Docstoc

Spending File

Document Sample
Spending File Powered By Docstoc
					Document1                                                                                                                                          Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                                                         1
________________________................................................................................................................................. 4
***Fiscal Discipline DA*** ................................................................................................................................... 4
________________________................................................................................................................................. 4
***Uniquenesss*** ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Economy High Now ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Fiscal Discipline High Now .................................................................................................................................... 4
Investor Confidence High Now .............................................................................................................................. 4
Small Businesses High Now ................................................................................................................................... 5
No Dollar Dumping Now........................................................................................................................................ 5
________________________................................................................................................................................. 5
***Links*** ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
General Space Links ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Space Militarization Links ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Space Debris Links ................................................................................................................................................. 7
SPS Links ................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Space Colonization Links ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Mining Links ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Supplemental Spending Links ................................................................................................................................ 9
________________________................................................................................................................................. 9
***Internal Links*** .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Spending Kills the Economy – General .................................................................................................................. 9
Spending Leads to Unemployment ....................................................................................................................... 10
Spending Kills Investor Confidence ..................................................................................................................... 10
Spending Kills Small Business ............................................................................................................................. 11
Spending Causes Dollar Dumping ........................................................................................................................ 11
Spending Causes Crowd Out ................................................................................................................................ 12
Spending Causes Inflation .................................................................................................................................... 12
AT: Tax Hikes Solve ............................................................................................................................................ 12
AT: Spending Key to Stimulus ............................................................................................................................. 13
AT: Keynes ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
________________________............................................................................................................................... 14
***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
AT: Economy Resilient......................................................................................................................................... 14
AT: US Not Key to Global Economy ................................................................................................................... 14
Dollar Dumping Impacts....................................................................................................................................... 14
War Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Econ Turns Heg .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Econ Turns Prolif .................................................................................................................................................. 14
________________________............................................................................................................................... 14
***Military Tradeoff DA*** ................................................................................................................................ 14
________________________............................................................................................................................... 14
***Uniqueness*** ................................................................................................................................................ 14
No Military Cuts Now .......................................................................................................................................... 14
No [Specific Program] Cuts Now ......................................................................................................................... 15
Military Strong Now ............................................................................................................................................. 15
________________________............................................................................................................................... 15



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                         1
Document1                                                                                                                                     Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                                                    1
***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Spending Trades Off with Military ....................................................................................................................... 15
Spending Trades Off with F-35 ............................................................................................................................ 15
AT: Military Spending is Off the Table ................................................................................................................ 16
AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut .......................................................................................................... 16
AT: No Tradeoff ................................................................................................................................................... 16
AT: NASA Has Enough Money ........................................................................................................................... 16
________________________............................................................................................................................... 16
***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
Military Spending Key to Heg .............................................................................................................................. 16
[Specific Program] Key to Heg............................................................................................................................. 18
Military Spending Key to the Economy ............................................................................................................... 18
[Specific Program] Key to the Economy .............................................................................................................. 18
Heg Key to Space.................................................................................................................................................. 18
________________________............................................................................................................................... 18
***NASA Tradeoff DA*** .................................................................................................................................. 18
________________________............................................................................................................................... 18
***Uniqueness*** ................................................................................................................................................ 18
No NASA Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................................. 18
No Earth Sciences Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................ 19
________________________............................................................................................................................... 21
***Internal Links*** ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Spending Trades Off within NASA ...................................................................................................................... 21
Spending Trades Off with Earth Sciences ............................................................................................................ 21
AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut .......................................................................................................... 23
AT: No Tradeoff ................................................................................................................................................... 23
AT: NASA Has Enough Money ........................................................................................................................... 23
________________________............................................................................................................................... 23
***Impacts*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
NASA Spending Key to Climate .......................................................................................................................... 23
NASA Spending Key to [Specific Program] .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.20
________________________............................................................................................................................... 25
***Fiscal Discipline Aff*** ................................................................................................................................. 25
________________________............................................................................................................................... 25
***Non-Uniques*** ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Economy Low Now .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Fiscal Discipline Low Now .................................................................................................................................. 25
Investor Confidence Low Now ............................................................................................................................. 25
Small Businesses Low Now.................................................................................................................................. 25
Dollar Dumping Now ........................................................................................................................................... 25
________________________............................................................................................................................... 25
***Link Takeouts*** ........................................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Space Links ................................................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Moon Links ................................................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Mars Links ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
________________________............................................................................................................................... 25



