the climactic vote in the House. He had dealt with
Obama was different. The president was sitting in shirt sleeves behind a desk, computer to one side, notepad and pen at the
doesn't twist arms," recalls Kucinich. Rather, the president quietly listened. He was "all business," and sat
patiently while Kucinich expressed his concerns, which Obama already knew. Then the president laid out his own
arguments. Kucinich wasn't persuaded by the president, he told NEWSWEEK. But he voted for the bill because he
did not want the presidency to fail, and he was convinced Obama would work with him in future. A president's first year in office is often a time for learning. The
Presidents Clinton and Bush before, but
ready. "He
harshest lessons are beginners' mistakes, like the Bay of Pigs fiasco for JFK. The real key is to figure out how to use the prestige of the office to get things done: when to conserve your political
many
expected President Obama to go over the heads of Congress and mobilize popular passions to achieve his
top priorities. But on what may be his signature issue, that wasn't really the case. Obama came close to prematurely ending his
effectiveness as president before finally pulling out the stops. In the last push for the health-care bill, he reminded voters of Obama the candidate, fiery and full of hope. But during the
health-reform bill's long slog up and around Capitol Hill, Obama was a strangely passive figure. He
sometimes seemed more peeved than engaged. His backers naturally wondered why he seemed to abandon the field to the tea partiers. The answer may be
that at some level he just doesn't like politics, not the way Bill Clinton or LBJ or a "happy warrior" like
Hubert Humphrey thrived on the press of flesh, the backroom deal, and the roar of the crowd. That doesn't mean
Obama can't thrive or be successful—even Richard Nixon was elected to two terms. But it does mean that the country is run by what New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd
wryly called "the conquering professor"—a president who leads more from the head than the heart, who often relies more on
listening than preaching. Obama entered politics as a community organizer, and as a presidential candidate he oversaw an operation that brilliantly organized from the
ground up. So it was a puzzle to Marshall Ganz, a longtime community organizer, that Obama seemed to neglect the basic rule of a grassroots
organizer: to mobilize and, if necessary, polarize your popular base against a common enemy. Instead, President
Obama seemed to withdraw and seek not to offend while Congress squabbled. "It was a curiously passive strategy," says Ganz,
capital, and when and how to spend it. Judging from Obama's campaign, which revolutionized politics with its ability to tap grassroots networks of donors and activists,
who worked for 16 years with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers and now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School. In a way, he says, Obama's "fear of a small conflict made a big conflict
inevitable."
PC Not Key – Obama
Political capital theory isn’t true with this congress
Bouie 11 =(Jamelle, graduate of the U of Virginia, Writing Fellow for The American Prospect
magazine, May 5,
[prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2011&base_name=political_capital)
capital isn’t that straightforward. As we saw at the beginning of Obama’s presidency, the mere
fact of popularity (or a large congressional majority) doesn’t guarantee support from key members of
Congress. For Obama to actually sign legislation to reform the immigration system, provide money for jobs, or reform
corporate taxes, he needs unified support from his party and support from a non-trivial number of
Republicans. Unfortunately, Republicans (and plenty of Democrats) aren’t interested in better immigration
laws, fiscal stimulus, or liberal tax reform. Absent substantive leverage—and not just high approval ratings—
there isn’t much Obama can do to pressure these members (Democrats and Republicans) into supporting his agenda. Indeed,
for liberals who want to see Obama use his political capital, it’s worth noting that approval-spikes aren’t necessarily
related to policy success. George H.W. Bush’s major domestic initiatives came before his massive
post-Gulf War approval bump, and his final year in office saw little policy success. George W. Bush was able to
Unfortunately, political
secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in the year following 9/11, but the
former two either came with pre-9/11 Democratic support or were Democratic initiatives to begin with. To repeat an oft-made point, when it
comes to domestic policy, the
presidency is a limited office with limited resources. Popularity with the public
is a necessary part of presidential success in Congress, but it’s far from sufficient.
History and empirics prove Obama PC irrelevant
Norman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a contributing editor and
columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an election eve analyst for BBC News. He served
as codirector of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch
series. 5-8-2013 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-ofpresidential-leadership/
The theme of
presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an enduring mythology about great
figures rising to the occasion. The term “mythology” doesn’t mean that the stories are inaccurate; Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real sense of that president’s
remarkable character and drive, as well as his ability to shape important events.
Every president is compared to the Lincoln leadership standard and to those set by
other presidents, and the first 100 days of every term becomes a measure of how a president is doing.¶ I have been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at nearly every speech I give,
someone asks about President Obama’s failure to lead. Of course, that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington
listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental leadership task—not building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not “working
his will” the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did.¶ Now, after the failure to get the background-check bill through the Senate, other reporters and columnists have picked up on the same theme, and I
have grown increasingly frustrated with how the mythology of leadership has been spread in recent weeks. I have yelled at the television set, “Didn’t any of you ever read Richard Neustadt’s
classic Presidential Leadership? Haven’t any of you taken Politics 101 and read about the limits of presidential power in a separation-of-powers system?”¶ But the issue goes beyond that, to a
No one schmoozed more or better with legislators in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican
votes did it get him on his signature initial priority, an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight months to get enough Democrats to limp over the finish line.
How did things work out on his health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House?¶ No one knew Congress, or the buttons to push with every key
lawmaker, better than LBJ. It worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress, largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own party in both houses.
But after the awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen majorities receded, LBJ’s mastery of Congress didn’t mean squat.¶ No one
defined the agenda or negotiated more brilliantly than Reagan. Did he “work his will”? On almost every major issue,
he had to make major compromises with Democrats, including five straight years with significant tax
increases. But he was able to do it—as he was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reform—because he had key Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises.¶ For
Obama, we knew from the get-go that he had no Republicans willing to work with him. As Robert Draper pointed out in his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, key GOP leaders
such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan determined on inauguration eve in January 2009 that they would work to keep Obama and his congressional Democratic
willful ignorance of history.
from getting any Republican votes for any of his priorities or initiatives. Schmoozing was not going to change that.¶
Nor would arm-twisting. On the gun-control vote in the Senate, the press has focused on the four apostate Democrats who voted against the Manchin-Toomey
plan, and the unwillingness of the White House to play hardball with Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska. But even if Obama had bludgeoned Begich and his three
colleagues to vote for the plan, the Democrats would still have fallen short of the 60 votes that are now the routine hurdle in the Senate—because 41 of 45
Republicans voted no. And as Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has said, several did so just to deny Obama a victory.¶ Indeed, the theme of presidential arm-twisting
again ignores history . Clinton once taught Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama a lesson, cutting out jobs in Huntsville, Ala. That worked well enough that Shelby switched
allies
parties, joined the Republicans, and became a reliable vote against Clinton. George W. Bush and Karl Rove decided to teach Sen. Jim Jeffords a lesson, punishing dairy interests in Vermont. That
worked even better—he switched to independent status and cost the Republicans their Senate majority.
Myths are so much easier than reality.
Winners Win
1AR Winners Win
Forcing controversial fights key to Obama’s agenda- try or die for the link turn
Dickerson 1/18 (John, Slate, Go for the Throat!,
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_
the_president_should_declare_war.single.html)
On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down
the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but
this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will
follow. After the election, the
same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along.
There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and
stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make
greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much for
Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps
of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14
percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing “serious harm” to the country. The
challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment
stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable
stratagems . Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before
Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about
bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP . If he wants to transform American politics, he
must go for the throat . President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care
reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president
as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted
to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second
half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How
should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might
have approached the task by
finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their
votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has
abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press
conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him . They cannot be unchained by schmoozing.
Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for
cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing
partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obama’s only
remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his
opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either
side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray .
Empirically true- reciprocal relationship between PC spent and later achievement
Green 10 [David Michael, Professor of political science at Hofstra University, The Do-Nothing 44th
President, June 12th, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-MichaelGree-100611-648.html]
The fundamental characteristic of the Obama presidency is that the president is a reactive object, essentially the victim of
events and other political forces, rather than the single greatest center of power in the country, and arguably on the planet. He is the Mr. Bill of
politicians. People sometimes excuse the Obama torpor by making reference to all the problems on his plate, and all the enemies at his gate. But
what they fail to understand - and, most crucially, what he fails to understand - is the nature of the modern presidency. Successful presidents
today (by which I mean those who get what they want) not only drive outcomes in their preferred direction, but shape the very character of the
debate itself. And they not only shape the character of the debate, but they determine which items are on the docket. Moreover, there
is a
reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that
nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better
than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best
in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents
like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well.
They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for
Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to
preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being
next to power, of being part of the winning team . And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas,
this is precisely what they did. But the game of successfully governing is substantive as well as psychological. More often than not, timidity
turns out not to yield the safe course anticipated by those with weak knees, but rather their subsequent
undoing . The three cases mentioned at the top of this essay are paradigmatic.
continuously evolving and
Turn outweighs- comparative
Gergen 2k [David, American political consultant and former presidential advisor who served during
the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, Director of the Center for Public Leadership and
a professor of public service at Harvard Kennedy School, Editor-at-large for U.S. News and World
Report, Senior Political Analyst for CNN, Eyewitness to Power, p. 285]
As Richard Neustadt has pointed out, power can beget power in the presidency. A
chief executive who exercises leadership well
in a hard fight will see his reputation and strength grow for future struggles. Nothing gives a president
more political capital than a strong, bipartisan victory in Congress. That's the magic of leadership. Clinton, after
passage of his budget and NAFTA, was at the height of his power as president. Sadly, he couldn't hold.
Better to spend in the short term and hope it regenerates than try to save it for
future vote- delay causes erosion
Mitchell 9 [Lincon, Assistant Professor of International Law @ Columbia University, July 18th, Time
for Obama to Start Spending Political Capital, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/time-forobama-to-start-s_b_217235.html]
Political capital
is not, however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the
right moment to spend it. Political capital has a shelf life , and often not a very long one. If it is not used
relatively quickly, it dissipates and becomes useless to its owner. This is the moment in which Obama, who
has spent the first few months of his presidency diligently accumulating political capital, now finds himself. The next few months will be a
key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this political capital during the next months, it will likely be gone by the
New Year anyway. Much of what President Obama has done in his first six months or so in office has been designed to
build political capital, interestingly he has sought to build this capital from both domestic and foreign sources. He has done this by
traveling extensively, reintroducing to America to foreign audiences and by a governance style that has very cleverly succeeded in pushing his
political opponents to the fringes. This tactic was displayed during the effort to pass the stimulus package as Republican opposition was relegated
to a loud and annoying, but largely irrelevant, distraction. Building political capital was, or should have been, a major goal of Obama's recent
speech in Cairo as well. Significantly, Obama has yet to spend any of his political capital by meaningfully taking on any powerful interests. He
declined to take Wall Street on regarding the financial crisis, has prepared to, but not yet fully, challenged the power of the AMA or the insurance
companies, nor has he really confronted any important Democratic Party groups such as organized labor. This strategy, however, will not be
fruitful for much longer. There
are now some very clear issues where Obama should be spending political
capital. The most obvious of these is health care. The battle for health care reform will be a major defining issue, not just for the Obama
presidency, but for American society over the next decades. It is imperative that Obama push for the best and most comprehensive health care
reform possible. This
will likely mean not just a bruising legislative battle , but one that will pit powerful
interests, not just angry Republican ideologues, against the President. The legislative struggle will also pull
many Democrats between the President and powerful interest groups. Obama must make it clear that there will be an
enormous political cost which Democrats who vote against the bill will have to pay. Before any bill is voted upon, however, is perhaps an even
more critical time as pressure from insurance groups, business groups and doctors organizations will be brought to bear both on congress, but also
on the administration as it works with congress to craft the legislation. This
is not the time when the administration must
focus on making friends and being liked, but on standing their ground and getting a strong and inclusive health care
reform bill. Obama will have to take a similar approach to any other major domestic legislation as well. This is, of course, the way the
presidency has worked for decades. Obama is in an unusual situation because a similar dynamic is at work at the international level.
