ptc politics tuds final by xusuqin

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 41

									                                                                                                 PO Box 670564
                                                                                                 Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                                 Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                                 www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                             PTC Politics – TUDS
PTC Politics – TUDS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Politics 1NC [1/4] ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Politics 1NC [2/4] ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Politics 1NC [3/4] ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Politics 1NC [4/4] ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2NC Impact Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
**Uniqueness** ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2NC PTC Will Pass [1/2] ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2NC PTC Will Pass [2/2] ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
**Links** ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Links Space – Tea Party .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Links Space – Public................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Links Space – Republicans ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Links Space – Spending ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Links Constellation – Spending ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
Links Moon Mining – Capital .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Links Moon Mining – Spending .............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Links SPS – Political Capital ................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Links SPS – Public .................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Links SPS – Republicans ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Links SPS – Alternative Energy .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Links SPS – Spending .............................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Links SPS – A2 DOD Supports ............................................................................................................................................................... 25
Links SPS – A2 Lobbies .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26
**Internal Links** ................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
2NC PTC Key to Econ [1/2] .................................................................................................................................................................... 28
2NC PTC Key to Econ [2/2] .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Political Capital Key ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
A2 Winners Win ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
A2 No Spillover [1/2] .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32
A2 No Spillover [2/2] .............................................................................................................................................................................. 33
**Impacts** ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Terminal Impact Extensions .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
US Economy Key To Global Economy ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Economy Turns Case – Generic............................................................................................................................................................... 37
Economy Turns Case – China .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Economy Turns Case – Environment ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Economy Turns Case – Hegemony .......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Econ Turns Case -- Warming................................................................................................................................................................... 41




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                                            1
                                                PO Box 670564
                                                Dallas, TX 75367
                                                Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                             Summary
Much like the first-semester SKFTA disadvantage, this is a disadvantage about the political process.
Obama has cut taxes for people working now. This way, they don’t have to pay as much of their salary
back to the government. Obama wants to extend this tax cut, but some people in Congress really don’t
want to. He’s going to need political capital (influence and favors) to do it.

This payroll tax cut is important because it increases the amount of money Americans have to spend on
goods (to consume things as consumers). If people have more money to spend, they buy more things than
they otherwise would have. This is good because it stimulates the economy.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                       2
                                                     PO Box 670564
                                                     Dallas, TX 75367
                                                     Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                     www.dallasurbandebate.org



                                                   Glossary
Consumer – Someone who buys (consumes) goods and services.

Consumer Spending – The amount of money consumers put back into the economy by spending it on goods
and services.

DOD – Department of Defense.

Lobbies – Groups that use money and power to influence the president and Congress.

Payroll Tax Credit – Temporary suspension of the government taking money out of paychecks.

Political Capital – The power and influence that the president has to spend to get what he/she wants. Political
capital can be thought of much like money.

Tax – Money owed to the government by citizens to pay for government programs.

Tea Party – A political movement devoted to decreasing taxes and government spending.

Winners Win –This is a political theory that political capital is gained, rather than lost, when a president does
something controversial. Essentially, the argument is that controversial policies make the president look
powerful and people side with him/her because they want to be on the winning team.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                    3
                                                                              PO Box 670564
                                                                              Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                              Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                              www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                  Politics 1NC [1/4]
The payroll tax cut will be extended now-and Obama pol cap is key
Lee, 1/1 [Carol, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577131543017594740.html]
    President Barack Obama     heads into 2012 with a legislative agenda that essentially consists of just a single item--a long-term
    extension of a payroll tax holiday--deferring a fight over deficit reduction and the Bush-era tax cuts and all but giving
    up on the remaining components of his jobs bill as he pivots to an election-year strategy of attacking Congress. White House spokesman Josh
    Earnest said extending the payroll tax break through next year, a fight that will consume Congress after lawmakers return
    to Washington in January, is "the last must-do item of business on the president's congressional agenda ." "There are
    certainly other things that the president would like to do," Mr. Earnest said, adding that Mr. Obama will continue to
    prod Congress to pass some of his jobs proposals. "But in terms of essential, must-do items, the payroll-tax-cut
    extension is the last one." Mr. Obama will also step up his use of his executive authority in the New Year, Mr. Earnest said, by announcing at least
    several new economic initiatives each week. The president's central focus after he returns to Washington next week from a
    vacation in Hawaii will be on the payroll-tax cut, which has become a catalyst for his 2012 political message. The tax break
    for 160 million workers was set to expire at the end of the year before Congress extended it in December for two months. Mr. Obama called for a year-long
    extension as part of the $447 billion jobs bill he unveiled in September and spent the month before Christmas pressuring congressional Republicans to pass it.
    Many conservative House Republicans opposed the extension on policy grounds, but the GOP leadership saw it as inevitable and tried to use the opportunity to
    force the White House to swallow policy items favored by Republicans, such as the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf
    Coast. Once the parties could not resolve differences over how to pay for the tax break, the Senate agreed to the two-month extension, catching rank-and-file
    House members off guard and setting them up to be the obstacle to the tax cut, a politically untenable position for a party that portrays itself as the champions
    of low taxes. Seeking to regain their footing, congressional Republicans are adopting their own 2012 strategy. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia said Saturday
    in the weekly Republican address that GOP lawmakers will push an ambitious economic agenda focused on a tax and regulation overhaul and energy security.
    He made no mention of the payroll-tax cut. "As we enter into this New Year, many have predicted that Congress will be too consumed with the fall elections
    to accomplish anything significant," Mr. Isakson said. "Americans cannot wait until after the November election. They need us to do our job and do it right
    now to create an economic climate that makes it easier to put people back to work. Republicans stand ready to do that." The White House believes
    the December payroll-tax-cut debate afforded Mr. Obama, who initially proposed paying for the extension with a tax
    increase on millionaires, the political upper hand and momentum heading into 2012. The president's aides are
    convinced Congress will ultimately extend to the end of 2012 the current 4.2% payroll tax levied to fund Social
    Security, rather than allowing it to return to 6.2%, because all sides have now made clear they support the idea, leaving
    no room for a reversal. But the extension won't happen without a fight between the two parties, and Mr. Obama will try
    to capitalize on the moment by deploying his now-familiar message of being a champion of the middle class. Mr.
    Obama urged Congress on Saturday to "finish the job" on the payroll tax break in his weekly radio and Internet address. "As I've
    said before, we are at a make-or-break moment for the middle class," Mr. Obama said. "And in many ways, the actions we take in
    the months ahead will help determine what kind of country we want to be, and what kind of world we want our children and grandchildren to grow up in."




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                        4
                                                                                          PO Box 670564
                                                                                          Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                          Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                          www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                            Politics 1NC [2/4]
Plan spends political capital --- Congress opposed to space spending
Powell 2009
(Stewart M., Washington Bureau – Houston Chronicle, “Potential Uphill Battle for NASA”, Houston Chronicle, 9-13, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6615751.html)
NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious than visits to the
international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs an infusion of about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may
be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in a fast-spending capital where the White House and
Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to finance federal operations , including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers.
“The congressional agenda over the next year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them,” said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the
Center for American Progress. Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to
                                         the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NASA, said
make those trades. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land,
wrangling the additional $3 billion a year would be “an enormous challenge — but one I am prepared to win.” Added Olson, whose district includes Johnson Space
Center: “NASA doesn't require bailout funds — it needs the promised level of investment that previous Congresses have endorsed.” The 10-member panel of space experts led by retired
aerospace executive Norman Augustine suggested extending U.S. participation in the $100 billion space station for five years, extending budgeting for the retiring shuttle fleet by six months,
delaying plans for a 2020 return to the moon and extending the timeline for the next generation of manned spacecraft by two years at least until 2017. But the experts warned in their 12-page
preliminary report to Obama on Tuesday that “meaningful human exploration” would be possible only under “a less constrained budget ramping (up) to
approximately $3 billion per year” in additional spending by 2014. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the committee, forecast $27.1 billion in additional funds would be needed over the
next decade — a 27 percent increase over the $99.1 billion currently planned. Even before Obama publicly reacts to Augustine's report to map the next steps in the nation's manned space
exploration, members of Congress are scrambling. “The immediate challenge goes beyond money to just getting NASA on the radar screen when everyone is focused on health care reform,”
said a key congressional staffer involved in NASA issues. Finding support NASA supporters initially are targeting the Democratic leadership of appropriations subcommittees in the House and
Senate with jurisdiction over NASA. Space advocates have an ally in Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that handles space agency
spending. But in the House, pro-NASA lawmakers expect a fight with Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that cut
next year's NASA spending nearly $500 million below what Obama requested. Lawmakers are looking for a House-Senate conference committee to restore the funds that Mollohan cut before
the Augustine panel completed its work. Aides to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chairman of a Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA, said they have already identified six potential sources of
additional NASA funding within the federal budget, including some of the $8 billion promised over the next decade to private energy firms to research fossil fuels and deep drilling for oil and
gas. Lawmakers also are exploring the possibility of redirecting some of the two-year, $787 billion economic stimulus package from shovel-ready transportation construction projects and other
federally subsidized programs into the NASA budget. The administration so far has only paid out $160 billion of the total, according to Vice President Joe Biden. “A lot of stimulus money has
not been spent,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio. “We should redirect some of those stimulus funds to pay for enhancements to the NASA budget because I believe human space flight is
so important.” Aerospace executives and veteran space experts are hoping for reliable year-to-year funding. “These are challenging economic times, but this is not the moment to turn away
from leading a global space exploration effort,” said Dean Acosta, head of the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. President's influence Presidential leadership will be essential to
gaining an increase, emphasized John Logsdon, a space policy expert who served on the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation Board. “The         president has to use some
portion of his political capital to put forward an Obama space program.”




