1NC
Obama focused on immigration reform now—everything else is a public ruse
The Daily Caller, 7/23
(Daily Caller, "Obama talks economy, but directs aides to immigration, Obamacare", 7/23,
dailycaller.com/2013/07/23/obama-talks-economy-but-directs-aides-to-immigration-obamacare/ NL)
But he also told his 300 campaign aides, community organizers, donors and top political allies that they would remain
focused on issues that the public views as low priority.¶ In several pending speeches this week, “I’m going to talk about where we
need to go from here; how we need to put behind us the distractions and the phony debate and nonsense that somehow
passes for politics these days, and get back to basics,” he told the members of his Organizing for America group, which serves as his year-round campaign force.¶ The
public speeches will “get Washington and the press to refocus on the economy and the struggles that middle-class families are going through,” Obama declared at
one of two speeches he gave June 22.¶ Those OFA donors
as rewriting
and volunteers, however, would be directed at issues that progressives care about, such
the nation’s immigration laws.¶ “We’re going to need you to continue to stay involved to get immigration reform across the finish line —
because now is the time for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done,” he said . This August, a well-funded coalition of
progressives and wealthy business-owners is expected to pressure the House GOP to accept the Senate’s draft immigration bill.
Plan’s unpopular with Congress—they don’t want to be politically accountable
Noah, 08
(Timothy, writer for Slate, "Congress Doesn't Want War Powers", July 9,
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2008/07/congress_doesnt_want_war_powers.html NL)
James Baker and Warren Christopher, two former secretaries of state, have set forth a new plan to streamline the role of Congress in declaring war. There's only one problem. Congress
doesn't want to streamline its role in declaring war, because, for all its bluster (not to mention its constitutional responsibility), Congress
doesn't want to be held politically accountable for the results. I first became aware of this phenomenon 21 summers ago while covering a House
debate on the use of Navy convoys to escort 11 Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf. Iraq and Iran were at war, and although
the United States didn't officially take sides, this military action reflected our government's quiet tilt toward Saddam Hussein's Iraq. (For more about this furtive and little-remembered nearalliance, which compelled President Reagan to soft-pedal Saddam's use of chemical weapons, click here.) Anyway, on that August afternoon in 1987 the House was debating whether to
invoke the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law meant to require congressional approval of any executive action that introduced the armed forces into hostilities, or into a situation in which
hostilities seemed pretty goddamned likely, as appeared to be the case here. (Happily, the Navy escort occurred without incident.) What amazed and shocked me, and moved me to write up
the unembarrassed manner in which members of Congress declared as their paramount
interest the absence of any legislative fingerprints on whatever might result from allowing (or not allowing) the Navy
convoys to enter an area of violent conflict. In fact, it was pretty much taken as a given that the War Powers Resolution
would not be invoked, not because the president was not complying with it (no president ever has) but because doing
so would require Congress to either approve or revoke Reagan's decision. Here is how I described the House debate 14 years later in this column
the debate for the New Republic, was
(I can't seem to locate the original New Republic piece); I should point out that the first two speakers were members of Reagan's own party: "This resolution puts congressional fingerprints
on our course of action," complained Rep. Toby Roth. "Does this put the fingerprints and the handprints of the Congress on that policy?" asked Rep. Donald Lukens. No, assured Rep. Pat
Schroeder: It was "a teeny-weeny first step" that "doesn't commit the Congress in any way." Only then could the resolution pass. The most controversial aspect of the War Powers Resolution
is that it "sunsets" military action that fails to win congressional approval. If Congress wants to declare war, it must do so within 30 days after troops are introduced into conflict. If Congress
does nothing, the troops must be withdrawn within the following two months. The Baker-Christopher proposal would maintain the 30-day clock but would eliminate the sunset provision.
After 30 days, Congress would vote on a resolution supporting the military action. If Congress voted yes, the military action would continue. If Congress voted no ... the military action would
continue. But if a senator or representative wanted to introduce a resolution disapproving the military action, and if this resolution actually came to a vote, and if it passed the House and
Senate, and if the president, after vetoing the resolution, saw his veto overridden (or, less probably, decided that Congress was probably right to end the thing after all) … then the armed
conflict would end. The obvious question to ask is why, given that Congress currently has no difficulty ignoring the sunset provision in the War Powers Resolution, it should feel compelled,
under the new law, to go on record endorsing or opposing military action. Sometimes,
sure, Congress may want to express an opinion. More
often, it won't want to, or it will want to only in hedged language at odds with the Baker-Christopher proposal's intent. (The 2002 joint resolution authorizing the Iraq war is
arguably one such document.) It's almost impossible to imagine circumstances in which Congress would proceed with a
resolution of disapproval that would have the effect of ending a war abruptly. And anyway, even if you choose to pretend the War Powers Resolution was never passed,
Congress already has the ability to end military actions through the power of the purse. No appropriations, no war.
Congress will not make statutory restrictions stronger now because of political danger-Libya proves.
Lowry 11 editor, National Review
(Rich, National Review Online, June 7, 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268973/obama-kills-war-powersact-rich-lowry)
The War Powers Act is an excrescence on the American constitutional order that deserves to be the dead letter that
President Obama is making it. The president’s inherent powers as commander in chief do not depend on affirmative acts
of Congress. What Congress can do is wield its own powers — most decisively, the appropriation of funds — to limit
or end a military action. Of course, Congress usually refuses to do that, since it involves an action for which it could be
held politically accountable. Predictably, the grand confrontation between the legislative and executive branches over
Libya has been an instance of the cowardly fighting the disingenuous.
Congressional criticism of international policies saps capital for domestic policies—empirically
proven for immigration reform
Kriner, 10
(Douglas, Assistant professor of poly sci at Boston University, “After the
Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War”, University of Chicago Press, Dec
1, 2010)
While congressional support leaves the president’s reserve of political capital intact ,¶ congressional criticism saps energy
from other initiatives on the home front by forcing the¶ president to expend energy and effort defending his
international agenda. Political capital¶ spent shoring up support for a president’s foreign policies is capital that is
unavailable for his¶ future policy initiatives . Moreover, any weakening in the president’s political clout may have¶ immediate
ramifications for his reelection prospects, as well as indirect consequences for congressional races.59¶ Indeed, Democratic efforts to tie congressional
Republican incumbents to President George W. Bush and his war policies paid¶ immediate political dividends in the
2006 midterms, particularly in states, districts, and counties that had suffered the highest¶ casualty rates in the Iraq War. 60 In addition to boding ill for the
president’s perceived political capital¶ and reputation, such partisan losses in Congress only further imperil his programmatic¶
agenda, both international and domestic. Scholars have long noted that President Lyndon¶ Johnson’s dream of a Great Society also perished in the
rice paddies of Vietnam. Lacking the requisite¶ funds in a war-depleted treasury and the political capital needed to sustain his legislative
vision, Johnson¶ gradually let his domestic goals slip away as he hunkered down in an effort first to win and¶ then to end the
Vietnam War. In the same way, many of President Bush’s highest second-term¶ domestic proprieties, such as Social Security
and immigration reform, failed perhaps in large part because¶ the administration had to expend so much energy and effort
waging a rear-guard action¶ against congressional critics of the war in Iraq.61 When making their cost-benefit calculations,¶ presidents
surely consider these wider political costs of congressional opposition to their¶ military policies. If congressional
opposition in the military arena stands to derail other¶ elements of his agenda, all else being equal, the president will be more
likely to judge the benefits¶ of military action insufficient to its costs than if Congress stood behind him in the¶
international arena.
PC is key to passage
Washington Post, 13
(Washington Post, “Why is immigration going so much better for Obama than the budget”, May 2nd,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/02/why-is-immigration-going-so-much-better-for-obamathan-the-budget/)
In his news conference on Tuesday, Obama expressed confidence that Congress would overhaul immigration laws – what he said
would be an “historic achievement” – while he was less optimistic about whether he could achieve a grand bargain on the debt. Somehow, the election and public
opinion more generally have produced two different outcomes. On
immigration, Senate Republicans – led by 2016 presidential contender Sen. Marco
Rubio (Fla.) – are eager to strike and sell a deal. But they seem content to stand their ground on the budget. Why? The question has prompted much
discussion about the structural forces shaping Congress – and Obama’s limited power to overcome them. The conventional thinking is that on immigration,
Republicans are in survival mode: They recognize they need Hispanics to win national elections. On the other hand, Republicans do not see much to lose in a budget
fight with Obama, and they see much more to lose if they make themselves vulnerable to primary challenges from the right. This argument is elegant in that it looks
at the incentives facing Republicans, and to a large degree it is fair. But it’s also an oversimplification. Obama’s role has been more important than it may seem in
shaping the political forces in Washington, but the underlying dynamics favoring an immigration deal and auguring against a budget agreement are even stronger
than many recognize. In asking why Republicans seem responsive to public opinion on immigration but impervious on the budget, consider the following chart: It’s
extremely unlikely that Republicans would be considering an immigration deal in the absence of Obama’s aggressive
pursuit of an overhaul. In words and action, Obama forced Republicans to take a position on the issue. He also
created space for more voters to support a pathway to citizenship by being quite tough on illegal immigrants facing
deportation – often to the displeasure of the Hispanic community. Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, staked out a far different position,
opposing any pathway to citizenship. Republicans were savaged on Election Day: exit polling showed Obama winning Hispanics by 44 percentage points.
CIR key to the economy
Reuters, 13
(Edward Krudy, Reuters, “Analysis: Immigration reform could boost U.S. economic growth,” Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:14am EST,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-economyimmigration-idUSBRE90S06R20130129, EGM)¶ (Reuters) - The
sluggish U.S. economy
could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the
nation's immigration system since the 1980s. Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase
demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit, economists said. By helping more immigrants
enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a
slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China. "Numerous
industries in the United States can't find the workers they need, right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market
demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. The
emerging consensus among economists is that
immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers prices,
although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth. President Barack Obama plans to launch his second-term push for a U.S.
immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform
package this year, the White House said. The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a
framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. Their proposals would also include means to keep and
attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American
universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers abroad. An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and
studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh. Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the
U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual
increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate, currently stuck at about 2 percent. REPUBLICANS' HISPANIC PUSH Other economists say the potential
benefit to growth is much lower. Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard, believes most of the benefits to the economy from illegal immigrants already in the
United States has already been recorded and legalizing their status would produce only incremental benefits. While opposition to reform lingers on both sides of the
political spectrum and any controversial legislation can easily meet a quick end in a divided Washington, the chances of substantial change seem to be rising. Top
Republicans such as Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are not mincing words about the party's need to appeal to the Hispanic community and foreign-born voters
who were turned off by Republican candidate Mitt Romney's tough talk in last year's presidential campaign. A previous Obama plan, unveiled in May 2011, included
the creation of a guest-worker program to meet agricultural labor needs and something similar is expected to be in his new proposal. The senators also indicated they
would support a limited program that would allow companies in certain sectors to import guest workers if Americans were not available to fill some positions. An
additional boost to growth could come from rising wages for newly legalized workers and higher productivityfrom the arrival of more highly skilled workers from
abroad. Increased
tax revenues would help federal and state authorities plug budget deficits although the benefit to
government revenues will be at least partially offset by the payment of benefits to those who gain legal status. In 2007,
the Congressional Budget Office estimated that proposed immigration reform in that year would have generated $48 billion in revenue from 2008 to 2017, while
costing $23 billion in health and welfare payments. There is also unlikely to be much of a saving on enforcement from the senators' plan because they envisage
tougher border security to prevent further illegal immigration and a crackdown on those overstaying visas. One way to bump up revenue, according to a report coauthored by University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, would be to institute a cap-and-trade visa system. Peri estimated it could generate up to $1.2
billion annually. Under such a system, the government would auction a certain number of visas employers could trade in a secondary market. "A
more
efficient, more transparent and more flexible immigration system would help firms expand, contribute to more job
creation in the United States, and slow the movement of operations abroad," according to a draft report, soon to be published as part
of a study by the Hamilton Project, a think tank. There was no immediate sign that either the Obama or the senators' plan would include such a system. The longterm argument for immigration is a demographic one. Many developed nations are seeing their populations age, adding to the burden of pension and healthcare
costs on wage-earners. Immigration in the United States would need to double to keep the working-age population stable at its current 67 percent of total
population, according to George Magnus, a senior independent economic adviser at UBS in London, While Magnus says a change of that magnitude may prove too
politically sensitive, the focus should be on attracting highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants in the way Canada and Australia do by operating a points system
for immigrants rather than focusing mainly on family connections. "The
trick is to shift the balance of migration towards those with
education (and) skills," he added. HARD ROAD Academics at major universities such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology often lament
that many of their top foreign graduates end up returning to their home countries because visas are hard to get. "We have so much talent that is sitting here in the
universities," said William Kerr, a professor at Harvard Business School. "I find it very difficult to swallow that we then make it so hard for them to stay." The last big
amnesty for illegal immigrants was in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan legalized about 3 million already in the country. Numerous studies have shown that
subsequently their wages rose significantly. Research on how immigration affects overall wages is inconclusive. George Borjas at Harvard says immigration has
created a small net decrease in overall wages for those born in the United States, concentrated among the low-skilled, while GiovaniPeri at UC Davis found that
immigration boosts native wages over the long run. Hinojosa-Ojeda stresses that any reform needs to make it easier for guest workers to enter the country to avoid a
new build-up of illegal workers. "If we don't create a mechanism that can basically bring in 300,000 to 400,000 new workers a year into a variety of labor markets and
needs, we could be setting ourselves up for that again," said Hinojosa-Ojeda. Nowrasteh at Cato also believes an expanded guest worker program would stem illegal
immigration and allow industries to overcome labor shortages.He found that harsher
regulations in recent years in Arizona were adversely
affecting agricultural production, increasing financial burdens on business and even negatively impacting the state's
struggling real estate market. Some large companies have fallen foul of tougher enforcement regulations. Restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc fired
roughly 500 staff in 2010 and 2011 after undocumented workers were found on its payrolls. Putting the chill on other employers, it is now subject of an ongoing
federal criminal investigation into its hiring. "The
Economic decline causes war
Royal, 10
current system doesn't seem to work for anyone," Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said.
(Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense “Economic Integration,
Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political
Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p.213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy
are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent
leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power
(see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a
rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles
combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade
expectations suggests that ‘future
expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as
they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will
be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its
own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Blomberg
and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict ends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends
to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg& Hess, 2002, p.89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, &Weerapana, 2004), which
has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary
theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and
Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller
(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the
fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence
showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of
force. In summary, recent
economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the
frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at
systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a
decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence
instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here
should be considered ancillary to those views.
2NC Impact Overview
Economic decline guarantees war—Royal cites numerous studies that prove it causes protectionist
backlash and people to fight wars over resources—prefer our ev over any to the contrary because it
cites the most and the best studies
Economic decline triggers every impact imaginable
Brzezinski, 12
(Zbigniew, National Security Advisor under President Carter, “After America How does the world look in an age of U.S.
decline? Dangerously unstable,” Jan/Feb 2012,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=0,0)
While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-moving chain
reaction leading to global political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening
warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be readyby then to exercise the role that the
world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play:the leader of a new, globally cooperative world order. More
probable
would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners
and many more losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being. Rather than a world where dreams of
democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue. The
leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the
potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian
mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America
falters and China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly
have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in
several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter
European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others may
move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in
the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of
economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably
mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been
critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view
the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution
of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders
themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state
several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power.
Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could
arise and damage China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None
of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place
on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China.
The resulting regional scramble could become intense, especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase
of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th
century -- violent and bloodthirsty. At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next
to major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including
Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's
geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning
America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist. A
faltering United States could also find its strategic
partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such
sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the
health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A
waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more
defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice
resources for the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an
internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major
issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border
incidents. Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of
the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace, and the environment, whose protection
is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In
almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential
communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where
there would normally be conflict.
***UQ WALL***
Michelle Obama proves the president still pushing immigration reform
Boyle, 7/23
(Matthew, writer for Bretibait, "Michelle Obama Lobbies Congress on Immigration in La Raza Speech", 7/23,
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/23/Michelle-Obama-lobbies-Congress-on-immigration-in-La-Raza-speech
NL)
First Lady Michelle Obama advocated for Congress to pass an immigration bill during remarks before the National
Council of La Raza’s annual convention in New Orleans on Tuesday.¶ During her key note address, which MSNBC’s Erin Delmore characterized as
Michelle Obama having “waded into trickier political waters than her usual healthy-eating speeches,” the first lady advocated the passage of a bill, though she did not
specify which piece of legislation.¶ “Your
president and his administration are going to keep working with you and fighting with
you every step of the way,” Michelle Obama said in her speech. “I know these debates are hard, especially on immigration, but do not
give up, because I know my husband will not give up until a good bill gets on his desk.Ӧ Janet Murguia, the president of the National Council of
La Raza, praised First Lady Michelle Obama’s efforts to push amnesty for America’s at least 11 million illegal aliens on Tuesday, calling her “an Honorary Latina.”