A major part of Obama's first six months in office have involved pursuing a foreign policy that implicitly has sought to rebuild both the image of
the US abroad, but also American political capital. It is less clear how Obama can use this capital, but now is the time to use it. A cynical
interpretation of the choice facing Obama is that he can remain popular or he can have legislative and other policy accomplishments, but this
interpretation would be wrong. By early 2010, Obama, and his party will, fairly or not, be
increasingly judged by what they
have accomplished in office, not by how deftly they have handled political challenges. Therefore, the only
way he can remain popular and get new political capital is through converting his current political capital
into concrete legislative accomplishments . Health care will be the first and very likely mWost important, test.
Err aff- alternate theories of agenda success ignore key facts.
Dickerson 13 [John, Chief Political Correspondent at the Slate, Political Director of CBS News,
Covered Politics for Time Magazine for 12 Years, Previous White House Correspondent, They Hate Me,
They Really Hate Me, http://tinyurl.com/arlxupq]
When you are on the Fox News’ ticker for the wrong reasons, it's time to put things into context.
On the eve of the president's inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker
president. I
was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a theory of political
science and the president's own words about transformational presidencies from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these
givens: The president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before
he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. "Bloodier-minded when it
comes to beating Republicans,” is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts , there is only one logical
conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: He must take on Republicans—aggressively.
For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion . Some people thought I was giving the president my
personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts. I used words like "war" and “pulverize,” and some have
responded with threats to me and my family. (“Go for his throat!” some have counseled, echoing the headline.) These words have also liberated
some correspondents (USUALLY THE ONES THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!!!) from reading the piece or reading it in the spirit in which it was
written. But there were also almost 2,000 other words in the piece, which should put that provocative language in context. What's
been lost
in the news ticker and Twitter threats is the argument of the piece: This is the only plausible path for a bold, gamechanging second term for a president who has positioned himself the way President Obama has. Indeed, the piece
accurately anticipated the forceful line the president ultimately took in his inaugural address with his call for collective action and failure to reach
out to Republicans. Brit Hume said Obama’s speech confirms for all time the president’s essential liberalism. The New Republic’s Noam
Scheiber precisely identified the speech not merely as liberal but an argument for liberalism.
Some correspondents have asked why I didn't advocate that Obama embrace House GOP spending plans or some other immediate compromise, a
more pleasant outcome than the prospect of even more conflict in Washington. There's
no evidence , however, that the president is
in a compromising mood. (Again, see second inaugural.) This piece was written from the viewpoint of the reality as it stands, not a more
pleasing future we would all prefer to inhabit. That reality (and the initial piece) includes an unpleasant fact to some Republicans:
The GOP is in a state of disequilibrium. For evidence of that disarray, I rely on Rep. Tom Cole, Sen. Rand Paul, participants at the
House GOP retreat, and Ramesh Ponnuru at the National Review. (As I mentioned in the piece, Democrats have their own tensions, too.)
Our argument is based in academia and cites empirics.
Dickerson 13 [John, Chief Political Correspondent at the Slate, Political Director of CBS News, Covered
Politics for Time Magazine for 12 Years, Previous White House Correspondent, Go for the Throat!,
http://tinyurl.com/b7zvv4d]
This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale
political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from
caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust
themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s
Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition
defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.¶ The president has
the ambition and has picked a second-term agenda that can lead to clarifying fights. The next necessary condition for this theory to work rests on
the Republican response. Obama needs two things from the GOP: overreaction and charismatic dissenters. They’re not going to give this to him
willingly, of course, but mounting pressures in the party and the personal ambitions of individual players may offer it to him anyway. Indeed,
Republicans are serving him some of this recipe already on gun control, immigration, and the broader issue of fiscal
policy. ¶ On gun control, the National Rifle Association has overreached. Its Web video mentioning the president's children crossed a line.*
The group’s dissembling about the point of the video and its message compounds the error. (The video was also wrong). The NRA is whipping
up its members, closing ranks, and lashing out. This solidifies its base, but is not a strategy for wooing those who are not already engaged in the
gun rights debate. It only appeals to those who already think the worst of the president. Republicans who want to oppose the president on policy
grounds now have to make a decision: Do they want to be associated with a group that opposes, in such impolitic ways, measures like universal
background checks that 70 to 80 percent of the public supports? Polling also suggests that women are more open to gun control measures than
men. The NRA, by close association, risks further defining the Republican Party as the party of angry, white Southern men. ¶ The president is
also getting help from Republicans who are calling out the most extreme members of the coalition. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the
NRA video "reprehensible." Others who have national ambitions are going to have to follow suit. The president can rail about and call the GOP
bad names, but that doesn't mean people are going to listen. He needs members inside the Republican tent to ratify his positions—or at least to
stop marching in lockstep with the most controversial members of the GOP club. When Republicans with national ambitions make public splits
with their party, this helps the president.¶ (There is a corollary: The president can’t lose the support of Democratic senators facing tough races in
2014. Opposition from within his own ranks undermines his attempt to paint the GOP as beyond the pale.) ¶ If
the Republican Party
finds itself destabilized right now, it is in part because the president has already implemented a version of this
strategy. In the 2012 campaign, the president successfully transformed the most intense conservative positions into
liabilities on immigration and the role of government. Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination on a platform of “self-deportation” for illegal
immigrants—and the Obama team never let Hispanics forget it. The Obama campaign also branded Republicans with Romney's ill-chosen words
about 47 percent of Americans as the party of uncaring millionaires. ¶ Now Republican presidential hopefuls like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio,
and Bobby Jindal are trying to fix the party's image. There is a general scramble going on as the GOP looks for a formula to move from a party
that relies on older white voters to one that can attract minorities and younger voters. ¶ Out of fear for the long-term prospects of the GOP, some
Republicans may be willing to partner with the president. That would actually mean progress on important
issues facing the country, which would enhance Obama’s legacy. If not, the president will stir up a fracas between those in
the Republican Party who believe it must show evolution on issues like immigration, gun control, or
climate change and those who accuse those people of betraying party principles.¶ That fight will be loud and in the open—and in the short
term unproductive. The president can stir up these fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most
extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the
popular mood. That will lead to more tin-eared, dooming declarations of absolutism like those made by conservatives who sought to define the
difference between legitimate and illegitimate rape—and handed control of the Senate to Democrats along the way. For the public watching from
the sidelines, these intramural fights will look confused and disconnected from their daily lives. (Lip-smacking Democrats don’t get too excited:
This internal battle is the necessary precondition for a GOP rebirth, and the Democratic Party has its own tensions.) ¶ This
approach is not a
path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president
demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph:
smiling, but with arms crossed. ¶ The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he’s not going to
spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is
transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be
affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his
political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those
days are done.¶ Presidents don’t usually sow discord in their inaugural addresses, though the challenge of writing a speech in which the call for
compromise doesn’t evaporate faster than the air out of the
president’s mouth might inspire him to shake things up a bit. If it
doesn’t, and he tries to conjure our better angels or summon past American heroes, then it will be among the most forgettable
speeches, because the next day he’s going to return to pitched political battle. He has no time to waste.
A2: Winners Win Too Slow
It’s about perception- if Obama feels he won he’ll be able to spend it forward in the
short term
David Gura is a reporter for Marketplace, based in the Washington, D.C. bureau. He regularly reports
on Congress and the White House, economic and fiscal policy and the implementation of financial reform
11-7-2012 http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/campaign-trail/balance-sheet-political-capital
a second term: “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital.
And now I intend to spend it.Ӧ Political capital can be very valuable. It gives a politician a sense that the
public has his back, that he can flex a little more muscle when he is negotiating with Congress.¶ But as President Bush learned,
political capital isn’t something a two-term president gets automatically.¶ “It’s not a given, just by winning,” say Brian Brox,
a professor of political science at Tulane University. “ It’s how you win.”¶ A politician can get political capital if he wins by
This is what President George W. Bush told reporters two days after he won
a lot -- think Ronald Reagan, in 1984, or Bill Clinton, in 1996.¶ President Bush’s margin of victory wasn’t huge, and let’s just say he may have ... mis-underestimated
how little political capital he had. His push to revamp Social Security went nowhere. ¶ According
to Alan Abramowitz, who teaches
political science at Emory University, “ Political capital is in the eye of the beholder.”¶ That makes it a really risky asset. A
politician can spend more than he actually has.
Wins Key – Momentum
Spending PC key to generate momentum
Rachman 9 [Gideon, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator @ the Financial Times, Obama must start
punching harder, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940c78c8-b763-11de-9812-00144feab49a.html]
Just five years ago, Barack Obama was still a local politician in Illinois, preparing for a run for the US Senate. His office wall in Chicago at the
time was decorated with the famous picture of Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston, after knocking him out in a heavyweight title fight.
Ali famously boasted that he could “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” But now that Mr Obama is president, he seems to float like a
butterfly – and sting like one as well. The
notion that Mr Obama is a weak leader is now spreading in ways that are
dangerous to his presidency. The fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday will not change this impression. Peace is all very
well. But Mr Obama now needs to pick a fight in public – and win it with a clean knock-out . In truth, the Norwegians
did the US president no favours by giving him the peace prize after less than a year in office. The award will only embellish a portrait of the
president that has been painted in ever more vivid colours by his political enemies. The
right argues that Mr Obama is a man who has
been wildly applauded and promoted for not doing terribly much. Now the Nobel committee seems to be making their point for
them. The rightwing assault on the president is based around a number of slogans that are hammered home with damaging frequency: Obama the
false Messiah; Obama, the president who apologises for America; Obama, the man who is more loved abroad than at home; Obama, the man who
never gets anything done; Obama the hesitant; Obama the weak. Of course, this is the kind of stuff that was always going to be hurled at a liberal,
Democratic president by the Republicans. The danger for Mr Obama is that you are beginning to hear echoes of these charges from people who
should be the president’s natural supporters. One leading European politician warns that Mr Obama is looking weak on the Middle East: “If he
says to the Israelis ‘no more settlements’, there have got to be no more settlements.” And yet it is the White House, not the Israeli government,
that has backed down. Even
before the Nobel announcement, liberal American columnists were sounding
increasingly skeptical about the man they once supported with such enthusiasm. Richard Cohen wrote in the
Washington Post that the president “inspires a lot of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs
where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama”. Now Saturday Night Live – the slayer of Sarah Palin – has turned its fire on
President Obama, portraying him a do-nothing president. How has this impression built up? The promise of bold changes of policy on the Middle
East and Iran – without much to show for it – has not helped. The public agonising over policy towards Afghanistan has been damaging. The
slow pace of progress on healthcare has hurt. Even the president’s strengths can begin to look like
weaknesses. His eloquence from a public platform has begun to contrast nastily with his failure to get things done behind the scenes. I
winced when I heard him proclaim from the dais at the United Nations that “speeches alone will not solve our problems”. This,
from a man who was due to give three high-profile speeches in 24 hours in New York. I winced again, when Muammer Gaddafi of Libya told the
UN that he would be happy “if Obama can stay forever as the president”. Obviously, the gloom can be overdone. Mr Obama has been dealt a
very difficult hand. He arrived in office when the entire global financial system was still shaking. The American economy remains in deep
trouble. The president inherited two wars that were going badly and a deep well of international resentment towards the US. The Nobel
committee’s decision was silly, but it reflected something real – the global sense of relief that the US now has a thoughtful, articulate president,
who has some empathy for the world outside America. Mr Obama’s conservative critics might deride him as “Hamlet” because of his indecision
over Afghanistan. But President Hamlet is still preferable to President George W. Bush. At least Mr Obama makes decisions with his head, rather
than his gut. It is worth remembering that the presidency of Bill Clinton also got off to a very rocky start. Mr Clinton failed over healthcare,
blundered around over gays in the military (an issue that President Obama is now revisiting) and suffered military debacles in Somalia and Haiti.
And yet he went on to be a successful president. Mr Obama has not yet suffered setbacks comparable to the early Clinton years – and he still has
momentum matters . The president badly needs a quick victory or a lucky
also needs to show that, at least sometimes, he can inspire fear as well as affection. Mr Obama can
charm the birds off the trees. He can inspire crowds in Berlin and committees in Oslo. But – sad to say – he also needs to
show that he can pack a punch.
plenty of time to turn things around. But
break. He
Momentum outweighs all else. It increases clout and strength.
Mason 10 [Jeff, Reuters Staff Writer & Correspondent, March 26th, Obama's health win could boost
foreign policy, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26180856.htm]
President Barack Obama's domestic success on healthcare reform may
pay dividends abroad as the strengthened U.S.
leader taps his momentum to take on international issues with allies and adversaries. More than a dozen foreign leaders have
congratulated Obama on the new healthcare law in letters and phone calls, a sign of how much attention the fight for his top domestic policy
priority received in capitals around the world. Analysts and administration officials were cautious about the bump Obama could get from such a
win: Iran is not going to rethink its nuclear program and North Korea is not going to return to the negotiating table simply because more
Americans will get health insurance in the coming years, they said. But the
perception of increased clout , after a rocky first year
generate momentum for Obama's agenda at home and
in his talks on a host of issues abroad. "It helps him domestically and I also think it helps him internationally that he was able
that produced few major domestic or foreign policy victories, could
to win and get through a major piece of legislation," said Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to Republican President George W.
Bush. "It shows political strength , and that counts when dealing with foreign leaders." Obama's deputy national security adviser
Ben Rhodes said the Democratic president's persistence in the long healthcare battle added credibility to his rhetoric on climate change, nuclear
nonproliferation and other foreign policy goals. "It
sends a very important message about President Obama as a leader,"
criticism has been: (He) sets big goals but doesn't
close the deal. So, there's no more affirmative answer to that criticism than closing the biggest deal you have
Rhodes told Reuters during an interview in his West Wing office. "The
going."
Wins Key – Dem Unity
Spending PC generates wins that get Dems on board- key to future success
Kuttner 10 [Robert, Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Think Tank Demos, Co-founder and Co-editor
of The American Prospect, Business Week columnist, Author of Obama’s Challenge, Game changer,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=game_changer]
The dysfunction of American democracy has become a standard bit of conventional wisdom. It's certainly true that a
bias against government action is baked into our constitutional cake, with its checks, balances, and multiple veto points. It's also true that
conservative obstructionism has reached a new peak in recent years. The prime source
of today's extreme dysfunction is less the
republic than the Republican Party. A number of smart commentators, from E.J. Dionne to John Podesta, have aptly observed that
we now have a semi-parliamentary system, in which the opposition party can block but the governing party can't govern. And despite Barack
Obama's best efforts to pursue common ground, the Republicans have cynically concluded that rendering
the Democrats ineffectual is preferable to coming together to solve national problems. It has always been difficult in
America for the governing party to govern. Only twice in the past century -- the New Deal era between 1933 and 1938 and the 89th Congress of
Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society -- did progressive Dem-ocrats have a large enough margin in Congress coupled with real presidential
leadership to enact major reforms. The particulars were different then, with moderate and liberal Republicans roughly offset by racist Dixiecrats.
The filibuster was reserved for special (racial) occasions. But the general problem would be familiar to today's critics of
democratic dysfunction. James MacGregor Burns' classic, The Deadlock of Democracy, was written nearly half a century ago. What makes
the difference, then as now, is the presence or absence of presidential leadership. It takes the power of a president
to define national problems, mobilize public opinion, create a new progressive political center, move
Congress to act, and hose away obstructionists. That's what Franklin D. Roosevelt had to do to win the New
Deal, and what Johnson did to prevail on civil rights. Though John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton during his first two years
actually had slightly larger majorities in Congress than Obama does today, all had difficulty enacting their programs. None possessed the kind of
leadership gifts that FDR and LBJ had. Despite his exceptional potential, Obama
dismayed his progressive base in his first year in
office by clinging to an illusion of bipartisanship long after Republicans made clear that their only goal was
to destroy him. But since early March, something potentially transformative has happened. The seeker of
common ground has metamorphosed into a fighting partisan. Faced with the prospect of a humiliating, defining defeat on
health reform, Obama has begun exercising the kind of leadership that his admirers discerned during the campaign. Things
that were seemingly impossible have suddenly be-come necessary to avert a rout. Passing legislation in the
Senate by simple majority, despite Republican whining, is now thinkable. So is passing legislation in the House with
Democrats only. Despite warnings by the likes of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that a vote in favor of the bill would
mean retribution by the voters, it has dawned on skeptical Democratic legislators that whatever the measure's deficiencies, going
before the voters in November as the can-do party is preferable to facing re- election as the ineffectual
one. In our uniquely structured hobbled democracy, with its bias against action, presidential leadership has
always been the game changer . The search for common ground with the Republicans is one brand of
leadership, but it turns out to be the wrong one today. Progressives who dislike aspects of this bill should nonetheless be
hoping that Obama's strategic shift has not come too late. With Democrats at last willing to govern by majority rule and Obama now willing to
confront both Republican and industry obstructionism, the deficient features of the bill can more easily be changed. More important, his
leadership will make him a more compelling president. If
Obama does emerge as both an effective partisan and a
progressive who delivers, the pundits' morning line will change overnight. The president will be
depicted as a giant-killer. That can only be good both for his general public approval and for his support
among Democrats. The party base, which has been in agony about Obama's dithering, will be newly energized . The nation still
faces a crisis too severe to indulge the luxury of obstructionism. For now, Democrats should be willing to use reconciliation as necessary. Next
January, Senate Democrats should scrap the filibuster rule once and for all. And if his
near-death experience on health care has
finally ended his futile quest for a bipartisan consensus, Obama will be in a better position to deliver on
other fronts. Let's hope that we are seeing a real turning point in his presidency.
Ext. Winners Win- Empircs
Bush presidency proves winners win
Fortier 9 [John, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, January 14th, Spend Your
Political Capital Before It's Gone, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17395.html]
Bush came into the presidency after a protracted election dispute but acted like a man with a mandate. His election victory,
no matter how small, was a form of political capital to be spent, and he pushed his tax and education reform
packages through Congress. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Republican victories in the 2002 midterm election and the initial phase of the
Iraq war, Bush gained more political capital. And each time, he spent it, going to Congress for more tax cuts, the
creation of a Department of Homeland Security and other domestic priorities. Bush developed the image of a winner . Despite
narrow Republican majorities in Congress, he succeeded in holding his party together and pulling out one
legislative victory after another. He famously did not veto a bill in his first term. Even when Bush veered from a typical
conservative agenda on education reform and Medicare prescription drugs, Republicans voted with him, although some held
their noses. Republicans in Congress did not want to break the string of Bush’s first-term legislative juggernaut .
Bush was spending his political capital and, by winning, was getting repaid . Bush’s 2004 reelection was the apex of
his presidency. He won a spirited, high- turnout contest by a clear margin, he brought more Republicans to Congress, and he was ready to spend
his latest cache of political capital on two big domestic priorities: Social Security reform and tax reform. But 2005 saw Bush lose all of his
political capital. His domestic priorities were bold, but he had overreached and did not have plans that Congress could get to work on
immediately. The legislative vacuum in Congress stood in contrast to Bush’s first term, where Congress was almost always busy at work on Bush
priorities. More importantly, conditions in Iraq deteriorated, and the public began to lose confidence in the president and his ability to win the
war. Bush himself said that he had spent his political capital in Iraq and had lost it there. Republican scandals and the president’s lack of
leadership immediately after Hurricane Katrina further damaged Bush.
The winning streak was over, the president’s job
approval numbers had dropped and his days setting the legislative agenda were over. Even though Bush had his biggest Republican
majorities in the 109th Congress, Republican leaders staked out their own agenda, not wanting to tie themselves to a now unpopular president.
Bush never regained political capital after 2005. Ronald Reagan
had early heady days when he controlled the agenda; his
popularity waned, but he was able to regain his footing. Bill Clinton famously bounced from highs to lows
and back again. But for Bush, there was no second act. Reagan and Clinton could counterpunch and thrive as
president without control of Congress. The Bush presidency had only two settings: on and off. In his first term, Bush
controlled the legislative agenda like a prime minister ; in the second, others set the agenda. President-elect
Barack Obama won election more convincingly than Bush, and he will have larger congressional majorities than Republicans had.
No doubt he will begin with some political capital of his own. But as the Bush presidency has taught us, that capital will
run out someday, and a real test of leadership will be how Obama adjusts.
Ext. Winners Win- Theoretical
WINNERS WIN.
Singer 9 (Jonathan, Editor – MyDD and JD – University of California, Berkeley, “By Expending Capital,
Obama Grows His Capital”, MyDD, 3-3, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)
Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some
believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's
important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a
great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed,
that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of
the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being
rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in
the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's
Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in
the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on
the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a
mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So
at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his
ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there
appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in
Iraq.
VICTORIES INCREASE CAPITAL.
Lee 5 (Andrew, Claremont McKenna College, “Invest or Spend? Political Capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W.
Bush Presidency,” Georgia Political Science Association Conference Proceedings, http://a-s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf)
To accrue political capital, the president may support a particular lawmaker’s legislation by issuing an SAP urging support, thereby giving that legislator
more pull in the Congress and at home. The president may also receive capital from Congress by winning larger legislative majorities. For example, the president’s
The president may also
receive p olitical c apital from increased job favorability numbers, following through with purported policy agendas, and
successful efforts at increasing Republican representation in the Senate and House would constitute an increase in political capital.
defeating opposing party leaders (Lindberg 2004). Because p olitical c apital diminishes, a president can invest in policy
and legislative victories to maintain or increase it. For example, President George W. Bush invests his political capital in tax cuts
which he hopes will yield returns to the economy and his favorability numbers. By investing political capital, the president assumes
a return on investment.
WINNERS WIN ON CONTROVERSIAL POLICIES.
Ornstein 1 (Norman, American Enterprise Institute, “How is Bush Governing?” May 15,
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.281/transcript.asp)
The best plan is to pick two significant priorities, things that can move relatively quickly. And in an ideal world, one of them is
going to be a little bit tough, where it's a battle, where you've got to fight, but then your victory is all the sweeter.
The other matters but you can sweep through fairly quickly with a broad base of support and show that you're a winner and can accomplish something. Bush did just
that, picking one, education, where there was a fairly strong chance. Something he campaigned on, people care about, and a pretty strong chance that he could get a
bill through with 80, 85 percent support of both houses of Congress and both parties. And the other that he picked, and there were other choices, but he picked the tax
use every bit of political capital you have to achieve early victories that will both
establish you as a winner, because the key to political power is not the formal power that you have. Your ability to coerce
people to do what they otherwise would not do. Presidents don't have a lot of that formal power. It's as much
psychological as it is real. If you're a winner and people think you're a winner, and that issues come up
and they’re tough but somehow you're going to prevail, they will act in anticipation of that. Winners
cuts. What flows from that as well is,
win. If it looks like you can't get things done, then you have a steeply higher hill to climb with what follows. And as you use your
political capital, you have to recognize that for presidents, political capital is a perishable quality, that it
evaporates if it isn't used. That's a lesson, by the way, George W. Bush learned firsthand from his father. That if you use it and
you succeed, it's a gamble, to be sure, you'll get it back with a very healthy premium.
**GENERAL INTERNAL LINKS**
Agenda Crowd Out
Agenda Crowd Out 2NC
Precarious agenda setting key to success- determines future Presidential push
MATTHEW ESHBAUGH-SOHA, T¶ EXAS¶ T¶ ECH¶ U¶ NIVERSITY, “The Politics of Presidential
Agendas” June 2005 http://www.psci.unt.edu/~EshbaughSoha/jun05prq.pdf
scholars have explored the determinants of the president's policy agenda. Light (1099) notes that information, expertise, and
political capital are a premium in the presidents agenda decisions, and that presidents have the most potential to shape the
legislative agenda early in their tenure. He shows how these factors influence the types of policies on the president's agenda, without confirming his inferences through hypothesis testing
Two
(see King 1993). Peterson (1990) also studies the president's agenda. He analyzes the contextual environment and its impact on whether presidents prefer large or small, and new or old policies.
Although he finds that the Congressional environment is important in the president's agenda decisions, seemingly relevant variables such as the federal budget deficit are statistically insignificant.
the president should be able to package policy priorities so as to increase the
likelihood of their adoption. Doing so may require presidents to assess the probability that a proposal will be successful depending on contextual circumstances, such as
¶ The underlying premise of agenda-setting research is that
Congressional makeup. Nevertheless. Peterson (1990: 20"-08) finds little impact of the contextual environment on presidential policies, bringing into question the conventional wisdo m that
presidents can package their agendas strategically to increase their success in Congress (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Edwards 1989). With this in mind, I rely on agenda-setting and anticipative
reactions theories to argue that fiscal and
political factors should affect the content of the presidents yearly domestic policy agenda from 1949-2000. Lacking
any readily available data source to test this argument. I also advance a new policy typology that categorizes domestic policies across both time and importance dimensions. 1 use the number of
yearly policies for each policy type (.major, minor, incremental, and meteoric) as dependent variables in four separate analyses. To account for the yearly changes in the political environment. I
presidents seek to optimize their domestic policy preferences , and
because their success depends on broad legislative cooperation, presidents anticipate the reaction of Congress
and support or propose different policies accordingly in their yearly domestic policy agendas.1
offer a time-series analysis of several hypotheses. I argue that
Ext. Agenda Crowd Out IL
Partisanship means agenda setting is critical- needs to prioritize
MATTHEW ESHBAUGH-SOHA, T¶ EXAS¶ T¶ ECH¶ U¶ NIVERSITY, “The Politics of Presidential
Agendas” June 2005 http://www.psci.unt.edu/~EshbaughSoha/jun05prq.pdf
To meet their policy goals, presidents need to emphasize an important source of political power, influence
over the policy agenda . Scholars have long echoed E. E. Schattschneider's (1960) proclamation that presidents are key actors in expanding the scope of
conflict and affecting the ''definition of alternatives." Neustadt (1960) agrees when he writes that legislators need priorities from the president. Baumgartner and Jones
(1993) also imply that the president's national stature allows him to set the national policy agenda. Similarly, Kingdon
(1995: 23) claims that "the president can single handedly set the agendas, not only of people in the executive branch, but also of people in Congress and outside the
government." Even though Edwards and Wood (1999) show that presidents have some difficulty setting Congress' agenda across several policy areas, Edwards and
Barrett (2000) demonstrate that presidents can secure agenda space for nearly all of their significant initiatives. ¶ Presidents
who secure agenda
space for their policies tend to increase their policy success in Congress. Covington, Wrighton, and Kinney (1995) show that
presidents have greater success on initiatives that are on rather than off their agenda. Edwards and Barrett (2000) find that
over 60 percent of the president's initiatives passed either the House or the Senate, even though just 42 percent became law. Clearly, a presidents first step
in achieving his policy goals is framing the available alternatives. But because the partisan makeup of Congress
drives the success of presidential initiatives (Edwards, Barrett, and Peake 1997), presidents must consider the politics of
Congress —and the contextual environment— when figuring their yearly domestic policy agendas .
It is zero sum- pushing major issues causes Presidents to back off other agenda
items- carefully balanced ahead of time
MATTHEW ESHBAUGH-SOHA, T¶ EXAS¶ T¶ ECH¶ U¶ NIVERSITY, “The Politics of Presidential
Agendas” June 2005 http://www.psci.unt.edu/~EshbaughSoha/jun05prq.pdf
What determines the propensity of presidents to support or propose certain types of policy? This article finds that presidential agendas, which vary by temporal and
The numbers of major and incremental policy
types as well as the presidents total domestic policy agenda decrease in the face of budget deficits and unfavorable
Congressional makeup. Conversely, presidential decisions to propose or support other, unimportant or short-term policies are not affected by the
importance dimensions of public policies, are functions of the presidents contextual environment.
contextual environment, as presidents are seemingly free to propose or support these policy types whenever they wish. Although much research has inferred that
presidents are more successful with small and less expansive agendas in an era of deticits and Congressional gridlock (Edwards 1989; Jones 1994; Hargrove 1988).
this study develops this linkage: presidents offer small and less major agendas when faced with political and fiscal constraints. Presidents
may then be
successful because they consider these constraints in the first place.¶ This article has implications for broader research on agenda
setting. As scholars debate the president's ability to set the agendas of Congress, the media, and the public, this article indicates that the political
environment in which presidents find themselves shapes heavily the policies on the president's agenda."- Since
presidents most likely influence agendas when a policy is important to them (Edwards and Wood 1999: 342), knowing that presidents consider their
contextual environment when they submit their yearly proposals helps us predict when presidents may attend to and possibly influence
the direction of one type of policy and not another. In addition, this writing supports a condition that may be necessary for presidents to be able
to influence their legislative success through agenda setting: presidents respond to their contextual environment and shape their
agendas strategically prior to proposing them . Recognizing this encourages us to test the extent to which presidential agenda decisions
do indeed affect the presidents success in Congress.
Unanticipated agenda items trade off and distract from priorities
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia
10-25-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
It is “often overlooked" that presidents
“operate in a world they do not control" (Beckmann¶ 2010, 13). Supreme Court vacancies yield
additions to the¶ president's to do" list. Despite the president's power to
influence the legislative agenda and¶ achieve confirmation for his judicial nominees, unanticipated exogenous shocks can
distract¶ from these priorities . These events divert lawmakers' efforts to new concerns at the expense¶ of
preexisting agenda items . Exogenous shocks cost president's time, resources, and attention¶ previously
devoted to other endeavors. We theorize that Supreme Court vacancies and the ¶ nominations that follow function as exogenous shocks to the
important (and often unexpected)
presidential agenda and influence ¶ success in both the legislative arena and the lower court confirmation process.8
Agenda setting vital to success of the agenda
ANDRES 00. [Gary, president for legislative affairs in the Bush Administration, Presidential Studies Quarterly, September -- lexis]
The constraint of "time" is another trade-off the White House mustmanage. Members of
Congress regularly criticize the White House for only being able to focus on one single issue at a time, a
trait common to the White House legislative office that routinely works this way during major legislative battles,
focusing its attention to winning a key vote on the House or Senate floor, and disposing of it before
moving on to another project. Congress, with its diverse committee system and decentralized power structure, processes a variety of
issues simultaneously. A typical legislative day might find two or three keyissues on the floor, leadership meetings about the agenda for the
following week, and a half a dozen critical markups in committees. Given all the issues Congress can present to the president and the limited
it is critical how the White House prioritizes. The White House must decide
which issues to get involved with and which to ignore or delegate to others within the administration. The resolution of these
number of hours in a day or week,
choices and the trade-offs ultimatelyshape the White House-congressional agenda.
Bipart
Bipart Key
Bipart key to agenda.
JACOBY 11-4-10. [Tamar, President, ImmigrationWorks USA, “Immigration reform is still doable” CNN]
In a lopsided Congress, where one party has a supermajority or close, there's little or no incentive to compromise -- you
can pass almost anything you want without making nice, so why make concessions to get a deal? This will no longer be true in the
112th Congress: Little if anything is going to pass without compromise. Neither party will have
much to show for itself if it does not find ways to work across the aisle. And just saying "no" to the other
side's proposals is likely to wear thin very quickly with the independent voters who decided this election and the last one and will
surely be the prize in 2012.
Bipart key to agenda.
COLLINSON 11-15-10. [Stephen, AFP writer, “Obama lands back in changed Washington” AFP]
President Barack
Obama landed in a politically-changed Washington after 10 days abroad and called on newly
empowered Republicans to drop their strategy of 'No' to work with him. Obama returned from Asia to reverberating
aftershocks of mid-term elections which dealt Democrats a crushing defeat and handed Republicans the
House of Representatives -- and the means to halt his reform program. Flying into Washington on Air Force One on Sunday,
after a trip that circled the globe, Obama reflected on the meaning of the election defeat two weeks ago, and promised to do more to
honor his previous vows to reach across the aisle. He said that early in his term, an "obsessive" focus on
anti-crisis policies had led him to neglect the need to reach across political divides and to get out into the heartland
to explain to Americans what he was doing.
Bipart is key to obama’s agenda.
GALSTON 10. [William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy
Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]
The outcome of the November 2010 election has fundamentally changed the political dynamic for at least the
next two years. It will no longer be possible for President Obama to advance his agenda with support from
only his own party. Instead, he will be forced either to negotiate with an emboldened Republican House
majority or endure two years of confrontation and gridlock. (As Newt Gingrich discovered in 1995, the same logic applies
in reverse: it is no easier to run divided government from Capitol Hill than from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.) Choosing the path of
negotiation over confrontation would require a change of substance as well as tone . The president would have to
give the federal budget deficit and national debt a far more central place in his policy agenda. Here the obstacles to agreement across party lines
are formidable, although the findings of his bipartisan fiscal commission, due out in December, may assist him in making a shift to a more
fiscally conservative position. It helps that the co-chairs of the commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, are
determined to break the current gridlock, in which conservatives refuse to consider raising taxes while those on the left stoutly resist cuts in social
programs.
Bipart key to agenda – spills over
Zelizer 9 (Julian, Prof Public Affairs @ Princeton, CNN, 1/13)
Obama will have to define himself in relation to his predecessor, but in this case by demonstrating clearly to the public what he will do
differently, rather than the same, as President Bush. And, finally, the
new president will need to find legislation
that attracts some support from the opposition to diminish the power of polarization on
Capitol Hill and establish the groundwork for future compromise .
Bipart key to obama agenda.
News and Observer 8. [11/7, Lexis]
Such a move toward bipartisanship may be challenged by those who think the Bush partisans have some payback
coming. But if Obama can rise above that instinct, he will have taken some important initial steps in bringing a muchdivided country together, and in easing the way for his ambitious agenda to clear the Congress. If the people are ready, and they
have signaled resoundingly that they are, then Republican and Democratic leaders need to be ready as well.
Partisanship Spills Over
Partisanship spills over on security policy specifically.
COHEN 1. [WILLIAM, counselor @ CSIS and former Secretary of Defense, Washington Quarterly -- Spring -- lexis]
Finally, a
more bipartisan approach to the formulation of national security policy specifically can only
occur with a less partisan approach to political discourse generally. Social and political observers alike have
chronicled an absence of civility in the public sphere and increasing hostility in the political sphere. Debate too often gives us a way to diatribe,
and practical problem-solving to rhetorical finger-pointing. At times – such as the Desert Fox strikes – the enmity has become so intense that
some openly question the motivations of the leaders on the opposite side of the aisle. At other times – such as during the national debate on the
CTBT – incendiary
rhetoric is used to inflame core constituencies, gain political advantage, or to humiliate
scorched earth tactics may be chauvinistically satisfying, but they only
diminish the trust and respect among policymakers that is essential to responsible and reason
compromise.
or embarrass one’s opponents. Such
AT: Bipart Key – Impossible
Zero chance for bipartisanship – fewer moderates and re-election worries.
KNOLL 10. [Benjamin, Assistant Prof of Govt’ @ Centre College, researcher focused on public opinion and voting behavior of the
American public, “Prospects for “bipartisanship” in the 112th Congress” Novemver 7 -http://informationknoll.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/prospects-for-bipartisanship-in-the-112th-congress/]
It would be nice if the results of last Tuesday’s election prompted our political leaders to seek common
ground, put aside their differences, and do what’s best for the future of the country. But it’s not going to happen. Why? For several
reasons, including these two: 1. There are fewer moderate members of Congress now. Most of the Democrats
who were swept out of office last week were moderate Democrats from conservative districts. Ideologically speaking, the
“average” Democrat in the House is now much more liberal than the “average” Democrat in the last Congress. And because
of the election of a number of Tea Party Republicans, the “average” Republican is now going to be much
more conservative. The two parties in Congress will now be even more ideologically polarized , if such a thing
were possible. 2. It’s election season. Again. But not for 2010; for 2012. Yep, the 2012 presidential campaign began last Wednesday
morning. Politically speaking, Republicans have very little incentive to provide President Obama with
any sort of legislative victory, as it would only aid his reelection chances in 2012. Thus, they will be even less likely to
want to “compromise” than they were before last week’s election, making the prospects for
“bipartisan” accomplishments on any substantive piece of legislation very, very unlikely.
Declining moderate numbers mean attempts at bipart fail.
BARRON 11-4-10. [John, Inside American presenter on ABC NewsRadio, research associate @ US Studies Centre @ U of Sydney,
“The Doughnut Election” ABC -- http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/04/3056619.htm?site=thedrum]
Already president Obama
is being urged to "shift to the political centre" - to do as Bill Clinton did after he suffered
But
even some Clinton insiders, like former labor secretary Robert Reich, say the political centre just doesn't exist shift to the centre and you'll find you are all alone. American politics is more like a doughnut. And this is clearly a
problem for any attempts at bipartisanship. When the democrats enjoyed a 60-40 Senate majority, there was no need to
massive losses in the 1994 mid-terms and abandon more divisive agenda items like health care and gays serving openly in the military.
compromise. Which was just as well because there were only one or two moderate Republicans who might have ever considered a compromise.
Usually when a chamber like the Senate swings back to closer to 50-50 that means you'll get more
moderates in swinging electorates prepared to cut a deal and cross the floor. But not this time. Tea Partybacked freshmen Republican senators like Rand Paul from Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida immediately
become the least likely to join with the Democrats. And Democrats like Evan Bayh of Indiana who frequently voted with
the Republicans saw the writing on the wall and quit politics this year in disgust, while liberals capable of bipartisandship
like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin got creamed.
No bipart – gop obstructionism.
SKOCPOL AND JACOBS 10. [Theda, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, former
Director of the Center for American Political Studies, Lawrence, Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the
Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science at the University of
Minnesota, “Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious governance, economic meltdown and polarized politics in Obama’s first two years” Russell
Sage Foundation -- October]
The immediate prospect for Congressional Republicans to work with Obama and Democrats to solve major
national problems is poor to nonexistent, following Tea Party 59 primary victories against longtime conservative
incumbents such as Utah’s Bob Bennett and party-endorsed candidates such as Delaware’s Mike Castle. Those two had occasionally collaborated
across the aisle, and the
clear message is ―cross-party cooperation is a political death sentence.‖ In case the
risk has not already been made crystal clear, GOP legislators face continuing scrutiny from grass-roots extremists
who hate Obama. Some pundits blame Obama for such polarization and deadlock, but the logic is puzzling, given the severity of the
problems the President has had to tackle and his repeated efforts to find compromises with Republicans. It
is hard to see anything
more at work in the recent intense polarization than strategic choices by Obama’s opponents and
the media dynamics and institutional advantages for obstruction we have discussed above – all of these interacting
with the profound social demoralization caused by a deep and prolonged economic downturn.
Committees
Internal – Committees
Opposition from even single powerful committee member drains capital because of
unique ability to block legislation
Seidenfeld 94. , Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, 94 (Mark, Iowa Law
Review, October, Lexis)
The cumbersome process of enacting legislation interferes with the President's ability to get his legislative
agenda through Congress much as it hinders direct congressional control of agency policy-setting. 196 A President has a
limited amount of political capital he can use to press for a legislative agenda, and precious little time to get his agenda
enacted. 197 These constraints prevent the President from marshalling through Congress all but a handful
of statutory provisions reflecting his policy [*39] vision. Although such provisions, if carefully crafted, can significantly alter the
perspectives with which agencies and courts view regulation, such judicial and administrative reaction is not likely to occur quickly. Even after
such reaction occurs, a substantial legacy of existing regulatory policy will still be intact. In addition, the
propensity of congressional
committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might seriously undercut presidential
efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. 198 On any proposed regulatory measure, the President could
face opposition from powerful committee members whose ability to modify and kill legislation is welldocumented. 199 This is not meant to deny that the President has significant power that he can use to bring aspects
of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the
constituents of members of Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the likelihood
use of such tactics, however, will impose economic costs on society and
consume the President's political capital . 201 At some point the price to the President for pushing
legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on
of legislative success for particular programs. 200 Repeated
concomitantly
legislative changes to implement his policy vision.
Outweighs every other factor of support
Association for Postal Commerce, No Date Given,
http://www.postcom.org/public/publicaffairs/howabillbecomesalaw.htm
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. Committees are the infrastructure of Congress. They are
where the bulk of legislative
work is done. Although the House and Senate handle bills in different ways when they reach the floor, the committee system in both
chambers is similar. Committees have enormous power. They hold hearings, conduct investigations, and oversee
government programs. They initiate bills, approve and report legislation to the floor. They also can kill
measures through inaction or defeat. The standing committees of Congress determine the fate of most
legislative proposals . Committee members and staff frequently are experts in the subjects under their jurisdiction, and it is at the
committee stage that a bill comes under the sharpest scrutiny . If a measure is going to be substantially
revised, that revision usually occurs at the committee or subcommittee level. Of all the committees in Congress,
those with the most influence over the delineation of our nation's postal policy include: the House Subcommittee on the Postal Service, the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Those with a lesser degree of influence include:
the House and Senate Committees on the Budget and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. A
committee may
dispose of a bill in one of several ways: it may approve, or "report," the legislation with or without amendments; rewrite
the bill entirely; reject (i.e., "kill") the bill; report it unfavorably or without recommendation to allow full House or Senate
consideration; or refuse to consider the bill at all. Committee membership is determined on the basis of majority and minority party
ratios in each chamber, and is set at the beginning of each new Congress. In the House, the Democrats make their committee appointments
through their Steering and Policy Committee and the Democratic Caucus, the Republicans through the Republican Conference. These
assignments are then confirmed by floor vote. The most senior member of the majority often is designated as the committee chair. The most
senior member of the minority party is usually designated as the "ranking minority member." Subcommittees. Most standing committees have a
number of subcommittees, which vary in importance from committee to committee. Some have well-defined jurisdictions and function with great
autonomy. Much of their work -- both in the House and Senate -- is routinely endorsed by the full committee without further review.
Subcommittee membership also is determined in a manner that maintains the prevailing majority/minority party ratio in the full chamber.
Senators may serve on three committees and on as many as eight subcommittees. Representatives, however, may serve on only two committees
unless they are assigned to Rules, Appropriations, or Ways and Means. They may serve on only one of these key committees at a time.
Subcommittees and committees enjoy considerable independence and autonomy. The chair of a committee or
subcommittee is a very important figure in the legislative process because he or she can determine
which bills are taken up and the pace and sequence in which they are considered.
Concessions
Concessions Key – Generic
Concessions key post midterm.
SEIB 11-16-10. [Gerald, Washington Bureau chief, “White House Renovation Calls for a Bridge Builder” Wall Street Journal]
As the White House fills some important vacancies in coming days, it might want to include this new job: bridge builder. In his tenuous postelection condition, President Barack Obama
finds himself on a political island, no longer linked to the
comfortable Democratic majorities in Congress that served as his lifeline for two years. To exit from that island,
he needs to build bridges to three groups: Republican leaders in both houses of Congress, moderate Democrats in
the congressional rank and file, and the business community. Such bridges don't simply materialize. They have to be
built, and the White House could use a respected figure from the outside to help.
Concessions are key to the agenda -- breaks gridlock.
BRADY AND VOLDEN 6. [David W. Brady, professor of political science and business, and Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the
Hoover Institute at Stanford University and Craig Volden, assistant professor of political science at the Ohio State University “Revolving Gridlock : Politics and
Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush,” Pg 35]
More often, however, gridlock
is maintained through members from divorce districts who are very responsive to
the electorate and thus at odds with their fellow legislators. In these cases, gridlock can be overcome only
through legislative compromise , and only when status quo policies are outside the gridlock region. When a policy advocate suggests
a change so major that supermajorities are difficult to achieve, the change will be stopped by a filibuster or veto. To build the needed
coalition for cloture or a vet override, compromises will need to be struck, often taking one of two forms. First, the policy itself
could be watered down. This was the main way that President Clinton overcame Republican filibusters in 1993 on issues like the job stimulus
package, voter registration, and family and medical leave. A smaller change was more acceptable to moderate Senators. A second possible
compromise with these pivotal members needed to build a supermajority involves concessions not on the ideological
position of the bill at hand, but on other issues. Often these include distributive budgetary items, like roads, bridges, research
labs, and targeted tax cuts. Riders attached to budget bills add these benefits needed to smooth out compromises on earlier bills. Quite clearly, to
the extent that budget concessions are needed to build coalitions on
congress is confronting deficits than when it is ignoring them or facing surpluses.
all sorts of issues, gridlock is more likely when
Concessions are key to the agenda -- comparatively the best form of political
wrangling.
PIKA & MALTESE 4. [Joseph A., Professor of Political Science & International Relations at U of Delaware & John Anthony,
Prof of Political Science at University of Georgia, The Politics of the Presidency, p. 199-200]
On their relations with Congress, presidents follow certain modes or patterns of behavior: bargaining, arm-twisting,
and confrontation. Bargaining is the predominant mode, and occasionally the president bargains directly with
members whose support is deemed essential to a bill's passage. In May 1981, for example, the Reagan administration agreed to
revive a costly program to support the price of sugar in exchange for the votes of four Democratic representatives from Louisiana (where sugar is
a key crop) on a comprehensive budget reduction bill. 78 Presidents usually try to avoid such explicit bargains because they
have limited resources for trading, and the desire among members for these resources is keen. Moreover, Congress is so large and its
Power so decentralized that presidents cannot bargain extensively over most bills. In some instances, the president may be unable or unwilling to
bargain. Fortunately, rather than a quid pro quo exchange of favors for votes, much presidential-congressional bargaining is
implicit, generalized trading in which tacit exchanges of support and favors occur . If bargaining does not result in the
approval of their proposals, presidents may resort to stronger methods, such as arm-twisting, which involves intense, even
extraordinary, pressure and threats. In one sense, it is an intensified extension of bargaining, but it entails something more - a direct threat of punishment if the
member's opposition continues. Among modern presidents, Johnson was perhaps the most frequent practitioner of arm-twisting. When gentler effort failed, or
when a once-supportive member opposed him on an important issue, Johnson resorted to tactics such as deliberate embarrassment, threats, a nd reprisals. In
Arm twisting is understandably an unpopular tactic and, if used
often, creates resentment and hostility. Still, judicious demonstration that sustained opposition or desertion by normal supporters
contrast, Eisenhower was most reluctant to pressure Congress.
will exact costs strengthens a president's bargaining position
Gop votes key to agenda – concessions key
BAKER 10. [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, “In Republican
Victories, Tide Turns Starkly” New York Times]
“The president is somebody who knows he’s not going to have his way on these things, that he needs
Republicans and he has the ability to reach out to them,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood,
the most prominent Republican in the administration.
2012 re-election worries mean democrats have to compromise with the gop.
LEXOLOGY 10. [Arent Fox LLP, “2010 midterm election analysis” November 3 -http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=174db255-8105-4745-b611-16fed1acc4d5]
Coloring the legislative agenda will be the fact that the President looks weaker than he did two years ago and many
Democratic
senators who are on the ballot in 2012 will be far less likely to toe the party line blindly . The
Democrats will have 23 seats to defend in two years, compared to only 10 Republican seats. Already, Sen.
Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has voted with Republicans on a number of important votes, and one could expect
that swing-state senators up for re-election may push Reid behind the scenes to compromise more
with the Republicans. Also making Sen. Reid’s job tougher, but possibly easing it for Minority Leader McConnell, there are
several Republicans (Orrin Hatch of Utah, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Bob Corker of Tennessee) who
at times have strayed from their party and could face primary challenges of the kind that knocked
off Utah Senator Bob Bennett in this cycle and expected GOP Senate nominee Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware, and who, as a
result, may stay more in the Republican camp on key votes.
Concessions Fail – General
Concessions fail – obama is inept.
PONNURU 11-16. [10 -- Ramesh, senior editor @ National Review, “National Review: Eleven reasons 2010 is not a rerun” NPR]
Seventh, Obama isn't Clinton. The former president started his political career in a relatively conservative state. During his
governorship, Arkansas gave its electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates three times. Clinton also ran the Democratic Leadership
Council, which sought to pull the party rightward. Obama
has had much less experience of appealing to
conservative and moderate voters. He did it in the general election of 2008 only under exceptional circumstances and with a very
short record. It's not clear that he is interested in "triangulating" against congressional Democrats and
Republicans, much less that he is capable of it. Keep in mind that at this point in his presidency Clinton
had already relied on Republican votes to win a high-profile fight over trade. Obama has done
nothing similar.
No shift to the center –gop will reject it.
BAKER 10. [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, “In Republican
Victories, Tide Turns Starkly” New York Times]
Strategists on both sides said the lessons of the past offered only limited utility. As
politically toxic as the atmosphere in
Washington was in the 1990s, the two sides appear even more polarized today. The Republicans may
be more beholden to a Tea Party movement that abhors deal cutting, while Mr. Obama has not
shown the same sort of centrist sensibilities that Mr. Clinton did and presides in a time of higher unemployment and
deficits. “I know President Clinton. President Clinton was an acquaintance of mine. Obama is no President Clinton,” said former Representative
Dick Armey of Texas, who as House Republican leader squared off against Mr. Clinton at the time and today is a prime Tea Party promoter.
“Personally, I think he’s already lost his re-election.” That remains to be determined, but he can expect a rough two years. If nothing else, both
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush saw what can happen when the other side gets subpoena power. Legitimate oversight and political fishing expeditions
can both take their toll. “Even when carefully managed, these investigations can be distracting to senior White House officials,” said W. Neil
Eggleston, who was a White House lawyer under Mr. Clinton and later represented an aide to Mr. Bush during a Congressional inquiry. Still, Mr.
Obama wields the veto pen, and his Democratic allies in the Senate will provide a firewall against Republican initiatives. The
possibility
of gridlock looms . And in the White House, there is hope that Republicans descend into fratricide between establishment and Tea Party
insurgents, while Mr. Obama presents himself as above it all. Former Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia, said it was hard to see
Mr. Obama finding common cause with Mr. Boehner or Mr. McConnell, the Republican leaders. “Obama’s denigrated Boehner and McConnell
by name — not very presidential,” Mr. Davis said. Moreover, both
sides will have to answer to partisans on the left and
the right with little interest in compromise. “There’s going to be a lot of posturing to the base,” Mr.
Davis said. “I think it’s going to be ugly, at least at first.”
Concessions Fail – Left Backlash
Concessions fail – angers the left.
FRIEL 10. [Brian, CQ Staff, “Divided Senate complicates Dem Agenda” CQ Today -- November 4 -http://www.congress.org/news/2010/11/04/divided_senate_complicates_dem_agenda]
While many Democratic senators may feel pressure from their right, Obama may feel pressure
from his left. Henry Olsen, a political analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, noted that both presidents who have faced
serious primary challenges when seeking a second term in recent years — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — were defeated in the general
election. Olsen warned that Obama
could risk such a challenge from the left if he strikes deals with
Republicans the way President Bill Clinton did in 1996. “Triangulation is not going to be on the agenda,”
Olsen said.
Concessions fail – alienates the left.
PONNURU 11-16-10 -- Ramesh, senior editor @ National Review, “National Review: Eleven reasons 2010 is not a rerun” NPR]
Eighth, Obama has to deal with a larger, angrier, and more implacable Left than Clinton did. The Left was
chastened after three Republican presidential terms when Clinton took office. When Clinton signed welfare reform in 1996, a few of his
appointees resigned but there was no revolt. Obama
cannot be so sure that MoveOn.org, MSNBC, etc., will stay
in his corner if he triangulates. His freedom of action is more circumscribed.
Concessions Fail – GOP Says No
Concessions to the gop fails – pisses off the left and the GOP wont’ listen.
LIASSON 11-12-10. [Mara, national political correspondent for NPR, “Democrats split on way forward after losses” NPR]
Going forward, one
of the flash points for Democrats is how far to go to accommodate the new
Republican majority in the House and the expanded Republican minority in the Senate. Green thinks reaching out won't
help. "Democrats could take a lesson from what Republicans are doing right now, which is being dogged in
what they believe," he says. "They're not talking about compromise. They're saying, 'We're going to
fight for what we just campaigned on.' What we've seen the last week or so is a president consistently
talking about compromise, consistently talking about consensus, and never laying out any blueprint by which
he would actually be willing to fight the Republicans."
Attempts to triangulate fail – uncooperative GOP.
GANDLEMAN 11-14-10. [Joe, editor-in-chief in Politics, “Is the democratic party really out for the count?” Moderate Voice]
But Obama’s
problem will be that the party’s progressive wing will be clamoring for him to be a
progressive Democrat while to rebrand himself as a different kind of Democrat he’s going to have to triangulate
(which will create howls of protest from the Democratic left and could even spark a primary challenge) and show
that he is working with some key GOPers (at a time when most in the GOP see that noncooperation
with Obama reaps political dividends and also can be a way of avoiding a primary challenge from
Tea Party movement members).
Concessions fail – GOP says no.
COLLINSON 10. [Stephen, AFP writer, “Sun sets on Obama’s era of grand reforms” AFP -- October 25]
Should Obama chose cooperation, it is uncertain whether his Republican foes will have the
inclination -- or the political capacity -- to help. An influx of ideological conservatives from the Tea
Party movement may push the party's leadership further to the right, narrowing room for compromise. And
with a looming general election, Republicans have little incentive to bolster a Democratic president.
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell signaled that Republicans may be flexible, but only strictly in their own interests.
Moving to the center fails – too polarized.
SARGENT 10. [Greg, Washington Post journalist, editor of Election Central, Talking Points Memo’s politics and elections website,
“How will Obama react to GOP gains?” Washington Post]
What's striking about this is how dated, and even quaint, it sounds. As Ronald Brownstein has noted ,
a conspicuous move to the
ideological center isn't really something we should expect from Obama after the election, even in the event of major
GOP gains, because such a gesture wouldn't really be relevant to our politics today, which are even
more polarized now than in Clinton's time.
AT: Bipart/Concessions Key
Concessions fail – cause republicans to undermine obama agenda.
Parry 8 (Robert, former writer for the Associated Press and Newsweek who broke the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s, Baltimore Chronicle,
November 11, http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/111108Parry.shtml)
Barack Obama seeks a new era of bipartisanship, but he should take heed of what happened to the last Democrat
in the White House – Bill Clinton – in 1993 when he sought to appease Republicans by shelving pending investigations into
Reagan-Bush-I-era wrongdoing and hoped for some reciprocity. Instead the Republicans pocketed the Democratic
concessions and pressed ahead with possibly the most partisan assault ever directed against a sitting
President. The war on Clinton included attacks on his past life in Arkansas, on his wife Hillary, on personnel decisions at the White House,
and on key members of his administration. The Republicans also took the offensive against Clinton’s reformist
agenda, denying him even one GOP vote for his first budget and then sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s plan for
universal health insurance.
Moderate gop not key – democratic unity is crucial.
Walter 8 (Amy, Staff Writer, National Journal, November 18, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ol_20081117_2769.php)
But what does "working across the aisle" really mean? In the Senate, retirements and election losses
have substantially reduced the number of Republican moderates. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich,
Arlen Specter and, of course, McCain are the only obvious potential allies Obama will have on the GOP side. Of the 19 Republicans up in 2010,
just six -- including Voinovich and Specter -- sit in states Obama won. If Obama is counting on McCain to help broaden that coalition, it's worth
asking why. After all, this is a guy who campaigned heavily on his "maverick-ness" and ranted against the corrupting influence of Washington
insiders. Team player he was not. Even so, he, like Obama, ended the campaign with high approval ratings and has more political capital than
your typical defeated nominee. Obama's potential GOP allies in the House may be an even smaller bunch. There are
only five Republicans who sit in districts that John Kerry won four years ago: Mike Castle (Del.-At Large), Mark Kirk (Ill.-10), Jim Gerlach
(Pa.-06), Charlie Dent (Pa.-15) and Dave Reichert (Wash.-08). (Note: We are using 2004 stats since we won't have presidential vote by
congressional district data for some time). Given Obama's strong showing in places like Neb.-02 (where GOP Rep. Lee Terry sits) and New
Jersey (home to freshman Rep. Leonard Lance in N.J.-07), this list of Republicans sitting in putatively Democratic seats will grow -- but
probably not by much.
For all the talk of bipartisanship, the reality is that there just aren't that many
Republicans left to work with. Herding them may not be Obama's biggest problem. Now, about corralling
expectant Democrats ...
Bipart fails—strong partisan line key to win support
KUTTNER 8. [Robert, political commentator and author of "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a
Transformative Presidency." December 15, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/the_post_postpartisan_presiden.html]
Here is an easy prediction: When President Obama reaches that hand of bipartisanship across the aisle, he
will find that the Republicans bite it. Of course, it is smart politics to pick off Republicans for a progressive
agenda wherever possible. Splitting the Republicans is much better than splitting the difference. By January, when Congress takes up the
emergency stimulus bill, unemployment will be heading toward double digits, and state and local governments will be slashing public services. In
But that strategy is not
being bipartisan. It is being an astute partisan. And there will be many other times when Obama will need
to rally all of his Democrats to enact progressive legislation over the strenuous objection of most
Republicans. This economic emergency and its political opportunity is no time to compromise for the sake of hollow unity. If Obama
can win over a few Republicans for a progressive program, great. If he put can Republicans in the
position of haplessly opposing popular and urgently needed legislation, so much the better. By the end of his
that emergency climate, Obama may well get some Republicans to cross over and vote for a Democratic plan.
first year, either Obama will have put the economy on the path to recovery based on a progressive program that represents a radical ideological
shift; if he achieves that, he will have done it with precious little Republican support. Alternatively,
much of his program will
have been blocked by Republican filibusters enabled by a few conservative Democratic allies.
Dems
Dem Unity Key
Dems key to Obama agenda and PC key to keep them on board
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, 2-6-2013
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/senate-dems-may-sink-obamas-second-term-strategy/
In the first half of his first term, President Obama could count on then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shove her members into
politically damaging votes in order to advance his agenda.¶ Whether it was a new government-run insurance program or global warming fees, Pelosi was willing to walk into
the fire for Obama. While those initiatives failed, they gave Obama leverage in getting something out of balky moderate Democrats in the Senate.¶ There would be no
Obama health-insurance entitlement program had Pelosi not kept the heat on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The results for Pelosi’s
members, though, were disastrous.¶ Republicans were able to use Obama’s unpopular health law in almost every district, and could augment those attacks with carbon fees and other votes with
regional specificity. And when that wasn’t enough, they could use the unpopular Pelosi herself as a cudgel. This set up a Midterm wipeout just ahead of 2010 redistricting and a huge GOP
Now, the president’s ambitious second-term agenda hangs on convincing Senate
Democrats to take similar risks on his behalf.¶ Obama today heads to the Senate Democratic retreat in Annapolis and brings with him a bulging binder of
majority with serious staying power.¶
demands:¶ The president is seeking a gun ban, same-sex marriage, another round of tax increases, the continued power to kill American citizens without trial for ties to militant Islamists, the
confirmation of a Defense secretary who stammered and staggered his way through confirmation hearings, more stimulus spending, a speedy and broad amnesty for illegal immigrants,
Obama’s strategy is to get what he can out of his list and in everything else keep House
By applying pressure on House Republicans through community organizing precepts, Obama believes that he can “break the fever”
of conservative opposition and remake the Republican Party into something more amenable to his aims.¶ Liberals and establishment press outlets have cheered on the
president’s confrontational “go for the throat” strategy. They relish the fight and also hold conservatives in low esteem, not understanding the
ratification of a global warming treaty and more, more, more.¶
Republicans on defense.
ideology, and so assume that Republican opposition to Obama is, as he says, cynical and unpatriotic.¶ This sounds like a good strategy, but for the United States Senate.¶ Obama seems to not
have figured out how the Senate works during his four years there. This collection of the 100 largest egos in the known universe is not like the 435 squabbling biennially elected members of the
House. Senators don’t like to be shoved and they are much harder to threaten or pressure.¶ Reid is fairly typical. Obama is the fifth president under whom he has served and likely has thoughts of
serving under a sixth. He has figured out a political strategy that works in purple Nevada: a mix of social conservatism, pork power, union support, Mormonism and political patronage.¶ By
applying pressure on House Republicans through community organizing precepts, Obama believes that he can “break the fever” of conservative opposition and remake the Republican Party into
something more amenable to his aims.¶ While Senate Democrats may delight in the thought of Obama’s offer -- total victory over Republicans -- most of them have served long enough to know
When Obama asks Democrats to take dangerous votes he is
asking lawmakers like Reid to undo the delicate balances they have found in their home states.¶ There is another problem for
Reid. He’s got 12 incumbents running in potentially competitive races, including five in states won by Mitt Romney last year. All 12 are
eager to show themselves to be moderate and independent and for the five Red staters, as much distance from Obama as decorum allows.
that the political pendulum is always swinging, sometimes with surprising speed.¶
Dem unity key in post election congress.
STICKINGS 11-15-10. [Michael, assistant editor in Politics, “For Democrats, Unity and Continuity in the House” Moderate
Voice]
Why is continuity important? Because the Democrats need to move forward in large part by defending
their impressive record (health-care reform, Wall Street reform, the stimulus, the bailouts, etc.), not by making a show of throwing out
those who helped guide the party to those successes. What, after all, would fresh new leadership signify? That the party was going in a different
direction, that it was abandoning what it had done, all that it had accomplished, and that the midterms really were a rejection of the Democrats
and their agenda. Changing the leadership, including forcing Pelosi out, would have been an admission of failure and an act of cowardice, an
expression of fear and weakness, essentially a self-vote of non-confidence. Because, as I and many others keep saying, the result of the
midterms, particularly in the House, was not an expression of popular support for the Republicans and their agenda (which is extremist and
obstructionist). It was, rather, a reflection of deep public discontent rooted in the still lousy economy, with anger and frustration directed at
incumbents, at the party in power. Certainly, the Democrats failed to make a convincing case for themselves, and, given the swing, failed to hang
on to seats in heavily conservative districts that they won in ‘06 and ‘08, but that’s hardly Pelosi’s fault, or hardly hers alone. And while the
Democrats, both in the House and elsewhere, do have some bitter lessons to learn, there is no need to overreact and certainly no need for a purge.
Republicans will likely remain united on Capitol Hill, but there are already signs of fracturing as
the party gets ever more extreme and as the Tea Party acquires ever more power within the GOP. (It’s one thing to be thoroughly
obstructionist, as establishment types like Mitch McConnell want, and to end up with gridlock, quite another to turn the House into a hyperinvestigative inquisition. And, of course, there will no doubt be a good deal of internal conflict as the 2012 primary season draws closer and the
All the more reason for Democrats to be as united as possible and to defend
what they’ve done and what they stand for with conviction and purpose. There is certainly diversity in the Democratic
House leadership, and it’s not clear how they’ll all get along, and there are quite a few Democrats who think Pelosi should have stepped
down, but there is good reason to believe that, with Pelosi at the helm and her team settled in place, the party will be
likely candidates jockey for position.
effective in opposition, working constructively and productively with Obama and Senate Democrats to get things
done for the American people.
Democratic unity key to the agenda.
Gerstein 8 (Dan, political communications consultant and commentator based in New York, founder and president of Gotham
Ghostwriter, formerly served as communications director to Sen. Joe Lieberman, Forbes, December 3,
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/02/obama-defense-appointments-oped-cx_dg_1203gerstein.html)
Obama's presidency. While he tries to govern from the pragmatic center on national
must manage the high expectations and inevitable disappointments of his strongest supporters. His
liberal activist base may be relatively small, but its members can be extremely distracting and often
destructive. Witness the successful campaign the left-wing blogosphere waged to derail the nomination of John Brennan, who had been
Here, we can anticipate one of the trickiest tests of
security, he
considered the leading candidate for Obama's CIA director. That squabble took place off-stage and was totally overshadowed by Clinton's
appointment. But Obama won't have that luxury once he's in office. The
commentariat will be closely watching and inflating
every intra-party fight, the most potent catnip for pundits. At a minimum, these spats could suck up
precious time and political capital as Obama works to defuse them. At worst, they could inflame the
latent divisions in Congress and sidetrack key elements of Obama's agenda.
Base unity is the key starting point for ensuring agenda passage
Bond & Fleisher 96. (Jon R. and Richard professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham 1996. "The President in Legislation" p.120)
For majority presidents, unity
in the party base is a key ingredient of success. When a majority president's base is
unified, the chances of victory approach certainty. If the base is split, the probability of victory drops
considerably. And the base is frequently split. In parliamentary systems, partisan control of the legislature virtually assures
victories; in the United States, having more members in Congress who are predisposed to support the president is
an advantage, but one insufficient to guarantee victories.
Moderate Dems Key
Moderate dems key to agenda – they get moderate gop to move to the center.
SEIB 11-16-10. [Gerald, Washington Bureau chief, “White House Renovation Calls for a Bridge Builder” Wall Street Journal]
Second, consider
rank-and-file moderates in Congress from the president's own party. The corps of
these lawmakers was ravaged by this months' election, so their numbers are down. Yet their importance actually
may go up in months ahead. These Democratic moderates, particularly in the Senate, worked over the last two years to nudge
legislation from the left toward the political center, in ways that annoyed the White House. But now they have the ability in the new
Congress to nudge legislation from the Republican right toward the center, this time in ways that
can benefit the White House.
Moderate dems are a key swing voting bloc.
RAASCH 10. [Chuck, Gannett National Writer, “Noem, Herseth Sandlin embody ’10 trends” Gannett News Service -- October 28 -lexis]
If Kristi Noem is elected to Congress by fellow South Dakotans on Tuesday, she would be a member of what may be the largest freshman class in
If Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., is re-elected, she would be a member
of what is almost certain to be a diminished pack of centrist "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House.
Those that survive could be a key swing bloc between President Barack Obama's party and Republicans,
the House of Representatives since 1992.
particularly if the GOP ends up with only a narrow majority in the House.
AT: Dem Unity Inev/PC Solves
Obama leadership is key to rounding up democratic votes.
SKOCPOL AND JACOBS 10. [Theda, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, former
Director of the Center for American Political Studies, Lawrence, Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the
Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science at the University of
Minnesota, “Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious governance, economic meltdown and polarized politics in Obama’s first two years” Russell
Sage Foundation -- October]
Of necessity, Obama’s
White House has repeatedly caucused with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
looking for ways to coordinate agendas and move key bills through
the many hurdles that mark today’s legislative process, especially in the Senate. Even though the watching public might not
understand why Democrats spend so much time negotiating among themselves, or why the
President can’t just tell Congress to ―get it done,‖ the early Obama administration understandably devoted much
effort to prodding and cajoling Congress in consultation with key Congressional Democrats. This
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
happened not merely because Obama is a former Senator and thinks in legislative terms, and not only because his former Chief of Staff, Rahm
Emanuel, is a seasoned wheeler-dealer from the House of Representatives (Bai 2010). More than that, Obama and his White House aides new
that the 111th Congress is probably their only chance to further big legislative reforms. To take advantage of Congressional Democratic
majorities that are sure to shrink, they
have had to work week by week, month by month with the
Congressional leaders to assemble fragile and shifting coalitions. Congressional sausage-making involving the
President has been confusing and dispiriting for the public to watch, but the alternative would have been for an ambitious President Obama not to
try for big legislative reforms. How can a leader who wants to use government to make America stronger not make such attempts?
Re-election worries and an unpopular president mean obama can’t count on dem
votes.
FRIEL 10. [Brian, CQ Staff, “Divided Senate complicates Dem Agenda” CQ Today -- November 4 -http://www.congress.org/news/2010/11/04/divided_senate_complicates_dem_agenda]
Reid could have a tough time holding his caucus together next year in support of Obama’s agenda.
With the president’s fading popularity no doubt contributing to several Democratic senators’ defeat,
caucus members facing the voters in 2012 — particularly those in states where Obama’s public approval ratings are low —
could be under intense pressure to buck the White House. In the 2012 election cycle, Democrats will be defending
twice as many Senate seats as Republicans. The GOP has 10 seats to protect, while the Democrats have 23. Most Democrats up for
re-election in two years hail from states Obama won in 2008, but swing-state senators from Ohio, Missouri
and Virginia, and those from states such as Montana and Nebraska that tend to vote Republican in presidential elections,
may be difficult to keep in line.
AT: Dems Key
If Obama angers the left, it only boosts capital
Weigant 8 (Chris Weigant is a political commentator. He has been a regular contributor to Arianna Huffington’s The Huffington Post
since June of 2006, “How Will Obama Enrage The Left?” Huffington Post 12/3/08 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-willobama-enrage-the_b_148246.html)
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but Obama is guaranteed to disappoint. The right wing won't be terribly disappointed, of course, since they'll
have plenty to complain about for the next four-to-eight years. The only disappointing thing to them will be that Obama will not turn out to be the
boogeyman they created in an effort to scare the heck out of voters. This means Obama won't be as effective a Republican fundraising tool, since
he won't be doing all those things that terrify Republican donors. The
left wing, however, is going to get disappointed with a
short sharp shock, soon after Obama enters office. Because newly-inaugurated President Obama is going to pick one
issue and swiftly smack the left in the face, by refusing to do what they want him to do. This will be a calculated move, and
will likely pay off enormous political dividends for Obama over the life of his presidency. Call it his "Sister Souljah moment," if
you will. By appearing to "stand up" to the left wing, Obama will be seen as charting his own course as a
strong and independent leader, beholden to no special interest group of radical progressives. That's how the news media will portray it,
at any rate. His approval ratings will likely rise after he does so, since it will serve to calm fears from suburban
Republicans and Independents that Obama is going to make too many radical changes too fast. But it's going to absolutely enrage the
left. You can bet the farm on that one. Taking the long view, however, I believe it will actually help Obama get more
progressive laws passed. It's kind of doublethink, but bear with me. If Obama starts off his presidency showing strength and
independence from the left, it will mean a lot more people out there are going to give him the benefit of the doubt over
time. They didn't believe the cries of "Socialist!" in the election, and they're going to get more comfortable with Obama as a result. It will then be up to Congress to challenge him by passing laws
even more sweeping than Obama asked for. Which Obama will (perhaps with a show of reluctance) then sign. Meaning more progressive legislation actually gets passed in the end. If Obama
removes his "lightning rod" target for the right wing early on, over the long run he'll be able to get better laws passed, with more support from the public than they would normally have. I could
be monstrously wrong about all of this, to be sure. But from watching his campaign, and listening to what he actually said, the portrait of Obama I am left with is one of cautiousness and
pragmatism, and not of some sort of progressive icon. Exhibit A in my thinking is the FISA bill he voted for. Exhibit B would have to be the numerous times he reluctantly moved left, without
actually fully supporting a populist or liberal agenda. Exhibit C is his intervention with how the Senate treated Joe Lieberman. And that's without even examining his cabinet choices. All of these
things point to a very centrist course for an Obama administration, with lots of compromises with political foes. A good test case will be how President Obama handles the torture question. Will
he convene a commission to investigate? Will he offer blanket immunity (or even -- gasp! -- pardons) to get honest answers about what went on? Or will he sweep the whole thing under the rug
and "look to the future and not the past," while urging everyone to move on? The torture question is merely the tip of the iceberg (the best bad example, as it were) in how Obama is going to
handle Bush's legacy. What Bush policies is Obama going to immediately rectify? What Bush actions will he reverse, even if it takes months? We've never really gotten clear and consistent
answers as to how Obama is going to handle the Bush mess, which leaves me wondering what he will actually do when he gets the chance. But it could be almost any issue, it doesn't just have to
be how to deal with Bush's legacy. Barack Obama will likely not make the mistake Bill Clinton did when he entered office with the "gays in the military" issue. Clinton wanted to do what was
right, the military balked, and we wound up with "Don't ask, don't tell," which has been a complete disaster. But the lesson here is that Clinton started off by picking a fight with his opponents -with a bold move that he knew they would hate. I think Obama is going to do the opposite. I think he's going to come out with some bold move that he knows the left is absolutely going to abhor.
[Feel free to offer your own thoughts in the comments as to what exactly this is going to turn out to be, or even if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree entirely.] Because I simply cannot get
rid of the feeling that, sometime next January or February, President Obama is going to make a point of picking a fight with some of his own most fervent supporters. They will then denounce
Obama will emerge from the
fray even stronger politically than ever, with more "political capital" to spend on getting the rest of his
agenda done. In other words, although it will require more of a "big picture" or "long view of history" type of viewpoint, I don't think it'll be
him for his outrageous action, and go ballistic in an entirely predictable fashion. And (this is the part I'm least sure about, I have to admit)
as bad as it will first seem when it happens.
No impact to angering the democrats – they won’t turn on obama.
Chicago Tribune 8. [11/7, Lexis]
Michael
O'Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that Obama has enough p olitical
c apital to free him from "pleasing the left" of the Democratic Party
as he presses forward with his strategy for Iraq and
Afghanistan. "Obama to the left is what Ronald Reagan was to the right," O'Hanlon said. "He can do no wrong. If you're
ending the war anyway, and it is a question if you're doing it in 1 1/2 , 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 years. ... He's already moving things in the direction they
want him to."
AT: Moderate Dems Key
Nope they all lost – remaining democratic caucus will be unified and progressive.
KRIEGER 11-12-10. [Hilary Leila, Washington correspondent, “Analysis: The partisans are coming to Congress” Jerusalem Post]
But some Democrats
have found a silver lining to their otherwise unwelcome results, particularly those Democrats on the farther
the party lost its majority in the House of Representatives and with it its committee
chairmen, there was some small comfort in the result that most of those kicked out were moderates. Many were the socalled “blue dog Democrats” from traditionally Republican districts who rode the Democratic waves of 2006 and
2008 into office but were the most vulnerable when even Independents turned red this year. “In vivid contrast,” as liberal blogger
Deborah White wrote, “no Black Caucus members, and very few Progressive or Latino Caucus members,
lost their House reelection bids. As a result, House Democrats in the 112th Congress will be more
progressive and more supportive of the Democratic Party and Nancy Pelosi’s agenda than any House of
Representatives in recent memory.”
left side of the spectrum. For them, though
There’s not enough left to matter – election results.
THOMMA 11-5-10. [Steven, White House correspondent, “Extremes rule both parties, as centrists lose their seats” McClatchy
Newspapers]
The center may be falling out of American politics. About two dozen moderate to conservative
Democrats in the House of Representatives were defeated this week, leaving a more liberal party in
Washington. Also, several moderate to liberal Republicans were turned out through the year, ousted by primary challenges from more
conservative candidates and leaving a more conservative party behind. The result is a more polarized Congress. That could complicate efforts to
solve some of the country's biggest problems, such as government deficits and debt, especially as outsized voices on talk radio, cable TV and in
the blogosphere pressure the parties not to compromise. All this risks driving politics farther from the American people, many of whom still
stand squarely in the middle of the political road. "Bit by bit, the center in American politics is getting weaker," said William Galston, a top
policy adviser in the Clinton White House and a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
In the Democratic Party, this week's
elections drove out about half of the conservative Democrats in the House, mostly from the South. Among the
losers: Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, who voted against the Democratic health care law, opposed "cap and trade" energy legislation and voted
for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for president in 2008 against his own party's nominee, Barack Obama. The
remaining Democratic
lawmakers, particularly in the House, will be more liberal, and under great pressure from such outside
groups as labor unions not to make any compromises that would cut federal spending, particularly for pay or benefits for
government employees.
Flip Flops
Flip Flops Kill Agenda
Flip-flops are politically devastating
The Dallas Morning News, 1 (4/16/2001 (lexis))
A high number of flip-flops
can bleed a president dry, they added, especially one who campaigned for a "responsibility era" in contrast
stock-in-trade more than anything else is, 'This is a guy who keeps his
commitments, even when it's painful ,' " said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
to the scandal-ridden Clinton era. "His
Democrats said the coal companies applied pressure to Bush, forcing a decision they say ignores the threat of global warming. In mocking Bush's prior campaign pledge, many cited the chemical
formula for carbon dioxide, CO2. "The president and his team have really made a 180-degree turn on their position here, suggesting now that CO2 is somehow A-OK," said Sen. Joe Lieberman,
D-Conn., who ran against Bush as the Democratic candidate for vice president. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wife of Bush's predecessor, called it "a promise made and a promise
broken." "In less than eight weeks in office, President Bush has gone from CO2 to 'see you later,' " Hillary Clinton said. During a campaign speech in Saginaw, Mich., on Sept. 29, Bush outlined
a clean air strategy targeting four pollutants. "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time," Bush said. And since his inauguration, Bush's Environmental Protection Agency
chief, Christie Whitman, has publicly backed the carbon dioxide restrictions. But late Tuesday, he sent a letter to Republican senators saying he was still committed to new emission standards on
the first three items. "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean
Air Act," Bush wrote. Critics said broken promises are especially troublesome for Bush, who promised a more straightforward approach than his predecessor. During an Oct. 26 speech titled
"Responsible Leadership," Bush told supporters in Pittsburgh that "in a responsibility era, government should trust the people." "And in a responsibility era, people should also be able to trust
their government," Bush said. Ornstein said it may be hard for Bush to make those kind of comments in the future. "Now his opponents are going to jump up and say, 'Oh yeah?' " Ornstein said.
"This is going to be used against him." White House aides said they believe most voters will understand the circumstances behind the decision. They cited a recent Energy Department study
saying that capping carbon dioxide emissions would escalate the shift from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, thus boosting prices. "It's better to protect the consumer and avoid
worsening the energy crisis," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. If Bush has any doubt how much damage a broken promise can do, he needs only to ask his father , President George
Bush, who hurt himself by reversing his nationally televised "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. The younger Bush's carbon dioxide pledge came in an energy policy speech, and most of the
attention at the time was devoted to his proposal to drill for oil in an Alaska wildlife refuge. Thomas E .
Patterson, a professor of government and the press at
the Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said the damage done to Bush depends on what happens in the future. He
likened broken campaign promises to "razor cuts." "If you only have a few of them, they really can get lost in everything else that's
going on," Patterson said. " It's the accumulation of these razor cuts that starts the real bleeding."
Flip-flops kill the agenda - it’s the most destructive political label in America
Rainey, 8 (6/25/08 (James, Staff @ LA Times, "ON THE MEDIA: Candidates Show Lack of Leadership on Iraq," Daily
Herald, http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option,com_contentwire/task,view/id,61544/Itemid,53/)
The Iraq experts I interviewed agreed that one
of the most problematic barriers to a real debate is -- as author and journalist George
culture that has "made flip-flopper the most feared label in American politics." They could point to another
politician, fact averse but stalwart, who took too long to adapt once it became clear Iraq was going sideways. "It seems in America you are
stuck with the position you adopted, even when events change, in order to claim absolute consistency," Packer said.
"That can't be good."
Packer said -- a
Flip flops kill the agenda.
Fitts 96 (Michael A., University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January, Lexis)
Centralized and visible power, however, becomes a double-edged sword, once one explores the different ways in which unitariness and visibility
can undermine an institution's informal influence, especially its ability to mediate conflict and appear competent. In this context, the visibility and
centralization of the presidency can have mixed effects. As a single visible actor in an increasingly complex world, the unitary
president can be prone to an overassessment of responsibility and error. He also may be exposed to a normative standard of
personal assessment that may conflict with his institutional duties. At the same time, the modern president often does not have at his disposal
those bureaucratic institutions that can help mediate or deflect many conflicts. Unlike members of Congress or the agencies, he often must be
clear about the tradeoffs he makes. Furthermore, a president who will be held personally accountable for government policy
cannot pursue or hold inconsistent positions and values over a long period of time without suffering political repercussions.
In short, the centralization and individualization of the presidency can be a source of its power, as its chief proponents and critics accurately have
suggested, as well as its political illegitimacy and ultimate weakness.
AT: Flip Flops Kill Agenda
A well-calculated flip flop projects strength -- not political suicide.
Harris 8. [John, Politico.com editor-in-chief Bryant Park Project, NPR, “Politicians: Flip-Flopping Or Changing Their Minds?”,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92510153]
Can politicians change positions without being accused of the now familiar criticism that they are flipflopping?
Take, for example, Barack Obama's trip to Iraq. When he announced at the beginning of the month that he would be making his
second visit to the war-torn country, he said that he would be making a "thorough assessment" of the situation while
he was there, adding, "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy." That
immediately opened him up to questions about whether he would alter his position that, as president, he
would take the United States out of Iraq within 16 months of his election.John Harris, editor-in-chief of
Politico.com, says it is possible for politicians to change their stands without being perceived as flipfloppers, but he says it depends on the issue, the political climate, and the agility of the politician. Obama
is walking a line, he says, and if he is going to change his position, "it will tell us about how skillful a
politician he really is." McCain has what is perhaps the flip side of the flip-flop question on Iraq. Harris says that McCain, long identified as a strong
supporter of the war, "knows that he's sort of exposed on this issue." Harris says McCain won't try to alter his position substantially. Instead, he says, McCain will
highlight his support of the war head-on: "Rather than trying to talk his way out of the issue or downplay the issue, he's going to say, 'Look, let's have an argument
about Iraq and who's been right over this past year about the surge."On the issue of the war in Iraq, says Harris, he thinks most Americans have already made up their
minds, deciding that the war was a mistake in the first place. These voters, says Harris, don't look at whether the war is going well for the U.S. on any particular
the American public will allow politicians to
change their positions, but only under the correct circumstances. "On the one hand," he says, "we don't want politicians who look just
nakedly expedient, totally transparent — they're flip-floppers." He says that there are many times when the electorate will
admire politicians who ch