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                    2
Document1                                                                                                                                        Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                                                       1
***Internal Link Takeouts/Turns*** ................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General ........................................................................................................ 25
AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence .............................................................................................................. 25
AT: Spending Kills Small Business ...................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Spending Causes Dollar Dumping ................................................................................................................ 25
AT: Spending Causes Crowd Out ......................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Spending Raises Taxes .................................................................................................................................. 25
AT: Spending Causes Inflation ............................................................................................................................. 27
AT: Greece Analogy ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Spending Key to Stimulus .................................................................................................................................... 27
________________________............................................................................................................................... 27
***Impact Takeouts*** ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Economy Resilient ................................................................................................................................................ 28
US Not Key to Global Economy .......................................................................................................................... 28
AT: War Impacts................................................................................................................................................... 28
________________________............................................................................................................................... 28
***Military Tradeoff DA Aff*** ......................................................................................................................... 28
________________________............................................................................................................................... 28
***Non-Uniques*** ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Military Cuts Now ................................................................................................................................................ 28
[Specific Program] Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................... 28
Military Weak Now .............................................................................................................................................. 28
________________________............................................................................................................................... 28
***Internal Link Takeouts*** .............................................................................................................................. 28
Spending Trades Off with Other Stuff .................................................................................................................. 28
Military Spending Will Never be Cut ................................................................................................................... 28
[Specific Program] Will Never be Cut.................................................................................................................. 28
No Tradeoff ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
NASA Has Enough Money................................................................................................................................... 28
________________________............................................................................................................................... 28
***Impact Turns and Takeouts*** ....................................................................................................................... 28
AT: Military Spending Key to Heg ...................................................................................................................... 28
AT: [Specific Program] Key to Heg ..................................................................................................................... 28
AT: Military Spending Key to the Economy ........................................................................................................ 28
AT: [Specific Program] Key to the Economy....................................................................................................... 28
Defense Cuts Good ............................................................................................................................................... 28
AT: Heg Key to Space .......................................................................................................................................... 30
________________________............................................................................................................................... 30
***NASA Tradeoff DA Aff*** ........................................................................................................................... 30
________________________............................................................................................................................... 30
***Non-Uniques*** ............................................................................................................................................. 30
NASA Cuts Now................................................................................................................................................... 30
Telescope Cuts Now ............................................................................................................................................. 31
________________________............................................................................................................................... 34
***Internal Link Takeouts*** .............................................................................................................................. 34
AT: Spending Trades Off within NASA .............................................................................................................. 34



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                       3
Document1                                                                                                                                        Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                                                       1
AT: Spending Trades Off with [Specific Program] .............................................................................................. 34
[Specific Program] Will Never be Cut.................................................................................................................. 34
No Tradeoff ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
NASA Has Enough Money................................................................................................................................... 34
________________________............................................................................................................................... 34
***Impact Takeouts*** ........................................................................................................................................ 34
AT: NASA Spending Key to Climate ................................................................................................................... 34
AT: NASA Spending Key to [Specific Program] ................................................................................................. 34


                                                          ________________________
                                                          ***Fiscal Discipline DA***
                                                          ________________________
                                                              ***Uniquenesss***
                                                                  Economy High Now
                                                           Fiscal Discipline High Now
Massive congressional cuts now
AP 7/19/11 “House bill requires spending cuts, balanced budget”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSgVWaDagIo65UBrtQfb8AVUp6ew?docId=a7bdb009b87a49a997179ba0be
d5f42b
      Highlights of a Republican-written "cut, cap and balance" bill the House plans to consider Tuesday: Cuts next year's
      projected $3.6 trillion in spending by $111 billion. Roughly two-thirds of cuts from department and agency budgets, one-
      third from automatically paid benefits, but leaves decisions to Congress about which programs would be cut. Exempts
      defense, security, veterans, Medicare and Social Security. Gradually decreases, or "caps," spending over the coming decade
      from 24.1 percent of the economy this year to 19.9 percent in 2021. Over the decade, that would mean about $6 trillion less
      spending than President Barack Obama proposed in his most recent budget. Congress would decide details. If a cap was
      exceeded, spending would automatically be cut, exempting Social Security, Medicare, military personnel, veterans and
      interest due on the debt.

Large cuts are inevitable and bipartisan – public support
Cheri Jacobus 6/23/11 “Cut, cap and balance” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/cheri-jacobus/168237-cut-cap-and-balance
      With the general public, the worm has turned and Americans are now more fearful of the looming European-style debt
      crisis and dismal future the left is creating than they are of the pain of large spending cuts. A Bloomberg poll shows 76
      percent of Americans think the economy is getting worse or is stagnant, and only three in 10 would reelect Obama. An
      Associated Press poll shows four out of five think the economy is in bad shape and 59 percent disapprove of how Obama is
      handling the economy and unemployment. And a new poll by Public Notice shows 62 percent of Americans, including 40
      percent of Democrats, are worried Congress will not cut enough spending, which means people are watching what
      Congress does rather closely. Fifty-one percent of Democrats say they would be more inclined to vote for a member of
      Congress who raised the debt ceiling only with significant spending cuts. Similarly, 54 percent of self-identified Tea Party
      supporters, 54 percent of Independents and 58 percent of Republicans share the sentiment. Women more than men believe
      the debt ceiling should not be raised, along with 52 percent of Hispanic/Latino voters. So there appears to be nowhere for
      Obama and congressional Democrats to hide on the issue of massive spending cuts and strict fiscal discipline when
      broaching the issue of raising the debt ceiling. So what does a Democrat do with so little wiggle room? Look for Democrats
      to start acting more like Republicans and embracing the Tea Party, rather than embracing the top of their own ticket with
      Obama’s bottom-of-the-barrel poll numbers.

                                                       Investor Confidence High Now


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                       4
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                Small Businesses High Now
                                                  No Dollar Dumping Now
                                               ________________________
                                                      ***Links***
                                                     General Space Links
NASA’s inaccurate cost estimates historically make space programs subject to underfunding and cost
overruns
GAO ’05 (2/05, “NASA’s Space Vision: Business Case for Prometheus 1 Needed to Ensure Requirements Match Available
Resources,” pg 10, 05-242)
    Adding to these complexities, NASA has historically had difficulty establishing life-cycle cost estimates. In May 2004, we
    reported that NASA’s basic cost-estimating processes—an important tool for managing programs—lack the discipline
    needed to ensure that program estimates are reasonable.8 Specifically, we found that 10 NASA programs that we reviewed
    in detail did not meet all of our cost-estimating criteria—based on criteria developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s
    Software Engineering Institute. Moreover, none of the 10 programs fully met certain key criteria—including clearly
    defining the program’s life cycle to establish program commitment and manage program costs, as required by NASA. In
    addition, only three programs provided a breakdown of the work to be performed. Without this knowledge, we reported that
    the programs’ estimated costs may be understated and thereby subject to underfunding and cost overruns, putting programs
    at risk of being reduced in scope or requiring additional funding to meet their objectives. In this report we recommended
    that NASA take a number of actions to improve its cost - estimating practices. NASA concurred noting that our
    recommendations validated and reinforced the importance of activities underway at NASA.

Space launch costs are high and rising
Spaceflight Now ’11 (“Rising launch costs could curtail NASA science missions,” 4/4/11, pg online @
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/04launchcosts/)
      A previous NLS contract expired last year and held provisions for heavily discounted rocket costs due to projections of a
      more robust U.S. commercial launch services market when it was signed in 2000. "The expectation at that time was there
      was a large commercial market," Cline said. "That did not materialize. As opposed to government being a secondary
      customer buying on the margin, government became the primary customer." With government as the anchor customer,
      marginal launch costs for NASA and the Air Force are on the rise. "Rocket costs are going crazy and mostly up," said
      Steve Squyres, a respected planetary scientist and chair of a panel of researchers that issued recommendations in March for
      NASA to address the possibility of a declining budget matched against rising launch prices. Squyres led the National
      Research Council's planetary science decadal survey, an independent report ranking a slate of robotic solar system missions
      for the next 10 years. "Launch vehicle costs are high," Squyres said. "They're growing. They're growing in a somewhat
      volatile and unpreditable fashion. They're becoming an increasingly large fraction of the cost of planetary missions, which
      is a trend we view with some alarm."

Launch costs are expensive - $10,000 per pound
Gabriele ’07 (Thomas Paul Gabriele Jr, Captain, USAF, 3/07, “Active Control of a Thin Deformable In-Plane Actuated Mirror,”
pg online @ https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?moduleid=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-
670c0822a153&mode=user&action=lresearch&objectid=3acbac26-86d8-4b4a-8765-b0fdc0fba152)
     Traditional large glass mirrors are not a viable option for space applications because their rigidity limits the mirror diameter
     which can be placed on orbit. Capabilities of current generation launch vehicles are limited to approximately four meters.
     Moreover, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, launch costs currently average around $10,000
     per pound for a geostationary launch. These costs, coupled with the large areal density of glass, make traditional optics in
     space costly [38].

Space launches historically costly
Radford ’11 (Tim Radford, freelance journalist, 6/30/11, “NASA’s costly space ride,” pg online @


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        5
Document1                                                                                                            Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                       1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/30/nasas-costly-space-ride)
      The investment in each launch was colossal. The solid rocket boosters alone burn fuel at the rate of 5,000kg a second at
      each launch and the temperatures inside the shuttle's main engine get high enough to make iron boil. And the vessel had to
      take with it everything humans might need to survive in space, every time. But reusable did not mean cheap. Every flight
      into space involved stress and abrasion as the machine tore through the air on the way up, and then went from sub-zero
      temperatures in orbit to more than 1,500C as it hit the atmosphere on the way down. As the fleet aged, the pit stops became
      longer and launches less frequent. Two scientists at the University of Colorado calculated an average cost for each launch
      of $1.2bn. Nasa – begetter and guardian of the International Space Station, the Hubble space telescope and the yet to be
      launched James Webb space telescope – already has more financial demands than it can meet. President Obama cancelled
      plans for a new manned mission to the moon; the long-promised manned mission to Mars now looks very distant. Once
      Atlantis returns, it will join its fellow survivors Discovery and Endeavour as US museum exhibits. And when the crew
      aboard the ISS need any more tea and sugar, or fuel and fresh air, these will be delivered by a Russian robot Progress cargo
      vehicle, or a European Space Agency automated transfer vehicle, neither of which is reusable. For years to come, the only
      carrier available to get people to and from the space station will be the Russian Soyuz, descendant of a line launched in
      1966. The space shuttle broke all records; but in the end it all but broke Nasa.

Launch costs for any future plans are rising-bad financial environment
Space News ’10 (12/16/10, “Rising Costs Cast Shadow on NASA Planetary Program,” pg online @
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101216-costs-cloud-planetary-program.html)
      While 2011 is expected to be a banner year for NASA’s planetary science program with three missions scheduled for
      launch, future initiatives are threatened by budget uncertainties and a dramatic spike in the price of launch vehicles,
      according to an agency official. “This is a really difficult financial environment,” Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary
      science, said Dec. 15 at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union here. Rides into orbit for NASA’s 2011 planetary
      missions, the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), the Juno mission to Jupiter and the Moon-bound Gravity Recovery and
      Interior Laboratory (GRAIL), were purchased under the first NASA Launch Services contract. That contract, which does
      not include specific quantities of rockets to be purchased or delivery dates, sets prices for launch vehicles and related
      services for NASA’s planetary, Earth observing, exploration and scientific satellites. In September, NASA awarded a
      second set of Launch Services contracts to Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Orbital Sciences Corp. of
      Dulles, Va., Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and United Launch Alliance of Littleton,
      Colo. Prices in the second NASA Launch Services contract round are “significantly higher” than the prices in the first,
      Green said. He declined to be specific. “We are surprised at how extensive those cost increases are,” he said. “You start to
      wonder where we go from here. How do we get out of low Earth orbit on a regular basis?”

Economic downturn makes spending more on space impossible
LA Times ’11 (5/9/11, “Space: If you have the money, we have a program,” pg online @
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/05/money-for-space-programs.html)
      Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with space and our space program. Supporters love the triumphs, the
      soaring inspiration of it all. Opponents argue: With so many problems here on Earth, why are we wasting money on space?
      Now, throw in the worst economic downturn in decades and you get this: With so many problems here on Earth, and the
      fact we're so deeply in debt, why waste money on space? Just how tight have things become? Heck, we don't even have
      enough money to keep searching for ET. Last week, in "SETI Institute's search for extraterrestrial life hits a budgetary
      black hole," Times staff writer Louis Sahagun reported that the guys sitting in Northern California listening for signals from
      other life in the universe are about out of money. Congress gave up and cut off funding in 1993, but private sources have
      kept the project running. Now? Well, it looks like it's mothball city: In mid-April, [Tom] Pierson [the institute's chief
      executive officer] delivered the bad news to stakeholders, just as the array was being prepared to survey more than 50
      recently discovered planets beyond our solar system that astronomers believe may be habitable. Darn, just when we were
      this close. So, 50 years after Alan Shepard put America back in the space race, we don't even have the $2.5 million a year
      it takes to listen for fellow inhabitants of the galaxy, much less travel there. And Rodriguez thinks Americans are ready to
      spend really big bucks on space travel? No, here's where we really are: Like so much of what's going on in the real world,
      space is about to become a playground for the rich.

                                                Space Militarization Links
Space Militarization ineffective: Could require 20 + years and over $200 billion


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       6
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1
Greg Grant, 11/8/07, staff writer for governmentexecutive.com, “Report questions cost effectiveness of space weapons”,
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/110807g1.htm
      Putting weapons in space to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the United States or to destroy enemy satellites would be
      a poor investment, particularly when compared with ground-based weapons designed to do the same thing, according to a
      new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think tank. The report, "Arming the
      Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons," examined a
      number of potential space-based weapons systems, many of which remain largely theoretical, and attempted to quantify the
      costs of such systems and the likelihood that they would actually work. It acknowledged the difficulty of assessing space
      weapons, since most of the information on them is highly classified. But based on available information, the report
      concluded that a constellation of such weapons presents enormous costs, technological challenges, potential risk of
      escalation of an arms race in space, and is of questionable effectiveness. The most widely discussed option, stemming from
      the Reagan-era Star Wars missile defense proposal, is to build a constellation of satellites that would fire either missiles or
      lasers at incoming ballistic missiles. Considering the technological leaps required, particularly for a space-based laser, the
      report considered it unlikely that such a system could be built within 20 years. If the technology hurdles were overcome, the
      costs to build such a system could approach $200 billion.

Space Militarization will exceed military budget
William D. Hartung, 7/12/05, guest columnist for Seattle Pi, “Weapons in space put the world at risk”,
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Weapons-in-space-put-the-world-at-risk-1178161.php
      In addition to the threats to U.S. security and our economy from sparking an arms race in space, the whole process would
      be extremely costly. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, launching an adequate number of Space-Based
      Interceptors to achieve total global coverage in a missile defense role could cost up to $60 billion over a decade's time.
      Space-Based Interceptors can also be adapted to work as anti-satellite weapons, although the numbers needed to reach an
      initial capability would be much smaller. And a Council on Foreign Relations study group estimates that placing just 40
      rods in space for the "Rods from God" program would cost more than $8 billion. Given all the other space weapons projects
      on the drawing board, a concerted effort to weaponize space could eventually exceed the $100 billion-plus already spent on
      the missile defense program, which has been plagued by delays and technical difficulties from its inception. Witness the
      fact that in the last two major missile defense tests, the interceptor missile did not even make it out of its silo. Launching
      and maintaining hundreds or thousands of weapons in the harsh environment of space would pose its own technical
      obstacles, some of which may not be readily overcome. The better way to go would be to act now to establish some rules of
      the road for space-faring nations. The Henry L. Stimson Center has developed a model code of conduct for space that
      includes no flight-testing or deployment of space weapons, minimizing space debris that can destroy satellites and
      cooperating on space traffic management. The time to act on these ideas is now, while the United States still maintains
      unparalleled dominance in space.

Space Weapons are too Costly an Investment Considering their Low Survivability and High Risk
Clay 07 (James Clay. Senior Software Engineer at United Space Alliance "Protecting Safe Access to Space: Lessons from the First
50 Years of Space Security." Space Policy. Vol. 23 (November 2007): 199-205. page 203 , TA)
    As implied above, another factor that has affected the prospects of space's weaponization has been the extremely high costs
    involved. The root of this problem lies in the great expense of placing any objects into space, but it is exacerbated by the
    fact that orbiting objects are difficult to maintain and modernize, particularly if there are changes in technical capabilities
    and/or targeting information. But perhaps the most damaging factor in regard to cost is the fact that orbital physics require
    that any militarily significant constellation of interceptors placed in space must be deployed in considerable numbers, given
    the "absentee problem"--i.e., the fact that a harmful attack could be undertaken by an adversary at an "inconvenient" time in
    the orbit of any defensive system. One recent report, for example, has estimated that for a constellation of space-based
    weapons for use in "global strikes" against ground targets within 45 min, the requirement is for nearly 50 individual
    interceptors to cover even a limited swath of the Earth's land mass.12 The report concludes that "acquiring the capability to
    attack a ground target within 45 minutes would be many tens of times more costly if done from space than from the
    ground". Of course, for an anti-ASAT system, the requirements are much higher, since an hour could mean the difference
    between defense and irrelevance. For this reason, the start of any arms race in space will involve extremely high costs. In
    addition, the deployment of such systems puts assets in space on hair-trigger alert, creating serious risks of
    misidentification of targets. