Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
1
File Title
PTC Politics – TUDS [1/2]
PTC Politics – TUDS............................................................................................................................... 1
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Politics 1NC [1/4] .................................................................................................................................. 5
Politics 1NC [2/4] .................................................................................................................................. 6
Politics 1NC [3/4] .................................................................................................................................. 7
Politics 1NC [4/4] .................................................................................................................................. 8
2NC Impact Overview .......................................................................................................................... 9
**Uniqueness** .................................................................................................................................... 10
2NC PTC Will Pass [1/2] .................................................................................................................... 11
2NC PTC Will Pass [2/2] .................................................................................................................... 12
**Links**................................................................................................................................................. 13
Links Space – Tea Party ..................................................................................................................... 14
Links Space – Public ........................................................................................................................... 15
Links Space – Republicans ............................................................................................................... 16
Links Space – Spending ..................................................................................................................... 17
Links Constellation – Spending ...................................................................................................... 18
Links Moon Mining – Capital ........................................................................................................... 19
Links Moon Mining – Spending ....................................................................................................... 20
Links SPS – Political Capital ............................................................................................................. 21
Links SPS – Public ................................................................................................................................ 22
Links SPS – Republicans .................................................................................................................... 23
Links SPS – Alternative Energy ....................................................................................................... 24
Links SPS – Spending .......................................................................................................................... 25
Links SPS – A2 DOD Supports .......................................................................................................... 26
Links SPS – A2 Lobbies ...................................................................................................................... 27
**Internal Links** ............................................................................................................................... 28
2NC PTC Key to Econ [1/2] ............................................................................................................... 29
2NC PTC Key to Econ [2/2] ............................................................................................................... 30
Political Capital Key ........................................................................................................................... 31
A2 Winners Win ................................................................................................................................... 32
A2 No Spillover [1/2] ......................................................................................................................... 33
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
2
File Title
PTC Politics -- TUDS [2/2]
A2 No Spillover [2/2] ......................................................................................................................... 34
**Impacts**............................................................................................................................................ 35
Terminal Impact Extensions ........................................................................................................... 36
US Economy Key To Global Economy ........................................................................................... 37
Economy Turns Case – Generic....................................................................................................... 38
Economy Turns Case – China........................................................................................................... 39
Economy Turns Case – Environment ............................................................................................ 40
Economy Turns Case – Hegemony ................................................................................................. 41
Econ Turns Case -- Warming ........................................................................................................... 42
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
3
File Title
Summary
Much like the first-semester SKFTA disadvantage, this is a disadvantage about the political
process. Obama has cut taxes for people working now. This way, they don’t have to pay as
much of their salary back to the government. Obama wants to extend this tax cut, but some
people in Congress really don’t want to. He’s going to need political capital (influence and
favors) to do it.
This payroll tax cut is important because it increases the amount of money Americans have
to spend on goods (to consume things as consumers). If people have more money to spend,
they buy more things than they otherwise would have. This is good because it stimulates
the economy.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
4
File Title
Glossary
Consumer – Someone who buys (consumes) goods and services.
Consumer Spending – The amount of money consumers put back into the economy by
spending it on goods and services.
DOD – Department of Defense.
Lobbies – Groups that use money and power to influence the president and Congress.
Payroll Tax Credit – Temporary suspension of the government taking money out of paychecks.
Political Capital – The power and influence that the president has to spend to get what he/she
wants. Political capital can be thought of much like money.
Tax – Money owed to the government by citizens to pay for government programs.
Tea Party – A political movement devoted to decreasing taxes and government spending.
Winners Win –This is a political theory that political capital is gained, rather than lost, when a
president does something controversial. Essentially, the argument is that controversial policies
make the president look powerful and people side with him/her because they want to be on the
winning team.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
5
File Title
Politics 1NC [1/4]
The payroll tax cut will be extended now-and Obama pol cap is key
Lee, 1/1 [Carol, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577131543017594740.html]
President Barack Obama heads into 2012 with a legislative agenda that essentially consists of just a single
item--a long-term extension of a payroll tax holiday--deferring a fight over deficit reduction and the
Bush-era tax cuts and all but giving up on the remaining components of his jobs bill as he pivots to an
election-year strategy of attacking Congress. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said extending the payroll tax break
through next year, a fight that will consume Congress after lawmakers return to Washington in
January, is "the last must-do item of business on the president's congressional agenda ." "There are
certainly other things that the president would like to do," Mr. Earnest said, adding that Mr. Obama
will continue to prod Congress to pass some of his jobs proposals. "But in terms of essential, must-do
items, the payroll-tax-cut extension is the last one." Mr. Obama will also step up his use of his executive authority in the
New Year, Mr. Earnest said, by announcing at least several new economic initiatives each week. The president's central focus
after he returns to Washington next week from a vacation in Hawaii will be on the payroll-tax cut,
which has become a catalyst for his 2012 political message. The tax break for 160 million workers was set to expire at
the end of the year before Congress extended it in December for two months. Mr. Obama called for a year-long extension as part of the
$447 billion jobs bill he unveiled in September and spent the month before Christmas pressuring congressional Republicans to pass it.
Many conservative House Republicans opposed the extension on policy grounds, but the GOP leadership saw it as inevitable and tried to
use the opportunity to force the White House to swallow policy items favored by Republicans, such as the construction of the Keystone
XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Once the parties could not resolve differences over how to pay for the tax break, the
Senate agreed to the two-month extension, catching rank-and-file House members off guard and setting them up to be the obstacle to the
tax cut, a politically untenable position for a party that portrays itself as the champions of low taxes. Seeking to regain their footing,
congressional Republicans are adopting their own 2012 strategy. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia said Saturday in the weekly
Republican address that GOP lawmakers will push an ambitious economic agenda focused on a tax and regulation overhaul and energy
security. He made no mention of the payroll-tax cut. "As we enter into this New Year, many have predicted that Congress will be too
consumed with the fall elections to accomplish anything significant," Mr. Isakson said. "Americans cannot wait until after the November
election. They need us to do our job and do it right now to create an economic climate that makes it easier to put people back to work.
Republicans stand ready to do that." The White House believes the December payroll-tax-cut debate afforded
Mr. Obama, who initially proposed paying for the extension with a tax increase on millionaires, the
political upper hand and momentum heading into 2012. The president's aides are convinced Congress
will ultimately extend to the end of 2012 the current 4.2% payroll tax levied to fund Social Security,
rather than allowing it to return to 6.2%, because all sides have now made clear they support the idea,
leaving no room for a reversal. But the extension won't happen without a fight between the two parties,
and Mr. Obama will try to capitalize on the moment by deploying his now-familiar message of being a
champion of the middle class. Mr. Obama urged Congress on Saturday to "finish the job" on the
payroll tax break in his weekly radio and Internet address. "As I've said before, we are at a make-or-break
moment for the middle class," Mr. Obama said. "And in many ways, the actions we take in the months ahead will help
determine what kind of country we want to be, and what kind of world we want our children and grandchildren to grow up in."
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
6
File Title
Politics 1NC [2/4]
Plan spends political capital --- Congress opposed to space spending
Powell 2009
(Stewart M., Washington Bureau – Houston Chronicle, “Potential Uphill Battle for NASA”, Houston Chronicle, 9-13,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6615751.html)
NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious
than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs an infusion of
about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in a
fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to
finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. “The congressional agenda over the next
year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them,” said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the Center for American Progress.
Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to make
those trades. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land,
the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over
NASA, said wrangling the additional $3 billion a year would be “an enormous challenge — but one I am prepared to win.” Added
Olson, whose district includes Johnson Space Center: “NASA doesn't require bailout funds — it needs the promised level of investment that previous Congresses have
endorsed.” The 10-member panel of space experts led by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine suggested extending U.S. participation in the $100 billion
space station for five years, extending budgeting for the retiring shuttle fleet by six months, delaying plans for a 2020 return to the moon and extending the timeline
for the next generation of manned spacecraft by two years at least until 2017. But the experts warned in their 12-page preliminary report to Obama on Tuesday that
“meaningful human exploration” would be possible only under “a less constrained budget ramping (up) to approximately $3
billion per year” in additional spending by 2014. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the committee, forecast $27.1 billion in additional funds would be needed
over the next decade — a 27 percent increase over the $99.1 billion currently planned. Even before Obama publicly reacts to Augustine's report to map the next steps
in the nation's manned space exploration, members of Congress are scrambling. “The immediate challenge goes beyond money to just getting NASA on the radar
screen when everyone is focused on health care reform,” said a key congressional staffer involved in NASA issues. Finding support NASA supporters initially are
targeting the Democratic leadership of appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate with jurisdiction over NASA. Space advocates have an ally in Sen.
in the House, pro-NASA
lawmakers expect a fight with Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that cut next year's NASA spending
Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that handles space agency spending. But
nearly $500 million below what Obama requested. Lawmakers are looking for a House-Senate conference committee to restore the funds that Mollohan cut before the
Augustine panel completed its work. Aides to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chairman of a Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA, said they have already identified six
potential sources of additional NASA funding within the federal budget, including some of the $8 billion promised over the next decade to private energy firms to
research fossil fuels and deep drilling for oil and gas. Lawmakers also are exploring the possibility of redirecting some of the two-year, $787 billion economic
stimulus package from shovel-ready transportation construction projects and other federally subsidized programs into the NASA budget. The administration so far has
only paid out $160 billion of the total, according to Vice President Joe Biden. “A lot of stimulus money has not been spent,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio.
“We should redirect some of those stimulus funds to pay for enhancements to the NASA budget because I believe human space flight is so important.” Aerospace
executives and veteran space experts are hoping for reliable year-to-year funding. “These are challenging economic times, but this is not the moment to turn away
from leading a global space exploration effort,” said Dean Acosta, head of the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. President's influence Presidential
leadership will be essential to gaining an increase, emphasized John Logsdon, a space policy expert who served on the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation
Board. “The
president has to use some portion of his political capital to put forward an Obama space program.”
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
7
File Title
Politics 1NC [3/4]
Extending PTC for a full year is key to prevent double dip recession.
Stewart, 12/28 [Heather, The Guardian, “Extending Obama’s tax cuts should be new year’s
resolution for Republicans”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economicsblog/2011/dec/28/obama-tax-cuts-new-year-resolution?newsfeed=true]
Republicans caved in at the last minute last week and agreed to a two-month extension of the tax cut
package that had become the latest focus of toxic partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill. In signing up to the deal – under which a
bipartisan committee will now try to draft legislation extending the tax-cuts through 2012 – Republicans were thinking about their
electoral prospects, as well as their chances of a Christmas break. Fiscal prudence is all very well, but being dubbed the party that stood
between cash-strapped families and a tax-break is unlikely to be a winning formula in an election year. However, research from
the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations reveals that extending the tax cuts is not just a political
debating point, but one of the few factors preventing the US sliding into a double-dip downturn in the new
year. Personal consumption – spending, in other words – accounted for 91% of the 1.2% GDP growth
the US economy achieved in the year to September, as Washington cut back and exports were weak .
Using official figures, the CFR shows that less than half of that crucial increase in consumption resulted from rising incomes, with the
rest coming from what they call "unsustainable items". More than a third – 36% – came from reduced savings, as Americans dipped into
their rainy-day funds to cope with unemployment and lacklustre wage growth. And another 20% came from the payroll
tax. That shows that the emergency tax-cut package, which included a 2% cut in the payroll tax (similar
to national insurance contributions in Britain) was doing its job, helping to prevent the economy sliding into a
renewed recession in 2011. But when they were introduced a year ago, the cuts were meant to be a
short-term boost to consumption, helping to prop up the economy until the good times returned . Recent
data from the US has been relatively upbeat, including news that American firms created 120,000 jobs in November. But
unemployment remains well above normal, at 8.6%; the housing market is still in the doldrums; and
with America's trading partners in Asia and Europe heading for hard times in 2012, the economic
climate is about to get tougher. Reversing the tax cut in two months' time could reduce workers' take-home
pay at the worst possible time. Like the so-called "super-committee" that was meant to secure a cross-party agreement on crucial
public spending cuts and ended instead in a rancourous stand-off, the new committee meant to decide the future of the tax-cuts may fail;
if so, it won't just be the Republicans' reputation that suffers.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
8
File Title
Politics 1NC [4/4]
Double dip causes prolonged downturn and depression
Isidore, 11 [Chris, CNN Money, “Recession 2.0 would hurt worse”,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm]
The risk of double dip recession is rising. And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S. economy is to fall into another
downturn, they generally agree on one thing -- a new recession would be worse than the last and very difficult to
pull out of. "Going back into recession now would be scary, because we don't have the resources or
the will to respond, and our initial starting point is such a point of weakness," said Mark Zandi, chief
economist at Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It would likely feel like a depression."
Zandi said the recent sell-off in stocks have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25% only 10 days ago. Other
economists surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an average chance of a new
recession to be about 25%, up from a 15% chance only three months ago. Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have
joined Zandi in increasing their estimates in just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's
downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is another concern. "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession due to the negative
hit to wealth and confidence," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist for BMO Capital Markets. Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow
Jones industrial average Tuesday following the Federal Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock indexes have lost more than 11% of their
value over the last 12 trading days. Recovery at risk A plunge in stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession. The economy avoided
a recession after the stock market crash of 1987. "Stock price declines are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David
Berson, chief economist of BMI Group. But with the economy already so fragile, the shock of another stock
market drop and resulting loss of wealth could be the tipping point. "It really does matter where the
economy is when it gets hit by these shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a
prescription for a long, painful recession," he said. Most economists say they aren't worried that S&P's
downgrade makes recession more likely, although a few said any bad news at this point increases the
risk. "The downgrade has a psychological impact in terms of hurting consumer confidence," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist with
the National Association of Realtors. On shakier ground Another recession could be even worse than the last one for
a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great
Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of
any other downturn since the end of World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the
month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work
in the last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low. Various parts of the economy also have yet to
recover from the last recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home values continue to
lose ground and are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in
the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. There are nearly 900 banks on
the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great Recession took hold. 0:00
/ 2:53 Roubini: Double dip more likely But what has economists particularly worried is that the tools
generally used to try to jumpstart an economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this
time around. "The reason we didn't go into a depression three years ago is the policy response by
Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University. "We won't
see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try to
stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the
federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession would likely have virtually no policy
effort to counteract it
Extinction
Kerpen 8 (October 28, 2008 7:53 AM From Panic to Depression? The dangers of blaming free trade, low taxes,
and flexible labor markets for our current troubles. By Phil Kerpen, Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for
Prosperity.)
It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The
Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the
planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on
poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on
an even greater scale.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
9
File Title
2NC Impact Overview
PTC full-year extension is key to prevent a double dip that leads to a sustained economic
collapse because it’s the internal link to the main driver of GDP growth-consumer
spending - That’s Stewart.
That causes a prolonged downturn that causes a depression, resulting in massive nuclear
and CBW war that draws in everyone - That’s Kerpen.
We win on timeframe and magnitude-economic collapse happens soon without the
extension
Hill, 12/28 [Patrice, “Economists fear withdrawal symptoms if payroll-tax cut vanishes”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/economists-fear-withdrawal-symptomsif-payroll-tax/?page=1]
It was the tax cut that nobody noticed when Congress enacted it a year ago . Now the question is, can
anyone live without it? The $120 billion payroll-tax cut, which was extended for two months until March
just before Congress left town last week, turned out to be an addictive fix for consumers this year, providing an extra $20
to $30 in extra cash in every paycheck that - while nothing to write home about in any given week - provided a cumulative
boost to consumer spending over the course of the year. At first, surveys showed that most Americans hadn’t even
noticed that they received a tax cut increasing their take-home pay. For the early part of the year, the tax cut served primarily to offset
the fast-rising costs of food and fuel as gasoline prices approached record levels near $4 a gallon. But the added spending
power and support for consumers ended up paying off at a critical time around midyear, when the
economy seemed in danger of falling into a double-dip recession. As the year progressed, the tax cut helped fuel a
more convincing return to the shopping malls by consumers that is still providing a bit of oomph to the economy in the Christmas
season. “U.S. economy is accelerating,” thanks to the unleashing of a fresh wave of consumer demand this fall, said Alan James, an
analyst at Barclays Capital. “The extension of the payroll-tax cut is important to maintaining the momentum.” Black
Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, was the best shopping day in years, and the prime Christmas sales season from Dec. 1 to Dec. 24
clocked in with sales 4.7 percent higher than last year, research firm ShopperTrak reported Wednesday. The day after Christmas also
appears to have been one of the busiest shopping days of the season, the firm added. While the consumer mood brightened
considerably thanks in part to the tax cut, economists remain concerned that Congress extended it only
temporarily and did the same with emergency unemployment benefits. The two parties remain at loggerheads over how to pay for a
full-year extension that all sides say they want to enact early next year. “The consequences of not extending these
measures through the remainder of 2012 would be dramatic,” said Gregory Daco, an economist at IHS
Global Insight. Expiration of the tax cut would shave 1 percentage point or more off the economic
growth rate for the year, and growth likely would disappear altogether in the first quarter after it is
withdrawn, analysts estimate. While the tax cut remains in place for now, observers of Washington’s long-running political
impasse are not entirely confident that the parties will be able to overcome their entrenched differences in the next two months and
extend programs that have a cumulative cost of $200 billion. “The ongoing political feud could still turn into a breakdown of the
political apparatus, and a lapse in the payroll-tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits payments,” Mr. Daco said. While the
loss of the tax cut would affect the most people, an estimated 160 million households, the loss of
unemployment benefits would cause the most hardship for an estimated 4 million to 5 million
households that depend on the payments for such basic needs as food and housing, he said . “It would be
disastrous for families reliant on unemployment benefits” who have few other financial options, Mr. Daco said. Allowing the tax
cuts to lapse “would have a tangible negative impact on the economy” and cause “a major strain on
household incomes,” said Harm Bandholz, an economist at Unicredit Markets. Consumers also would experience a
blow to confidence from another failure of the political parties in Washington to agree on essential matters
affecting the economy, he said.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
10
File Title
**Uniqueness**
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
11
File Title
2NC PTC Will Pass [1/2]
PTC will pass now-That’s Lee-December debate over payroll gave Obama momentum
and both sides have come out in favor-Prefer our ev-It’s most conclusive and assumes
divisive December debatesPTC will pass-and it’s top of the agenda
Smith, 12/31 [Stephanie Z., ABC News, “Obama Maps Out ‘Warrior of Working Class’
Message”, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obama-maps-out-warrior-ofworking-class-message/]
The president will continue to claim the mantle for “warrior of the working class” in 2012 in stark contrast
to the public perception that Republicans in Congress are backing millionaires, not the middle class, a senior White House official tells
ABC News. And that message will be carried through President Obama’s reelection campaign next year. “ We’re going to be
doubling down on our commitment and our message in terms of fighting for the middle class, ” Deputy
Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters covering the president in Hawaii. After a heated battle between the White
House and House Republicans, the payroll tax cut was extended until the end of February — a battle
the president ultimately won albeit for just two months. It also delayed the president’s vacation here, but the White House
official noted that it gave the president and his senior advisers time to work through policy proposals
that they plan to roll out in the new year — one being to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of
2012. “The significance of that fight is that it gave the president an opportunity to establish his bona
fides on an issue that, at least in recent history, Democrats haven’t necessarily fared very well with,
which is the issue of taxes,” Earnest noted. And extending it through the end of 2012 is a “must-do item of
business” on the president’s Congressional agenda. “I think the president still has a strong hand on the
payroll tax,” observed Rick Klein, senior Washington editor for “World News with Diane Sawyer.” ”It’s going to be hard
not to extend it for a year, politically.” ABC New Political Director Amy Walter added: ”The Obama folks should
take some comfort in the fact that Obama’s numbers have improved in the wake of the payroll tax
fight. Republicans looked disorganized and petty, which helped Obama look more presidential .”