Obama still pushing immigration reform
Global Post, 7/23
(Global Post, news organization, "Obama will fight for immigration reform, first lady says", July 23,
www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/agencia-efe/130723/obama-will-fight-immigration-reform-first-lady-says NL)
New Orleans, Jul 23 (EFE).- President Barack Obama will continue fighting for comprehensive immigration reform , the first lady
said here Tuesday in a speech to one of the country's largest Hispanic organizations. ¶ "(Y)our president and his administration are going to keep working with you and
fighting with you every step of the way," Michelle Obama said at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza.¶ "And I know these debates are hard particularly on immigration. But do not give up, because I
promise you that my husband won't give up until a good bill gets on his
desk," she said.¶ The first lady made this brief reference to immigration reform at a time when Congress is debating
measures to regularize the status of the undocumented population and strengthen border security.¶ The Senate already
approved its version of an immigration reform bill on June 27 and, in remarks to Efe on Sunday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said that the House of Representatives will
present its own bill in September.¶ Immigration
reform has also been the main course at the annual meeting of the NCLR, which
this year drew to New Orleans more than 5,000 community leaders and activists from all over the country.
Obama promises new action on immigration in August
Auerbach, 7/22
(Matt, "Obama to Democrats: Gear Up for 'Action August' on Immigration Reform", 7/22,
www.newsmax.com/politics/obama-immigration-reform/2013/07/22/id/516425 NL)
President Obama is urging his supporters to begin preparing for an upcoming August offensive that will attempt to
sway lawmakers to pass his domestic agenda, reports the Washington Times. “I’m going to need your help,” Obama said, addressing
members of Organizing for Action, an advocacy group made up of members of his re-election campaign. “Winning is good, but you run for office and you win so that
you can actually get things done. … It’s
the beginning, not the end, of a process.” The pow-wow was held at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington, where
a dinner to kick off “Action August,” a month-long campaign designed to win over House members on
such topics as gun control, immigration reform, climate change, abortion and Obamacare. Obama told volunteers that they need to stay
involved on immigration, rising student loan debt, universal healthcare and other issues because “what you do day-to-day … will make the difference.”
“The key is to try to make sure that this town refocuses on the issues that matter most to people day to day,” Obama
the group hosted
said.
Obama spending PC on immigration
Jackson, 7/23
(David, writer for USA Today, "Obama's day: Immigration, basketball", 7/23,
www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/07/23/obama-immigration-louisville-cardinals-basketball/2577341/ NL)
President Obama spends Tuesday promoting a big issue and having a little fun.¶ The president will
urge passage of a major immigration bill
bill passed by the Senate is currently stuck in the
Republican-run House.¶ "The president will discuss the administration's effort to urge the House to take action and
pass commonsense immigration reform, and other issues," said the White House schedule.
during a morning meeting with the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.¶ A
It passes now
Frenzel, 7/22
(Bill, writer for Forbes, "Immigration Reform Could Yield A Bipartisan Congressional Breakthrough", 7/22,
www.forbes.com/sites/billfrenzel/2013/07/22/immigration-reform-could-yield-a-bipartisan-congressionalbreakthrough/ NL)
By now, it’s clear that a Grand Budget Bargain cannot be achieved in 2013. It is almost as clear that, despite the brave words of Congressional Tax Committee
chairmen, a major tax reform bill also will not pass. Of
the major issues pending, immigration has had the highest visibility, and the
most forward progress.¶ Both parties, we are told, have a strong political interest in this issue. A bi-partisan immigration bill
passed the Senate, although a majority of Republicans voted “Nay.” The Republican House majority now has the Senate bill, but its leaders have decided to
sub-divide the bill into several different pieces and to pass them one at a time.
***LINKS***
Cyber Operations
Cyber operations are popular with Congress—they passed a bill to increase the military’s powers
Perera, 11
(David, writer for FierceGovernmentIT, "Congress authorizes offensive cyberspace military operations", Dec 15,
www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/congress-authorizes-offensive-cyberspace-military-operations/2011-12-15 NL)
A provision of the fiscal 2012 national defense authorization bill says the military may conduct offensive cyberspace
operations subject to the same principles the Defense Department uses for kinetic operations, including the law of armed conflict, and the War Powers
Resolution. A conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers approved Dec. 12 a compromise version of the
annual authorization bill; House lawmakers approved it in a 283-136 vote the evening of Dec. 14. The Senate is expected to approve the bill
shortly and the White House has indicated President Obama will sign it. In language discussing the bill, conferees say that because there is no historical
precedent for what constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace, "it is necessary to affirm that such
operations may be conducted pursuant to the same policy, principles and legal regimes that pertain to kinetic
capabilities."
NDAA proves
Corrin, 13
(Amber, writer for FCW: The Business of Federal Technology, "Defense bill emphasizes cyber operations", Jan 3,
fcw.com/Articles/2013/01/03/NDAA-provisions.aspx?Page=1 NL)
The National Defense Authorization Act could lead to an increase in the stature of the U.S. Cyber Command, currently
subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command. The Defense Department is taking more aggressive steps in cyberspace, including clearer
authorities, more oversight and a key partnership to identify and address gaps, due to provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2013. Those provisions in the NDAA, which President Barack Obama signed into law on Jan. 2, require DOD
officials to report on cyber operations to Congress on a quarterly basis, beginning March 1. It also outlines authorities and expectations
for military forces in cyberspace. Resource Read the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. ‘‘The Secretary of Defense shall provide to the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate quarterly briefings on all offensive
and significant defensive military operations in cyberspace carried out by the [DOD] during the immediately preceding
quarter,” the NDAA text reads. It also orders the defense secretary to provide within 90 days “a briefing on the
interagency process for coordinating and de-conflicting full-spectrum military cyber operations for the federal
government,” as well as future cyber budgeting justification. The NDAA text includes guidelines for faster reporting of network penetrations, as well as language
that appears to open the door to elevating Cyber Command from a sub-unified command. Currently CYBERCOM is subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command, which is
one of the military’s nine unified combatant commands. However, the Act's language is cautious: In a section titled "Sense of Congress on the United States Cyber
Command," the Act notes that "Congress expects to be briefed" on any proposed change to the command's status, including an outline of the expected benefits of
the change and an estimate of the cost. Among
the provided cyber authorities are clandestine operations and green lights for
activities to, among other things, develop cyber weapons systems. There are details for implementing the much-discussed Joint
Information Environment, as well as a next-generation, host-based DOD network defense. That open-architecture, “plug-and-play” network defense system would
need to be available for cloud environments as well as the battlefield, and would need to overcome shortfalls in current systems that “cannot address new or rapidly
morphing threats; consume substantial amounts of communication capacity to remain current with known threats and to report current status; or consume
substantial amounts of resources to store rapidly growing threat libraries.” Additionally, the
NDAA touches on better software security and
more competition for acquiring large-scale data systems and tools. To help DOD achieve the forward-looking cyber focus called for in the
NDAA, science and technology also take on key roles, including research and development as well as workforce recruiting and training. The bill also directs
the department to partner with the National Research Council for a full-scale review of specialized DOD programs science, technology, engineering,
mathematics and management to meet evolving, high-tech and much-needed military skills. The review will include an assessment of DOD’s needs for STEM
professionals, an analysis of resources to find them, the need and costs for existing and potential in-house STEM-focused educational institutions and
recommendations for identifying, managing and sourcing to meet DOD needs. “The conferees recognize that fostering and increasing the science, technology,
engineering, mathematics, and technology management skills of the DOD workforce is an ongoing challenge,” notes in the bill stated. “The
conferees look
forward to discussing these challenges with the department as the terms of reference for this effort are developed .”
The threat of cyber warfare makes cyber operations popular
Newsday, 13
("Editorial: Congress needs to prepare for cyberwarfare", Feb 24, www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-congress-needsto-prepare-for-cyberwarfare-1.4694746 NL)
The hits just keep on coming. Practically every day now another big brand company reveals its computers have been
hacked. Apple,Facebook, The New York Times, Coca-Cola and Twitter have all been recent targets. While some of these cyber attacks may be
mischief and others more mercenary theft of company secrets, the defenselessness of these major companies makes
real the vulnerability of our nation to cyberwarfare.¶ Aggressive attacks by foreign nations or hostile groups targeting defense contractors and
critical infrastructure -- such as electrical grids, oil and gas pipelines, and banking and financial systems -- soared 17-fold from 2009 to 2011, according to the head of
the U.S. Cyber Command. China especially appears to be aggressively involved, and there are even more sophisticated invasions coming out of Russia; the potential
for nonstate organizations, such as al-Qaida, is clear. There
are extraordinary risks of deliberate harm to life and property.¶ That
makes preventing, detecting and responding to cyberattacks an urgent matter of national security.¶ But for three years,
Congress has tried and failed to enact legislation to facilitate the cooperation needed between the government and
companies that operate critical infrastructure to give the nation its best shot at countering the mushrooming threat.
Recent attempts to legislate were stymied by the valid concern of burdensome government regulation.¶ President Barack
Obama stepped into the void Feb. 12 with an executive order allowing critical infrastructure companies to join a program that gives
government contractors near real-time information on cyberattacks. He also ordered officials to develop recommendations that
companies could adopt, if they choose, to better secure their computer systems. That's a decent start, but just a start.¶ Congress should enact a more
muscular program with mandatory, two-way information sharing. Companies operating essential services need to know the nature of the
attacks directed at others and share with one another how to prevent or counter them. Government officials need a view of the big picture in
order to discern patterns in attacks against the United States that could help identify the culprits .¶ Some companies will be
reluctant to disclose they've been hacked because it could undermine confidence in their businesses and lead to lawsuits by customers if private information is
compromised. Congress should give those who share cybersecurity information some protection against liability.¶ What Congress should not do is impose mandatory
standards for companies operating critical infrastructure. Technology changes quickly, and so do the methods of creative hackers. It would be difficult for government
regulation to keep pace. So rather than burdening companies with cybersecurity mandates, Congress should free companies to do it their own way. Insisting on
mandates ensures continued failure in Congress, when it's imperative to get something done.¶ This
threat is so serious that the administration
recently created a "Distinguished Warfare Medal" reserved for people who greatly assist the war effort by piloting
drones or devising computer defenses or creating digital code to attack an enemy's networks. This is 21st century
warfare and we must be ready.
There’s Congressional support for cybersecurity
Reed, 13
(John, writer for Foreign Policy, "Put your money on Congress producing a cyber info sharing bill in 2013", April 25,
killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/25/put_your_money_on_congress_producing_a_cyber_info_sharing_bill_i
n_2013 NL)
Expect to see Congress produce a cybersecurity bill focused on information sharing make its way to the president in
2013, said senior House and Senate staffers involved in drafting the legislation today .¶ "I'm pretty confident that if we got to
conference we could work a bill out," said Andrew Grotto, lead staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee today during a conference in
Arlington, VA sponsored by C4ISR Journal (yes, that exists, and it's a publication about spy tech). "There's very broad agreement on what the
parameters of information sharing should look like. We all agree that there needs to be private-to-private sharing,
that the sharing has to have reasonable privacy protections built in, and that really what we're talking about is
cybersecurity and not policing IP piracy."¶ Still, he warned that the Senate's Cyber Security Act of 2012, aimed at establishing minimal cybersecurity standards
for critical infrastructure providers while making it easier for companies to share cyber threat information, suffered death by filibuster twice last year, despite having
majority support in the Senate. This means that the Senate may decide to simply go after less ambitious legislation on information sharing, rather than attempting to
push again for minimal cybersecurity standards.¶ The
big question for the Senate is, "do we go comprehensive or not? Do we try to
to take what the
president did with the [White House's cybersecurity executive order] and put it in statute. On the other hand, there's a pragmatic
develop a bill that covers critical infrastructure again? I don't know the answer to that," said Grotto. "There's on one hand desire
streak in a lot of us that says, ‘maybe that's a bridge too far and we're better off focusing on issues of information sharing where there's a pretty strong consensus on
the need to act legislatively.'"¶ Grotto's statement seems to back up what Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein told Killer Apps last week: "we
are
currently drafting a bipartisan information sharing bill and will proceed as soon as we come to an agreement."¶
Meanwhile, when asked if we will see cybersecurity legislation presented to the White House this year, Tom Corcoran,
senior policy advisor to the House Intelligence Committee, replied with a simple, "yes."
Drones
Congress supports drones
Hill, 12
(Kashmir, writer for Forbes, "Congress Welcomes The Drones", 2/7,
www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/07/congress-welcomes-the-drones/ NL)
The Senate passed a $63 billion bill Monday to provide four years of funding for the Federal Aviation Administration.
One of the provisions of the Reauthorization Act is that the FAA clear the path for wider spread use of drones (a.k.a. unmanned
aircraft) for governmental and commercial purposes. Within 90 days, the FAA has to speed up the process by which government agencies and law
enforcement can get permission to use drones, and by 2015, it has to start allowing commercial use of drones: The FAA is also required under the bill
to provide military, commercial and privately-owned drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace currently reserved
for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting unmanned drones controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as
airliners, cargo planes, business jets and private aircraft. via Congress OKs FAA bill allowing drones in U.S., GPS air traffic control – chicagotribune.com. Currently,
private use of drones is basically limited to hobbyists, and they have to keep the drones under 400 feet and within their line of sight. Once the FAA changes the rules,
a company such as Google for example could finally buy drones and use them for mapping purposes. Yes, we may finally have Google Street Drone View. Currently,
the FAA restricts drone use primarily to segregated blocks of military airspace, border patrols and about 300 public agencies and their private partners. Those public
agencies are mainly restricted to flying small unmanned aircraft at low altitudes away from airports and urban centers. Within nine months of the bill’s passage, the
FAA is required to submit a plan on how to safely provide drones with expanded access. via Congress OKs FAA bill allowing drones in U.S., GPS air traffic control –
chicagotribune.com. Drones
are already being used to patrol our borders (and occasionally to catch cattle rustlers), but their use
beyond that is very limited. This Act will change that. “We are looking at border security using UAV (unmanned aerial
vehicles) research, law enforcement, firefighting, just to name a few,” said Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. “There
are going to be more and more uses for unmanned aerial vehicles to be able to do the surveillance and photographing that have taken helicopter pilots and small
general aviation and even large aircraft to do in the past.” The ACLU, for one, is concerned that with all this talk of taking limits off drone use, there’s no talk about
putting limits on how they’re used. “Congress — and to the extent possible, the FAA — need to impose some rules (such as those we proposed in our report) to
protect Americans’ privacy from the inevitable invasions that this technology will otherwise lead to,” writes the ACLU’s Jay Stanley. “We don’t want to wonder, every
time we step out our front door, whether some eye in the sky is watching our every move.”
Drones are politically popular
Smithson, 12
(S, witer for the Washington Times, "Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress", Feb 7,
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all NL)
Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a
bill Congress passed this week
to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace. The FAA Reauthorization Act, which
President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of
commercial drones by 2015. Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance
by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well. “There are serious policy questions on the horizon
about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government
Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is “concerned about the implications for surveillance by government
agencies,” said attorney Jennifer Lynch. The provision in the
legislation is the fruit of “a huge push by lawmakers and the defense
sector to expand the use of drones” in American airspace, she added. According to some estimates, the commercial drone market
in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use. The agency projects that
30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020. The highest-profile use of drones by the United States has been in the CIA’s
armed Predator-drone program, which targets al Qaeda terrorist leaders. But the vast majority of U.S. drone missions,
even in war zones, are flown for surveillance. Some drones are as small as model aircraft, while others have the wingspan of a full-size jet. In
Afghanistan, the U.S. use of drone surveillance has grown so rapidly that it has created a glut of video material to be analyzed. The legislation would order
the FAA, before the end of the year, to expedite the process through which it authorizes the use of drones by federal,
state and local police and other agencies. The FAA currently issues certificates, which can cover multiple flights by more than one aircraft in a
particular area, on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Homeland Security is the only federal agency to discuss openly its use of drones in domestic airspace. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, an agency within the department, operates nine drones, variants of the CIA’s feared Predator. The aircraft, which are flown remotely
by a team of 80 fully qualified pilots, are used principally for border and counternarcotics surveillance under four long-term FAA certificates. Officials say they can be
used on a short-term basis for a variety of other public-safety and emergency-management missions if a separate certificate is issued for that mission. “It’s not all
about surveillance,” Mr. Aftergood said. Homeland Security has deployed drones to support disaster relief operations. Unmanned aircraft also could be useful for
fighting fires or finding missing climbers or hikers, he added. The FAA has issued hundreds of certificates to police and other government agencies, and a handful to
research institutions to allow them to fly drones of various kinds over the United States for particular missions. The agency said it issued 313 certificates in 2011 and
295 of them were still active at the end of the year, but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation is suing the FAA to obtain records of the certifications. “We need a list so we can ask [each agency], ‘What are your policies on drone use? How
do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?’ ” Ms. Lynch said. “Currently, the
only barrier to the routine use
of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of
certificates,” said Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research center in Washington. The Department of
Transportation, the parent agency of the FAA, has announced plans to streamline the certification process for government drone flights this year, she said. “We are
looking at our options” to oppose that, she added. Section 332 of the new FAA legislation also orders the agency to develop a system for licensing commercial drone
flights as part of the nation’s air traffic control system by 2015. The
agency must establish six flight ranges across the country where
drones can be test-flown to determine whether they are safe for travel in congested skies. Representatives of the fastgrowing unmanned aircraft systems industry say they worked hard to get the provisions into law. “It sets deadlines
for the integration of [the drones] into the national airspace,” said Gretchen West, executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, an industry group. She said drone technology is new to the FAA. The legislation, which provides several
deadlines for the FAA to report progress to Congress, “will move the [drones] issue up their list of priorities,” Ms. West said.
Past legislation proves
AP, 12
(Associated Press, "Congress OKs FAA bill allowing drones in U.S., GPS air traffic control", Feb 7,
www.iowadot.gov/aviation/news/pdfs/Congress%20OKs%20FAA%20bill%20allowing%20drones%20inUSGPS%20air%20
traffic%20control%20-%20chi.pdf NL)
After five years of legislative struggling, 23 stopgap measures and a two-week shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration, Congress finally has
passed a bill aimed at prodding the nation's aviation system into a new high-tech era in which satellites are central to
air traffic control and piloted planes share the skies with unmanned drones. The bill, which passed the Senate 75-20
Monday, speeds the nation's switch from radar to an air traffic control system based on GPS technology. It also
requires the FAA to open U.S. skies to drone flights within four years. Final approval of the measure was marked by an
unusual degree of bipartisan support despite labor opposition to a deal cut between the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republicancontrolled House on rules governing union organizing elections at airlines and railroads. The House had passed the bill last week, and it now goes to President Barack
Obama for his signature. The bill authorizes $63.4 billion for the FAA over four years, including about $11 billion toward the air traffic system and its modernization. It
accelerates the modernization program by setting a deadline of June 2015 for the FAA to develop new arrival procedures at the nation's 35 busiest airports so planes
can land using the more-precise GPS navigation. Instead of time-consuming, fuel-burning, stair-step descents, planes will be able to glide in more steeply with their
engines idling. Planes will also be able to land and take off closer together and more frequently, even in poor weather, because pilots will know the precise location of
other aircraft and obstacles on the ground. Fewer planes will be diverted. Eventually, FAA officials want the airline industry and other aircraft operators to install
onboard satellite technology that updates the location of planes every second instead of radar's every six to 12 seconds. That would enable pilots to tell not only the
location of their plane, but other planes equipped with the new technology as well — something they can't do now. The
system is central to the
FAA's plans for accommodating a forecast 50 percent growth in air traffic over the next decade. Most other nations already
have adopted satellite-based technology for guiding planes, or are heading in that direction, but the FAA has moved cautiously. The U.S. accounts for 35 percent of
global commercial air traffic and has the world's most complicated airspace, with greater and more varied private aviation than other countries. The bill is "the best
news that the airline industry ever had," Sen. Jay Rockefeller, DW.Va., said. "It will take us into a new era." Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the bill "will
provide the stability and predictability to ensure critical aviation safety programs … and infrastructure investments move forward." The
FAA is also
required under the bill to provide military, commercial and privatelyowned drones with expanded access to U.S.
airspace currently reserved for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting unmanned drones
controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as airliners, cargo planes, business jets and
private aircraft. Currently, the FAA restricts drone use primarily to segregated blocks of military airspace, border patrols and about 300 public agencies and
their private partners. Those public agencies are mainly restricted to flying small unmanned aircraft at low altitudes away from airports and urban centers. Within
nine months of the bill's passage, the FAA is required to submit a plan on how to safely provide drones with expanded
access. The bill's passage culminates a five-year struggle by Congress to pass a long-term FAA authorization bill. The last
long-term operating authorization for the agency expired in 2007. The agency has continued to limp along under a series of short-term extensions, but its ability to
commit to decisions on major acquisition programs that extend over many years, like air traffic modernization, was hindered by the uncertainty over how much it
could spend and by a lack of direction from Congress. Providing
that stability is critical to the health of the commercial aviation
industry, which accounts for about 5 percent of U.S. economic output, lawmakers said.
Proper use of drones is popular
Jackson, 13
(Henry, writer for Phys.org, "Congress gets mixed advice on regulating drones", May 17, phys.org/news/2013-05congress-advice-drones.html NL)
"Technology is great—as long as it's used the right and proper way," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican said at a House Judiciary
subcommittee hearing Friday on the issues surrounding drones—which can be as small as a bird and as large as a plane. Congress isn't alone
in seeking to address the issues: Since January, drone-related legislation has been introduced in more than 30 states , largely in response
to privacy concerns. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican, said it was important for new standards to address the privacy issues associated with use of drones.
With Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, and Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican, he is sponsoring legislation that would codify due process protections for Americans in cases
involving drones and make flying armed drones in the U.S. sky illegal. "Every
advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to
DNA, has resulted in courts carving out the Constitutional limits within which the police operate, " Sensenbrenner said.
Generic
Plan costs political capital
Berman, 10
(Emily, Counsel in the Liberty and Naitonal Security Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law,
"Executive Privilege Disputes Between Congress and the President: A Legislative Proposal",
http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/Articles/Vol03_2/3.2.741-Berman.pdf)
But after Watergate, only a handful of executive privilege disputes have reached and been resolved by the courts. More frequently, congressional executive fights over information have continued to be resolved much the same way they had been for more than
200 years: by political negotiations. Usually these negotiations — in which each side expends political capital and threatens to
escalate the conflict to exert pressure on the other — result in a compromise of some kind. These negotiations are o f ten relatively uneventful and
without rancor.
Empirically proven—Congress supports pres war powers
Zelizer, 11
(Julian, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, "War powers belong to Congress and the
president", June 27, www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/zelizer.war.powers/index.html NL)
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- When presidents send American troops into military conflict, it usually seems as if Congress
barely flinches. Presidents no longer request that Congress declare war. Members of Congress don't insist that
presidents ask them. Still, tension over military action can develop between the White House and Congress. In the most recent chapter of the nation's interbranch conflict, Speaker of the House John Boehner has charged that President Barack Obama violated the War Powers Resolution, which Congress passed in 1973 in
an effort to seize war power back from the executive branch. Obama is being criticized because he did not request congressional approval of the military operations
in Libya even though they have lasted for more than 90 days. In a symbolic vote, 225 Republicans allied with 70 Democrats to vote down a measure authorizing the
operations in Libya. They
did not vote to cut funding, however. While the speaker has raised an important point, the fact is that all presidents,
Democrats and Republicans, have made decisions about sending troops into conflict without a declaration of war . Since
President Harry Truman sent troops into Korea in 1950, legislators have let presidents make the initial decision as to whether military force should be used.
Although Congress has remained quite active in wartime politics, ranging from its use of hearings to stimulate political debate to the
shaping of military budgets, Congress no longer declares war. Before the Korean War, the situation was quite different. As Louis Fischer of the
Congressional Research Service wrote, "From 1789 to 1950, lawmakers, the courts, and the executive branch understood that only Congress could initiate offensive
actions against other nations." There are many reasons for why presidents usurped so much power. In most areas of government, the legislative branch of
government lost some of its power in the 20th century. As
government expanded, and as the U.S. gained more of a stake in other
parts of the world and with the advent of nuclear weapons, there was a need for quicker decision-making. A greater
number of politicians in both parties supported the centralization of power in the White House. Very often Congress was also eager to avoid having
to decide whether to declare war so it could force presidents to shoulder the blame when things went wrong . At other
times, the party in control of Congress agreed with the president's military agenda so that legislators were happy to delegate their authority, as was the case in 1950
(Korea) and Iraq (2003). But the failure of Congress to fully participate in the initial decision to use military force has enormous costs for the nation beyond the
obvious constitutional questions that have been raised. The first problem is that the U.S. now tends to go to war without having a substantive debate about the
human and financial costs that the operation could entail. Asking for a declaration of war, and thus making Congress take responsibility for the decision, had required
presidents to enter into a heated debate about the rationale behind the mission, the potential for large-scale casualties and how much money would be spent. When
presidents send troops into conflict without asking Congress for approval, it has been much easier for presidents to elude these realities. President Lyndon Johnson
famously increased the troop levels in Vietnam without the public fully realizing what was happening until after it was too late. Although Johnson promised
Democrats when they debated the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 that they would only have a limited deployment and he would ask them again if the mission
increased, he never did. He used the broad authority granted to him to vastly expand the operations during his presidency. By the end of his time in office, hundreds
of thousands of troops were fighting a hopeless war in the jungles of Vietnam. Johnson also continued to mask the budgetary cost, realizing the opposition that
would emerge if legislators knew how much the nation would spend. When the costs became clear, Johnson was forced to request a tax increase from Congress in
1967, a request which greatly undermined his support. The second cost of presidents going to war rather than Congress doing so is that major mistakes result when
decisions are made so quickly. When there is not an immediate national security risk involved, the slowness of the legislative process does offer an opportunity to
force policymakers to prove their case before going to war. Speed is not always a virtue. In the case of Iraq, the president started the war based on the shoddiest of
evidence about WMD. The result was an embarrassment for the nation, an operation that undermined U.S. credibility abroad. Even in military actions that have
stronger justifications, there are downsides to speed. With President Obama and the surge in Afghanistan, there is considerable evidence that the administration
went in without a clear strategy and without a clear objective. With Libya, there are major concerns about what the administration hopes to accomplish and whether
we are supporting rebel forces that might be connected with terrorist networks intent on harming the U.S. The third cost has been the cheapening of the decision
about using military force. In the end, the decision about whether to send human treasure and expend valuable dollars abroad should be one that is made by both
branches of government and one that results from a national dialogue. Requiring Congress to declare war forces voters to think about the decision sooner rather than
later. While efficiency is essential, so too is the democratic process upon which our nation is built. The result of the decision-making process that has been used in
recent decades is that as a nation too many citizens lose their connection to the war. Indeed, most Americans don't even think twice when troops are sent abroad.
The shift of power toward the president has compounded the effects of not having a draft, which Congress dismantled in 1973. Wars sometimes resemble just
another administrative decision made by the White House rather than a democratic decision. So Boehner
has raised a fair point, though he and other
Republicans don't have much ground to stand on given their own party's history. Republicans,
like Democrats, have generally supported
presidential-war power in addition to a weak Congress. Most politicians have only worried about war power when it is politically convenient.
Indeed, in 2007, then-Sen. Obama wrote, the "President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does
not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to this nation." Clearly, Obama has not governed by the principles on which he campaigned. It is doubtful whether
the parties will do anything about this. The War Powers Resolution has not worked well and there seems to be little appetite to pass something else. But the
consequences of the path that the nation has chosen are enormously high. We've
moved too far away from the era when Congress
matters. As a result, the decision to use troops is too easy and often made in haste. Obama, who spoke about this issue so cogently
on the campaign trail, should be a president who understands that reality.
Republicans support presidential war powers
Lennard, 11
(Natasha, assistant news editor at Salon, "Critics: GOP bill a declaration of constant war", May 10,
www.salon.com/2011/05/10/new_war_on_terror/ NL)
Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, R-Calif., revealed The National Defense
Authorization Act on Monday, which includes a bill renewing an act passed just days after 9/11, the Authorization for
the Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF gave then-President George W. Bush carte blanche to hunt down the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. The
renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers and some critics have called it “the first full-scale
declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II,” since it makes no reference to the capturing of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the
section of The National Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of War. According to POLITICO: The new language drops
any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The
measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the
courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power. The argument from
proponents of the Republican-backed bill is that, in the decade since AUMF was enacted, terror groups with no
connection to 9/11 have come into the picture. Critics say such terror suspects should be dealt with using law
enforcement and that we should not be affirming a commitment to war without specific aims or boundaries. The bill
would also give the president the ability to attack an individual, group, or nation without Congressional approval .
There’s conservative support for pres war powers
Horton, 11
(Scott, writer for Harpers Magazine, "Congress and the War Powers", May 19, harpers.org/blog/2011/05/congress-andthe-war-powers/ NL)
Ironically, as day sixty arrives for Libya, Congress is indeed engaged in discussion of the authorization of military force–with respect to
the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Of course, in the week after September 11, Congress granted the president this power. The current effort is an act of G.O.P.
political grandstanding that serves no practical purpose, other perhaps than to support their vision of warfare without limits in time and space.
It is typical of
Washington today that shrill voices of the war party support this measure as they ignore Congress’s affirmative duty to come to grips with an
unauthorized military campaign in Libya.
Pres war powers popular in Congress—plan causes backlash
Kenny, 13
(Jack, writer for The New American, "Congress Looks to Revise, Expand President's War Powers", June 4,
www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15616-congress-looks-to-revise-expand-president-s-war-powers
NL)
But change in what direction? Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is usually allied with McCain on defense and foreign policy issues, made clear the
direction he thinks he thinks the Congress should move. "I just think we need to broaden the definition," said
Graham, "and look at who is the enemy and where is the war in 2013." Broadening the definition of the enemy would
necessarily mean broadening the war, which is what the president has been doing anyway, despite his statements about wanting a narrower focus and
an end to the "global war on terror." A recent Washington Posteditorial warned of "a danger that dropping the AUMF — as opposed to tailoring it to the new
conditions Obama described — will result in less restraint on presidential power, not more." That, the Post explained, is because "top legal advisers
at the State and Defense departments" have publicly said that absent the AUMF, "military attacks on terrorists can still be carried out under Article II of the
Constitution, which grants the president power to defend the country against imminent attack. Most legal experts agree with that view," the Post informed its
readers. And how "imminent" need an anticipated attack be for the president to use military force without seeking or obtaining authority from Congress? In February
of this year, the administration's top legal authority sent to congressional leaders a secret "White Paper" about the use of drones in counterterrorism operations. In
that memo, obtained by NBC News, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote: The
condition that an operational leader present an "imminent"
threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a
specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. So unclear evidence about a non-specific
assault that may or may not happen "in the immediate future" might fit the definition of an "imminent attack." And, of course, the threat could come from
anywhere on the globe. Did the president say something about a "boundless global war on terror"? Despite the deference paid unnamed "legal scholars" in
the Post editorial, the Constitution offers no such power to the president in Article II or any other article. The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear
that in the powers delegated to Congress, the words "declare war" were substituted for "make war" for the purpose of "leaving to the Executive the power to repel
sudden attacks." As Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, put it: "The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war."
Indefinite Detention
Congressional opposition to the plan
Posner, 13
(Eric, writer for Slate, "President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants", May 2,
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_wh
enever_he_wants_to.html NL)
The real issue here, of course, is that Congress has given the president a convenient excuse for not doing something
he doesn’t really want to do anyway. The public wants to keep Guantanamo open. Shutting it would generate a serious
backlash that enraged members of Congress would whip up. It also matters that President Obama does not object to
indefinite detention, but to the island prison itself. That is why he wants to move detainees to a supermax in the United States,
not release them. But doing so would make clear that his campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay was an empty
one. The place of indefinite detention would change; the system supporting it would not. He does better with
headlines like “Congress, rules keep Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay” than with “Obama moves detainees to U.S. soil where they will remain forever.”
The president will not shut Guantanamo, and the reason is politics, not law. If you don’t like this choice, blame him.
Detention centers popular with Congress
Rosenberg, 12
(Carol, writer for The Miami Herald, "Congress, rules keep Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay", Jan 9,
www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/09/135179/congress-rule-keep-obama-from.html#.UeLDrY2TiSI NL)
The responsibility lies not so much with the White House but with Congress, which has thwarted President Barack
Obama’s plans to close the detention center, which the Bush administration opened on Jan. 11, 2002, with 20 captives. Congress has used
its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S.
soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be
put on trial — a sort of Guantánamo North. The latest defense bill adopted by Congress moved to mandate military detention
for most future al Qaida cases. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of passage, and then Obama signed it into law with a “signing
statement” that suggested he could lawfully ignore it. On paper, at least, the Obama administration would be set to release almost half the current captives at
Guantánamo. The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable
enough to help resettle them or if a foreign country could safely give them a new start. But Congress
has made it nearly impossible to transfer
captives anywhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only
a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress
and permit the release of a detainee to another country. Neither is likely: U.S. District Court judges are not ruling in favor of captives in
the dozens of unlawful detention suits winding their way from Cuba to the federal court in Washington. And on the occasions when those judges
have ruled for detainees, the U.S. Court of Appeals has consistently overruled them in an ever-widening definition of
who can be held as an affiliate of al Qaida or the Taliban. Meanwhile, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top
lawyer, believes that Congress crafted the transfer waivers a year ago in such a way that Panetta (and Robert Gates before him)
would be ill-advised to sign them. (In essence, the Secretary of Defense is supposed to guarantee that the detainee would never in the future engage in
violence against any American citizen or U.S. interest.)
Massive political controversy over the plan
McGovern, 13
(Ray, writer for AlterNet, "Congress Turns a Blind Eye to the Deep Shame of Guantanamo Bay", May 14,
www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/congress-turns-blind-eye-deep-shame-guantanamo-bay NL)
To be completely fair, the reigning reluctance seems, actually, to be a bipartisan affair. Moran is one of the few Democrats possessed of a
conscience and enough moral courage to let the American people know what is being done in their name. For other lawmakers, it is a mite too risky.
Folksy folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, a member of the Armed Services Committee which is supposed to
exercise oversight of the lethal operations carried out by the Joint Special Operations Command, make no bones
about the dilemma they prefer to duck when it comes to letting detainees die at Guantanamo or letting the president
blow up suspected terrorists via drone strikes. Here’s Graham quoted in Esquire magazine last summer on why Congress has engaged in so little
oversight of the lethal drone program: “Who
wants to be the congressman or senator holding the hearing as to whether the
president should be aggressively going after terrorists? Nobody. And that’s why Congress has been AWOL in this
whole area.” The same thinking applies to showing any mercy for the people held at Guantanamo.
Congressional opposition makes the plan unpopular
Cole, 12
(David, professor at Georgetown Law, "It’s Congress’ Fault That It’s Still Open", 1/9, updated Feb 5, 2013,
www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/09/guantanamo-10-years-later/its-congress-fault-that-guantanamo-is-stillopen NL)
Yet three years after Obama promised to close the most infamous prison in the world today, and 10 years after the
first detainee was brought there, Guantánamo remains open, with no foreseeable shelf life date. Why? The principal
culprit is Congress. Adopting a short-sighted “not in my backyard” attitude, Congress has barred Obama from
transferring any detainees to the United States, not even to stand trial in a criminal court, and has put onerous
conditions on their being transferred to any other country. These measures have effectively frozen in place one of the most
counterproductive aspects of our national security policy – and given Al Qaeda just what it wants. As long as some of the men at Guantánamo remain lawfully
detained as enemy fighters in an ongoing armed conflict, they have to be held somewhere, so realistically Guantánamo can be closed only if we can transfer them
here or to a third country. But few
members of Congress have the courage to stand up to fear-mongering about holding the
men here, or are willing to risk the possibility that a detainee transferred abroad might take action against us in the
future. They don’t seem troubled at all about keeping men locked up who the military has said could be released, or
about keeping open an institution that jeopardizes our security. In the meantime, Congress has assured that the United States will continue to be better known
around the world for Guantánamo Bay than for the Statue of Liberty.
USAF Hostilites
Congressional and public support for US wars
Schneider, 07
(Bill, CNN Senior Political Analyst, "Poll: Most back Congress over Bush in war funding fight", May 8,
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.poll/ NL)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans disagree with President Bush's decision last week to veto the war funding bill that
contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.¶ What do they think Congress should do now?¶ Former Sen. John Edwards said
Congress shouldn't back down. "If we don't have the votes to override the veto, the Congress should send him another bill with the funding authority for
the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal," the Democratic presidential candidate said.¶ The public agrees. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll
released Tuesday, 57 percent want Congress to pass another bill with funding and timetables. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)¶
The poll surveyed 1,028 American adults between Friday and Sunday. It has a sampling error of 3 percentage points. (Interactive: Poll results)¶ Another proposal is to
replace timetables with benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to show progress toward a political resolution. ¶ "If they can't even get a formula for
distributing the oil, if they can't even begin to take over 'Iraqization,' how much longer are we supposed to stay there with these goals?" Sen. Charles Schumer, DNew York, said Sunday in an interview with CNN.¶ A bill with benchmarks instead of a timetable gets slightly more public support, 61 percent.¶ The reason the public
supports a timetable for withdrawal may be because the four-year-old war remains unpopular, with nearly two-thirds of the public opposed. Of those polled, 34
percent said they support the war, while 65 percent expressed opposition.¶ But while
previous surveys show Americans are pessimistic
about the outcome of the war, a majority of 55 percent said they were not yet willing to declare it "lost." The prevailing
view, held by 63 percent of Americans polled in April, is that neither side is winning.¶ Fifty-four percent said they don't believe the Bush administration's assertion
that the war is the "central front" in the war on terrorist groups that was launched after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Fortythree percent said they agreed.¶ Support for funding the troops¶ Republicans charge Democrats with failing to support U.S. troops. "The
troops desperately
need the funds," Rep. Adam Putnam, Republican Conference chairman, said. "The political games that are being
played by the Democratic leadership are jeopardizing the reinforcements that they so desperately need to succeed in
that country."¶ Democratic leaders have said they won't cut off support for the troops, and the majority of the public
agrees they should not, according to the CNN poll. Sixty percent of those polled oppose a measure that would provide no
additional funds for the troops and require them to withdraw by next March.¶ "We intend to fund the troops, as Speaker Pelosi
and I have said," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. "Our troops are in harm's way. We will not leave them defenseless or
unsupported."¶ It was reported earlier this week that House Democrats are crafting a bill that would immediately provide the
president with almost half of the requested $95.5 billion and would require Congress to vote again in July to release the remaining funds. (Full
Story)¶ Although this proposal does not include dates for withdrawal, one leadership aide said it still demands accountability from Bush because "it doesn't just give
him another $100 billion with no questions asked."¶ Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd want Congress to revoke the authority it gave President
Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq and require him to seek new authority to continue the war. "I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that
authorization is overdue," Clinton said. (Watch how Sen. Clinton wants to 'repeal' the war
)¶ Half the public agrees.¶ The public trusts Congress more than
President Bush to set policy in Iraq. Congress is thought to be more committed to ending the war. But with trust comes responsibility. When asked who is more
responsible for U.S. troops not yet receiving additional funds, 44 percent say the Democrats in Congress, while 34 percent say President Bush.
Public opinion key—Bush proves
Hirsch, 13
(Michael, chief correspondent for National Journal, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital", Feb 7,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 NL)
Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have
overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s
gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The
problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he
had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most
people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse
bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing
it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political
science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a
green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the
garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.…
Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more
momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on
the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line
on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls.
Military support convinces Congress war fighting capabilities are popular
Mulrine, 13
(Anna, staff writer for Christian Science Monitor, "Afghanistan war can yet be won, US general tells Congress", April 16,
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0416/Afghanistan-war-can-yet-be-won-US-general-tells-Congress NL)
Is it still possible for the United States to “win” the war in Afghanistan, which, at 11 years, is the longest war in US history?¶ Yes is the
assessment of Gen. Joseph Dunford, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, who was on Capitol Hill Tuesday
testifying on the progress of the war.¶ It is not the sort of portrait of victory Pentagon officials had envisioned at the war’s start – and may even be a
victory that defies the definition of the word. ¶ Still, Dunford told lawmakers, he is determined to keep using the word “win.”¶ “For the last few
years, many people have shied away from using the word ‘win.’ I personally have used that word since arriving in Afghanistan,” he said. “I frankly think that when
we’re talking to 18-, 19-, 20-, 21-year-old soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, we ought to talk in those terms.”¶ He went on to describe what "win" might look like:
Afghan national security forces (ANSF) taking over the “lead” in security operations in 2014 “is an important component of winning, and I think we have a plan that’s
in place to do that.”¶ What, precisely, it means for ANSF to take the lead in security operations has changed frequently over the years.¶ At one time, commanders
spoke of the goal of ANSF units operating “independently.” Military officials rarely use that word anymore, however. ¶ That’s because only one Afghan National Army
brigade in the country’s military currently operates “Independent with Advisors,” a somewhat oxymoronic label that is now the highest rating that any ANA unit can
achieve. ¶ It’s unclear how many more brigades will be able to achieve that rating, given the current attrition rate in the Afghan Army, which continues to present “a
significant challenge,” Dunford acknowledged. ¶ The attrition rate amounts to a loss of 5,000 troops per month, or 60,000 a year. “Vacancies are not always filled
quickly or with properly trained personnel,” he added. “The ANA’s sustained high attrition rates remain a significant concern and threaten the growth and
development of a professional, competent, and capable force.” ¶ Dunford described another “important component of our winning,” which is “to ensure that we
deny sanctuary to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we contribute to regional stability where we have national interests.Ӧ On that front, some problems remain,
particularly when it comes to the Taliban, which Dunford describes as “enablers” of Al Qaeda.¶ “Safe
havens in Afghanistan and sanctuaries in
Pakistan continue to provide Taliban senior leadership some freedom of movement and freedom of action, facilitating the
training of fighters and the planning of operations,” he told lawmakers.¶ As a result, the Taliban “remain firm in their conviction that ISAF’s [International Security and
Assistance Force's] drawdown and perceived ANSF weakness, especially when supplemented with continued external support and with sanctuary in Pakistan that the
Taliban exploit, will translate into a restoration of the pre-'surge' military capabilities and influence.Ӧ Even more problematic, after more than a decade of US military
intervention, is the continued tie between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, he said. “Despite
effective counterterrorism pressure on Al Qaeda and
its Taliban enablers, and on the small number of Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda’s relationship with local
Afghan Taliban remains intact,” the general said.¶ Dunford argued that the 62,000 US troops still in Afghanistan should continue to fight until at least
November, when their presence will again be evaluated. ¶ At the end of 2014, if US troops can “effect security transition, effect
political transition, and deny Al Qaeda sanctuary,” Dunford said – acknowledging that none of these goals has yet been accomplished – “we
can look at the families and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that have served over the last 11 years and say
we won because we provided the Afghans the opportunity to seize the decade of opportunity that starts in 2015.”¶ After that, he concluded, “it very much at that
point is up to the Afghans.”
International Links to Domestic
Unpopular foreign policy decisions destroy domestic political capital
Knecht and Weatherford, 06
(T. Knecht, Professor at the University of Denver, and M. S. Weatherford, Professor at the University of California Santa
Barbara, "Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Stages of Presidential Decision Making", International Studies Quarterly
(2006) 50, 705-727,
clas.georgetown.edu/files/Knecht%20and%20Weatherford%20Public%20Opinion%20and%20Foreign%20Policy.pdf NL)
Presidents consider the potential reactions of the public when making foreign policy decisions for several reasons. The most prominent is that leaders in
democracies¶ are held accountable in regular elections. Research on elections and voting shows that a substantial
portion of the public takes foreign policy issues and accomplishments into account in choosing between candidates,
and the literature on audience¶ costs integrates the idea into a larger theory of foreign policy making (Aldrich,¶ Sullivan, and Borgida 1989; Ninic and Hinckley 1991;
Fearon 1994; Smith 1998).¶ The
president’s need to maintain or increase political capital can also influence¶ foreign policy
decisions (Neustadt 1960; Light 1982; Sullivan 1991; for an opposite¶ view, see Edwards 1991). The key component in political capital is
approval ratings,¶ as presidents able to maintain high levels of approval are likely to be more influential in dealing with
Congress. Unpopular foreign policies can quickly erode political capital and weaken the prospects for the
administration’s foreign and¶ domestic agendas alike. Public opinion is also important to lame-duck presidents. A¶ president worried about his
place in history may use the last years of his tenure to¶ enhance his public support or to set the electoral stage for his heir apparent by¶
initiating popular foreign policies.
Foreign policy decisions sap domestic political capital
Knecht and Weatherford, 06
(T. Knecht, Professor at the University of Denver, and M. S. Weatherford, Professor at the University of California Santa
Barbara, "Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Stages of Presidential Decision Making", International Studies Quarterly
(2006) 50, 705-727,
clas.georgetown.edu/files/Knecht%20and%20Weatherford%20Public%20Opinion%20and%20Foreign%20Policy.pdf NL)
Of course, the degree to which presidents enjoy decision-making autonomy is the¶ product of many factors beyond
public attentiveness. Other domestic political actors, such as Congress and political interest groups, can constrain presidential
foreign policy making, especially during periods of public quiescence.9¶ Congress, for¶ example, often plays an important role in noncrisis
issues like international trade¶ (Pastor 1980; Destler 1995), where the public’s general disinterest in technical¶ economic matters poses a political context in which
members of Congress can¶ secure ‘‘rents’’ for constituent interest groups. This type of rent-seeking behavior¶ can
frustrate presidential policy making, as evidenced by the impediment U.S.¶ agricultural subsidies pose in creating a Free Trade Area of the Americas.10
In¶ short, we do not suggest that presidential decision-making autonomy is solely contingent upon the degree of public attentiveness. Nevertheless, we do argue
that,¶ ceteris paribus, an inattentive public affords presidents greater leeway in conducting foreign policy.
PC Key
PC key
AP, 13
(AP News, “Guns, Immigration and deficits: Big parts of Obama’s second-term agenda on the line this week,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obamas-agenda-on-the-line-this-week-with-action-expected-on-gunsimmigration-and-the-budget/2013/04/08/26bb8094-a093-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s second-term agenda will be robustly tested this week, with gun control and immigration in the
spotlight on Capitol Hill and the White House releasing his long-delayed budget blueprint. In a taste of what lies ahead, Democratic gun legislation arrived on the Senate floor Monday
— facing an aggressive Republican effort to block it. In an era of deep partisanship and divided government, Obama knows he won’t get everything he wants on the three big issues as he
seeks to capitalize on the national support that brought him re-election. But the scope of his victories or defeats on these issues will in part define his legacy and determine how much
political capital he retains for his final four years in office. “This is his best chance to set up the next 3½ years where he’s the pace car, ” said Sara
Taylor Fagen, who served as political director for President George W. Bush. But much of what happens during this pivotal period is out of the president’s direct control. Members of
Congress will largely determine whether his proposals to deal with gun ownership, revamp broken immigration laws and reduce the federal budget deficit gain traction. Lawmakers, back in
Washington after a two-week recess, are expected to take significant steps on some of the issues this week. A bipartisan group of senators could unveil highly anticipated immigration
legislation by the end of the week. And Democrats brought a gun-control bill to the Senate floor Monday afternoon amid a threat from conservative Republicans to use delaying tactics to
prevent formal debate from even beginning. Obama himself flew to Connecticut for a new gun-control speech, and he was bringing relatives of Newtown shooting victims back to
Washington on Air Force One to lobby members of Congress. “The day Newtown happened was the toughest day of my presidency,” Obama said Monday. “But I’ve got to tell you, if we
don’t respond to this, that’ll be a tough day for me, too. Because we’ve got to expect more from ourselves. We’ve got to expect more from Congress.” In the midst of all that, Obama will
release his 2014 budget, which already is drawing opposition from both parties ahead of its Wednesday publication. Republicans oppose Obama’s calls for new tax hikes, and many of the
president’s fellow Democrats balk at his proposals for smaller annual increases in Social Security and other federal benefit programs. The White House tried to play down the significance of
the week’s overlapping events to the president’s broader objectives, with Obama spokesman Jay Carney saying the administration is always trying to move forward on “the business of the
American people.” Said Carney: “Every
one of these weeks is full of the possibility for progress on a range of fronts.” But Obama’s advisers
know the window for broad legislative victories is narrower for a second-term president. Political posturing is already
underway for the 2014 midterm elections, which will consume Congress next year. And once those votes for a new Congress are cast, Washington’s attention turns
to the race to succeed Obama. Patrick Griffin, who served as White House legislative director under President Bill Clinton, said Obama’s legislative efforts this year are likely to be the “sum
and substance” of his second-term agenda. “I think it would be very tough to put another item on the agenda on his own terms,” said Griffin, adding that
unexpected events could force other issues to the fore. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the outcome of the debate over gun measures is perhaps the most uncertain. The White
House and Congress had little appetite for tackling the emotional issue during Obama’s first term, but December’s horrific elementary school massacre in Connecticut thrust gun control to
the forefront of the president’s second-term agenda. If a bill does reach Obama’s desk this year, it will be far weaker than what he first proposed. An assault weapons ban appears all but
dead, and a prohibition on ammunition magazines carrying over 10 rounds, also supported by the president, seems unlikely to survive. The White House is largely pinning its hopes on a
significant expansion of background checks for gun buyers, but the prospects for such a measure are far from certain, despite widespread public support. The best chance at a deal appears
The White House is far
more confident about the prospects for a sweeping immigration deal that could provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of people who now
to rest on eleventh-hour talks between Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
are in the country, tighten border security and crack down on businesses that employ people illegally. But the president is treading carefully on the sensitive issues, wary of disrupting a
bipartisan Senate working group that has been laboriously crafting a bill. The group of four Republicans and four Democrats could unveil that legislation as early as this week, a pivotal
development that would open months of debate. While the growing political power of Hispanics may have softened the ground for passage, significant hurdles remain. Looming over
Obama’s entire domestic agenda is the economy, including the deficit deal that has long eluded him. The budget Obama will release Wednesday proposes spending cuts and revenue
increases that would project $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years. That would replace $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are poised to take effect over the next 10 years if
Congress and the president don’t come up with an alternative. Seeking to soften bipartisan opposition to his budget proposals, Obama will dine Wednesday night with a dozen Republican
senators, part of the broader charm offensive he launched in recent weeks.
It’s the only way to overcome opposition
AFP, 13
(Agence France Presse, “US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle” 6/12,
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-12/news/39925853_1_border-security-landmark-immigrationbill-democratic-senator-chuck-schumer)
Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are insincere about fixing a badly broken system. The president
has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to
illegal immigrants and are determined to kill it. But ahead of the crucial test votes, Obama
waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital
on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even
some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures. "If passed, the Senate bill, as
currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border
enforcement lightly," he said at a White House event. Obama also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. "If you're not serious
about it, if you think that a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if
you're actually serious
and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done." Republican
Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Obama critic, said "the president's tone and engagement has been very helpful" to the
process. But he stressed that fellow Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely at whether they want to scupper the effort and jeopardize the
party's political future by alienating millions of voters.
***IMPACTS***
Science Leadership
Immigration reform is key to US science leadership
Peters, 13
(David, is CEO of Universal Robotics, with headquarters in Nashville, and serves as a member of the Nashville Area
Chamber of Commerce’s Prosperity Leaders. “Comprehensive immigration reform means more American jobs,”
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130315/OPINION03/303150069/Comprehensive-immigration-reform-meansmore-American-jobs)
Picking up the paper and reading the news coming out of Washington these days can be frustrating. Whatever the issue, it seems that our elected officials from both
parties are having trouble coming together to solve serious problems. However, in the middle of this “new normal,” as some like to call it, it is reassuring to see a
bipartisan group of Senators come together to talk about an issue that needs immediate attention and one that represents a huge potential win for our economy and
for more Tennessee jobs: comprehensive immigration reform. Most people don’t realize that our current immigration policies have remained mostly unchanged since
1965. If a business didn’t change any of its plans for nearly 50 years, it would more than likely be out of business. But that’s exactly
where we find
ourselves, with a federal immigration policy that is broken and out of date. At its core, reforming immigration is about
creating more American jobs. But unfortunately for us, while we wait and kick the can down the road, other countries are starting
to get the upper hand in recruiting away some of the world’s best and brightest American-trained talent. This trend is
particularly alarming when it comes to jobs in our high-tech fields, which often require advanced science and math
skills. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or “STEM,” fields are in high and growing demand in industries worldwide —
and STEM-educated graduates are the ones who often help lead to the amazing breakthroughs and discoveries that help create more American jobs. But more
than a quarter of U.S. tech firms report difficulty in finding and hiring STEM workers, and the number of Americans studying STEM
grows by less than 1 percent per year. Even if every American with an advanced degree in a STEM discipline were hired, the U.S. would still face 200,000 unfilled
advanced-degree STEM jobs by 2018. A recent study conducted by the American Enterprise Institute and the Partnership for a New American Economy found that
for every 100 immigrants who earn advanced degrees in the U.S. and then stay to work in technical fields, 262 jobs
are created for other American workers. That means we create more than 2.5 new jobs for every future foreign-born scientist, engineer, doctor or
entrepreneur we can attract, train and keep in the U.S. No surprise since 76 percent of patents that the top 10 U.S. patent-producing universities received in 2011
had an immigrant inventor. Foreign-born
business leaders now play a huge role in growing America’s economy and creating
more new American jobs. In fact, 28 percent of all companies started in the U.S. in 2011 had immigrant founders — and more than 40 percent of Fortune
500 companies were founded by an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. Clearly, attracting, training and keeping foreign-born talent here in
the U.S. is a big win for all of us in creating more American jobs. That’s why it is good to see the bipartisan group of U.S. senators actively at work trying
to modernize our immigration system, including an update of the STEM visa program. Four Republican and four Democratic senators are working together through a
broad set of principles to modernize our immigration laws and to begin working with the White House on comprehensive legislation. Both Congress and the president
recognize the need for action. The time has never been better. The need has never been greater. For the American economy and for more Tennessee jobs, our
leaders in Washington should act now on comprehensive immigration reform.
That prevents extinction
Federoff, 08
(Nina, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID “Testimony Before The
House Science Subcommittee On Research And Science Education,” pg online @
http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf)
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S.
Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our
scientific strength is both a tool of “soft
power” – part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal – and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic
economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy initiative, because science
and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate
and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations,
and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as
S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and
influence our social institutions and principles. America
must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its
technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. Science by its
nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates
opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency,
meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation.
Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep
political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of
communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of
ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and
the increasingly transnational and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that
science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by
bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific
community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50% of physical science and
engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were
educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their
home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board’s 2008 Science and Engineering
Indicators, 47% of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science – particularly those
that address the grand challenges in science and technology – are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international
fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President
Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to earth. ITER serves as a symbol
of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States
– representing 70% of the world’s current population.. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time
as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force
only on October 2007. The
elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and
credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S.
relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science
diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear
powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats
perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The
welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed
world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail . Countries that are unable to defend their
people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the
world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies,
environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of
the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on
knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing
these common challenges demands
common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must
increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the
science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign
policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence
in emerging economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains.
Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal
for US science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic
opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism
as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and
opportunities that improve people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates
for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a
means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons’ of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction
activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition,
new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance
security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.
Warming
CIR gets new workers which solves warming
Norris and Jenkins, 09
(Teryn Norris, Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute and Jessie Jenkins, Director of Energy and Climate Policy at
the Breakthrough Institute, “ Want to Save the World? Make Clean Energy Cheap,” Huffington Post, March 10,
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/03/want_to_save_the_world_make_cl.shtml)
Whatever the cause, we have very little chance of overcoming climate change without enlisting young innovators at a
drastically greater scale. Simply put, they represent one of the most important catalysts for creating a clean energy
economy and achieving long-term prosperity. The reason is this: at its core, climate change is a challenge of
technology innovation. Over the next four decades, global energy demand will approximately double. Most of this growth will happen in developing nations
as they continue lifting their citizens out of poverty and building modern societies. Butover the same period, global greenhouse gas emissions must
fall dramatically to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Shortly before his untimely death in 2005, the Nobel Prize-winning
physicist Richard Smalley coined this the "Terawatt Challenge": increasing global energy production from roughly 15 terawatts in 2005 to 60 terawatts annually by
2100 in a way that simultaneously confronts the challenges of global warming, poverty alleviation, and resource depletion. The single greatest obstacle to meeting
the Terawatt Challenge is the "technology gap" between dirty and clean energy sources. Low-carbon energy technologies remain significantly more expensive than
fossil fuels. For example, solar photovoltaic electricity costs up to three to five times that of coal electricity, and plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles can be twice as
expensive as their gasoline-fueled competitors. Unless
this technology gap is bridged and clean energy technologies become
affordable and scalable, poor and rich nations alike will continue opposing significant prices on their carbon emissions
and will continue relying primarily upon coal and other fossil fuels to power their development. This will virtually assure
massive climate destabilization. So the task is clear: to avoid climate catastrophe and create a new energy economy, we must
unleash our forces of innovation - namely, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs- to invent a new portfolio of truly
scalable clean energy technologies, chart new paths to bring these technologies to market, and ensure they are
affordable enough to deploy throughout the world.
Warming causes extinction
Stein, 06
(David Stein, Science editor for The Guardian, 2006, “Global Warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting,”
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html)
Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is
being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of
pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to
their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same selfdestructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed
by techniques of mass-deception."The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping
general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves,
melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming
leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not
immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the
death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million
year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.
***ANSWERS***
A2: Econ Resilient
US economy isn’t resilient – slow growth ensures shocks can crash it
MNI, 12
(Market News International, “Chicago Fed’s Evans: US Economy Simply Not Resilient Enough,” 9-18-12,
http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/09/18/chicago-feds-evans-us-economy-simply-not-resilient-enough/)
However, while fully supportive of the Fed’s recent actions, Evans urged monetary policymakers not to rest their oars in the effort to get
the recovery back on track, cautioning against being complacent or “unduly passive.” “Our economy today is simply
not resilient enough. The damage from the Great Recession was substantial; and to date, the recovery has been
disappointing,” Evans said in remarks prepared for delivery to a breakfast event in Ann Arbor, Michigan. And given the recession in Europe and
slower growth in previous economic bright spots such as China, “there’s a significant risk that the global recovery
might weaken further,” he added. “We can’t count on a boost to U.S. output from robust exports.” The Federal Reserve’s
policymaking Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that in addition to its maturity extension program, it will buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed
securities a month until it sees a significant improvement in the labor market. It also pushed out its forward guidance — how long its expects interest rates to remain
close to zero — to mid-2015 from late-2014. Evans, who will not be a voter on the FOMC until next year, has been one of the loudest proponents of additional action
by the Fed in the weeks leading up to last week’s meeting. “This was the time to act,” he said. “With
the problems we face and the potential
dangers lying ahead, it is essential to do as much as we can now to bolster the resiliency and vibrancy of the
economy.” “I believe the combination of new asset purchases and enhanced forward guidance about future policy should provide an important added stimulus to
economic activity and hiring,” he declared, adding, “It is very hard to believe that millions of people who were working productively just a few years ago have
suddenly become unemployable.” Not only were last week’s additional monetary policy actions in response to the disappointing pace of the recovery, Evans said they
were also intended to increase the resiliency of the economy in the face of the “increasing headwinds and greater downside risks” posed by the slowdown in global
economic growth, the economic turmoil in Europe and the looming U.S. fiscal cliff. More monetary accommodation by the Fed and greater confidence in the future
would mean a stronger U.S. economy, Evans said, one that would be more resilient to “a large-scale decline in global growth or a sharp fiscal retrenchment.” On
Europe, Evans noted that while the current expectation is that a combination of liquidity support for banks and sovereigns will reduce financial restraint — allowing
individual countries time to make structural adjustments — “the periphery countries will almost certainly experience a great deal of pain.” Closer to home, Evans
warned that a fiscal contraction on the scale of the fiscal cliff would be “a serious threat” to the fragile recovery , and added that
“unfortunately, a political stalemate that triggers slated spending cuts — an extreme outcome — cannot be ruled out.” The Fed’s shift away from conducting asset
purchases of a fixed size and timespan towards a more open-ended approach conditions its actions to the economy’s performance, Evans said. “And stating that we
expect to keep a highly accommodative stance for policy for a considerable time after the recovery strengthens is an important reassurance to households and
businesses that Fed policy will not tighten prematurely,” he added. While declaring his wholehearted support for the Fed’s actions, Evans nevertheless said he
believes there are additional steps the Fed can take to further strengthen its positive effects on the economy. He spoke of the risks of being “timid and unduly
passive,” warning that sticking to just “modest, cautious, safe policy actions” risks inflicting a lost decade on the U.S. economy similar to that which Japan experienced
in the 1990s. “Underestimating
the enormity of our problems and the negative forces holding back growth itself exposes
the economy to other potentially more serious unintended consequences,” Evans said. “We cannot be complacent and
assume that the economy is not being damaged if no action is taken. I am optimistic that we can achieve better outcomes through more
monetary policy accommodation,” he concluded.
A2: PC Not Real
Political capital gets bills passed
Beckmann and Kumar, 11
(Matthew Beckmann, Assistant Professor Department of Political Science & Center for the Study of Democracy
University of California, Irvine, and Vimal Kumar, Ph.D. Candidate Department of Economics University of California,
Irvine, “Opportunism in Polarization: Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate, 1953-2006”, 2011, pdf NL)
That the last half-century has seen increased polarization in Washington is clear. Holders of most key posts and key votes just a few
decades back, conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are now few and far between, so much so that one pundit recently referred to the former as
“endangered species” and the latter as “essentially extinct” (Roll Call, October 27, 2005). Replacing these moderates have been resolute ideologues and loyal
partisans (Fleisher and Bond (2004); McCarty et al. (2006); Poole and Rosenthal (1984, 1997); Sinclair (2006); Theriault (2004)). Thus Jim Hightower’s aphorism that
“There’s
nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos” remains instructive, and more so
with each passing year. In light of Congress’ increasingly polarized character, a burgeoning literature has sought to uncover the causes and consequences.
While a myriad of factors have been identified as contributing to congressional polarization (Carson et al. (2007); Fleisher and Bond (2004); Brady and Han (2007),
Jacobson (2000); McCarty et al. (2006); Poole and Rosenthal (1997); Sinclair (2006); Stonecash et al. (2003); Theriault (2004)), the hypothesized effect is
comparatively clear: legislative gridlock. Partisan
polarization (via divided government) is thought to engender gridlock by promoting
posturing over compromising (Gilmour (1995); Groseclose and McCarty (2001); Sinclair (2006)), and ideological polarization is predicted
to encourage gridlock by reducing the range of status quos that can be beat by a coalition preferring something else
(Brady and Volden (1998); Krehbiel (1998)). But, of course, gridlock is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Although polarization
certainly inhibits lawmaking(Binder (1999, 2003); Coleman (1999); Edwards III et al. (1997); Howell et al. (2000); Jones (2001); Kelly (1993)), significant
laws continue to pass – under unified and divided government, and even in the face of substantial polarization (see esp. Mayhew (1991)). This paper
considers these exceptions to the general rule. Specifically, developing a simple game-theoretic model in which the president allocates
scarce political capital to induce changes in senators’ votes, we show how a polarized chamber, compared to one with
more homogenous preferences, can actually improve a president’s prospects for prevailing on important roll-call
votes and passing preferred legislation.1 This hypothesis is tested against data on presidents’ success on key Senate roll-call votes from 1953-2006.
PC is real and key
Beckmann and Kumar, 11
(Matthew Beckmann, Assistant Professor Department of Political Science & Center for the Study of Democracy
University of California, Irvine, and Vimal Kumar, Ph.D. Candidate Department of Economics University of California,
Irvine, “Opportunism in Polarization: Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate, 1953-2006”, 2011, pdf NL)
Washington politics have transformed in the postwar period, as Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal have noted: “Beginning in the mid-1970s,
congressional politics became much more divisive. More Democrats staked out consistently liberal positions, and
more Republicans supported wholly conservative ones” (2007, 104). Part and parcel of strong partisans’ ascendance has been ideological
moderates’ demise. The result is a Capitol characterized by a few centrists caught between two opposing camps of resolute ideologues - a pattern labeled
polarization and sure to persist. In light of the Capitol’s increasingly polarized character, the scholarly task is clear: understanding the implications - both for the
legislative process and the outcomes that result. Here we aimed to build on previous research that finds congressional polarization often, but not always, produces
legislative gridlock. Specifically, our theory helps specify the conditions when polarization will lead to gridlock and when it will not. So even
as we find
polarization does make coalition-building more difficult when the president lacks political capital or chooses not to
use it promoting legislation, we also uncover a somewhat unintuitive prediction: polarization around the pivotal voter
can actually provide presidents a unique opportunity not just to pass legislation, but to pass legislation closer to their
ideal than would be possible in chamber filled with ideological moderates. Indeed, by allowing presidents to focus their
efforts on fewer members, we hypothesize polarization can improve presidents’ prospects for winning key votes,
securing legislative success, and influencing national legislation. Using of all Senate CQ key votes from 1954 to 2006 allowed a first test of
this account, and results corroborated all principal predictions. Most important, we found clear support for the proposition that polarization
qua polarization boosts presidents’ chances for prevailing on important, contested roll-call votes, especially when enjoying
high approval ratings and strong economic growth.
A2: Winners Win
Winners lose—economy proves
Harrison, 09
(Edward, banking and finance specialist at the economic consultancy Global Macro Advisors focusing on global
economics and corporate strategy, MBA from Columbia Business School and completed his undergraduate studies with
a degree in Economics from Dartmouth College, "Obama and Health Care: Wasting Political Capital", July 22,
www.economonitor.com/blog/2009/07/obama-and-health-care-wasting-political-capital/ NL)
President Barack Obama was elected last year in a sizable victory over his Republican competitor. Bolstering his position
was the huge Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Given these advantages, combined with intelligence
and his natural talent as an orator, the President could pretty much chart his own course. He did so, immediately turning to the
weak economy and the battered financial sector first. In his first days in office, Obama pushed through a sizable stimulus package, bailed out numerous financial
institutions, and put into place a host of measures to prop up the banking industry at considerable cost to taxpayers The plan worked. The financial industry has
roared back to life with huge profits and large bonuses all around as a result of the government’s largesse – well at least for most of the largest companies. The
surviving large financial institutions are even larger and more dominant than before the crisis. Now, it is business as usual again on Wall Street. In this sense,
Obama and his economic team have been very successful. But at what cost? While the captains of finance are
deciding how to spend their bonus money, ordinary Americans are still losing their jobs and their homes. The economy is
still in tatters. People are angry about this juxtaposition. No wonder everyone is having a hissy fit about Goldman, the owner of allegedly
market manipulating trading codes and winner of the Wall Street earnings parade. So, as the President turns his sights to health care reform he is finding a much
chillier reception from the media, Congress and the American people. In my view, this is
not necessarily because of his presenting the wrong
proposal at the wrong time. Obama has simply wasted too much capital on bailing out the banks and this has left him
in a weaker position politically. To be sure, there are many reasons one could find fault with the proposed health
plan. But, with tens of millions of Americans having no coverage, the time for change is now. We all know that Obama
could have made those changes had he not bailed out the banks first. His mandate will have to be more limited now. So, as the
President continues his public relations blitz to pass his health care bill, I look at the spectacle with a certain sense of disgust,
wondering what could have been if so much weren’t wasted on propping up our still ailing financial system.
Obama loses
Galston, 10
(William, olds the Ezra Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a
senior fellow. A former policy advisor to President Clinton and presidential candidates, Galston is an expert on domestic
policy, political campaigns, and elections. His current research focuses on designing a new social contract and the
implications of political polarization. "President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political
Difficulties', Nov 4, www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/11/04-obama-galston NL)
During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a
substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the
brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major
changes in student loan programs, among many others. Nevertheless, the political standing of both the president and
congressional Democrats slipped steadily through much of this period, and the voters administered a substantial rebuke in the November 2010
midterm elections. While some contests remain unresolved, the Democrats have lost at least six Senate seats, at least ten governorships, and more than sixty House seats, the most for a
mid-term election since 1938. By any measure, this is a substantial and consequential expression of public discontent. What went wrong? There are four broad schools of
thought. The first— popular among mainstream liberals, and the most supportive of the president—focuses on the unusual quantity and nature of problems that Obama inherited when he
took the oath of office. Because economic downturns induced by financial crises differ fundamentally from ordinary cyclical recessions, recovery is slower and takes longer, generating
sustained high unemployment. And because such crises destroy so much wealth, government must take costly steps to avert all-out disaster, expanding deficits and debt in ways that
average citizens are bound to find alarming and hard to understand. As Brookings’s Thomas Mann puts it, summarizing this view, The simple fact is that no leader or governing party thrives
politically in difficult economic times. . . Citizens today are understandably scared, sour, and deeply pessimistic about our economic future. . . The well-documented successes of the financial
stabilization and stimulus initiatives are invisible to a public reacting to the here and now, not to the counterfactual of how much worse it might have been. The
painfully slow
recovery from the global financial crisis and Great Recession have led most Americans to believe these programs have
failed and as a consequence they judge the president and Congress harshly.[i] In short, proponents of this view contend, Obama and the
Democrats are mostly the victims of forces beyond their control. Although they did everything in their power to restart the engine of growth, the economic clock is running more slowly than
is the political clock, generating widespread discontent and a huge voter backlash. There is a political as well as an economic dimension to this thesis. A large part of Obama’s appeal to
independents and moderates was his promise to reduce the level of partisanship in Washington. Unfortunately for him, he couldn’t deliver bipartisanship on his own, and (so runs the
argument), the Republicans’ decision to oppose his every initiative, starting on Day One, made it impossible for him to redeem his pledge. The Republicans gambled that because Obama and
the Democrats controlled the entire government, they would be blamed for continuing partisan wrangling. And the Republicans turned out to be right. Although
it was not
Obama’s fault, the public focused their discontent with continuing partisan rancor focused nonetheless on him and
the Democratic leadership, not on the real source of their disappointment. There is much to this, of course. There is little doubt that the
Republicans decided early on (just when is a matter of dispute) to act as a disciplined and relentless opposition, or that this decision was a dagger aimed at the heart of Obama’s public
standing. Barack Obama first came to national prominence at the 2004 Democratic convention. Rejecting the division between “Red America” and “Blue America,” his spectacularly
successful keynote address appealed to the public’s yearning for a politics of common purpose. During his presidential campaign, he continued this theme, promising to reduce partisan
polarization in Washington. But he underestimated the depth of the division between the parties, misunderstood its source, and assumed, wrongly, that his personal mandate and
persuasive powers would suffice to overcome it. In reality, the divide between the parties and between red and blue America went well beyond incivility to embrace disagreements on core
principles and conceptions of how the world works. Bridging this divide, if possible at all, would have taken much more than a change of tone in the White House. It would have required, as
well, a policy agenda that breached traditional partisan bounds. But there was little in Obama’s agenda that corresponded to Bill Clinton’s heterodox positions on crime, welfare, trade, and
fiscal restraint. Instead, Obama
synthesized and advocated policies representing the consensus within the Democratic Party.
Republicans rejected that agenda as a basis for reaching common ground. It is an open question whether there was any feasible course Obama
could have pursued in the early months that could have diminished the fierce partisan conflict of his first two years in office. Could he have made House Minority Leader John Boehner and
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell an offer they couldn’t refuse, at least not without them being punished in the court of public opinion? Those arguing in the affirmative point to the
process that produced the stimulus bill. Whatever the truth, the perception spread that Obama had subcontracted that bill to congressional Democrats, who proceeded to stuff it with a
long-deferred wish-list of programs dear to their core constituents. His strategy minimized the prospects for serious bipartisanship, even if some Republicans had initially been inclined to
move in that direction. Those arguing in the negative invoke the failed three-month effort in the Senate Finance Committee to produce a bipartisan health care bill. I must leave the
assignment of responsibility to historians who will be armed with information and documents not now on the public record. The second explanation, associated with the left wing of the
Democratic Party, argues that Obama failed politically, not because he was too partisan, but because he wasn’t partisan enough; not because he went too far, but because he didn’t go far
enough. The bill of particulars is roughly this: Obama
misjudged the willingness of Republicans to meet him halfway and
underestimated his ability to get his way without their help. As a result, the stimulus bill was both too small and
poorly structured; months were spent negotiating health care with Senate Republicans who never had any intention
of getting to yes; the public option was thrown away without a fight; and the time squandered on a needlessly
prolonged struggle over the health care bill squeezed out other key items such as climate change and immigration
reform. Adding executive insult to legislative injury, the president failed either to close Guantanamo or to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and his Treasury allowed financial institutions and
their leaders to survive and prosper without paying any price for their misdeeds. The result was a demoralized base and an emboldened opposition, with predictable electoral results. There
is something to this critique as well. Given the intensity of the polarization that predated his presidency, Obama did underestimate the difficulty of mitigating it. Even
the White
House’s strongest defenders concede that the health care debate went on much longer than it should have, with
negative consequences for the rest of Obama’s agenda. And his administration’s kid-glove treatment of big banks and
AIG was morally and politically tone-deaf. For the most part, however, the critique from the left fails the test of political realism. The administration couldn’t have
gotten a larger stimulus bill, even if it had pushed hard; nor could it have passed health reform with a public option, let alone the liberal beau ideal, a single-payer system. The reason is the
same in both cases: not only were Republicans unanimously opposed, but so were many Democrats. What the liberals overlook is that unlike
the Republican Party, Democrats are a diverse ideological coalition, split roughly 40/40/20 among liberals, moderates, and conservatives at the grassroots level. In the country as a whole,
moreover, liberals constitute only one fifth of the electorate and cannot hope to succeed outside a coalition with Americans to their right. What sells in Marin County won’t in South
Carolina, or even in most parts of the Midwest. Democrats representing more moderate or even conservative districts know that if they go beyond the limits that their constituents can
accept, they will pay a high political price. And so it proved in 2010, with Democratic losses concentrated in the South and Midwest. Liberals in the House of Representatives will now
painfully relearn the lesson that Rahm Emanuel patiently taught them in the past decade: by themselves, they do not constitute a majority and won’t, for the foreseeable future. There is
also a third explanation, a critique from the right: while Obama campaigned as a moderate conciliator, he governed as a liberal activist, undermining the possibility of bipartisan cooperation
and preventing himself from overcoming the divide between Red and Blue America. His
efforts to bring Republicans into the conversation were
largely cosmetic and were inconsistent with the role he allowed House Democratic leaders to play in the legislative
process. If he had been serious about tort reform and market-based mechanisms such as purchasing insurance across state lines, a basis would have existed for a different kind of
negotiation about health reform. In a similar vein, the House version of cap-and-trade legislation made no concession to Republican objections and alternatives. Under these circumstances,
Republicans had no choice but to oppose the president’s initiatives and to persuade the American people to give them a share of governing power to create the basis for a more equal
conversation. The failure of the president’s economic programs to reduce unemployment and stem the flood of housing foreclosures gave them the opportunity to make their case, and the
public responded. As we’ll see, there are some elements of truth in this critique as well. There was indeed a tension at the heart of the Obama campaign between the rhetoric of postpartisanship and the substance of the agenda. Once in office, Obama could have tried harder to restrain Democratic partisanship in the House and to build Republican concerns into his
health care proposals. Nonetheless, one overriding fact undermines the plausibility of the critique from the right. After their defeat in 2008, Republicans quickly reached a consensus on the
cause: voters had punished them, not because they had been too conservative, but rather because they hadn’t been conservative enough. They had come to Washington to cut spending
and limit government, but under George W. Bush, they concluded, they had become the reverse—a party that used government programs to cement its majority. As a result, domestic
spending rose more rapidly in the Bush years than it had in the Clinton years, and the party lost the confidence of its core supporters. By the time Obama took the oath of office, Republicans
had decided to return to their ancestral faith--the straight and narrow path of limited government. Because the incoming administration’s response to the economic crisis would certainly
not focus on tax cuts and spending restraint, Republicans were bound to confront its plans across the board. And so they did. In this paper, I will argue for a fourth explanation. The gist of it
is this: Yes,
American history is replete with examples of presidents and parties who experience political difficulties in
hard economic times, only to regain public esteem as the economy regains its balance. But there is more to the losses that President Obama
and the Democratic Party suffered in November 2010: the public punished them, not only for high unemployment and
slow growth, but also for what it regarded as sins of both commission and omission. The White House and
congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well
have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead.
In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse
than it had to be. The Seeds of Future Difficulties Some of the seeds of future problems were sown during the campaign. To begin, Obama raised the expectations of many
Americans so high that they were bound to be disappointed. The excitement that his campaign aroused proved to be a two-edged sword. While it mobilized many people—especially
minorities and the young—who otherwise might not have voted, it also led them to expect change of a scope and speed that our political system rarely permits. When the normal checks and
balances took hold in 2009, hope turned into doubt and then into disillusion. Also symptomatic of future problems, there was an odd void at the center of Obama’s campaign. It featured
soaring rhetoric about hope and change at one extreme and a long series of detailed policy proposals at the other. But there was something missing in between: a compelling, easily grasped
narrative that offered a theory about our challenges and unified his recommendations for addressing them. In this respect, Obama’s campaign did not measure up to its acknowledged
model, Ronald Reagan’s successful race for the presidency, framed by his remarkable acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention. Hope
is a sentiment, not a
strategy, and quickly loses credibility without a road map. Throughout his first two years in office, President Obama
often struggled to connect individual initiatives to larger purposes. Obama’s campaign was not only expansive but
also ambiguous, and Obama knew it. After defeating Hilary Clinton, the presumptive nominee gave an interview to the New York Times. “I am like a Rorshach test,” he said. “Even if
people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something.”[ii] The
difficulty was that the hopes of his supporters were often
contradictory. Some expected him to be a liberal stalwart, leading the charge for single-payer health insurance and
the fight against big corporations; others assumed that his evident desire to transcend the red-blue divide pointed to
a post-partisan presidential agenda implemented through bipartisan congressional cooperation. It would have been
difficult to satisfy both wings of his coalition, and he didn’t. As he tacked back and forth during the first two years of his presidency, he ended up
disappointing both. There was a further difficulty. While Obama’s agenda required a significant expansion of the scope,
power, and cost of the federal government, public trust in that government stood near a record low throughout his
campaign, a reality his election did nothing to alter. A majority of the people chose to place their confidence in Obama the man but not in the institutions
through which he would have to enact and implement his agenda. Although he was warned just days after his victory that the public’s mistrust
of government would limit its tolerance for bold initiatives, he refused to trim his sails, in effect assuming that his
personal credibility would outweigh the public’s doubts about the competence and integrity of the government he
led.[iii] As events proved, that was a significant misjudgment. It was reinforced by a fateful decision that Obama made during
the presidential transition. Once elected, Obama in fact had not one but two agendas—the agenda of choice on which
he had run for president and the agenda of necessity that the economic and financial collapse had forced upon him.
The issue he then faced was whether the latter would require him to trim or delay the former, a question he
answered in the negative. Denying any conflict between these agendas, he opted to pursue both simultaneously. A
major health care initiative was piled on top of the financial rescue plan and the stimulus package, exacerbating the
public’s sticker shock. And initiatives such as climate change legislation and comprehensive immigration reform remained in play long after it should have been clear that they
stood no serious chance of enactment while pervasive economic distress dominated the political landscape. From Latent Difficulties to Actual Problems: The Economic Challenge As
Obama took office, it was clear that the public’s overriding concern was the state of the economy and the job market.
But throughout the 111th Congress, the White House and congressional Democrats failed to address that concern in a
manner that the electorate regarded as satisfactory. After some promising signs in the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010, economic growth slowed to a crawl, the
private sector generated jobs at an anemic pace, and unemployment remained stuck near 10 percent. The number of workers remaining jobless for six
months or more soared to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Many older workers doubted that they would ever again be employed.
Contributing to the sour mood, economic forecasters held out scant hopes of faster job generation through much of 2011. The administration did not help itself early in 2009 when its
Council of Economic Advisors suggested that with the passage of the stimulus bill, unemployment would peak around 8.5 percent. (Instead, it reached 10.3 percent before subsiding slightly.)
Although many economists outside the administration argued that a financial crisis differed fundamentally from a cyclical downturn, administration officials struggled to integrate this
premise into their economic program. They proceeded with a traditional demand-side stimulus, even though hard-pressed households were more concerned about reducing debt than
expanding consumption. (In any event, a flood of inexpensive imports weakened the link between consumer demand and domestic job creation.) And the administration chose not to use
TARP money to take devalued debt off the banks’ balance sheets, opting instead to allow them to rebuild capital through profits gained from record-low interest rates. In some respects,
this replicated post-crash policies the Japanese government employed through the 1990s, with unsatisfactory results.
Home ownership is at the center of most middle-class families’ balance sheets and way of life. The wave of foreclosures that began in 2007 devastated entire communities. But here again,
the administration’s initiatives fell short. Rebuffing calls for basic structural change—such as permitting bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages—the
administration
opted for a more modest approach that relied on lenders’ cooperation. This gamble on the efficacy of incrementalism
did not pay off. Programs to renegotiate the terms of mortgages in or in danger of default reached only a small
percentage of families in need of assistance, and in many cases the relief they received was not enough to prevent
them from sliding back into default. By the fall of 2010, foreclosures reached a rate of more than one hundred thousand per month for the first time ever. To make
matters worse, a massive scandal erupted: it turned out that banks and other mortgage lenders were sending borrowers into foreclosure by the thousands without meeting basic legal
requirements. (The term “robo-signer” quickly entered the lexicon of shame.) Policymakers were forced to consider a nation-wide foreclosure moratorium. Concerned about the impact on
the financial system, the
administration resisted, winning high marks for responsibility but probably reinforcing the
impression that it cared more about large, wealthy institutions than about hard-pressed families. The Politics of Agenda
Management The early phase of the Obama administration resembled nothing so much as the early days of a presidency that Obama held in low regard—namely, President Bill Clinton’s.
Although the man from Hope had campaigned as a different kind of Democrat, his party’s congressional leaders persuaded him to downplay his signature bipartisan issue—welfare reform—
in favor of a plan for comprehensive health insurance. Combined with the effort to eliminate barriers against gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, this shift helped convince many
of Clinton’s moderate and independent supporters that they had been mislead, that he was an East Coast liberal masquerading as an Arkansas moderate. In addition, Clinton became
wrapped up in the daily legislative process and began measuring success by the number of bills enacted. In the process, he lost control of the overall narrative. Something similar happened
to Obama, as the post-partisan candidate morphed into a more traditionally partisan president. He has acknowledged as much: the administration’s early legislative agenda, he says,
“reinforced the narrative that the Republicans wanted to promote anyway, which was [that] Obama is not a different kind of Democrat—he’s the same old tax-and-spend liberal.” And the
master orator of the campaign all but abandoned the presidential bully pulpit during the drawn-out struggle to enact key proposals. Said one top advisor, “It’s not what people felt they sent
Barack Obama to Washington to do, to be legislator in chief.” David Plouffe, the former head of the president’s campaign and one of his closest political advisors, adds that “I do think he’s
paid a political price . . . for having to be tied to Congress.” Could it have been different? Another senior aide has been quoted as saying that “Here’s a guy who ran as an outsider to change
Washington who all of a sudden realized that just to deal with these issues, we were going to have to work with Washington.” It’s hard to believe that this came as much of a surprise to
Obama; it certainly didn’t to his chief of staff. The question was not whether the White House would have to work with Congress to move the president’s agenda; of course it would. It was
rather whether the president would be dragged into the daily process or would be seen as remaining above it. President Ronald Reagan, Obama’s model of a transformational president, had
to engage with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to enact key legislation, starting with the 1981 tax cuts. But he managed to do this without becoming “legislator in chief” and
without losing control of the narrative. Reagan’s compromises—and there were many—were seen as occurring within a framework of principles and goals that never changed and that
defined his political identity.[iv] Not so for Obama, who failed to grasp fully the nature of the office he had won. Alone among the advanced democracies, the United States combines the
functions of head of government and head of state in a single institution and human being. The
American president is expected to be more than a
legislator, more than a prime minister. He must also fill the role occupied by monarchs or ceremonial heads of state in
other countries. He must be an explainer and a comforter, as circumstances require. And he must stand for, and
represent, the country as a whole. Rather than doing this, President Obama allowed himself to get trapped in
legislative minutia, even as the country remained mired in a kind of economic slump that most Americans had never
experienced and could not understand. Their reaction combined confusion and fear, which the president did little to
allay. Ironically, a man who attained the presidency largely on the strength of his skills as a communicator did not communicate effectively during his first two years. He paid a
steep political price for his failure. From the beginning, the administration operated on two fundamental political premises
that turned out to be mistaken. The first was that the economic collapse had opened the door to the comprehensive
change Obama had promised. As incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously put it, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In fact, as Emanuel himself came
to realize, there was a tension between the steps needed to arrest the economic decline and the measures needed to actualize the president’s vision of fundamental change. The
financial bailout and the stimulus package made it harder, not easier, to pass comprehensive health reform. Second,
the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative victory
would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to
persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy
price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists. The legislative process that produced the
health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted much too long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full public view. Much of the public was
dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the
seemingly endless health care debate strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was
poorly aligned with the economic concerns of the American people. Because the administration never persuaded the
public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary, even
anti-democratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may turn out to be a policy success; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and
remains—a political liability. Indeed, most of the Obama agenda turned out to be very unpopular. Of five major policy initiatives undertaken during the first two years, only
one—financial regulatory reform—enjoyed majority support. In a September 2010 Gallup survey, 52 percent of the people disapproved of the economic stimulus, 56 percent disapproved of
both the auto rescue and the health care bill, and an even larger majority—61 percent—rejected the bailout of financial institutions.[v] Democrats’ hopes that the people would change their
minds about the party’s signature issue—universal health insurance—after the bill passed were not fulfilled. (It remains to be seen whether sentiment will change in coming years as
provisions of the bill are phased in—that is, if they survive what will no doubt be stiff challenges in both Congress and the states.) It isn’t hard to understand why the stimulus bill remained
so unpopular: it neither fulfilled the administration’s promises nor met public expectations. As for the health care bill, cuts in Medicare needed to finance private insurance coverage for low
and moderate income individuals alarmed many older voters, and the bill failed to address most people’s core health care concern—rising costs—in a manner that commanded confidence.
The assistance to tottering financial institutions that began during the Bush administration affronted people’s moral sense: wrongdoers seemed to get off scot-free, and many people
wondered why banks and insurance companies received hundreds of billions of dollars while average families struggled to make ends meet. And surprising many observers, it turned out that
decades of shoddy products had undermined public support for once-iconic American auto makers. In the eyes of most people, what was good for General Motors was no longer good for
the country—at least not when tax dollars were on the line. Administration officials could and did argue that what they did was necessary and in the national interest. It is easy to sympathize
with their view. Failing to prop up pivotal financial institutions would have risked a rerun of the 1930s. Allowing the domestic auto industry to go belly-up would have disrupted production
and employment throughout the Midwest, already the most economically depressed region of the country. Not passing the stimulus bill would have forced hard-pressed state and local
governments to slash spending and cut their workforces in sectors such as public safety and education, exacerbating unemployment. And so forth. Clearly, though, the administration failed
to persuade most Americans, who viewed its program as costly, unnecessary, and unproductive if not outright damaging. The administration often seemed to believe that its policies spoke
for themselves and that their merits were obvious. We will never know whether a different strategy of public explanation could have produced a better result. We do know this: the
administration quite consciously chose to disregard the immediate political consequences of enacting its agenda. In his
now-famous interview with the New York Times, President Obama put it this way: “We probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There
was probably a perverse pride in my administration—and I take responsibility for this . . .—that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular.” If so, by the fall of
2010 he had come to understand the shortcomings of this stance: “ anybody
who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is
determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglect[ful] of marketing and P.R. and public
opinion.”[vi] It remains to be seen whether the president has fully grasped the implications of this “intersection”: in our democracy, popular sentiment necessarily influences, not only
strategies of persuasion, but also the selection and sequence of problems for action and the shape of the policies devised to address them. America’s populist political culture normally
resists rule by elites who claim to know better than the people—even when the elites represent a meritocracy of the best and the brightest rather than an oligarchy of the richest and bestconnected. The Road Ahead The
outcome of the November 2010 election has fundamentally changed the political dynamic for at
least the next two years. It will no longer be possible for President Obama to advance his agenda with support from
only his own party. Instead, he will be forced either to negotiate with an emboldened Republican House majority or
endure two years of confrontation and gridlock. (As Newt Gingrich discovered in 1995, the same logic applies in reverse: it is no easier to run divided
government from Capitol Hill than from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.)
***AFF***
Non-Unique
House prevents passage
Connell, 7/22
(Charlie, Writer for Headlines and Global News, "Immigration Reform Bill: Boehner Unlikely to Push House to Pass Law",
July 22, www.hngn.com/articles/8322/20130722/immigration-reform-bill-boehner-unlikely-push-house-pass-lawvideo.htm NL)
President Barack Obama has been doing everything he can to get an overhaul of the nation's immigration system into law as soon as possible. After the Senate
passed a bi-partisan bill addressing immigration it appeared as if a law might be imminent, Speaker
of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, has now
made it clear that swift immigration reform will not happen, according to CBS News.¶ Speaking in June President Obama spoke about the
need to get immigration reform done quickly.¶ "This week, the Senate will consider a common-sense, bi-partisan bill that is the best chance we've had in years to fix
our broken immigration system," President Obama said. "To truly deal with this issue Congress needs to act. And that moment is now."¶ Boehner
has said
that he wouldn't bring the bill up in the House unless it was supported by at least half of the Republicans, then he said that the Senate bill won't be
considered at all in the House. Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" Boehner refused to answer a question about whether the House would consider an
immigration bill featuring a path to citizenship.¶ "The House does not like the Senate Bill. It's one big massive bill that, in my opinion
doesn't have enough serious triggers to protect our borders," Boehner said on "Face the Nation." "We're dealing with this in a
commonsense, step-by-step approach. We want to deal in chunks, chunks that the members can deal with and grapple with and frankly chunks that the American
people can get their arms around."¶ Throughout the show Boehner would not reveal what he expects to see in a House immigration bill, only that he expects it to not
be a large comprehensive bill like the Senate version, according to Reuters.¶ "It's not about me, it's not about what I want," Boehner said. "This
is about
allowing the House to work its will. If I come out and say, 'I'm for this and I'm for that,' all I'm doing is making my job harder."¶ The host of "Face the
Nation" asked Boehner how he felt about presiding over one of the least liked and least-productive congresses in the history of the U.S. Boehner defended both the
lack of legislation passed by Congress and the lack of popularity.¶ "We should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many
laws that we repeal," Boehner said. "We've got more laws than the administration could ever enforce. We deal with what the American people want us to deal with.
Unpopular? Yes. Why? We're in a divided government."
DHS prevents passage
The Republic, 7/23
(The Republic, news organization, "Homeland Security is killing immigration reform push", 7/23,
www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20130723dhs-hinders-reform-push.html NL)
The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t know or doesn’t want us to know how effective its border-security
efforts are.¶ This lack of information is a colossal failure that makes achieving comprehensive immigration reform
even tougher.¶ With Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano leaving, the information gap could be
compounded with an accountability gap. Secretary or no secretary, President Barack Obama needs to lean on the DHS to fix this
now.¶ The DHS changed the way it measures success rates at the border several years ago, switching to using the number of apprehensions as an interim metric.
The Government Accountability Office says that method “limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability.”¶ In December, the GAO urged the DHS to fulfill
its promise to deliver a better metric. In February, the GAO told Congress that the “goals and measures are not yet in place.”¶ How many people still get through the
newly beefed-up border? Which security measures have been most successful? How effective are consequences for those caught, such as mandatory jail time, in
deterring border crossers?¶ These are good questions. Don’t ask Homeland Security for good answers.¶ According to GAO testimony to Congress:
“Apprehensions
decreased across the southwest border from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, but data limitations preclude
comparing overall effectiveness of resources deployed across southwest-border sectors.”¶ The Border Patrol doesn’t release
information on those who flee back across the border or get away, according to reporting by The Arizona Republic’s Bob Ortega. The DHS refused to provide National
Academy of Sciences researchers with basic information on how many repeat crossers it catches unless the researchers promised not to let the data become public.¶
The researchers, who apparently understand more about transparency than the DHS, refused to agree to the gag. They didn’t get the data.¶ Ortega
also
sought specific answers to basic questions. What he got from Homeland Security was gibberish about the “dozens of
metrics we use every day.Ӧ During a House Homeland Security subcommittee hearing Tuesday, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, criticized the
Senate’s comprehensive immigration-reform bill for spending $46 billion on security and nearly doubling the size of
the Border Patrol with “absolutely no mechanism to ensure that these resources will be effective or properly
implemented.”¶ Homeland Security’s “What? Me worry?” attitude about facts provides a hatchet to those who want to hack away at immigration reform.¶
Cornyn effectively used the lack of information from Obama’s DHS to craft an argument against comprehensive reform, which Obama supports.¶ But Cornyn is also
blowing smoke. He supported a 90 percent apprehension rate as a trigger for a path to citizenship. Even a “D” student in math knows you need numbers to figure
percentages.¶ This is not the right hand failing to know what the left hand is doing. This
is the big foot of the DHS tripping up immigration
reform.¶ Obama needs to lean on the DHS to produce the information necessary to enlighten one of the most important debates in Congress.
Backlash from businesses kills the bill
Younglai and Bohan, 7/23
(Rachelle Younglai and Caren Bohan, writers for Reuters, "After backlash, senators cancel meeting on immigration",
7/23, www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23713115/after-backlash-senators-cancel-meeting-immigration NL)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Architects of the Senate's immigration bill on Monday canceled a meeting that had been planned
with business groups and other supporters to try to rally momentum for the legislation, in a sign of how difficult it will
be to enact the reforms.¶ Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, Republican Senator John McCain and other members of the "Gang of Eight" that shepherded
a sweeping immigration bill through the Senate want to enlist business, labor and religious groups to help persuade members of the House of Representatives to back
reform.¶ All members
of the bipartisan group of senators except Republican Marco Rubio held a meeting with business groups last
Tuesday to talk about strategy in the Republican-dominated House, where immigration reform faces strong
resistance, especially for the pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants contained in the Senate bill.¶ But some of the business groups were uneasy with the
strategy, which included trying to persuade more than 100 Republican House lawmakers to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.¶ A follow-up meeting
was to have been held this Thursday but the senators canceled it, citing scheduling issues.¶ Several business representatives
who participated in the meeting said they were concerned that the Senate's involvement would not play well in the
House. Republican members of the House have repeatedly rejected the Senate's bill and are working on smaller enforcement and
work-visa bills that do not include a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. ¶ Some of the business groups "were outraged," said
one lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private. "Even if what (the senators) said was right, they know how unpopular they are in
the House," the lobbyist said.¶ Other lobbyists who attended the meeting also said they had concerns.¶ House Republicans are deeply divided over how to rewrite
the country's immigration laws and have no clear strategy or timeline for passing legislation that could eventually be merged with the Senate bill.¶ Lobbyists said the
majority of the groups that participated in Tuesday's meeting had already been working with the House Republicans they thought could be persuaded and felt that
the Senate's involvement could backfire.¶ Not
everyone was comfortable with the Senate's approach and as a result some of the
groups were not planning to attend the second meeting scheduled for Thursday because they did not think it would be useful, participants
said.¶ A Democratic congressional aide said the meeting was canceled because of scheduling problems and that the senators would continue to work closely with
immigration reform groups.¶ But even before the meeting was canceled, some participants said they did not plan to attend the second meeting because of concerns
about the strategy.¶ Underscoring the difficult politics of the issue in the House, Republican Speaker John Boehner, in an interview with the CBS program "Face the
Nation" on Sunday, refused to say whether he thought a bill should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.¶ Boehner said taking a personal stand
on the issue would make it harder for him to find consensus on immigration in the House.¶ "If I come out and say, 'I'm for this and I'm for that,' all I'm doing is making
my job harder," Boehner said. "My job in this process is to facilitate a discussion and to facilitate a process."
Link Turn—Guantanamo Bay
Closing Gitmo is popular
Westwood, 13
(Sarah, writer for Viral Read, "President Obama Renews Push to Close Guantanamo Bay Prison", May 1,
www.viralread.com/2013/05/01/president-obama-renews-push-to-close-guantanamo-bay-prison/ NL)
During a press conference marking the first 100 days of his second term, President Barack Obama announced that his administration
would once again begin working with Congress to close the military prison located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
detention center, often referred to as Gitmo in the media, has been housing foreign terrorism suspects for 12 years and has been at the center of a
constitutional and human rights storm ever since the George W. Bushadministration opened its doors in early 2002.¶ “Guantanamo is not
necessary to keep America safe,” President Obama stated Tuesday. “It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with
our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”¶ In 2008, then-senator Obama’s election campaign
included a promise to shut Gitmo down during his first year in office. After several half-hearted attempts to make that happen in the early days of his presidency,
including the repatriation and resettlement of many of the detainees, the president all but forgot the infamous prison. In fact, the administrationrecently shuttered
its office in charge of closing the facility, and reassigned the top diplomat charged with its task.¶ But the
notoriously unpopular prison has been
harder to ignore in recent days as well over half of the detainees inside its walls engage in a hunger strike to protest their prolonged detention. Over the
weekend, the Navy sent 40 extra medics to the facility to strengthen its ability to care for the strikers– 21 of whom are now being force-fed through nasal tubes in
what the American Medical Association has called a violation of ‘core ethical values.’
New Congressional push to close Gitmo proves plan popular
Green, 13
(Miranda, writer for the Daily Beast, "Senate Hearing to Push for Guantánamo Closure, Plan to Move Detainees", July 24,
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/24/senate-hearing-to-push-for-guantanamo-closure-plan-to-movedetainees.html NL)
President Obama and Guantánamo Bay prisoners have something in common: they both say they are being held captive by Congress. But a renewed congressional
effort to close the Cuban detention center is seeking to change that. A
Senate committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday will be the
first of significance to address closing Guantánamo Bay since 2009, when Obama made his first and failed concerted push to shutter the prison.
The hearing marks an amped-up effort by members of Congress to address Guantánamo and to acknowledge current
pitfalls within the system.¶ “Congress and the administration have been complicit in the current situation, which harms our
national security and leaves more than 150 detainees in limbo. We need to address the future of the prison swiftly and decisively,” Sen.
Dick Durbin (D–Illinois), chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and human rights, which is holding the hearing, told The Daily Beast in a
statement. “This
hearing will be the first step toward putting this dark period behind us once and for all.Ӧ The hearing is
called “Closing Guantánamo: The National Security, Fiscal, and Human Rights Implications,” and if the name is any indication, it will have a lot of ground to
cover. In his speech at the National Defense University in May, Obama reasserted his commitment to closing the detention camps in Cuba, but a clear proposal for
carrying that out has yet to emerge, and a plan for action after Guantánamo is closed is even more elusive.¶ “The problem that we face is of course almost the same.
There are human-rights issues involved and counterterrorism rights involved, and then there’s the question of where, if you close Guantánamo, the people who are
now there go,” Anthony Cordesman, chairman of strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the issues still on the table.¶ Of course
suggestions have been passed around. Most Democrats propose bringing the remaining 166 Guantánamo detainees to the U.S, housing them in high-security
facilities, and trying those who are fit for trial in military tribunals.¶ “Congress needs to accept that at least some Guantánamo detainees will end up in the U.S. for
incarceration or trial in some form,” said Ken Gude, vice president of the Center for American Progress. “One former Guantánamo detainee is currently residing in the
maximum-security facility in Florence, Colorado, so the world isn’t ending. Congress
has to accept that we are a dozen years past 9/11 and
Osama bin Laden is dead.”¶ Legal barriers now prohibit defense funding from being used to transfer any Guantánamo detainees to the United States for
any reason, including medical. It is that amendment, listed in the National Defense Authorization Act, that must be changed to start the process of Guantánamo
extraditions.¶ What proponents of closing Guantánamo are hoping to see from Wednesday’s hearing is a proposal to address attacking that NDAA amendment and a
follow-up game plan for Guantánamo transfers.¶ “I’m
encouraged that we seem to have some movement from Congress because we
can’t close Guantánamo without congressional action,” Gude said. “I’m an optimist, I think this is possible. I think a combination of factors are
different this time around than they were in the past.”¶ Other members of Congress are investigating the Guantánamo prison situation and the more than 100
hunger strikers. Led by Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, a group of Virginia congressmen including fellow Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly, GOP Rep. Frank Wolf, and an
unconfirmed Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, will visit Guantánamo July 26 for meetings with officials there.¶ “I think we will see detainees who are having hunger
strikes,” Moran told The Daily Beast in May. “I think we will see some force-feeding that is taking place. But I also think we will have the opportunity to talk to people
down there. You can’t really make policy with full confidence that you are doing the right thing unless you have touched all your bases and you’ve heard from both
sides and you know about the topic in which you’re talking.”¶ Although it is unclear what the majority of the accompanying Democratic participants are seeking to
gain from the Guantánamo visit, as they all declined to comment prior to the trip, Moran said he has a clear goal.¶ “The
purpose is to change our
policies that prohibit the transfer of Guantánamo detainees,” he said. “There’s really little excuse to not release the 86
that have been cleared for release. Nowhere else, including this country, could you clear someone for release and not release them.Ӧ But the recent
congressional push to look further into Guantánamo Bay isn’t supported by all members of Congress—or all of the public. Critics say closing Guantánamo is a short-
sighted political ploy that doesn’t offer a better alternative to the facility in Cuba. They say Democrats are leading with an “act now, ask questions later” approach
and want Guantánamo closed without considering what to do with present and future enemy prisoners.¶ “Simply wanting to close it for the sake of U.S. status in the
world, when a lot of countries and movements want to wipe us off the face of the world, is appalling,” said J.D. Gordon, former Pentagon spokesman. “So I think this
is largely politics. As long as Republicans stick to their guns on this, [Guantánamo] will never close without a plan while the Republicans have the House or Senate.”¶
Fear is also a factor for the opposition. Conservatives argue that bringing Guantánamo prisoners to the U.S. may result in their freedom, not because of a lack of wellenforced jails but an inadequate jury system to try enemy combatants on U.S. soil.¶ “Judges would be lining up for jurisdiction, and you would see a lot of people
freed because of lack of evidence,” Gordon said. “It's a whole new ballgame in the U.S. I cannot think of a more irresponsible way of running the U.S. government.”¶
Some of the unresolved issues surrounding Guantánamo’s remaining detainees—many of whom are considered unfit for trial due to a
lack of evidence and are labeled indefinite detainees—also are being addressed by the Department of Defense. A DOD official issued
a letter July 20 to lawyers of those detainees saying their indefinite detention status will be reviewed to determine
whether they are fit for trial or release.
Support for closing Gitmo now
Irvine, 13
(David, writer for the Deseret News, "My view: Congress should close Guantanamo", July 24,
www.deseretnews.com/article/765634538/Congress-should-close-Guantanamo.html?pg=all NL)
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, "I would close Guantanamo.
Not tomorrow, but this afternoon." Powell stands among dozens of national security-oriented leaders who have called
for Guantanamo's closure. Guantanamo only bolsters our enemies' recruiting efforts and undermines
counterterrorism cooperation with allies who refuse to share intelligence or hand over terrorism suspects if the result will be military detention at
Guantanamo.
Internal Link Defense
Presidents pass foreign policy decisions without domestic backlash
Canes-Wrone et al, 08
(Brandice Canes-Wrone, professor at Princeton University, William G. Howell, professor at the University of Chicago, and
David E. Lewis, professor at Princeton University, "Toward a Broader Understanding of Presidential Power: A
Reevaluation of the Two Presidencies Thesis", The Journal of Politics, Vol. 70, No. 1, January 2008, Pp. 1–16
home.uchicago.edu/~whowell/papers/TowardABroader.pdf NL)
Political observers regularly argue that presidents exert more power in foreign and defense¶ policy than in domestic
policy.1¶ Commentators Jack Germond and Jules Witcover once¶ summarized a strong version of this perspective,¶ maintaining presidents have ‘‘a much freer hand in¶ dealing with
foreign affairs, with Congress largely¶ reduced to the role of kibitzer.’’2¶ Similarly, the Daily¶ Telegraph recently asserted that, ‘‘a president can¶
revolutionize foreign policy, but domestic policy¶ requires the close co-operation of Congress.’’3¶ This¶ view has also been expressed by scholars. Dahl
(1950,¶ 58) observed many years ago that the president ‘‘has¶ long enjoyed substantial discretion’’ in foreign¶ policy. Likewise, Fenno (1973, 212) argued that¶ members of the Foreign Affairs committee ‘‘help¶ make policy in an environment strongly dominated¶
by the President,’’ a depiction he did not ascribe to¶ domestic-oriented committees.¶ In his 1966 article ‘‘The Two Presidencies,’’ Wildavsky provided quantitative evidence for this line of ¶ thinking, declaring in memorable language that the¶ United States has one
quantitative evidence established¶ that between 1948 and 1964
Congress enacted 65% of¶ presidents’ foreign policy initiatives and only 40% of¶ domestic ones. Wildavsky further assessed that ‘‘in the¶
realm of foreign policy, there has not been a single¶ major issue on which presidents, when they were¶ serious and
determined, have failed’’ (1966, 7). Clearly,¶ the same could not be said for domestic policy.
presidency for domestic matters¶ along with a second, more powerful presidency for ¶ foreign affairs. The
Impact Defense—Economy
Economic decline doesn’t cause war
Jervis, 11
(Robert, Professor of Political Science at Columbia, “Force in Our Times,” International Relations 25(4) 403-425, 12-9-11)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new
interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in
nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring
back old-fashioned beggar-my neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it
is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great
enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic
interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally
have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even
if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become
discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass
opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others . Is it possible
that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this
argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the
very fact that we have
seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even
if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.
Economy resilient and decline doesn’t cause war – recession proves
Barnett, 09
(Thomas P.M., Senior Managing Director of Enterra Solutions LLC, “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid
Financial Crisis,” World Politics Review, 8/25/09, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stableamid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary
predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global
economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the
past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on
the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be
clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic
crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry
is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the
Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle
between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts,
insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the
only two potential state-on-state wars
(North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly
unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistanbleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g.,
the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we
find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example,
hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: No significant
uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the
usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the
usual places); Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even
triggered); No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear
powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable
given the strain); and No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst
smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The
things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing
rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense
spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented
"stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can
we say
that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The
world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly
friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as
much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade
Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have
not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing
disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed
connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the
economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently
frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much
needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and
pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China.
And yet, in
a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging
interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes
undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great
resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.
Impact Defense—Science Leadership
Squo solves science diplomacy
Hormats, 12
(Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, “Diplomacy and Twenty-First
Century Statecraft”, March 1, Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2012)
http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2012/182545.htm)
Science diplomacy is not new. It is, however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its importance will continue to
grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights that "science, engineering, technology, and
innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development." These interrelated
issues are priorities for the United States and, increasingly, the world.¶ The Department of State is committed to utilizing our capabilities
in Washington, D.C. and throughout the world to connect with scientists, entrepreneurs, and innovators for the
mutual benefit of all of our people. In addition to Environment, Science and Technology, and Health Officers stationed at U.S. embassies, almost fifty
doctoral-level scientists and engineers work at the Department of State through the AAAS Diplomacy Fellows program and the Jefferson Science Fellows program.
Through this cadre of science and foreign policy experts, the Department of State will continue to advance policies
that bolster the global repertoire of scientific knowledge and further enable technological innovation.
Impact Defense—Warming
There’s no impact to warming—the environment is resilient
NIPCC, 11
(Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, “Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC,” 38-11, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html)
In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century"
-- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m ± 0.5 m), and
atmospheric CO2 will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate
of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35%
of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change
(e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they
indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that
"many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g.
Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in
some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier'
category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and
rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus
on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in
mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present," describing studies of past biotic responses
that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it,
"is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most
importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In
concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will
occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that " the
fossil record indicates remarkable
biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."
It’s not real—just climate alarmism
Allegre et al, 12
(Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong,
cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the
Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical
Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer,
professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William
Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of
atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols,
former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager
and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of
astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" 126-12, online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. A candidate for public office
in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oftrepeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.
In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on
global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly
resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement:
'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems,
social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether
the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade
international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many
very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn
scientific facts. Perhaps
the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now . This is known to the
can't account for the
warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we
lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called
feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted
warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer
models
have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have
shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key
component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2
concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times
larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past
century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing,
many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being
promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed
article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand
years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his
university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for
example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which
Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why
is there so
much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a
few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue?
There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money." Alarmism
over climate is of
an
excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for
big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended
great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers
their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Obama Focus Kills
Obama focus kills the bill
Robinson, 13
(Eugene, writer for the Clarion Ledger, 2/20, “Obama's immigration plan may be a decoy,”
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130221/OPINION/302210023/Obama-s-immigration-plan-may-decoy)
Republicans spent the weekend trumpeting shock and outrage over President Obama’s leaked “backup plan” on
immigration. In dysfunctional Washington, this means that prospects for comprehensive reform are getting brighter. “Dead on arrival” was the verdict from Sen.
Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the White House proposal — which hasn’t actually been proposed — shows that Obama is “really not serious” about
reform. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Obama’s plan “tells us that he’s looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution.” Translation: Things are looking
up! Here’s the state of play: In the November election, Obama carried both the nation’s largest minority — Hispanics — and its fastest-growing minority — AsianAmericans — by nearly 3-to-1. Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has been trying to explain to his party that immigration is a “threshold” issue for communities
with fresh memories of arrival. So a bipartisan group of eight senators, led by Rubio, has been working to develop a comprehensive reform package. The outlines of a
solution are obvious. There would be a clear path to citizenship for those who were brought here as children. There would be provisional legal status, and a route to
permanent legal status, for those who came as adults. There would be measures to tighten security along the border with Mexico. There would probably be some
kind of guest-worker program for those who seek only to come for seasonal employment. And there would be changes to streamline the legal immigration system,
especially for high-tech workers and potential entrepreneurs. Enter the president’s draft proposal, which administration officials described as a “backup” plan that
Obama may put forward if Congress is not able to reach agreement. It’s really not much different from what Rubio’s group is talking about. Republicans in the Senate
can line up instead behind a bill that Rubio’s Group of Eight eventually produces; even Paul, a tea party favorite, has indicated he could vote for reform as long as he
had more than “a promise from President Obama” on border security. And if enough contrast can be drawn between a Senate proposal and Obama’s plan, perhaps
even a significant number of House Republicans can be brought along. In other words, this
isn’t so much about what is being proposed. The
bigger factor is who’s proposing it — as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “An Obama plan, led
and driven by Obama in this atmosphere, with the level of hostility toward the president and the way he goads the
hostility, I think it is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House,” Gingrich said. But he added that a bill originating in the
Senate “could actually get to the president’s desk.” I believe Gingrich is right. Republican members of Congress have shown a willingness,
even an eagerness, to vote against measures that they themselves have sponsored in the past — if Obama is now
proposing them.
PC Not Real
PC theory not real but winners win
Hirsch, 13
(Michael, chief correspondent for National Journal, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital", Feb 7,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 NL)
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60
minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt
reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic
most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama
possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next
four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about
Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at
the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person
would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized
country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the
country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that
has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for
reasons that
have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or
“political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t
the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys
riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another.
Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of
opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to
speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate,
challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and
ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more
than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one
thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time.
Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight
are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would
make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this
turnaround has very little to do with
Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71
percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove
home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8
percentage points in November. But the
movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent
introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov.
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where
the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with
Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for
“mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he
actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still
defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.
“You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some
momentum on your side.” The
real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly
defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a
presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare.
It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far
more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the everelusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead,
it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a
particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any
president has
practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present.
And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to
the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the
Democrats) stronger. But the
abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in
mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of
political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can
do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on
Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term
goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as
when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote . Some political
scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty
concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it . “It can refer to a
very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says
Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one
issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The
idea here is, if an issue comes up where
the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that
happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change
positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”
Winners Win
Winners win
Hirsch, 13
(Michael, chief correspondent for National Journal, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital", Feb 7,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 NL)
In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes.
Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and
Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—
there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now
believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new,
more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the
country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that
will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.”
Journalist Indict
Journalists can’t predict political events
Marx, 10
(Greg Marx, Political Scientist, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. “Embrace the Wonk”
http://www.cjr.org/feature/embrace_the_wonk_1.php?page=2 June 10th, 2010 NL)
While Bai’s tone verged on the scornful, most journalists aren’t looking to start a fight with political science. But they’re not often looking to it for inspiration, either.
Diligent reporters may turn to political scientists for a useful primer on a new beat; lazy ones know how to use the
field’s “quote machines” to pad a story. But when it comes to daily coverage of the core subjects of political life—
elections and campaigns, public opinion and voter behavior, legislative deal-making and money-grubbing—the
relevance of a field in which an idea might gestate for two years before seeing print to a news cycle that turns over
three times a day is not always obvious. As journalists go, Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times is hardly averse to political science—he studied it as an
undergraduate, and can list the names of academics he’s relied on. But for most of what he writes, he says, “The reality is, it’s a newspaper story or a
Web story. You can’t go into abstract theories.” In recent years, though, there have been signs that views are shifting. In June 2007, Ezra Klein,
then an associate editor for the liberal journal The American Prospect, put out a request for links to bloggers “who aggregate and keep track of political science
research.” The call yielded almost no response—evidence that, while economists had colonized the wonkier regions of the blogosphere in the same way they’d taken
over many D.C. policy shops, political scientists had largely ceded the terrain. But Klein’s item caught the eye of Henry Farrell, a professor of political science at
George Washington University and a contributor to the early group blog Crooked Timber. The post, Farrell says, made it “very
clear that there was a
demand out there for political science”—and he encouraged his GW colleague John Sides, who’d been tinkering with the idea of a blog devoted to
expanding the field’s audience, to meet it. In November 2007, The Monkey Cage—the name comes from an H. L. Mencken line about the nature of democracy—was
launched. It had two central goals: to publicize political science research, and to provide commentary on current political events—a task, Sides presciently
acknowledged in a mission statement, that might involve “testing and perhaps contesting propositions from journalists or commentators.” The site quickly
established credibility among political scientists. And it has attracted a respectable audience as a niche blog, drawing more than 30,000 unique visitors in peak
months. But perhaps The Monkey Cage’s greatest influence has been in fostering a nascent poli-sci blogosphere, and in making the field’s insights accessible to a
small but influential set of journalists and other commentators who have the inclination—and the opportunity—to approach politics from a different perspective.
That perspective
differs from the standard journalistic point of view in emphasizing structural, rather than personalitybased, explanations for political outcomes. The rise of partisan polarization in Congress is often explained, in the press, as a consequence of a
decline in civility. But there are reasons for it—such as the increasing ideological coherence of the two parties, and procedural changes that create new incentives to
band together—that have nothing to do with manners. Or consider the president. In press accounts, he comes across as alternately a tragic or a heroic figure, his
stock fluctuating almost daily depending on his ability to “connect” with voters. But political-science research, while not questioning that a president’s effectiveness
matters, suggests that the occupant of the Oval Office is, in many ways, a prisoner of circumstance. His approval ratings—and re-election prospects—rise and fall with
the economy. His agenda lives or dies on Capitol Hill. And his ability to move Congress, or the public, with a good speech or a savvy messaging strategy is, while not
nonexistent, sharply constrained. These powerful,
simple explanations are often married to an almost monastic skepticism of
narratives that can’t be substantiated, or that are based in data—like voter’s accounts of their own thinking about
politics—that are unreliable. Think about that for a moment, and the challenge to journalists becomes obvious: If much of
what’s important about politics is either stable and predictable or unknowable, what’s the value of the sort of news—
a hyperactive chronicle of the day’s events, coupled with instant speculation about their meaning—that has become a
staple of modern political reporting? Indeed, much of the media criticism on The Monkey Cage is directed at narratives
that, from the perspective of political science, are either irrelevant or unverifiable. In the wake of the special election in
Massachusetts, Sides wrote numerous posts noting the weakness of the data about voter opinion there and faulting journalistic efforts to divine the meaning of Scott
Brown’s victory. “Yes, I know political
science is a buzzkill,” he wrote in one. “And no one gets paid to say ‘We don’t and can’t know.’
But that’s what we should be saying.” This is the sort of thing that John Balz—the son of veteran Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz, and a
Ph.D. student in political science at the University of Chicago—might be referring to when he says the field produces what are, “from a journalistic
perspective, unhelpful answers.”