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                              5
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org

                                                                       Politics 1NC [3/4]

Extending PTC for a full year is key to prevent double dip recession.
Stewart, 12/28 [Heather, The Guardian, “Extending Obama’s tax cuts should be new year’s resolution
for Republicans”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2011/dec/28/obama-tax-cuts-
new-year-resolution?newsfeed=true]
    Republicans caved in at the last minute last week and agreed to a two-month extension of the tax cut package that had
    become the latest focus of toxic partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill. In signing up to the deal – under which a bipartisan committee will now try to draft
    legislation extending the tax-cuts through 2012 – Republicans were thinking about their electoral prospects, as well as their chances of a Christmas break.
    Fiscal prudence is all very well, but being dubbed the party that stood between cash-strapped families and a tax-break is unlikely to be a winning formula in an
    election year. However, research from the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations reveals that extending the tax cuts is
    not just a political debating point, but one of the few factors preventing the US sliding into a double-dip downturn in
    the new year. Personal consumption – spending, in other words – accounted for 91% of the 1.2% GDP growth the US
    economy achieved in the year to September, as Washington cut back and exports were weak. Using official figures, the CFR
    shows that less than half of that crucial increase in consumption resulted from rising incomes, with the rest coming from what they call "unsustainable items".
    More than a third – 36% – came from reduced savings, as Americans dipped into their rainy-day funds to cope with unemployment and lacklustre wage
    growth. And another 20% came from the payroll tax. That shows that the emergency tax-cut package, which included a
    2% cut in the payroll tax (similar to national insurance contributions in Britain) was doing its job, helping to prevent the economy
    sliding into a renewed recession in 2011. But when they were introduced a year ago, the cuts were meant to be a short-
    term boost to consumption, helping to prop up the economy until the good times returned . Recent data from the US has been
    relatively upbeat, including news that American firms created 120,000 jobs in November. But unemployment remains well above normal, at
    8.6%; the housing market is still in the doldrums; and with America's trading partners in Asia and Europe heading for
    hard times in 2012, the economic climate is about to get tougher . Reversing the tax cut in two months' time could reduce
    workers' take-home pay at the worst possible time. Like the so-called "super-committee" that was meant to secure a cross-party agreement on
    crucial public spending cuts and ended instead in a rancourous stand-off, the new committee meant to decide the future of the tax-cuts may fail; if so, it won't
    just be the Republicans' reputation that suffers.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                       6
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                  Politics 1NC [4/4]
Double dip causes prolonged downturn and depression
Isidore, 11 [Chris, CNN Money, “Recession 2.0 would hurt worse”,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm]
    The risk of double dip recession is rising. And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S. economy is to fall into another downturn, they generally
    agree on one thing -- a new recession would be worse than the last and very difficult to pull out of. "Going back into
    recession now would be scary, because we don't have the resources or the will to respond, and our initial starting point
    is such a point of weakness," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It
    would likely feel like a depression." Zandi said the recent sell-off in stocks have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25%
    only 10 days ago. Other economists surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an average chance of a new
    recession to be about 25%, up from a 15% chance only three months ago. Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have joined Zandi in
    increasing their estimates in just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is another
    concern. "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession due to the negative hit to wealth and confidence," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist for
    BMO Capital Markets. Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow Jones industrial average Tuesday following the Federal Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock
    indexes have lost more than 11% of their value over the last 12 trading days. Recovery at risk A plunge in stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession.
    The economy avoided a recession after the stock market crash of 1987. "Stock price declines are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David
    Berson, chief economist of BMI Group. But with the economy already so fragile, the shock of another stock market drop and
    resulting loss of wealth could be the tipping point. "It really does matter where the economy is when it gets hit by these
    shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a prescription for a long, painful recession ," he said. Most
    economists say they aren't worried that S&P's downgrade makes recession more likely, although a few said any bad
    news at this point increases the risk. "The downgrade has a psychological impact in terms of hurting consumer confidence," said Lawrence Yun,
    chief economist with the National Association of Realtors. On shakier ground Another recession could be even worse than the last one for
    a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession began . In
    fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of any other downturn since the end of
    World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the
    large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low.
    Various parts of the economy also have yet to recover from the last recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home
    values continue to lose ground and are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in
    the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of
    troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great Recession took hold. 0:00 / 2:53 Roubini: Double dip more
    likely But what has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used to try to jumpstart an economy
    teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around. "The reason we didn't go into a depression three
    years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State
    University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try
    to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the federal government has
    shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it


Extinction
Kerpen 8 (October 28, 2008 7:53 AM From Panic to Depression? The dangers of blaming free trade, low taxes, and flexible labor
markets for our current troubles. By Phil Kerpen, Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity.)
   It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression,
   after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and
   biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown
   of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                         7
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                              2NC Impact Overview
PTC full-year extension is key to prevent a double dip that leads to a sustained economic collapse because
it’s the internal link to the main driver of GDP growth-consumer spending - That’s Stewart.

That causes a prolonged downturn that causes a depression, resulting in massive nuclear and CBW war
that draws in everyone - That’s Kerpen.

We win on timeframe and magnitude-economic collapse happens soon without the extension
Hill, 12/28 [Patrice, “Economists fear withdrawal symptoms if payroll-tax cut vanishes”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/economists-fear-withdrawal-symptoms-if-payroll-
tax/?page=1]
    It was the tax cut that nobody noticed when Congress enacted it a year ago. Now the question is, can anyone live
    without it? The $120 billion payroll-tax cut, which was extended for two months until March just before Congress left town last
    week, turned out to be an addictive fix for consumers this year, providing an extra $20 to $30 in extra cash in every paycheck that - while
    nothing to write home about in any given week - provided a cumulative boost to consumer spending over the course of the year . At
    first, surveys showed that most Americans hadn’t even noticed that they received a tax cut increasing their take-home pay. For the early part of the year, the tax
    cut served primarily to offset the fast-rising costs of food and fuel as gasoline prices approached record levels near $4 a gallon. But the added spending
    power and support for consumers ended up paying off at a critical time around midyear, when the economy seemed in
    danger of falling into a double-dip recession. As the year progressed, the tax cut helped fuel a more convincing return to the shopping malls by
    consumers that is still providing a bit of oomph to the economy in the Christmas season. “U.S. economy is accelerating,” thanks to the unleashing of a fresh
    wave of consumer demand this fall, said Alan James, an analyst at Barclays Capital. “The extension of the payroll-tax cut is important to
    maintaining the momentum.” Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, was the best shopping day in years, and the prime Christmas sales season
    from Dec. 1 to Dec. 24 clocked in with sales 4.7 percent higher than last year, research firm ShopperTrak reported Wednesday. The day after Christmas also
    appears to have been one of the busiest shopping days of the season, the firm added. While the consumer mood brightened considerably
    thanks in part to the tax cut, economists remain concerned that Congress extended it only temporarily and did the same with
    emergency unemployment benefits. The two parties remain at loggerheads over how to pay for a full-year extension that all sides say they want to enact early
    next year. “The consequences of not extending these measures through the remainder of 2012 would be dramatic,” said
    Gregory Daco, an economist at IHS Global Insight. Expiration of the tax cut would shave 1 percentage point or more
    off the economic growth rate for the year, and growth likely would disappear altogether in the first quarter after it is
    withdrawn, analysts estimate. While the tax cut remains in place for now, observers of Washington’s long-running political impasse are not entirely
    confident that the parties will be able to overcome their entrenched differences in the next two months and extend programs that have a cumulative cost of
    $200 billion. “The ongoing political feud could still turn into a breakdown of the political apparatus, and a lapse in the payroll-tax cut and emergency
    unemployment benefits payments,” Mr. Daco said. While the loss of the tax cut would affect the most people, an estimated 160
    million households, the loss of unemployment benefits would cause the most hardship for an estimated 4 million to 5
    million households that depend on the payments for such basic needs as food and housing, he said. “It would be disastrous for
    families reliant on unemployment benefits” who have few other financial options, Mr. Daco said. Allowing the tax cuts to lapse “would have a
    tangible negative impact on the economy” and cause “a major strain on household incomes,” said Harm Bandholz, an
    economist at Unicredit Markets. Consumers also would experience a blow to confidence from another failure of the political
    parties in Washington to agree on essential matters affecting the economy, he said.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                         8
                                          PO Box 670564
                                          Dallas, TX 75367
                                          Tel. 972-926-3832
                                          www.dallasurbandebate.org




                                     **Uniqueness**




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                      9
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                           2NC PTC Will Pass [1/2]
PTC will pass now-That’s Lee-December debate over payroll gave Obama momentum and both sides
have come out in favor-Prefer our ev-It’s most conclusive and assumes divisive December debates-

PTC will pass-and it’s top of the agenda
Smith, 12/31 [Stephanie Z., ABC News, “Obama Maps Out ‘Warrior of Working Class’ Message”,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obama-maps-out-warrior-of-working-class-message/]
    The president will continue to claim the mantle for “warrior of the working class” in 2012 in stark contrast to the public
    perception that Republicans in Congress are backing millionaires, not the middle class, a senior White House official tells ABC News. And that message will
    be carried through President Obama’s reelection campaign next year. “We’re going to be doubling down on our commitment and our
    message in terms of fighting for the middle class,” Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters covering the president in Hawaii. After
    a heated battle between the White House and House Republicans, the payroll tax cut was extended until the end of
    February — a battle the president ultimately won albeit for just two months. It also delayed the president’s vacation here, but the White
    House official noted that it gave the president and his senior advisers time to work through policy proposals that they
    plan to roll out in the new year — one being to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012. “The significance of
    that fight is that it gave the president an opportunity to establish his bona fides on an issue that, at least in recent
    history, Democrats haven’t necessarily fared very well with, which is the issue of taxes,” Earnest noted. And extending it
    through the end of 2012 is a “must-do item of business” on the president’s Congressional agenda. “I think the president
    still has a strong hand on the payroll tax,” observed Rick Klein, senior Washington editor for “World News with Diane Sawyer.” ”It’s going
    to be hard not to extend it for a year, politically .” ABC New Political Director Amy Walter added: ”The Obama folks should take
    some comfort in the fact that Obama’s numbers have improved in the wake of the payroll tax fight. Republicans looked
    disorganized and petty, which helped Obama look more presidential.”

PTC will pass
Bolton, 1/2 [Alexander, The Hill, “McConnell, Bolton face tough job of smoothing tensions when they
return”, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/201953-mcconnell-and-boehner-face-tough-job-of-
smoothing-tensions-when-congress-returns]
    The GOP strategist said it will be difficult for Republicans to win additional concessions from Obama in exchange for
    extending the payroll tax holiday a full year because they showed in December that they are not willing to let it expire.
    “Taking that hostage isn’t going to get you anything two months from now. Democrats are going to take a much harder
    line. I don’t think Republicans are going to get anything for it. At the end of the day they’re going to have to eat,” the
    strategist said. The silver lining of the December payroll tax meltdown is that conservative Republican freshmen in the
    House may have learned to trust Boehner’s political judgment. They might be less likely to rebel, even if they believe themselves to be on
    the correct side of a policy argument, if they trust their leaders’ judgment about the political fallout. “The problem is the Republican House leadership wasn’t
    in sync with its caucus,” said one GOP strategist. A second strategist said: “The next time they do this, they’ll be much more
    understanding of Boehner when he says what the politics are. They’re freshmen, they haven’t dealt with the politics as
    much.”




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                       10
                                                                    PO Box 670564
                                                                    Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                    Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                    www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                    2NC PTC Will Pass [2/2]
Will pass-two-month extension provided capital and momentum
NYT, 12/31 [“Obama to Turn Up Attacks on Congress in Campaign”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-to-focus-on-congress-and-economy-in-2012-
campaign.html?pagewanted=2&%20agewanted=1&_r=2]
    After a year in which the White House often seemed a hostage to the Tea Party contingent in the Republican-controlled
    House, the administration is savoring Mr. Obama’s victory in December in obtaining a two-month extension to keep
    most workers’ Social Security payroll tax at 4.2 percent, down from 6.2 percent. “The significance of that fight,” Mr.
    Earnest said, “is that it gave the president the opportunity to establish his bona fides on an issue that, at least in recent
    history, Democrats haven’t fared very well with, which is the issue of taxes.” He pointed to polls that he said showed that Mr.
    Obama was now more trusted on taxes than Republicans were. Winning a full-year extension of the payroll tax, Mr.
    Earnest said, will still be a top priority. He noted that House Republicans were now also arguing that it should be extended for a
    year, after some initially opposed extending it at all. “There are certainly other things the president would like to do ,”
    Mr. Earnest said, citing other provisions of the jobs bill. “But in terms of essential, must-do items, the payroll tax cut extension is the
    last one.”




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                              11
                                       PO Box 670564
                                       Dallas, TX 75367
                                       Tel. 972-926-3832
                                       www.dallasurbandebate.org




                                     **Links**




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                   12
                                                                                         PO Box 670564
                                                                                         Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                         Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                         www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                   Links Space – Tea Party

Tea Party hates the plan – spending and free market intrusion
Nelson 2011
[Steven, The Daily Caller, “Tea Party group launches into space policy debate”, 6/24, http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/24/tea-party-group-launches-into-space-policy-debate/]
Some members of the Tea       Party movement have zeroed in on a multi-billion dollar area of government spending. This time, it isn’t health care or the public debt -– but outer
space. On Thursday, TEA Party in Space (TPIS) unveiled its “TEA Party Space Platform.” The group, which is affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots, hopes
NASA will return “to its roots as [a research and development] agency instead of serving as a slush fund for a few influential members of Congress,” TPIS
President Andrew Gasser said in a Thursday press release . Just like a political party’s platform, this agenda is made up of specific issues. Among the fourteen
calls to action is for Congress to pass legislation to cap liability for commercial human spaceflight. Another of the tenets calls for a “Zero-G means Zero-Tax”
arrangement, which would establish tax exemptions for business activities related to human spaceflight. Additionally, the group wants for Congress to allow
NASA to cancel all existing Shuttle, Ares and Space Launch System contracts in order to force the termination of an $11 billion
earmark included in the 2010 NASA Authorization Law and for NASA to “competitively bid the development of human exploration
transportation capabilities.”




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                              13
                                                                                            PO Box 670564
                                                                                            Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                            Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                            www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                         Links Space – Public

Public hates the plan --- they’re strongly against space exploration
Rasmussen 2010
(Rasmussen Reports – National Polling, “59% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration”, 1-15,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration)
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the United States should cut back on space exploration given the current state of the economy, according to
a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 31% disagree with cutting the space program, and 19% more are not sure. The new findings mark a six-point increase in support -
                                              Americans are almost evenly divided when asked if the space program should be
from 44% last July - for cutting back on space exploration. Still,
funded by the government or by the private sector . Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the government should pay for space research, while 38% think private interests
should pick up the tab. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure which is best. (Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available
on Twitter or Facebook. Sixty-four percent (64%) of adults have at least a somewhat favorable view of NASA, including 18% with a very favorable opinion of the government’s chief space
                                                                                                                                                   marks a
agency. Just 20% have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2008. But that
sizable drop in support for NASA from a survey last May. At that time, 81% had a favorable view of NASA, including 24% with a very favorable opinion. The May
findings, however, were a 23-point rebound for the space agency from July 2007 when just 58% had a favorable opinion. But, at that time, NASA was suffering some bad publicity, including
reports about drunken astronauts. In the budget President Obama proposes in early February, NASA is hoping for $22 billion for the coming fiscal year, up $3 billion over the current year. This
funding, according to news reports, will keep the agency on track for projects including landing on one of Mars’ moons in the next 15 years and further exploring the Earth’s moon. Women
and Americans ages 18 to 29 are more strongly in support of cutting back on space exploration than are men and older adults. Democrats are more likely to agree than are Republicans and
adults not affiliated with either party. Women also feel more strongly that the space program should be funded by the private sector. But unaffiliated adults and those in both political parties are
narrowly divided over whether the space program is a government or private business responsibility. Investors are evenly divided on the question, while non-investors lean slightly more toward
private sector financing. Only 27% of Americans believe the current goals of the space program should include sending someone to Mars. Fifty percent (50%) oppose such a mission, with 24%
undecided. The findings on this question are unchanged from last July. The feelings are virtually identical about sending someone to the moon. Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea, but
twice as many (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one of the current goals of the space program.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                              14
                                                                                         PO Box 670564
                                                                                         Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                         Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                         www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                               Links Space – Republicans

Republicans want to decrease space funding – 2011 appropriations prove debate insights partisanship
Klamper 2010
(Amy Klamper, Space News Staff WriterDate: 03 November 2010 After Elections, Critics of Obama's NASA Plan Likely to Take Over 2 Key Committees http://www.space.com/9462-
elections-critics-obama-nasa-plan-2-key-committees.html)
Although lawmakers are expected to reconvene for a lame-duck session Nov. 15, it remains unclear whether new spending legislation will be approved before a stopgap measure intended to
keep the government running into the current budget year expires Dec. 3. That stopgap measure, called a continuing resolution, funds the federal government at 2010 levels. In the meantime,
with incoming Republican leaders threatening to dial back discretionary spending across the federal government next year, the $19
billion Congress authorized for NASA in 2011 could be in jeopardy. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is expected to become speaker
of the House in January, voted against the recently enacted NASA legislation and more broadly has pledged to roll back spending in an effort
to reduce the federal deficit. In a weekly Republican address Oct. 30, Boehner criticized spending under Democratic leadership and
outlined reforms in the governing agenda Republicans expect to implement in the 112th Congress. " We're ready to cut spending to pre-'stimulus,' pre-bailout levels,
saving taxpayers $100 billion almost immediately," Boehner said. "And we're ready to put in place strict budget caps that limit spending
from here on out, to ensure that Washington is no longer on this spending binge ."




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                        15
                                                                                           PO Box 670564
                                                                                           Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                           Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                           www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                    Links Space – Spending

NASA funding unpopular
Timmer 2011
( John Timmer Science Editor et Observatory moderator John got a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the
University of California, Berkeley, 4/25/11, “Bill introduced directing NASA to establish a moon base” accessed 5/31/11 http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/bill-introduced-
directing-nasa-to-establish-a-moon-base.ars)
Overall, the bill is roughly in keeping with Obama's priorities , which involve developing the ability to construct and fuel a long-distance mission in orbit; those abilities
could apply equally to sending construction materials to the Moon. It would also avoid one of the problems with the lack of an obvious focus in Obama's plan, which could be viewed as
"maybe an asteroid, some day." Even    assuming that the bill could clear the full House and Senate (and survive an Obama veto), the impact may
be much less than its supporters hope. As its text notes, a return to the Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from
dismissing it with "We've been there." And, more significantly, it clearly didn't ensure that the NASA budget was sufficient to actually accomplish that goal. Simply
stating that NASA's budget will be "consistent" with achieving it by 2020 leaves open a lot of room for different definitions of
consistent, and allows the current Congress to shift the burden of finding money onto future ones, which may not be inclined to do so.
Thus, on its own, the bill would accomplish nearly nothing and is sufficiently vague that it probably won't even be viewed as providing direction to NASA, at least within NASA. And, given
how contentious budget issues have been in the current Congress, any attempt to turn it into something concrete would probably make
it a non-starter.

Budget concerns means partisanship
CSM 2011
(By Pete Spotts, Staff writer / May 16, 2011 After the space shuttle, astronaut corps awaits a new mission NASA's once-iconic astronaut corps will shrink but still play a vital role as the space
shuttle era comes to an end. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0516/After-the-space-shuttle-astronaut-corps-awaits-a-new-mission)
The current debates in Washington over the future of NASA's human-spaceflight enterprise and the increasingly loud cries for deep
budget cuts from deficit hawks in Congress have left NASA and the corps "without a clear definition of what we should be doing," says
Whitson. "We're an action-oriented group. We like to take something and pound the details out to make it work. The times when we don't have a clear direction are the
most difficult times. And it's an unclear time right now." NASA has been preparing for the end of the shuttle program and a downsized
astronaut corps since January 2004, nearly a year after the Columbia disaster, when the orbiter broke up on reentr y, killing its seven-member
crew. At the time, President George W. Bush unveiled his vision for space exploration. It called for terminating the shuttle program in 2010, an
end to US involvement in the ISS in 2015, and the development of two rockets, one of which could deliver a crew of four to low-Earth
orbit by 2014.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                            16
                                                                                          PO Box 670564
                                                                                          Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                          Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                          www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                           Links Constellation – Spending

Even if congress wants it, they can’t have it- Constellation to unpopular with the public
Zimbio 2010
(Zimbio, 6/26/10, “Tiny hope for Constellation”, http://www.zimbio.com/NASA/articles/r0mhzciaawM/Tiny+hope+for+Constellation, SH)
Houston Congressman Culberson, other, still trying to save Constellation. A Houston Congressman. John Culberson, warns that NASA’s manned flight program will be going on
“indefinite hiatus” if the moon/Mars program, Constellation, is canceled–as the president wants. Congress, which has doubts about the new plan for research and (eventual) return to manned
flight, is trying to save the current program. I don’t believe Congress can pull lthis off, although I applaud the effort. In any case, with our astronauts spending the last few decades in earth
                                no popular groundswell for manned spaceflight. Because of this, even assuming NASA truly expects to send
orbit, the public is bored with it. There’s
astronauts to an asteroid, nobody’s going to provide the money.
Moon funding contentious in congress
Powell 2010
(Stewart M. Powell, NYT, Monday, October 11, 201 Obama signs new space law http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/10/obama_signs_new_space_law.html)
The Obama administration faces uncertainty over whether Congress will provide NASA the full $19 billion for the current fiscal year
called for in the law signed by Obama on Monday. Congress is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill after the Nov. 2 mid-term
congressional elections to approve spending for federal agencies through next Sept. 30 . Obama and NASA policy makers in the House and Senate have
approved the policy framework contained in the legislation signed by Obama but it remains up to congressional appropriators in November to actually vote the
money. "The 600 pound gorilla here is the U.S. economy and the need for fiscal responsibility across all the agencies," explained former
astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the White House panel that concluded NASA's Bush-era back-to-the-moon Constellation program was behind schedule,
over budget and unachievable without $3 billion more a year. "The realities are very clear."
Travel to moon requires horse trading – mars exploration proves
Powell 2010
( House OKs new course for manned spaceflight With Obama's signature, moon missions will give way to Mars By STEWART M. POWELL WASHINGTON BUREAU Sept. 29, 2010 Read
more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7224649.html#ixzz1NyXU2SWB )
The United States on Wednesday officially abandoned nearly 50 years of pursuing manned moon missions — the galvanizing symbol of space exploration -
to lay down a new roadmap calling for NASA to catapult astronauts to distant asteroids and Mars. The course correction came in a
304-118 House vote at 10:35 p.m. Wednesday adopting a 108-page White House-Senate compromise that officially scrapped the last vestiges of Bush-era plans to return astronauts to
the moon by 2020. The deal authorized $1.3 billion over the next three years for commercial spacecraft companies to begin ferrying cargo
and astronauts to the orbiting space station, freeing NASA to pour billions of dollars into developing heavy lift rockets and crew
capsules suitable for deep space exploration. The compromise, in the making for months, was crafted by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Dallas, and Bill
Nelson, D-Fla., and now heads to President Barack Obama's desk for signature into law. Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7224649.html#ixzz1NyXBAd52



Constellation program unpopular with Congress
Moskowitz 2011
[Clara Moskowitz, Clara has a bachelor's degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa
Cruz. She writes for both SPACE.com and LiveScience, NASA Stuck in Limbo as New Congress Takes Over, 1/7/11, 6/25/11, AR]
                                      signed – a NASA authorization bill that gave America's space agency the go-ahead to abandon
Lawmakers in October passed – and President Obama
its previous moon-oriented human spaceflight program and take aim at new targets: visiting an asteroid and Mars. That bill called for NASA to receive $19 billion in
2011 – a boost from the 2010 NASA budget of $18.3 billion. But that promised funding was not appropriated, since the outgoing lawmakers, along with the president, could not agree on a
federal budget. Instead they enacted a continuing resolution – a kind of placeholder law until a full budget can be agreed upon – that froze the federal government, including NASA, at 2010
spending levels through March 4. "Clearly the big issue with NASA in this Congress is money," said Henry Hertzfeld, a professor of space policy and international affairs at George
                                             details of the budget really hadn't been fully resolved with the old Congress, which left us with a
Washington University in Washington, D.C. "The
continuing resolution and nothing more. The question is what happens when they begin to start debating NASA." Based on claims by new
House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), who said his party will aim to cut non-military discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, the space
agency could be in for some serious budget cutbacks. "There's going to be a lot of hard negotiations," said space policy expert Roger Handberg, a political scientist at the
University of Central Florida. "NASA's problem is it's not a priority. When they start slicing and dicing, NASA may be the one that gets to
‘contribute to the cause.’ I think it could be a disaster for the government part of the program."




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                            17
                                                                                            PO Box 670564
                                                                                            Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                            Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                            www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                              Links Moon Mining – Capital
Moon mining unpopular – expensive and fusion isn’t proven
Whittington 2011
[Mark, author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA
Today, the L.A. Times and The Weekly, “Harrison Schmitt's Plan to Solve the Energy Problem by Mining the Moon”,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110504/us_ac/8419965_harrison_schmitts_plan_to_solve_the_energy_problem_by_mining_the_moon]
A return to the moon was ruled out over a year ago by President Barack Obama when he canceled the Constellation space exploration
program. However, there has recently been a resurgence in interest in sending astronauts back to the moon, especially in the Congress.
Schmitt's scheme has the virtue of connecting the desire to go back to the Moon with solving the long term energy needs of planet
Earth. While there are abundant fossil fuels, the supply is finite and in any case using oil and coal causes various forms of pollution.
Solar and wind have thus far proven inadequate as a means of replacing fossil fuels. Helium 3 fueled hydrogen provides a potential of
providing clean, virtually limitless energy for the foreseeable future. Of course, there are obstacles in the path of a helium 3 fusion future, both technical and
political. Developing a reactor that will create more energy than it consumes to create a helium 3 fusion reaction will be daunting. Then there are the problems of developing of lunar mining
                                                              The political problem is almost as acute. The Fusion Technology
techniques and a cost effective transportation infrastructure between Earth and the moon.
Institute is funded with private money, as the Energy Department thinks that space based helium 3 is a NASA problem and NASA
thinks fusion energy is an Energy Department problem. It will take a leader of vision to sort out the turf battles and get Schmitt's plan
rolling.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                           18
                                                                                            PO Box 670564
                                                                                            Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                            Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                            www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                             Links Moon Mining – Spending
Current technology for colonization makes it unpopular
Roland and Brownback 2004
[Dr. K. Roland, and SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK , NASA Ames Research Center, U.S. Senator, April 2, 2004, U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS) HOLDS HEARING ON
THE FUTURE OF NASA, 6/25/11 JB]
                                                                                                                     the moon were paved in diamonds, it'd
BROWNBACK: Dr. Roland, give me your perspective on why we should or shouldn't go back to the moon or to Mars? ROLAND: If
cost more to go get them than they're worth here on Earth. It's one of the reasons we haven't gone back to the moon is we discovered
there is nothing there worth going back for. It is proved that you could do some science fair and you could do some experiments, but nothing where the payoff is anywhere
near the cost. And I think the same thing is true within Mars. This notion that humans in C-2 do better research than machines I think is simply not true. And I don't know of any particular
activity that a human is going to do on Mars that a machine can't do. Remember, our machines are controlled from earth. We send them out and we tell them what to do. We don't have to pre-
program. We direct them around. We have the get samples. 25 years ago, NASA could have sent an automated probe to Mars to take soil samples and bring it back. We could have it down in
the Air and Space Museum now. And we haven't done those automated missions that we ought to be doing. I have no doubt that someday, humans will go to Mars. And we'll probably go back
                                                                                                          we have now is the technology
to the moon. And we'll probably colonize the moon or Mars or some other place in space, but not with the technology that we have now. What
that allows us to do an enormous amount of scientific exploration. And that's being cut off while we float astronauts around in near
earth orbit. It's just an imbalance of our priorities. I agree that the space program has to have some balance of priorities, but throughout
NASA's history, it's been spending two- thirds of its money on manned space flight. And we get very little payoff from that.

Helium 3 mining is unpopular: is not a budgetary priority
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal ’95
Eric M. Jones , 1995, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Date of Access 6/25/11, JK)
The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the beginning. The debate
over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public funding is no longer required. The issue
at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and , as we have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver -
coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one
                                                                                                                               began to think that
percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to change, of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards. If, for example, people
there was a real possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might well become available. The space
community talks hopefully about asteroid mining, about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3 mining on the Moon but, unfortunately, they been
unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and the potential payoffs large enough and
soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money. Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would
make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the
answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial
and, to achieve them, we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                               19
                                                                                                 PO Box 670564
                                                                                                 Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                                 Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                                 www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                  Links SPS – Political Capital
Pushing SPS would cost Obama political capital
David 2008
[Leonard, Pentagon, May 15, 2008, Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=69, 6/23/11 JB]
Overall, pushing      forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions ," said John
                                                                      "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be
Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia.
pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental
physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those
economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to
the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business
                                                                         the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency
case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But
... who knows? It's   going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this ," Teets said.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                             20
                                                                                       PO Box 670564
                                                                                       Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                       Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                       www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                        Links SPS – Public
Public opposes SPS – they’re scared about the health effects
Linda   Shiner, Air and Space Magazine, 7-1-2008, “Where The Sun Does Shine,” http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html
       biggest hurdle facing space solar power is public concern about how low-level microwave beams will affect animals
Perhaps the
and humans. Never mind that the fear remains unfounded . Because of the widespread use of microwaves for communication, the Federal Communications
Commission has established a safety standard for human exposure. In all proposed space power systems, the expected power density at the edges of the receiving antenna, where people
are most likely to be affected, meets the standard. But explaining    this to the public, which hears “microwave” and thinks “oven,” might require a large and
costly education campaign. Another worry, that microwave beams could scramble a passing airliner’s avionics or harm passengers, could be addressed by restricting the
airspace around the beams, just as the Federal Aviation Administration restricts the airspace over nuclear power plants. Space power advocates may find it
instructive to study the political struggles of the nuclear power industry.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                       21
                                                                                           PO Box 670564
                                                                                           Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                           Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                           www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                   Links SPS – Republicans
Solar power is unpopular with republicans – growing partisanship
Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (“Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated”, June 14, http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html)
WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen. John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar power lobbying
campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of "personally alienating" him and
other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the national membership of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later
gave it to reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a strategy that included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund
                                is rare to have such overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar
managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It
industry had it and your association's leadership squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening
since last year as Congress tries but fails to extend investment and production tax credits for solar , wind, geothermal and other
renewable sources that expire this year. Nevada solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing the tax credits along with
other expiring tax breaks. Ensign said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry and other business interests. He
argued the trade-off would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that called for new renewable
                                                                                     Tuesday, the latest effort to move a tax bill was blocked by
energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 88-8, but is stuck in the House. On
Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week. In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating
solar power for Nevada or continuing a veto threat that protects the off-shore tax havens of billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying
plan targeting Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado.
"Following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted
it." Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax provisions. If they
expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                             22
                                                                                           PO Box 670564
                                                                                           Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                           Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                           www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                           Links SPS – Alternative Energy
Building SSP would be a massive political battle and anger fossil fuel lobbies
Darel   Preble, President of Space Solar Power Institute, 12-15-2006, “Introduction,” http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf
Changing our nation and our world’s baseload energy generation sources to introduce SSP is a massive battle. The current oil, coal, and gas energy
providers, nuclear as well, are not eager to see their baseload investments face competition from SSP, which has zero fuel costs and
zero emissions and a billion years of steady supply projected. This is why SSP has been unfunded since it was invented in 1968. Carter pushed through the
SSP reference study in 1979-1980, but space transportation costs were far too high, and they were forced to plan to use astronauts to bolt it together. This is too dangerous for astronauts
outside the protection of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (The Space Station is inside the Van Allen Belts) People are also too expensive to use for SSP construction. Telerobotics, the real
                                                                                                                           fossil fuel industry has battled
way to assemble SSP, did not exist in 1979. Now it is used in heart surgery every day worldwide and for a thousand other uses. (The
environmentalists every inch during our struggle to understand climate change effects. That is their right. Perhaps half the studies are wrong. But half are right.) Most
crucially, space transportation costs have stayed too high because there is no market large enough to support a Reusable Launch Vehicle fleet. SSP IS just such a massive market. Robert
Zubrin mentions this battle and perspective in “Entering Space”, page 51. He quit space transportation and decided to work on Mars, which has no possibility of commercialization this
century. This is detailed in the Space Transportation chapter on the SSPW website also. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Fossil fuel lobbies oppose SPS
Peter   Glaser    , PhD, inventor of SPS idea, Spring 2008       , “An Energy Pioneer,” Ad Astra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
No, because people can still get gas for their cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science and government know what is coming, but the average man on the street will not care unless
it impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. The basic approach is unchanged from my initial concept. We could have built this system 30 years ago. The technology just keeps
                      and implementation is a small problem compared to the much larger obstacle of getting people to
getting better. The design
understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide cheap and limitless power for the entire planet, yet instead of trying to find a way
to make it work, most people shrug it off as being too expensive or too difficult. Of course existing energy providers will fight,
too. It only makes sense that coal and oil lobbies will continue to find plenty of reasons for our representatives in Congress
to reject limitless energy from the sun.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                               23
                                                                                         PO Box 670564
                                                                                         Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                         Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                         www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                     Links SPS – Spending

SPS is very controversial – pragmatics and economics
URSI, 2008, International Union of Radio Science, “White Paper,” http://www.ursi.org/WP/WP-SPS%20final.htm
There are SPS-related issues that are      highly controversial. Although several space agencies have pursued SPS studies and research (see the next section), very critical
papers have been published that concluded that an SPS is impractical and will never go into operation (e.g., [2]). A more pro-SPS
reply to this criticism [3] was based on the economic issues raised in [2]. Among the controversial issues is the question of the space engineering and technology
that are necessary for the launch, and the assembly and the maintenance of an SPS system, all of which to a great extent are not yet possible . Other
heavily debated issues are related to economic justifications (in comparison with other power sources), are related to the question of whether an SPS can
provide a base-load “clean” power system on a global scale, are related to military applications, and are related to public acceptance. All of these issues are beyond URSI’s
scientific domain and will therefore not be discussed in this white paper. Social issues of an SPS may perhaps be addressed by the International Council for Science (ICSU).




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                               24
                                                                                          PO Box 670564
                                                                                          Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                          Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                          www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                            Links SPS – A2 DOD Supports

DOD won’t fight for SPS
Day 2008
(Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, “Knights in Shining Armor”, The Space Review, 6-9, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)
If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for space solar power is abysmal.
The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even relatively expensive nuclear power. But
the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some
other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent policy challenges for SSP
                                                                                                                                        If the military takes on
has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly “falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor the Department Of Energy wants responsibility .
the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home. But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have
little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For
instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA.
The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of
100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and Military space has a bad
reputation in congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space
                                                                            is nonsensical for members of the space activist community
solar power study. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it
to claim that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an organization that
has no clout.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                           25
                                                                                            PO Box 670564
                                                                                            Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                            Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                            www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                     Links SPS – A2 Lobbies
The link only goes one way – no lobbies support the plan
Rouge 2007
Joseph D., Acting director of National Security Space Office, 10-9, “Space-Based Solar Power,” http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
                                                                made little progress because it “falls between the cracks” of
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development over the past 30 years has
                            federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government. The current
currently‐defined responsibilities of
bureaucratic lanes are drawn in such a way to exclude the likelihood of SBSP development. NASA’s charter and focus is
clearly on robotic and human exploration to execute - 25 - the Moon‐Mars Vision for Space Exploration, and is cognizant that it is not America’s Department of
Energy (DOE). DOE rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to SBSP all lie in spacefaring activities such as space access, and space‐to‐Earth
power‐beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would make it dependent upon a space‐capable agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of
Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this mission, and no dedicated Space Development Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary
development expertise in‐house, and clearly has a responsibility to look to the long term security of the United States, but it is also not the country’s Department of Energy, and must
focus itself on war prevention and warfighting concerns. A    similar problem exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small launch
markets with the government as a primary customer and advocate, and do not have a developed business model or speak in a common language with
the energy companies. The energy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the aerospace sector. One requires a demonstrated market, while
the other requires a demonstrated technical capability. Without      a trusted agent to mediate the collaboration and serve as an advocate for supportive policy, progress is
likely to be slow.
Despite minor interest, the plan is unpopular – no advocates for SPS
[Frank, Jr, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, 8-9, “Space solar power,” ln]
Economically viable technology for space solar power exists today and could be developed in fairly short order    if only it could find advocates in Congress and
the federal bureaucracy, some experts say.              Earth's climate, the world economy and U.S. energy security could benefit from putting photovoltaic cells or other solar-energy
converters into space and beaming the carbon-free renewable power they produce to the surface as microwaves or lasers, two experts in the field told a Washington roundtable sponsored
by the George C. Marshall Institute Aug. 8. But unlike nuclear fusion - the only other untapped energy source with the potential to meet the projected energy needs of human civilization -
space solar power (SSP) has "fallen through the cracks," according to John C. Mankins, who led NASA's "Fresh Look" SSP study in 1995-2001 and is now chief
operating officer of Managed Energy Technologies LLC. Early days Mankins and Martin Hoffert, an emeritus physics professor at New York University who was chair of the
Department of Applied Science there, traced the SSP concept from its early days in the late 1970s, when a reference design developed by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy would
have cost $100 billion to generate the first watt of electricity and pushed the state of the art in aerospace and electrical engineering to the limits and beyond. Since then, advances in
photovoltaic cell efficiencies, solid-state electronics, robotics and other technologies have drastically cut startup costs, to the point that a profitable SSP system could be operating in the
2020s without a huge up-front government expenditure, Mankins and Hoffert say. But    the problem of gaining the necessary backing remains. Both experts
said the concept enjoys "uncoordinated" support on Capitol Hill, with individual members of Congress intrigued by the idea
but without the broad support it would need to get under way . Within the federal agencies with potential SSP roles, the Energy Department "culture" isn't
conducive to large aerospace projects, Hoffert said, while NASA killed the SSP research effort Mankins was heading because "we don't do energy at NASA." "Unless you have
a champion within a government agency who can push something , which certainly fusion, for example, has, it's not going to happen,"
Hoffert said.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                              26
                                            PO Box 670564
                                            Dallas, TX 75367
                                            Tel. 972-926-3832
                                            www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                     **Internal Links**




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                        27
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                         2NC PTC Key to Econ [1/2]
PTC is key to consumer spending-that’s key to the economy
Hill, 12/28 [Patrice, “Economists fear withdrawal symptoms if payroll-tax cut vanishes”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/economists-fear-withdrawal-symptoms-if-payroll-
tax/?page=1]
    A principal reason many economists are concerned about the tax cut expiring is the slow growth this year of wages,
    which normally fuel consumer spending. At less than 2 percent, wage growth did not keep up with the 3.5 percent
    inflation rate in the past year, so typical workers who rely almost exclusively on wages for income would have lost
    considerable purchasing power without the tax cut. The Council on Foreign Relations estimates that consumer spending fueled 91 percent of
    economic growth this year, but less than half of that spending was driven by the usual source - increased incomes. About a third of the spending
    was paid for by consumers dipping into their savings, and about a fifth was driven by the payroll-tax cut, the group
    estimated. “U.S. consumers are maintaining surprisingly brisk personal consumption and retail spending despite low
    real wage growth,” said iShares Global Chief Investment Strategist Russ Koesterich. “While consumers can maintain spending by reducing saving for a
    while longer, it is not sustainable over the long term.” With wages growing at the slowest rate since February 2004, Americans also have become heavily
    dependent on government transfer programs such as Social Security and unemployment benefits for their income, he said, including the benefits for the long-
    term unemployed that Congress coupled with the temporary tax-cut extension. “Such transfer payments have accounted for approximately 60 percent of all
    income growth over the past 45 months and now constitute 20 percent of disposable income,” Mr. Koesterich said. “ Any cutbacks in transfer
    payments could have a significant and immediate impact on consumers’ ability to sustain their relatively brisk
    spending.”

Avoids double dip, Obama pushing
Lisa Mascaro and Christi Parsons, “Senate Blocks Obama Jobs Plan,” LOS ANGELES TIMES, 10—12—
11, LN.
    Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the architect of the Democratic message operation in the Senate, was to argue at a Washington forum Wednesday that
    the proposals are desperately needed to help the country avoid a double-dip recession. The payroll tax break would provide
    workers with an average of $1,500 annually. An existing payroll tax reduction, which is worth about an average of $1,000 a year, is set to expire in
    December. Obama has proposed extending and increasing that tax break for 2012. "We are struggling now to avoid a recession," said Mark
    Zandi, chief economist of Moodys.com, who has estimated Obama's jobs package would shave a percentage point off the unemployment rate. "If we allow
    that to expire ... we face a significant risk of going back into recession." Other elements of Obama's measure are expected to come
    before the Senate, including ones that would provide $35 billion to states to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters and first responders and $25 billion for
    school modernization. Schumer is preparing legislation that would combine Obama's proposal for a $10-billion infrastructure bank to spur road and highway
    improvements with a GOP-backed proposal for a tax break for companies that repatriate overseas profits. He hopes the matchup would generate bipartisan
    support. Advisors to the president argue that Americans are rallying around his call to pass the job-creation plan. The more he talks about it, they say, the more
    support swells. In a memo to campaign staff Tuesday, Obama strategist David Axelrod said "support has grown by nearly 10%" over the last three weeks as
    the president has barnstormed for the bill. When Obama travels to Michigan on Friday, he will slightly adjust his message. Rather than urge crowds to tell
    Congress to "pass this bill," as he has done for the last month, he will talk about passing it piece by piece, according to one senior administration
    official who expects that the   payroll tax is likely to be the first provision to come before Congress .




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                     28
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                         2NC PTC Key to Econ [2/2]
Payroll tax cuts are key to the economy
Chris Isidore, CNN Money, 9/9/11, “Jobs plan may create 1 million jobs – economists”,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/news/economy/obama_jobs_plan_impact/, umn-rks
    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists gave generally positive reviews to President Obama's jobs plan Friday, with some estimating
    that at least 1 million jobs could be added in the next year if Congress passes the package. The payroll tax holiday for workers and
    small businesses was cited specifically for having a relatively good "bang for the buck." And that part of the plan may have the most
    bipartisan support. "This additional spending capacity in the hands of consumers should continue to foster improvements in
    aggregate domestic demand. And ultimately, it is demand and demand alone that will lead to more business hiring," said
    Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial Services. Price estimates the increased payroll tax holiday for workers by itself is
    likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs, and that the new break on payroll taxes for employers could add an
    additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs. He added that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic
    activity, could get a 1.5 percentage point boost as well. Macroeconomic Advisors, a St. Louis research firm, estimates that payrolls would grow
    by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and another 800,000 by the end of 2013, if the package passed as proposed. It is looking for a 1.3% rise in GDP. Joel
    Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, said even if the impact to the economy is short lived, the jobs plan should be passed. "Given the
    elevated risk of recession the U.S. faces today, additional near-term stimulus reduces that risk," said Prakken. "Given the
    deleterious effects of long-term unemployment on an individual's skills and long-term employment prospects, speeding a return to employment is
    both individually and socially beneficial." Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, is even more bullish, forecasting a 1.9 million job
    boost and a 2% lift for GDP if the package is passed as proposed. Zandi said while pushing more money into the economy is the key,
    passing the jobs package could also provide a much needed boost of confidence at a time when the economy teeters on
    the edge of a new recession due to so much uncertainty. "Investors, consumers and businesses appear shell-shocked by recent
    events," he said. "Confidence normally reflects economic conditions; it does not shape them. Yet at times, particularly
    during economic turning points, cause and effect can shift." "Sentiment can be so harmed that businesses, consumers and investors
    freeze up, turning a gloomy outlook into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of those times," he added.

Failure to extend the tax cut guts economy
Patrick Temple-West, “Payroll Tax Cut Needed to Avoid Recession: Zandi,” REUTERS, 10—6—11,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-usa-tax-payroll-idUSTRE7955SU20111006
    (Reuters) - Failure to extend a payroll tax holiday into 2012 could trigger another recession, noted U.S. economist Mark Zandi
    said on Thursday, as Democrats called the extension a top priority needing quick action. Expiration at year-end of the tax holiday, emergency unemployment
    benefits and other stimulus efforts could shave up to 1.7 percentage points from gross domestic product in 2012, said Zandi, chief economist at Moody's
    Analytics. "The economy is struggling to avoid another recession," Zandi said at a congressional roundtable on tax incentives and the economy. He called the
    situation "a dramatic reversal from the beginning of the year." Without the tax holiday extension, he said, "We will be back in a
    recession." Under the tax holiday, the payroll tax -- which funds the Social Security retirement system -- was reduced to 4.2 percent for employees at the
    beginning of 2011. The rate is due to revert to 6.2 percent at the end of this year. President Barack Obama's jobs package introduced last month would extend
    and expand the employee payroll tax holiday, dropping the rate further to 3.1 percent for 2012. The rate for employers, which has remained at 6.2 percent this
    year, would fall to 3.1 percent on the first $5 million in payroll. Obama's plan also would exempt businesses from payroll taxes if they increase their payrolls
    by $50 million from the previous year. Businesses can add new workers or raise salaries for their existing employees. The extension would cost $245 billion
    and is the largest spending part of the president's jobs bill, according to the Congressional Research Service. For small businesses, the holiday
    extension will "encourage real hiring," said Todd McCracken, president of the National Small Business Association. He said ultimately Congress
    needs to pass a long-term deficit reduction and tax reform package. One key attribute of the payroll holiday is that it "is incredibly straight-forward" and helps
    businesses without complicated direct-assistance tax credits, Zandi said. Additional spending for emergency unemployment insurance will not have significant
    stimulative effect, Zandi said. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, chairman of the Senate Joint Economic Committee, which held the roundtable, emphasized
    urgency in implementing the payroll tax holiday. "If (Zandi) is right -- that we are too close to another dip -- then we need to act
    soon," Casey told Reuters.




                                                                     Political Capital Key

Capital key and its critical to the economy


Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                     29
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, “Don’t Expect Miracles on Job Growth,” 9—8—11, http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-
08/news/30130709_1_jobs-plan-american-economy-rare-tax
   The fundamental problem in the American economy is simple: With so many people unemployed and underemployed - some 24 million - there
   is not enough demand for what the U.S. economy can produce. The solution is to pump more money into the economy to get it
   going, just as if priming a pump to get water flowing again. Republicans and the president should be able to find common ground on some significant steps
   toward that end. Extending or even expanding this year's payroll tax cut would put more than $100 billion into the hands of people
   who will actually spend it, instead of merely padding the investment accounts of wealthy taxpayers. Paying for roads, bridges, schools and other
    construction projects is the kind of investment for which long-term borrowing is justified, because it produces long-term benefits, as well as creating short-term
    jobs. Sending more aid to state and local governments would help keep their taxes down while maintaining existing jobs and vital public services. Yet
    Republicans say that job-creating efforts along those lines would have to be offset by cuts elsewhere. That would just shift money around, totally negating any
    net benefit to the economy as a whole. It's true, the country would have to pay for a lot of the new recovery efforts with borrowed money. Much of the new
    borrowing, though, will come from cash that would otherwise stay idle or go elsewhere. U.S. companies are sitting on $2 trillion of idle money, and federal
    borrowing helps recycle dollars that were spent on our gaping trade deficit with China. Given Republican opposition ,
                                                                                                             Obama will probably be forced
    to use all his political capital just to take steps that should be no-brainers: extending the payroll tax cut and continuing
    unemployment insurance. Republicans have questioned the payroll tax cut - a rare tax cut they don't automatically embrace - professing concern
    for keeping Social Security financially sound. It's an ironic argument, coming from a party that made a major effort to privatize Social Security.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                    30
                                                                                          PO Box 670564
                                                                                          Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                          Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                          www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                             A2 Winners Win
Can’t get a win – resources are more important than popularity
Boulie ‘11
[Jamelle Bouie, BA, Political & Social Thought, Writing Fellow of The American Prospect,” Political Capital”, 5/5/11, 6/24/11]
         liberals who want to see Obama use his political capital, it’s worth noting that approval-spikes aren’t necessarily related to
Indeed, for
policy success. George H.W. Bush’s major domestic initiatives came before his massive post-Gulf War approval bump, and his final year in office saw little policy success. George W.
Bush was able to secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in the year following 9/11, but the former two either came with pre-
                                                                              it comes to domestic policy, the presidency is a limited
9/11 Democratic support or were Democratic initiatives to begin with. To repeat an oft-made point, when
office with limited resources. Popularity with the public is a necessary part of presidential success in Congress, but it’s far from
sufficient.
Political capital is drained long before it is renewed
Lashof 2010 (Dan Lashof “Lessons from Senate climate fail” 28 JUL 2010 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-28-lessons-from-senate-climate-fail/)
Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resource Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama administration made
early on was to move healthcare reform before energy and climate legislation . I'm sure this seemed like a good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was
popular, was seen as an issue that the public cared about on a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats from all regions. White House officials and
Congressional leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that success breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would
renew Obama's political capital, some of which had to be spent early on to push the economic stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was
eventually enacted, but only after an exhausting battle that eroded public support, drained political capital, and created the Tea
Party movement. Public support for healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the forecasted
Armageddon is not happening. But this is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obama's political capital in time to help push climate legislation
across the finish line.
Political capital finite.
Feehery 2009 (July 21, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/)
 A president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever get (barring a war or some other calamity that brings the country together), which
is why most presidents try to pass as much as possible as early as possible in their administrations. The most famous example of that was Franklin
Roosevelt's Hundred Days. But there are other examples. Ronald Reagan moved his agenda very early in his administration, George Bush passed his tax proposals and the No Child Left
                                                                                                                               famously misunderstood this
Behind law very early in his White House. They understood the principle that it is important to strike while the iron is hot. President Bush
principle when he said that he was going to use the "political capital" gained in his re-election to pass Social Security reform. What he
failed to understand was that as soon as he won re-election, he was a lame duck in the eyes of the Congress, and he had no political
capital. President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does. But each day he is in office, his political capital reserve is declining.
And each time he goes to the well to pass things like "cap and trade" makes it more difficult for him to pass his more important
priorities like health care.

Here’s our political theory card – winners-lose.
Andres et al, '2k (Dutko Group, Griffin -- Griffin, Johnson, Dover and Stewart, and Thurber -- American University, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30:3)
Designing a legislative road map to success would be much less daunting if powerful presidents only had to build winning coalitions.
Unfortunately, most presidential actions cause reactions in peculiar places , in the world of trade-offs. Winning in one arena may cause a major
loss in another. Presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, faced divided party government conditions during most—or in the case of Bush, throughout—their administrations. Each
could have offered legislation aimed at the median legislators’ policy position and bargained or offered other inducements to win a simple majority. Yet, that model was unrealistic because of
the trade-offs facing both presidents. The most obvious example of this is the trade-off between forging majority coalitions and party building and winning elections. This was a constant
struggle for President Bush and his team. Throughout his administration, legislation such as the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Savings and Loan Recapitalization Act, and “fast-track” trade
legislation required bipartisan support from Democratic Party committee chairs and rank-and-file members to generate majority support for his policies. Bush’s own party members often met
discussions with the Democratic Party leadership with apprehension and suspicion. The White House’s task during these exercises was to balance the needs of the president’s party members
for consultation and attention with the demands of the majority to compromise and move legislation forward. Although President Bush could have negotiated with Democratic Party members
                              need to build and promote his own party’s particular policies and preferences were limiting factors.
in furthering his legislative agenda, the
               faced similar trade-offs during the last six years of his administration, confronting a Republican majority in Congress. Trade-off problems for a
President Clinton
president are not isolated to his own party, however. The trade-off issue faced the Bush administration when he advocated legislation that was more ideologically
conservative and attempted to build coalitions with the more moderate Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. The White House targeted many U.S. House districts represented by
conservative Democrats as the best places to pick up additional seats. On several occasions during the height of a White House lobbying push on legislation, conservative Democrats routinely
noted to presidential aides as represented in the following quote from one House member: I’ll consider voting with you on this bill, but you need to talk to (an administration political
representative) and tell him that he can’t come down to my district and campaign against me this weekend. You guys have got to understand that you can’t ask me for my vote today and then
try to beat my brains in politically tomorrow.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                          31
                                                                                             PO Box 670564
                                                                                             Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                             Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                             www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                           A2 No Spillover [1/2]
Obama thinks our link is true even if it is false.
O'Neill 2009
(President -- O'Neill Associates, http://www.mytwocensus.com/tag/michael-j-oneil/)
I think this says something very revealing, but far more about the Obama administration than about Bob Groves. I have no doubt whatsoever what Bob’s private counsel would be if asked
about whether applying estimation principles to the Census would increase its accuracy. Indeed, his scientific judgment on this matter is already a matter of public record. But what is
                     new position mirrors the Obama administration’s approach to dealing with many controversial matters. There is a
interesting here is how this
                     does not want the political distraction of Republicans screaming that the Democrats have “fixed” the Census to
pattern: President Obama
produce a partisan result. It would not matter that as a matter of scientific certainty, such claims would be wrong; they could score political points in making the charge. (This is the
type of technical issue that is difficult to explain to a statistically lay audience; many intelligent people simply won’t understand it.) Obama looks willing to forgo the congressional seats,
                                                                                                                                                strategic retreat resembles the
perhaps a dozen or so, Democrats would gain in order to avoid this political distraction and pursue higher priorities. He has bigger fish to fry. This
back-burnering of issues such as gun control and gays in the military. Each has been delayed out of a fear that it could be divisive and
derail his core agenda, especially the economy and health care reform. To pursue key objectives, he has been willing to delay action on other issues
that could distract or dilute his mandate. While he has pursued many initiatives, he has carefully avoided those with the explosive
potential to blow up the broader agenda . And an attempt to use estimation for reapportionment has that potential. While
the scientific merits are indisputable, getting the public to understand such arcane statistical principles is a lost cause. The Obama administration has concluded that it is
simply not worth the political capital to try.

Political capital key to agenda and spills-over – 107th Congress proves.
Lee 2005
The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna College – Presented at the Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference [Andrew, “Invest or
Spend?:Political capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” http://a-s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf]
The idea of investing political capital also supports the notion that the chief executive specializes in foreign and defense policy. The
president may increase his domestic capital by cooperating on domestic legislation and then spend it implementing foreign policies . In
executing foreign policy, the president will not issue SAPs on his own foreign policy. For example, if the president signs a treaty, Congress may or may not ratify it, but there is no opportunity
                                                                                                   107th Congress, during which the wars
for veto. Therefore, the president’s use of foreign policy is a spend maneuver, whereas his domestic policy is an invest maneuver. The
in Afghanistan and Iraq began, supports this theory. President Bush may have spent his political capital towards executing those wars and
attempted to invest his capital by cooperating on domestic legislation.

Issues are zero-sum -- Press ensures it.
Fitts 1996
(Law Prof -- Penn, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827)
While the president's singularity may give him the formal ability to exercise agenda control, which public choice scholars see as an advantage of presidential power, his
visibility and the influence of the media may also make it more difficult for him to exercise it. When public scrutiny is brought to bear on the White
House, surrounding such issues as gays in the military or affirmative action, the president must often take a position and act. 128 This can deprive him of the ability to choose when or whether
to address issues. Finally, the unitary president may be less able to rely on preexisting congressional or agency processes to resolve disputes. At least in theory, true unitariness means that he
has the authority to reverse the decisions or non-decisions of others - the buck stops [*866] with the president. 129 In this environment, "no politician can endure opposition from a wide range
of opponents in numerous contests without alienating a significant proportion of voters." 130 Two types of tactics illustrate this phenomenon. First, presidents in recent years have often sought
to deemphasize - at least politically - their unitariness by allocating responsibility for different agencies to different political constituencies. President Clinton, for example, reportedly "gave"
the Department of Justice to the liberal wing of the Democratic party and the Department of the Treasury and the OMB to the conservatives. 131 Presidents Bush and Reagan tried a similar
technique of giving control over different agencies to different political constituencies. 132 Second, by invoking vague abstract principles or "talking out of both sides of their mouth,"
presidents have attempted to create the division within their person. Eisenhower is widely reported to be the best exemplar of this "bumbling" technique. 133 Reagan's widely publicized verbal
"incoherence" and detachment from government affairs probably served a similar function. 134 Unfortunately, the visibility and singularity of the modern presidency can undermine both
informal techniques. To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened visibility about what he says and does and is led to make increasingly specific statements about who should
win and who should lose on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control the agenda can be undermined. The modern president is supposed to have a position [*867] on such matters as
affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the baseballstrike, and the newest EPA regulations - the list is infinite. Perhapsin response to these pressures, each modern president has made more
speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton giving three times as many speeches as Reagan during the same period. 135 In such circumstances, the president is
                                                                          The well-documented tendency of the press to emphasize the
far less able to exercise agenda control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent positions.
strategic implications of politics exacerbates this process by turning issues into zero-sum games. 136 Thus, in contrast to Congress, the
modern president's attempt to avoid or mediate issues can often undermine him personally and politically.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                                   32
                                                                                           PO Box 670564
                                                                                           Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                           Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                           www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                                         A2 No Spillover [2/2]
Vote switching is real – ideology is minimal.
Bond & Fleisher 1996
Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham (Jon R. and Richard The President in Legislation) pg 54
Minority presidents, on the other hand, can frequently build working majorities composed of their partisan base and like-minded members of the opposition. While political values shared
                                                              effects of ideology are limited for several reasons. First, most members
between the president and members of Congress provide an important linkage source, the
of Congress are pragmatic politicians who do not have views and preferences at the extremes of a liberal-conservative continuum.
Because the typical American voter is not strongly ideological, most representatives' electoral self-interest is probably best served by avoiding ideological extremes. As noted above, ideology is
                                                                                                   many votes that may be important to the president do not
a less important voting cue for moderates than it is for ideological extremists (Kingdon 1981, 268). Second,
involve ideological issues. Distributive or "porkbarrel" programs, for example, typically do not produce ideological divisions. Even conservatives who want to cut domestic spending
and liberals who want to reduce defense spending work to protect domestic and defense programs in their districts. Presidents who attempt to tamper with these programs are likely to find few
friends in Congress, as President Carter discovered when he opposed several water projects in 1977, and as President Reagan discovered when he vetoed the highway bill in 1987. Finally,
ideological voting blocs are relatively informal coalitions composed of individuals who have similar values. The "conservative coalition" of
Republicans and southern Democrats, for example, appears on certain votes and sometimes has a significant influence on the outcome of floor votes (Shelley 1983; Brady and Bullock 1980;
Manley 1973). But this coalition of conservatives has no formal organization with elected leaders to serve as a communication and information center. Although there are several ideologies.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                            33
                                        PO Box 670564
                                        Dallas, TX 75367
                                        Tel. 972-926-3832
                                        www.dallasurbandebate.org




                                     **Impacts**




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                    34
                                                                                PO Box 670564
                                                                                Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                        Terminal Impact Extensions

Econ collapse causes extinction
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8 (professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School)
and Mr. Schoenfeld (senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton) 2008 “The
Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-21, WSJ, http://online.wsj.vom/articles/SB122455074012352571.html
Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the
success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion --
might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger
as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats
and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow . Then there are the dolorous consequences of a
potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide
use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab
by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are
multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on
their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and
China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave
a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and
our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a
scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed
to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited
their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just
at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors
even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on
high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on
foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even
sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of
these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                      35
                                                                               PO Box 670564
                                                                               Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                               Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                               www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                             US Economy Key To Global Economy
The US Economy is key to the world economy.
Kevin Hall, 2010. (staff writer). April 30, 2010. “U.S. economy grew briskly in first quarter, government says.” Online.
Internet. Accessed May 1, 2010 at http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/30/1606734/us-economy-grew-briskly-in-first.html
If sustained, the upturn in U.S. consumption would be good news for the whole world, since the United States remains the key global economic
engine. "What was particularly encouraging about today's GDP numbers is that U.S. consumption appears to be on a strong
recovery path," said Frederic Neumann, co-head of Asian Economic Research for the global Hong Kong bank HSBC. Friday's GDP numbers were in line with a
revised forecast from the International Monetary Fund, which predicted earlier in April that the world's economy would grow at a rate above 4 percent this year,
significantly better than its initial 1.9 percent forecast.

US economic declines undermine the world economy.
David Kampf, 2009 (former communications director for PEPFAR. May 7, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed May 7, 2009 at
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3717)
The worldwide economic turmoil underlines the importance of the United States -- for better or worse -- to the global market. As the
U.S. goes, so goes the world. When the American bubble burst, the speed with which the contagion spread beyond its borders is an
illustration.

The US is key to the global economy.
David McCormick, 2008 (former under secretary for International Affairs in the U. S. Treasury Department, May 12, 2008,
Newsweek. Online. Lexis/Nexis. Accessed, May 4, 2009).
Our friends around the world should gain confidence from the fact that U.S. policymakers and their international counterparts are
taking aggressive, targeted actions to stabilize the financial markets, to reduce their impact on the economy and the individuals negatively affected by
the turmoil and to protect against the same mistakes' being repeated. There are already some early indicators that these actions are beginning to have the desired effect,
as markets appear to be gaining confidence and the availability of credit has improved modestly. Flexibility and resilience in the face of such unexpected financial-
market turmoil and economic hardship are among America's greatest strengths. Our objective is to help individuals and markets recover as quickly as possible, while
avoiding actions that cause new problems that would hurt our economy in the long run. This storm, too, shall pass, and the United States will emerge, as
it always has, as a driver of growth and innovation for the global economy.

The US economy is vital to the Asian economy.
Associated Press, 2009 (May 4, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed at
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXPJmkJdyKGBu_J5HvhnfYCkYAzgD97VBSE80)
Asian stock markets soared Monday, led by gains of 5 percent or more in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and India, amid upbeat economic signs
from China and the United States. European markets opened higher, too. Investors were cheered by a survey of purchasing managers at Chinese manufacturers
that rose for a second month in April. U.S. manufacturing activity in April also posted its best showing since September, suggesting that
American economy — a vital export market for Asia — might be stabilizing. Futures pointed to a higher open on Wall Street
Monday.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                    36
                                                                              PO Box 670564
                                                                              Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                              Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                              www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                   Economy Turns Case – Generic

Economic decline causes nuclear war – turns every 1AC impact – democracy, terrorism, hegemony, ME
war, resource war
Mathew Harris (PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National Intelligence Council) and Jennifer
Burrows (member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit) 2009 “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial
Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With
so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from
that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on
the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be
true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could
grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying
those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist
groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most
dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups
inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated
attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of
economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced
drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable,
worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire
additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent
relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear
Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and
broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined
with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving
reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short
warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions
to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem
assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions
short of war , however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval
buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for
these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities
could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational
cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water
resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                   37
                                                                           PO Box 670564
                                                                           Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                           Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                           www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                   Economy Turns Case – China
Turns US-China cooperation/conflict
Mead ‘9 - Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations [Walter Russell Mead, , “Only Makes You
Stronger,” Feb 4, The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2]
The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the
current crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will plunge China
into a major economic downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens
of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property
markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a
bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi and communist
politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their
money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic
growth, China has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if the growth stops.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                          38
                                                                                PO Box 670564
                                                                                Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                               Economy Turns Case – Environment

Growth key to the environment
Goklany ‘7 – PhD, science and tech policy analyst for the US Dept of the Interior
Indur M, M.S. and Ph.D are from Michigan State University, “the improving state of the world”, page number below in [brackets]
Yet another view, formalized as the environmental transition hypothesis, is that for any specific country, the forces of
technological change and economic growth, acting in conjunction, can initially cause environmental degradation, but
eventually an "environmental transition" takes place after which those forces become necessary for reversing that
degradation.38 This view, however, acknowledges that because economic growth and technological change are not inevitable, environmental cleanup is, likewise,
not a foregone conclusion. So in this regard, the environmental transition hypothesis provides a reason to be hopeful, without necessarily being optimistic. Basic
assumptions underlying the environmental transition hypothesis are that society is always trying to improve its quality of life and that there is a mechanism for
converting that desire into action. At relatively low levels of economic development, a society may justifiably conclude that its quality of life would be advanced
through economic development, because such development provides the means for reducing poverty and the numerous problems that follow in its wake, for example,
hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, malaria, lack of education, and lack of public health services, to name just a few. Thus, in the early
stages of development, a society would likely emphasize economic development over the environment. However, over time, as the society gets
wealthier, it solves—or starts to solve—its most urgent public health problems. Even as other aspects of environmental quality
deteriorate, it begins to realize that poor environmental quality detracts from its quality of life. Accordingly, it begins to give
greater emphasis to environmental quality. Over time, society goes through a transition during which environmental
deterioration, which had initially been growing, is first halted, and then reversed. Hence the term, the "environmental
transition." During this transition, economic growth and technology go from being causes of environmental problems to solutions for those very problems.
However, it should also be kept in mind that, at all times— before, during, and after the environmental transition—the focus of society is to improve its quality of life. It
just so happens that at low levels of economic development, quality of life is approximated by such development, while at higher levels of development, it's
environmental quality that's a better surrogate.<page 10-11>




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                       39
                                                                                 PO Box 670564
                                                                                 Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                                 Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                                 www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                  Economy Turns Case – Hegemony

Collapse of growth kills hegemony – biggest internal link
Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the
presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, “ The Economy and
National Security”, 2-8-11, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the
United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends
could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.
The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by
the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of
credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10
percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose
from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach
dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out
other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what
economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding
obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United
States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well
as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to
maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan,
abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled
to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid
economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and
economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These
trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow,
it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals
could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to
preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great
powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major
wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences.
Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers
may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                        40
                                                                            PO Box 670564
                                                                            Dallas, TX 75367
                                                                            Tel. 972-926-3832
                                                                            www.dallasurbandebate.org


                                                       Econ Turns Case -- Warming
Economic collapse would kill support for climate treaties
Haass 8 [Richard. President of the Council on Foreign Relations. 11/8/,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122611110847810599.html]
    There will be other policy consequences of recession. It will be more difficult to negotiate an accord on climate change
    as countries such as China and India will resist anything that could be an impediment to growth. High unemployment will
    make it even tougher to build a majority here at home for immigration reform. We will likely see new outbreaks of resistance to the ability of
    foreigners to buy U.S. assets despite a clear need for their dollars.




Last printed 4/17/2012 10:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                     41

								
To top