PTC will pass
Bolton, 1/2 [Alexander, The Hill, “McConnell, Bolton face tough job of smoothing tensions
when they return”, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/201953-mcconnell-and-boehner-facetough-job-of-smoothing-tensions-when-congress-returns]
The GOP strategist said it will be difficult for Republicans to win additional concessions from Obama
in exchange for extending the payroll tax holiday a full year because they showed in December that
they are not willing to let it expire. “Taking that hostage isn’t going to get you anything two months
from now. Democrats are going to take a much harder line. I don’t think Republicans are going to get
anything for it. At the end of the day they’re going to have to eat, ” the strategist said. The silver lining of the
December payroll tax meltdown is that conservative Republican freshmen in the House may have
learned to trust Boehner’s political judgment. They might be less likely to rebel, even if they believe themselves to be on
the correct side of a policy argument, if they trust their leaders’ judgment about the political fallout. “The problem is the Republican
House leadership wasn’t in sync with its caucus,” said one GOP strategist. A second strategist said: “The next time they
do this, they’ll be much more understanding of Boehner when he says what the politics are. They’re
freshmen, they haven’t dealt with the politics as much.”
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
12
File Title
2NC PTC Will Pass [2/2]
Will pass-two-month extension provided capital and momentum
NYT, 12/31 [“Obama to Turn Up Attacks on Congress in Campaign”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-to-focus-on-congress-and-economy-in2012-campaign.html?pagewanted=2&%20agewanted=1&_r=2]
After a year in which the White House often seemed a hostage to the Tea Party contingent in the
Republican-controlled House, the administration is savoring Mr. Obama’s victory in December in
obtaining a two-month extension to keep most workers’ Social Security payroll tax at 4.2 percent,
down from 6.2 percent. “The significance of that fight,” Mr. Earnest said, “is that it gave the president
the opportunity to establish his bona fides on an issue that, at least in recent history, Democrats
haven’t fared very well with, which is the issue of taxes.” He pointed to polls that he said showed that Mr.
Obama was now more trusted on taxes than Republicans were. Winning a full-year extension of the
payroll tax, Mr. Earnest said, will still be a top priority. He noted that House Republicans were now also arguing
that it should be extended for a year, after some initially opposed extending it at all. “There are
certainly other things the president would like to do ,” Mr. Earnest said, citing other provisions of the jobs bill. “But in
terms of essential, must-do items, the payroll tax cut extension is the last one.”
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
13
File Title
**Links**
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
14
File Title
Links Space – Tea Party
Tea Party hates the plan – spending and free market intrusion
Nelson 2011
[Steven, The Daily Caller, “Tea Party group launches into space policy debate”, 6/24, http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/24/tea-party-group-launches-into-space-policydebate/]
Some members of the Tea
Party movement have zeroed in on a multi-billion dollar area of government spending. This time, it isn’t health care or the
Party in Space (TPIS) unveiled its “TEA Party Space Platform.” The group, which is
affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots, hopes NASA will return “to its roots as [a research and development] agency instead of
serving as a slush fund for a few influential members of Congress,” TPIS President Andrew Gasser said in a Thursday press release. Just like a political
party’s platform, this agenda is made up of specific issues. Among the fourteen calls to action is for Congress to pass legislation to cap
liability for commercial human spaceflight. Another of the tenets calls for a “Zero-G means Zero-Tax” arrangement, which would establish
tax exemptions for business activities related to human spaceflight. Additionally, the group wants for Congress to allow NASA to cancel
all existing Shuttle, Ares and Space Launch System contracts in order to force the termination of an $11 billion
earmark included in the 2010 NASA Authorization Law and for NASA to “competitively bid the development of
human exploration transportation capabilities.”
public debt -– but outer space. On Thursday, TEA
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
15
File Title
Links Space – Public
Public hates the plan --- they’re strongly against space exploration
Rasmussen 2010
(Rasmussen Reports – National Polling, “59% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration”, 1-15,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration)
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the United States should cut back on space exploration given the current state of
the economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 31% disagree with cutting the space program, and 19% more are not sure. The
new findings mark a six-point increase in support - from 44% last July - for cutting back on space exploration. Still,
Americans are almost evenly
divided when asked if the space program should be funded by the government or by the private sector . Thirty-five percent
(35%) believe the government should pay for space research, while 38% think private interests should pick up the tab. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure which is
best. (Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. Sixty-four percent
(64%) of adults have at least a somewhat favorable view of NASA, including 18% with a very favorable opinion of the government’s chief space agency. Just 20%
that
marks a sizable drop in support for NASA from a survey last May. At that time, 81% had a favorable view of NASA, including 24% with
have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2008. But
a very favorable opinion. The May findings, however, were a 23-point rebound for the space agency from July 2007 when just 58% had a favorable opinion. But, at
that time, NASA was suffering some bad publicity, including reports about drunken astronauts. In the budget President Obama proposes in early February, NASA is
hoping for $22 billion for the coming fiscal year, up $3 billion over the current year. This funding, according to news reports, will keep the agency on track for
projects including landing on one of Mars’ moons in the next 15 years and further exploring the Earth’s moon. Women and Americans ages 18 to 29 are more strongly
in support of cutting back on space exploration than are men and older adults. Democrats are more likely to agree than are Republicans and adults not affiliated with
either party. Women also feel more strongly that the space program should be funded by the private sector. But unaffiliated adults and those in both political parties
are narrowly divided over whether the space program is a government or private business responsibility. Investors are evenly divided on the question, while noninvestors lean slightly more toward private sector financing. Only 27% of Americans believe the current goals of the space program should include sending someone
to Mars. Fifty percent (50%) oppose such a mission, with 24% undecided. The findings on this question are unchanged from last July. The feelings are virtually
identical about sending someone to the moon. Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea, but twice as many (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one
of the current goals of the space program.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
16
File Title
Links Space – Republicans
Republicans want to decrease space funding – 2011 appropriations prove debate insights partisanship
Klamper 2010
(Amy Klamper, Space News Staff WriterDate: 03 November 2010 After Elections, Critics of Obama's NASA Plan Likely to Take Over 2 Key Committees
http://www.space.com/9462-elections-critics-obama-nasa-plan-2-key-committees.html)
Although lawmakers are expected to reconvene for a lame-duck session Nov. 15, it remains unclear whether new spending legislation will be approved before a
stopgap measure intended to keep the government running into the current budget year expires Dec. 3. That stopgap measure, called a continuing resolution, funds the
with incoming Republican leaders threatening to dial back discretionary
spending across the federal government next year, the $19 billion Congress authorized for NASA in 2011 could be
in jeopardy. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is expected to become speaker of the House in January, voted against the
recently enacted NASA legislation and more broadly has pledged to roll back spending in an effort to reduce the
federal deficit. In a weekly Republican address Oct. 30, Boehner criticized spending under Democratic leadership and
outlined reforms in the governing agenda Republicans expect to implement in the 112th Congress. " We're ready to cut spending to pre-'stimulus,'
pre-bailout levels, saving taxpayers $100 billion almost immediately," Boehner said. "And we're ready to put in place strict
budget caps that limit spending from here on out, to ensure that Washington is no longer on this spending binge ."
federal government at 2010 levels. In the meantime,
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
17
File Title
Links Space – Spending
NASA funding unpopular
Timmer 2011
( John Timmer Science Editor et Observatory moderator John got a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell
Biology from the University of California, Berkeley, 4/25/11, “Bill introduced directing NASA to establish a moon base” accessed 5/31/11
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/bill-introduced-directing-nasa-to-establish-a-moon-base.ars)
Overall, the bill is roughly in keeping with Obama's priorities, which involve developing the ability to construct and fuel a long-distance
mission in orbit; those abilities could apply equally to sending construction materials to the Moon. It would also avoid one of the problems with the lack of an obvious
focus in Obama's plan, which could be viewed as "maybe an asteroid, some day." Even
assuming that the bill could clear the full House and
Senate (and survive an Obama veto), the impact may be much less than its supporters hope. As its text notes, a return to the
Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been there ." And,
more significantly, it clearly didn't ensure that the NASA budget was sufficient to actually accomplish that goal. Simply stating that NASA's budget
will be "consistent" with achieving it by 2020 leaves open a lot of room for different definitions of consistent, and
allows the current Congress to shift the burden of finding money onto future ones, which may not be inclined to do
so. Thus, on its own, the bill would accomplish nearly nothing and is sufficiently vague that it probably won't even be viewed as providing direction to NASA, at
least within NASA. And, given how contentious budget issues have been in the current Congress, any attempt to turn it into
something concrete would probably make it a non-starter.
Budget concerns means partisanship
CSM 2011
(By Pete Spotts, Staff writer / May 16, 2011 After the space shuttle, astronaut corps awaits a new mission NASA's once-iconic astronaut corps will shrink but still
play a vital role as the space shuttle era comes to an end. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0516/After-the-space-shuttle-astronaut-corps-awaits-a-newmission)
The current debates in Washington over the future of NASA's human-spaceflight enterprise and the increasingly
loud cries for deep budget cuts from deficit hawks in Congress have left NASA and the corps "without a clear
definition of what we should be doing," says Whitson. "We're an action-oriented group. We like to take something and pound the details out to make
it work. The times when we don't have a clear direction are the most difficult times. And it's an unclear time right now ."
NASA has been preparing for the end of the shuttle program and a downsized astronaut corps since January 2004,
nearly a year after the Columbia disaster, when the orbiter broke up on reentr y, killing its seven-member crew. At the time, President
George W. Bush unveiled his vision for space exploration. It called for terminating the shuttle program in 2010, an end
to US involvement in the ISS in 2015, and the development of two rockets, one of which could deliver a crew of
four to low-Earth orbit by 2014.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
18
File Title
Links Constellation – Spending
Even if congress wants it, they can’t have it- Constellation to unpopular with the public
Zimbio 2010
(Zimbio, 6/26/10, “Tiny hope for Constellation”, http://www.zimbio.com/NASA/articles/r0mhzciaawM/Tiny+hope+for+Constellation, SH)
Houston Congressman Culberson, other, still trying to save Constellation. A Houston Congressman. John Culberson, warns that NASA’s manned flight
program will be going on “indefinite hiatus” if the moon/Mars program, Constellation, is canceled–as the president wants. Congress, which has doubts about the new
plan for research and (eventual) return to manned flight, is trying to save the current program. I don’t believe Congress can pull lthis off, although I applaud the effort.
In any case, with our astronauts spending the last few decades in earth orbit, the public is bored with it. There’s
no popular groundswell for manned
spaceflight. Because of this, even assuming NASA truly expects to send astronauts to an asteroid, nobody’s going to
provide the money.
Moon funding contentious in congress
Powell 2010
(Stewart M. Powell, NYT, Monday, October 11, 201 Obama signs new space law
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/10/obama_signs_new_space_law.html)
The Obama administration faces uncertainty over whether Congress will provide NASA the full $19 billion for the
current fiscal year called for in the law signed by Obama on Monday. Congress is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill
after the Nov. 2 mid-term congressional elections to approve spending for federal agencies through next Sept. 30.
Obama and NASA policy makers in the House and Senate have approved the policy framework contained in the legislation signed by Obama but it remains up
to congressional appropriators in November to actually vote the money. "The 600 pound gorilla here is the U.S.
economy and the need for fiscal responsibility across all the agencie s," explained former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the White
House panel that concluded NASA's Bush-era back-to-the-moon Constellation program was behind schedule, over budget
and unachievable without $3 billion more a year. "The realities are very clear."
Travel to moon requires horse trading – mars exploration proves
Powell 2010
( House OKs new course for manned spaceflight With Obama's signature, moon missions will give way to Mars By STEWART M. POWELL WASHINGTON
BUREAU Sept. 29, 2010 Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7224649.html#ixzz1NyXU2SWB )
The United States on Wednesday officially abandoned nearly 50 years of pursuing manned moon missions — the galvanizing
symbol of space exploration - to lay down a new roadmap calling for NASA to catapult astronauts to distant asteroids and
Mars. The course correction came in a 304-118 House vote at 10:35 p.m. Wednesday adopting a 108-page White House-Senate compromise
that officially scrapped the last vestiges of Bush-era plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. The deal authorized $1.3 billion over the next
three years for commercial spacecraft companies to begin ferrying cargo and astronauts to the orbiting space station,
freeing NASA to pour billions of dollars into developing heavy lift rockets and crew capsules suitable for deep
space exploration. The compromise, in the making for months, was crafted by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Dallas, and Bill Nelson, DFla., and now heads to President Barack Obama's desk for signature into law. Read more:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7224649.html#ixzz1NyXBAd52
Constellation program unpopular with Congress
Moskowitz 2011
[Clara Moskowitz, Clara has a bachelor's degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University
of California, Santa Cruz. She writes for both SPACE.com and LiveScience, NASA Stuck in Limbo as New Congress Takes Over, 1/7/11, 6/25/11, AR]
Lawmakers in October passed – and President Obama
signed – a NASA authorization bill that gave America's space agency the
go-ahead to abandon its previous moon-oriented human spaceflight program and take aim at new targets: visiting an asteroid and
Mars. That bill called for NASA to receive $19 billion in 2011 – a boost from the 2010 NASA budget of $18.3 billion. But that promised funding was not
appropriated, since the outgoing lawmakers, along with the president, could not agree on a federal budget. Instead they enacted a continuing resolution – a kind of
placeholder law until a full budget can be agreed upon – that froze the federal government, including NASA, at 2010 spending levels through March 4. "Clearly the
big issue with NASA in this Congress is money," said Henry Hertzfeld, a professor of space policy and international affairs at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C. "The
details of the budget really hadn't been fully resolved with the old Congress, which left us with a
continuing resolution and nothing more. The question is what happens when they begin to start debating NASA ."
Based on claims by new House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), who said his party will aim to cut non-military discretionary
spending back to 2008 levels, the space agency could be in for some serious budget cutbacks . "There's going to be a lot of hard
negotiations," said space policy expert Roger Handberg, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida. " NASA's problem is it's not a priority.
When they start slicing and dicing, NASA may be the one that gets to ‘contribute to the cause.’ I think it could be a
disaster for the government part of the program."
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
19
File Title
Links Moon Mining – Capital
Moon mining unpopular – expensive and fusion isn’t proven
Whittington 2011
[Mark, author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The
Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times and The Weekly, “Harrison Schmitt's Plan to Solve the Energy Problem by Mining the Moon”,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110504/us_ac/8419965_harrison_schmitts_plan_to_solve_the_energy_problem_by_mining_the_moon]
A return to the moon was ruled out over a year ago by President Barack Obama when he canceled the Constellation
space exploration program. However, there has recently been a resurgence in interest in sending astronauts back to
the moon, especially in the Congress. Schmitt's scheme has the virtue of connecting the desire to go back to the
Moon with solving the long term energy needs of planet Earth. While there are abundant fossil fuels, the supply is
finite and in any case using oil and coal causes various forms of pollution. Solar and wind have thus far proven
inadequate as a means of replacing fossil fuels. Helium 3 fueled hydrogen provides a potential of providing clean,
virtually limitless energy for the foreseeable future. Of course, there are obstacles in the path of a helium 3 fusion future, both technical and
political. Developing a reactor that will create more energy than it consumes to create a helium 3 fusion reaction will be daunting. Then there are the problems of
The political problem is almost as
acute. The Fusion Technology Institute is funded with private money, as the Energy Department thinks that space
based helium 3 is a NASA problem and NASA thinks fusion energy is an Energy Department problem. It will take a
leader of vision to sort out the turf battles and get Schmitt's plan rolling.
developing of lunar mining techniques and a cost effective transportation infrastructure between Earth and the moon.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
20
File Title
Links Moon Mining – Spending
Current technology for colonization makes it unpopular
Roland and Brownback 2004
[Dr. K. Roland, and SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK , NASA Ames Research Center, U.S. Senator, April 2, 2004, U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
HOLDS HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF NASA, 6/25/11 JB]
BROWNBACK: Dr. Roland, give me your perspective on why we should or shouldn't go back to the moon or to Mars? ROLAND: If
the moon were paved
in diamonds, it'd cost more to go get them than they're worth here on Earth. It's one of the reasons we haven't gone
back to the moon is we discovered there is nothing there worth going back for . It is proved that you could do some science fair and
you could do some experiments, but nothing where the payoff is anywhere near the cost. And I think the same thing is true within Mars. This notion that humans in C2 do better research than machines I think is simply not true. And I don't know of any particular activity that a human is going to do on Mars that a machine can't do.
Remember, our machines are controlled from earth. We send them out and we tell them what to do. We don't have to pre-program. We direct them around. We have
the get samples. 25 years ago, NASA could have sent an automated probe to Mars to take soil samples and bring it back. We could have it down in the Air and Space
Museum now. And we haven't done those automated missions that we ought to be doing. I have no doubt that someday, humans will go to Mars. And we'll probably
What we have
now is the technology that allows us to do an enormous amount of scientific exploration. And that's being cut off
while we float astronauts around in near earth orbit. It's just an imbalance of our priorities. I agree that the space
program has to have some balance of priorities, but throughout NASA's history, it's been spending two- thirds of its
money on manned space flight. And we get very little payoff from that.
go back to the moon. And we'll probably colonize the moon or Mars or some other place in space, but not with the technology that we have now.
Helium 3 mining is unpopular: is not a budgetary priority
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal ’95
Eric M. Jones , 1995, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Date of
Access 6/25/11, JK)
The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the
beginning. The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public
funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we
have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts
and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to
If, for example, people began to think that there was a real
possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might well become available. The space
community talks hopefully about asteroid mining, about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3 mining on the Moon but,
unfortunately, they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and
the potential payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money.
change, of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards.
Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same
time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great
importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them,
we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
21
File Title
Links SPS – Political Capital
Pushing SPS would cost Obama political capital
David 2008
[Leonard, Pentagon, May 15, 2008, Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=69, 6/23/11 JB]
Overall, pushing
forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing
solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of
science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar
power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the
Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a
way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of
situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for
the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the
create a new agency ... who knows? It's
scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could
going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
22
File Title
Links SPS – Public
Public opposes SPS – they’re scared about the health effects
Linda
Shiner, Air and Space Magazine, 7-1-2008, “Where The Sun Does Shine,” http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html
Perhaps the
biggest hurdle facing space solar power is public concern about how low-level microwave beams will
affect animals and humans. Never mind that the fear remains unfounded . Because of the widespread use of microwaves for
communication, the Federal Communications Commission has established a safety standard for human exposure. In all proposed space power systems, the
expected power density at the edges of the receiving antenna, where people are most likely to be affected, meets the standard. But explaining
this to the
public, which hears “microwave” and thinks “oven,” might require a large and costly education campaign. Another worry, that
microwave beams could scramble a passing airliner’s avionics or harm passengers, could be addressed by restricting the airspace around the beams, just as the
Federal Aviation Administration restricts the airspace over nuclear power plants.
the political struggles of the nuclear power industry.
Space power advocates may find it instructive to study
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
23
File Title
Links SPS – Republicans
Solar power is unpopular with republicans – growing partisanship
Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (“Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated”, June 14, http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html)
WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen. John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar
power lobbying campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of
"personally alienating" him and other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the
national membership of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later gave it to reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a
strategy that included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It
is rare to have
such overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar industry had it and your
association's leadership squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening since last
year as Congress tries but fails to extend investment and production tax credits for solar , wind, geothermal and other
renewable sources that expire this year. Nevada solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing
the tax credits along with other expiring tax breaks. Ensign said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the
oil and gas industry and other business interests. He argued the trade-off would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an
alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that called for new renewable energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 88-8, but is stuck in the
House. On Tuesday, the latest effort to move a tax bill was blocked by Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week.
In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada or continuing a
veto threat that protects the off-shore tax havens of billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying plan targeting
Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard
of Colorado. "Following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this
opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it." Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign
but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax provisions. If they expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
24
File Title
Links SPS – Alternative Energy
Building SSP would be a massive political battle and anger fossil fuel lobbies
Darel
Preble, President of Space Solar Power Institute, 12-15-2006, “Introduction,” http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf
Changing our nation and our world’s baseload energy generation sources to introduce SSP is a massive battle. The current oil, coal,
and gas energy providers, nuclear as well, are not eager to see their baseload investments face competition from
SSP, which has zero fuel costs and zero emissions and a billion years of steady supply projected. This is why SSP has been unfunded since it
was invented in 1968. Carter pushed through the SSP reference study in 1979-1980, but space transportation costs were far too high, and they were forced
to plan to use astronauts to bolt it together. This is too dangerous for astronauts outside the protection of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (The Space Station is
inside the Van Allen Belts) People are also too expensive to use for SSP construction. Telerobotics, the real way to assemble SSP, did not exist in 1979. Now it is
used in heart surgery every day worldwide and for a thousand other uses. (The
fossil fuel industry has battled environmentalists every
inch during our struggle to understand climate change effects. That is their right. Perhaps half the studies are wrong. But half are right.) Most crucially, space
transportation costs have stayed too high because there is no market large enough to support a Reusable Launch Vehicle fleet. SSP IS just such a massive market.
Robert Zubrin mentions this battle and perspective in “Entering Space”, page 51. He quit space transportation and decided to work on Mars, which has no
possibility of commercialization this century. This is detailed in the Space Transportation chapter on the SSPW website also. You can’t make an omelet without
breaking a few eggs.
Fossil fuel lobbies oppose SPS
Glaser
2008
Peter
, PhD, inventor of SPS idea, Spring
, “An Energy Pioneer,” Ad Astra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
No, because people can still get gas for their cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science and government know what is coming, but the average man on the
street will not care unless it impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. The basic approach is unchanged from my initial concept. We could have built this
system 30 years ago. The technology just keeps getting better. The design
and implementation is a small problem compared to the
much larger obstacle of getting people to understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide cheap and
limitless power for the entire planet, yet instead of trying to find a way to make it work, most people shrug it off as being too
expensive or too difficult. Of course existing energy providers will fight, too. It only makes sense that coal and oil
lobbies will continue to find plenty of reasons for our representatives in Congress to reject limitless energy from
the sun.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
25
File Title
Links SPS – Spending
SPS is very controversial – pragmatics and economics
URSI, 2008, International Union of Radio Science, “White Paper,” http://www.ursi.org/WP/WP-SPS%20final.htm
There are SPS-related issues that are
highly controversial. Although several space agencies have pursued SPS studies and research (see the next
critical papers have been published that concluded that an SPS is impractical and will never go into
operation (e.g., [2]). A more pro-SPS reply to this criticism [3] was based on the economic issues raised in [2]. Among the controversial issues
is the question of the space engineering and technology that are necessary for the launch, and the assembly and the maintenance of an SPS
system, all of which to a great extent are not yet possible. Other heavily debated issues are related to economic
justifications (in comparison with other power sources), are related to the question of whether an SPS can provide a base-load “clean” power system on a
global scale, are related to military applications, and are related to public acceptance. All of these issues are beyond URSI’s scientific domain and will
section), very
therefore not be discussed in this white paper. Social issues of an SPS may perhaps be addressed by the International Council for Science (ICSU).
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
26
File Title
Links SPS – A2 DOD Supports
DOD won’t fight for SPS
Day 2008
(Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, “Knights in Shining Armor”, The Space Review, 6-9,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)
If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for
space solar power is abysmal.
The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even
relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly
change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the
immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly
“falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor the Department Of Energy wants responsibility .
If the military takes on the SSP challenge,
the mission will finally have a home. But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have
little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have
come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many
cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major
problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns,
the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and Military space has a bad reputation in congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new
program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an
impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is
nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim
that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an
organization that has no clout.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
27
File Title
Links SPS – A2 Lobbies
The link only goes one way – no lobbies support the plan
Rouge 2007
Joseph D., Acting director of National Security Space Office, 10-9, “Space-Based Solar Power,” http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development over the past 30 years has
made little progress because it “falls between the
cracks” of currently‐defined responsibilities of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US
Government. The current bureaucratic lanes are drawn in such a way to exclude the likelihood of SBSP development.
NASA’s charter and focus is clearly on robotic and human exploration to execute - 25 - the Moon‐Mars Vision for Space
Exploration, and is cognizant that it is not America’s Department of Energy (DOE). DOE rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to
SBSP all lie in spacefaring activities such as space access, and space‐to‐Earth power‐beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would
make it dependent upon a space‐capable agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this
mission, and no dedicated Space Development Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary development expertise in‐house,
and clearly has a responsibility to look to the long term security of the United States, but it is also not the country’s Department of Energy, and must focus itself
on war prevention and warfighting concerns. A
similar problem exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small
not have a developed business model or speak in a
launch markets with the government as a primary customer and advocate, and do
common language with the energy companies. The energy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the
aerospace sector. One requires a demonstrated market, while the other requires a demonstrated technical capability. Without a trusted agent to mediate the
collaboration and serve as an advocate for supportive policy, progress is likely to be slow.
Despite minor interest, the plan is unpopular – no advocates for SPS
[Frank, Jr, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, 8-9, “Space solar power,” ln]
Economically viable technology for space solar power exists today and could be developed in fairly short order
if only it could find advocates in
Congress and the federal bureaucracy, some experts say.
Earth's climate, the world economy and U.S. energy security could benefit from putting
photovoltaic cells or other solar-energy converters into space and beaming the carbon-free renewable power they produce to the surface as microwaves or lasers,
two experts in the field told a Washington roundtable sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute Aug. 8. But unlike nuclear fusion - the only other untapped
energy source with the potential to meet the projected energy needs of human civilization - space solar power (SSP)
has "fallen through the
cracks," according to John C. Mankins, who led NASA's "Fresh Look" SSP study in 1995-2001 and is now chief operating officer of Managed Energy
Technologies LLC. Early days Mankins and Martin Hoffert, an emeritus physics professor at New York University who was chair of the Department of Applied
Science there, traced the SSP concept from its early days in the late 1970s, when a reference design developed by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy
would have cost $100 billion to generate the first watt of electricity and pushed the state of the art in aerospace and electrical engineering to the limits and
beyond. Since then, advances in photovoltaic cell efficiencies, solid-state electronics, robotics and other technologies have drastically cut startup costs, to the
point that a profitable SSP system could be operating in the 2020s without a huge up-front government expenditure, Mankins and Hoffert say. But the
problem of gaining the necessary backing remains. Both experts said the concept enjoys "uncoordinated" support on
Capitol Hill, with individual members of Congress intrigued by the idea but without the broad support it would
need to get under way. Within the federal agencies with potential SSP roles, the Energy Department "culture" isn't conducive to large aerospace
projects, Hoffert said, while NASA killed the SSP research effort Mankins was heading because "we don't do energy at NASA." "Unless you have a
champion within a government agency who can push something, which certainly fusion, for example, has, it's not going to
happen," Hoffert said.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
28
File Title
**Internal Links**
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
29
File Title
2NC PTC Key to Econ [1/2]
PTC is key to consumer spending-that’s key to the economy
Hill, 12/28 [Patrice, “Economists fear withdrawal symptoms if payroll-tax cut vanishes”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/economists-fear-withdrawal-symptomsif-payroll-tax/?page=1]
A principal reason many economists are concerned about the tax cut expiring is the slow growth this
year of wages, which normally fuel consumer spending. At less than 2 percent, wage growth did not
keep up with the 3.5 percent inflation rate in the past year, so typical workers who rely almost
exclusively on wages for income would have lost considerable purchasing power without the tax cut .
The Council on Foreign Relations estimates that consumer spending fueled 91 percent of economic growth this year, but less than half of
that spending was driven by the usual source - increased incomes. About a third of the spending was paid for by
consumers dipping into their savings, and about a fifth was driven by the payroll-tax cut, the group
estimated. “U.S. consumers are maintaining surprisingly brisk personal consumption and retail
spending despite low real wage growth,” said iShares Global Chief Investment Strategist Russ Koesterich. “While
consumers can maintain spending by reducing saving for a while longer, it is not sustainable over the long term.” With wages growing
at the slowest rate since February 2004, Americans also have become heavily dependent on government transfer programs such as Social
Security and unemployment benefits for their income, he said, including the benefits for the long-term unemployed that Congress
coupled with the temporary tax-cut extension. “Such transfer payments have accounted for approximately 60 percent of all income
growth over the past 45 months and now constitute 20 percent of disposable income,” Mr. Koesterich said. “ Any cutbacks in
transfer payments could have a significant and immediate impact on consumers’ ability to sustain
their relatively brisk spending.”
Avoids double dip, Obama pushing
Lisa Mascaro and Christi Parsons, “Senate Blocks Obama Jobs Plan,” LOS ANGELES TIMES, 10—12—
11, LN.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the architect of the Democratic message operation in the Senate, was to argue at a Washington
forum Wednesday that the proposals are desperately needed to help the country avoid a double-dip recession.
The payroll tax break would provide workers with an average of $1,500 annually. An existing payroll tax reduction, which is
worth about an average of $1,000 a year, is set to expire in December. Obama has proposed extending and increasing that tax
break for 2012. "We are struggling now to avoid a recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moodys.com, who has
estimated Obama's jobs package would shave a percentage point off the unemployment rate. " If we allow that to expire ... we
face a significant risk of going back into recession." Other elements of Obama's measure are expected to come before
the Senate, including ones that would provide $35 billion to states to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters and first responders and $25
billion for school modernization. Schumer is preparing legislation that would combine Obama's proposal for a $10-billion infrastructure
bank to spur road and highway improvements with a GOP-backed proposal for a tax break for companies that repatriate overseas profits.
He hopes the matchup would generate bipartisan support. Advisors to the president argue that Americans are rallying around his call to
pass the job-creation plan. The more he talks about it, they say, the more support swells. In a memo to campaign staff Tuesday, Obama
strategist David Axelrod said "support has grown by nearly 10%" over the last three weeks as the president has barnstormed for the bill.
When Obama travels to Michigan on Friday, he will slightly adjust his message. Rather than urge crowds to tell Congress to "pass this
bill," as he has done for the last month, he will talk about passing it piece by piece, according to one senior administration
official who expects that the
payroll tax is likely to be the first provision to come before Congress .
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
30
File Title
2NC PTC Key to Econ [2/2]
Payroll tax cuts are key to the economy
Chris Isidore, CNN Money, 9/9/11, “Jobs plan may create 1 million jobs – economists”,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/news/economy/obama_jobs_plan_impact/, umn-rks
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists gave generally positive reviews to President Obama's jobs plan Friday, with
some estimating that at least 1 million jobs could be added in the next year if Congress passes the package. The
payroll tax holiday for workers and small businesses was cited specifically for having a relatively good
"bang for the buck." And that part of the plan may have the most bipartisan support. "This additional spending
capacity in the hands of consumers should continue to foster improvements in aggregate domestic
demand. And ultimately, it is demand and demand alone that will lead to more business hiring," said
Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial Services. Price estimates the increased payroll tax holiday for
workers by itself is likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs, and that the new break on payroll
taxes for employers could add an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs. He added that gross domestic
product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, could get a 1.5 percentage point boost
as well. Macroeconomic Advisors, a St. Louis research firm, estimates that payrolls would grow by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and
another 800,000 by the end of 2013, if the package passed as proposed. It is looking for a 1.3% rise in GDP. Joel Prakken, chairman of
Macroeconomic Advisors, said even if the impact to the economy is short lived, the jobs plan should be passed. "Given the
elevated risk of recession the U.S. faces today, additional near-term stimulus reduces that risk," said
Prakken. "Given the deleterious effects of long-term unemployment on an individual's skills and long-term employment prospects,
speeding a return to employment is both individually and socially beneficial ." Mark Zandi, chief economist for
Moody's Analytics, is even more bullish, forecasting a 1.9 million job boost and a 2% lift for GDP if the package is passed as proposed.
Zandi said while pushing more money into the economy is the key, passing the jobs package could also
provide a much needed boost of confidence at a time when the economy teeters on the edge of a new
recession due to so much uncertainty. "Investors, consumers and businesses appear shell-shocked by recent
events," he said. "Confidence normally reflects economic conditions; it does not shape them. Yet at times,
particularly during economic turning points, cause and effect can shift." "Sentiment can be so harmed that
businesses, consumers and investors freeze up, turning a gloomy outlook into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is one of those times," he added.
Failure to extend the tax cut guts economy
Patrick Temple-West, “Payroll Tax Cut Needed to Avoid Recession: Zandi,” REUTERS, 10—6—11,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-usa-tax-payroll-idUSTRE7955SU20111006
(Reuters) - Failure to extend a payroll tax holiday into 2012 could trigger another recession, noted U.S.
economist Mark Zandi said on Thursday, as Democrats called the extension a top priority needing quick action. Expiration at yearend of the tax holiday, emergency unemployment benefits and other stimulus efforts could shave up to 1.7 percentage points from gross
domestic product in 2012, said Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "The economy is struggling to avoid another recession,"
Zandi said at a congressional roundtable on tax incentives and the economy. He called the situation "a dramatic reversal from the
beginning of the year." Without the tax holiday extension, he said, "We will be back in a recession." Under the tax
holiday, the payroll tax -- which funds the Social Security retirement system -- was reduced to 4.2 percent for employees at the
beginning of 2011. The rate is due to revert to 6.2 percent at the end of this year. President Barack Obama's jobs package introduced last
month would extend and expand the employee payroll tax holiday, dropping the rate further to 3.1 percent for 2012. The rate for
employers, which has remained at 6.2 percent this year, would fall to 3.1 percent on the first $5 million in payroll. Obama's plan also
would exempt businesses from payroll taxes if they increase their payrolls by $50 million from the previous year. Businesses can add
new workers or raise salaries for their existing employees. The extension would cost $245 billion and is the largest spending part of the
president's jobs bill, according to the Congressional Research Service. For small businesses, the holiday extension will
"encourage real hiring," said Todd McCracken, president of the National Small Business Association. He said ultimately
Congress needs to pass a long-term deficit reduction and tax reform package. One key attribute of the payroll holiday is that it "is
incredibly straight-forward" and helps businesses without complicated direct-assistance tax credits, Zandi said. Additional spending for
emergency unemployment insurance will not have significant stimulative effect, Zandi said. Democratic Senator Robert Casey,
chairman of the Senate Joint Economic Committee, which held the roundtable, emphasized urgency in implementing the payroll tax
holiday. "If (Zandi) is right -- that we are too close to another dip -- then we need to act soon," Casey told
Reuters.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
31
File Title
Political Capital Key
Capital key and its critical to the economy
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, “Don’t Expect Miracles on Job Growth,” 9—8—11,
http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-08/news/30130709_1_jobs-plan-american-economy-rare-tax
The fundamental problem in the American economy is simple: With so many people unemployed and underemployed some 24 million - there is not enough demand for what the U.S. economy can produce. The solution is to pump more
money into the economy to get it going, just as if priming a pump to get water flowing again. Republicans and the president
should be able to find common ground on some significant steps toward that end. Extending or even expanding this year's payroll
tax cut would put more than $100 billion into the hands of people who will actually spend it , instead of
merely padding the investment accounts of wealthy taxpayers. Paying for roads, bridges, schools and other construction projects is the
kind of investment for which long-term borrowing is justified, because it produces long-term benefits, as well as creating short-term
jobs. Sending more aid to state and local governments would help keep their taxes down while maintaining existing jobs and vital public
services. Yet Republicans say that job-creating efforts along those lines would have to be offset by cuts elsewhere. That would just shift
money around, totally negating any net benefit to the economy as a whole. It's true, the country would have to pay for a lot of the new
recovery efforts with borrowed money. Much of the new borrowing, though, will come from cash that would otherwise stay idle or go
elsewhere. U.S. companies are sitting on $2 trillion of idle money, and federal borrowing helps recycle dollars that were spent on our
gaping trade deficit with China. Given Republican opposition ,
Obama will probably be forced to use all his political
capital just to take steps that should be no-brainers: extending the payroll tax cut and continuing
unemployment insurance. Republicans have questioned the payroll tax cut - a rare tax cut they don't automatically embrace professing concern for keeping Social Security financially sound. It's an ironic argument, coming from a party that made a major effort
to privatize Social Security.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
32
File Title
A2 Winners Win
Can’t get a win – resources are more important than popularity
Boulie ‘11
[Jamelle Bouie, BA, Political & Social Thought, Writing Fellow of The American Prospect,” Political Capital”, 5/5/11, 6/24/11]
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 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.
Political capital is drained long before it is renewed
Lashof 2010 (Dan Lashof “Lessons from Senate climate fail” 28 JUL 2010 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-28-lessons-from-senate-climate-fail/)
Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resource Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama
administration made early on was to move healthcare reform before energy and climate legislation . I'm sure this seemed like a
good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was popular, was seen as an issue that the public cared about on a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats
from all regions. White
House officials and Congressional leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that
success breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would renew Obama's political capital, some of which had to be spent early on to push
the economic stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was eventually enacted, but only after an
exhausting battle that eroded public support, drained political capital, and created the Tea Party movement.
Public support for healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the forecasted
Armageddon is not happening. But this is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obama's political capital in time to help push
climate legislation across the finish line.
Political capital finite.
Feehery 2009 (July 21, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/)
A president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever get (barring a war or some other calamity that brings the
country together), which is why most presidents try to pass as much as possible as early as possible in their
administrations. The most famous example of that was Franklin Roosevelt's Hundred Days. But there are other examples. Ronald Reagan moved his agenda
very early in his administration, George Bush passed his tax proposals and the No Child Left Behind law very early in his White House. They understood the principle
that it is important to strike while the iron is hot. President Bush
famously misunderstood this principle when he said that he was
going to use the "political capital" gained in his re-election to pass Social Security reform. What he failed to
understand was that as soon as he won re-election, he was a lame duck in the eyes of the Congress, and he had no
political capital. President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does. But each day he is in office, his political
capital reserve is declining. And each time he goes to the well to pass things like "cap and trade" makes it more
difficult for him to pass his more important priorities like health care.
Here’s our political theory card – winners-lose.
Andres et al, '2k (Dutko Group, Griffin -- Griffin, Johnson, Dover and Stewart, and Thurber -- American University, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30:3)
Designing a legislative road map to success would be much less daunting if powerful presidents only had to build
winning coalitions. Unfortunately, most presidential actions cause reactions in peculiar places, in the world of trade-offs.
Winning in one arena may cause a major loss in another. Presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, faced divided party government
conditions during most—or in the case of Bush, throughout—their administrations. Each could have offered legislation aimed at the median legislators’ policy
position and bargained or offered other inducements to win a simple majority. Yet, that model was unrealistic because of the trade-offs facing both presidents. The
most obvious example of this is the trade-off between forging majority coalitions and party building and winning elections. This was a constant struggle for President
Bush and his team. Throughout his administration, legislation such as the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Savings and Loan Recapitalization Act, and “fast-track”
trade legislation required bipartisan support from Democratic Party committee chairs and rank-and-file members to generate majority support for his policies. Bush’s
own party members often met discussions with the Democratic Party leadership with apprehension and suspicion. The White House’s task during these exercises was
to balance the needs of the president’s party members for consultation and attention with the demands of the majority to compromise and move legislation forward.
the need to build and promote his
own party’s particular policies and preferences were limiting factors. President Clinton faced similar trade-offs during the
last six years of his administration, confronting a Republican majority in Congress. Trade-off problems for a president are not isolated to his
own party, however. The trade-off issue faced the Bush administration when he advocated legislation that was more ideologically conservative and attempted to
Although President Bush could have negotiated with Democratic Party members in furthering his legislative agenda,
build coalitions with the more moderate Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. The White House targeted many U.S. House districts represented by
conservative Democrats as the best places to pick up additional seats. On several occasions during the height of a White House lobbying push on legislation,
conservative Democrats routinely noted to presidential aides as represented in the following quote from one House member: I’ll consider voting with you on this bill,
but you need to talk to (an administration political representative) and tell him that he can’t come down to my district and campaign against me this weekend. You
guys have got to understand that you can’t ask me for my vote today and then try to beat my brains in politically tomorrow.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
33
File Title
A2 No Spillover [1/2]
Obama thinks our link is true even if it is false.
O'Neill 2009
(President -- O'Neill Associates, http://www.mytwocensus.com/tag/michael-j-oneil/)
I think this says something very revealing, but far more about the Obama administration than about Bob Groves. I have no doubt whatsoever what Bob’s private
counsel would be if asked about whether applying estimation principles to the Census would increase its accuracy. Indeed, his scientific judgment on this matter is
new position mirrors the Obama administration’s approach to
dealing with many controversial matters. There is a pattern: President Obama does not want the political distraction of
Republicans screaming that the Democrats have “fixed” the Census to produce a partisan result. It would not matter that as a
already a matter of public record. But what is interesting here is how this
matter of scientific certainty, such claims would be wrong; they could score political points in making the charge. (This is the type of technical issue that is difficult to
explain to a statistically lay audience; many intelligent people simply won’t understand it.) Obama looks willing to forgo the congressional seats, perhaps a dozen or
so, Democrats would gain in order to avoid this political distraction and pursue higher priorities. He has bigger fish to fry. This
strategic retreat resembles
the back-burnering of issues such as gun control and gays in the military. Each has been delayed out of a fear that it
could be divisive and derail his core agenda, especially the economy and health care reform. To pursue key objectives, he has been
willing to delay action on other issues that could distract or dilute his mandate . While he has pursued many
initiatives, he has carefully avoided those with the explosive potential to blow up the broader
agenda . And an attempt to use estimation for reapportionment has that potential. While the scientific merits are indisputable,
getting the public to understand such arcane statistical principles is a lost cause. The Obama administration has concluded that it is simply
not worth the political capital to try.
Political capital key to agenda and spills-over – 107th Congress proves.
Lee 2005
The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna College – Presented at the Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference [Andrew,
“Invest or Spend?:Political capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” http://as.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf]
The idea of investing political capital also supports the notion that the chief executive specializes in foreign and
defense policy. The president may increase his domestic capital by cooperating on domestic legislation and then
spend it implementing foreign policies. In executing foreign policy, the president will not issue SAPs on his own foreign policy. For example, if the
president signs a treaty, Congress may or may not ratify it, but there is no opportunity for veto. Therefore, the president’s use of foreign policy is a spend maneuver,
whereas his domestic policy is an invest maneuver. The
107th Congress, during which the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began,
supports this theory. President Bush may have spent his political capital towards executing those wars and attempted to
invest his capital by cooperating on domestic legislation.
Issues are zero-sum -- Press ensures it.
Fitts 1996
(Law Prof -- Penn, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827)
While the president's singularity may give him the formal ability to exercise agenda control, which public choice scholars see as an advantage
of presidential power, his visibility and the influence of the media may also make it more difficult for him to exercise it.
When public scrutiny is brought to bear on the White House, surrounding such issues as gays in the military or affirmative action, the president must often take a
position and act. 128 This can deprive him of the ability to choose when or whether to address issues. Finally, the unitary president may be less able to rely on
preexisting congressional or agency processes to resolve disputes. At least in theory, true unitariness means that he has the authority to reverse the decisions or nondecisions of others - the buck stops [*866] with the president. 129 In this environment, "no politician can endure opposition from a wide range of opponents in
numerous contests without alienating a significant proportion of voters." 130 Two types of tactics illustrate this phenomenon. First, presidents in recent years have
often sought to deemphasize - at least politically - their unitariness by allocating responsibility for different agencies to different political constituencies. President
Clinton, for example, reportedly "gave" the Department of Justice to the liberal wing of the Democratic party and the Department of the Treasury and the OMB to the
conservatives. 131 Presidents Bush and Reagan tried a similar technique of giving control over different agencies to different political constituencies. 132 Second, by
invoking vague abstract principles or "talking out of both sides of their mouth," presidents have attempted to create the division within their person. Eisenhower is
widely reported to be the best exemplar of this "bumbling" technique. 133 Reagan's widely publicized verbal "incoherence" and detachment from government affairs
probably served a similar function. 134 Unfortunately, the visibility and singularity of the modern presidency can undermine both informal techniques. To the extent
that the modern president is subject to heightened visibility about what he says and does and is led to make increasingly specific statements about who should win and
who should lose on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control the agenda can be undermined. The modern president is supposed to have a position [*867] on
such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the baseballstrike, and the newest EPA regulations - the list is infinite. Perhapsin response to these pressures,
each modern president has made more speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton giving three times as many speeches as Reagan
during the same period. 135 In such circumstances, the president is far less able to exercise agenda control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent
positions. The
well-documented tendency of the press to emphasize the strategic implications of politics exacerbates
this process by turning issues into zero-sum games. 136 Thus, in contrast to Congress, the modern president's attempt
to avoid or mediate issues can often undermine him personally and politically.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
34
File Title
A2 No Spillover [2/2]
Vote switching is real – ideology is minimal.
Bond & Fleisher 1996
Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham (Jon R. and Richard The President in Legislation) pg 54
Minority presidents, on the other hand, can frequently build working majorities composed of their partisan base and like-minded members of the opposition. While
political values shared between the president and members of Congress provide an important linkage source, the
effects of ideology are limited for
several reasons. First, most members of Congress are pragmatic politicians who do not have views and preferences at
the extremes of a liberal-conservative continuum. Because the typical American voter is not strongly ideological, most representatives' electoral
self-interest is probably best served by avoiding ideological extremes. As noted above, ideology is a less important voting cue for moderates than it is for ideological
extremists (Kingdon 1981, 268). Second, many votes that may be important to the president do not involve ideological issues .
Distributive or "porkbarrel" programs, for example, typically do not produce ideological divisions. Even conservatives who want to cut domestic spending and liberals
who want to reduce defense spending work to protect domestic and defense programs in their districts. Presidents who attempt to tamper with these programs are
likely to find few friends in Congress, as President Carter discovered when he opposed several water projects in 1977, and as President Reagan discovered when he
vetoed the highway bill in 1987. Finally, ideological
voting blocs are relatively informal coalitions composed of individuals who
have similar values. The "conservative coalition" of Republicans and southern Democrats, for example, appears on certain votes and sometimes has a
significant influence on the outcome of floor votes (Shelley 1983; Brady and Bullock 1980; Manley 1973). But this coalition of conservatives has no formal
organization with elected leaders to serve as a communication and information center. Although there are several ideologies.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
35
File Title
**Impacts**
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
36
File Title
Terminal Impact Extensions
Econ collapse causes extinction
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8 (professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow
Wilson School) and Mr. Schoenfeld (senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon
Institute in Princeton) 2008 “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-21, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.vom/articles/SB122455074012352571.html
Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to
mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the
electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions.
Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls
to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession,
gale-force winds of protectionism will blow . Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial
architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and
the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab
by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges
are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea
are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos.
Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to
pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence
in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East
energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s,
when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and
aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited
their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their
nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our
principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the
fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even
more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets .
Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political
legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to
divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
37
File Title
US Economy Key To Global Economy
The US Economy is key to the world economy.
Kevin Hall, 2010. (staff writer). April 30, 2010. “U.S. economy grew briskly in first quarter, government
says.” Online. Internet. Accessed May 1, 2010 at http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/30/1606734/us-economygrew-briskly-in-first.html
If sustained, the upturn in U.S. consumption would be good news for the whole world, since the United States remains the key
global economic engine. "What was particularly encouraging about today's GDP numbers is that U.S.
consumption appears to be on a strong recovery path," said Frederic Neumann, co-head of Asian Economic Research for the global
Hong Kong bank HSBC. Friday's GDP numbers were in line with a revised forecast from the International Monetary Fund, which predicted
earlier in April that the world's economy would grow at a rate above 4 percent this year, significantly better than its initial 1.9 percent forecast.
US economic declines undermine the world economy.
David Kampf, 2009 (former communications director for PEPFAR. May 7, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed
May 7, 2009 at http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3717)
The worldwide economic turmoil underlines the importance of the United States -- for better or worse -- to the
global market. As the U.S. goes, so goes the world. When the American bubble burst, the speed with which the
contagion spread beyond its borders is an illustration.
The US is key to the global economy.
David McCormick, 2008 (former under secretary for International Affairs in the U. S. Treasury Department,
May 12, 2008, Newsweek. Online. Lexis/Nexis. Accessed, May 4, 2009).
Our friends around the world should gain confidence from the fact that U.S. policymakers and their international
counterparts are taking aggressive, targeted actions to stabilize the financial markets, to reduce their impact on the economy
and the individuals negatively affected by the turmoil and to protect against the same mistakes' being repeated. There are already some early
indicators that these actions are beginning to have the desired effect, as markets appear to be gaining confidence and the availability of credit has
improved modestly. Flexibility and resilience in the face of such unexpected financial-market turmoil and economic hardship are among
America's greatest strengths. Our objective is to help individuals and markets recover as quickly as possible, while avoiding actions that cause
new problems that would hurt our economy in the long run. This storm, too, shall pass, and the United States will emerge, as it
always has, as a driver of growth and innovation for the global economy.
The US economy is vital to the Asian economy.
Associated Press, 2009 (May 4, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed at
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXPJmkJdyKGBu_J5HvhnfYCkYAzgD97VBSE80)
Asian stock markets soared Monday, led by gains of 5 percent or more in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and India, amid upbeat
economic signs from China and the United States. European markets opened higher, too. Investors were cheered by a survey of
purchasing managers at Chinese manufacturers that rose for a second month in April. U.S. manufacturing activity in April also posted
its best showing since September, suggesting that American economy — a vital export market for Asia
— might be stabilizing. Futures pointed to a higher open on Wall Street Monday.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
38
File Title
Economy Turns Case – Generic
Economic decline causes nuclear war – turns every 1AC impact – democracy, terrorism,
hegemony, ME war, resource war
Mathew Harris (PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National Intelligence Council) and
Jennifer Burrows (member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit) 2009 “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical
Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and
interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a
growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on
fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of
multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true
in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater
conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if
change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain
priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the
Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of
technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within
their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting
organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct
sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized,
particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the
Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead
states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and
consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship
that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a
nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an
unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The
close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an
impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight
times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially
leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,
particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will
drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in
interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for
maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war , however, will have important
geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and
modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus
for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional
naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also
will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the
Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between
states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
39
File Title
Economy Turns Case – China
Turns US-China cooperation/conflict
Mead ‘9 - Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations [Walter Russell Mead, ,
“Only Makes You Stronger,” Feb 4, The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-28874d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2]
The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too
fast; it is that the current crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the
international economy will plunge China into a major economic downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans
to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country
without an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a
generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter
climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi
and communist politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle,
as nervous investors moved their money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater
bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of
modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if the growth stops.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
40
File Title
Economy Turns Case – Environment
Growth key to the environment
Goklany ‘7 – PhD, science and tech policy analyst for the US Dept of the Interior
Indur M, M.S. and Ph.D are from Michigan State University, “the improving state of the world”, page number
below in [brackets]
Yet another view, formalized as the environmental transition hypothesis, is that for any specific country, the
forces of technological change and economic growth, acting in conjunction, can initially cause environmental
degradation, but eventually an "environmental transition" takes place after which those forces become
necessary for reversing that degradation.38 This view, however, acknowledges that because economic growth and technological
change are not inevitable, environmental cleanup is, likewise, not a foregone conclusion. So in this regard, the environmental transition
hypothesis provides a reason to be hopeful, without necessarily being optimistic. Basic assumptions underlying the environmental transition
hypothesis are that society is always trying to improve its quality of life and that there is a mechanism for converting that desire into action. At
relatively low levels of economic development, a society may justifiably conclude that its quality of life would be advanced through economic
development, because such development provides the means for reducing poverty and the numerous problems that follow in its wake, for
example, hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, malaria, lack of education, and lack of public health services, to name
just a few. Thus, in the early stages of development, a society would likely emphasize economic development over the environment. However,
over time, as the society gets wealthier, it solves—or starts to solve—its most urgent public health problems.
Even as other aspects of environmental quality deteriorate, it begins to realize that poor environmental
quality detracts from its quality of life. Accordingly, it begins to give greater emphasis to environmental
quality. Over time, society goes through a transition during which environmental deterioration, which had
initially been growing, is first halted, and then reversed. Hence the term, the "environmental transition."
During this transition, economic growth and technology go from being causes of environmental problems to solutions for those very problems.
However, it should also be kept in mind that, at all times— before, during, and after the environmental transition—the focus of society is to
improve its quality of life. It just so happens that at low levels of economic development, quality of life is approximated by such development,
while at higher levels of development, it's environmental quality that's a better surrogate.<page 10-11>
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
41
File Title
Economy Turns Case – Hegemony
Collapse of growth kills hegemony – biggest internal link
Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations
during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990
to 1992, “ The Economy and National Security”, 2-8-11, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as
global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are
developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading
in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a
mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous
amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset
bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10
percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held
national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held
national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are
larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth.
Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S.
debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt
crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such
scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of
other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic
capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to
withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem
goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face
this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China,
India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are
growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long
term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not
a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States
and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one
another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In
modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have
been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security
blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger
powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make
aggressive moves in their regions.
Carrollton 07/08
3/22/16
42
File Title
Econ Turns Case -- Warming
Economic collapse would kill support for climate treaties
Haass 8 [Richard. President of the Council on Foreign Relations.
11/8/,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122611110847810599.html]
There will be other policy consequences of recession. It will be more difficult to negotiate an accord on
climate change as countries such as China and India will resist anything that could be an impediment
to growth. High unemployment will make it even tougher to build a majority here at home for immigration reform. We will
likely see new outbreaks of resistance to the ability of foreigners to buy U.S. assets despite a clear need for their dollars.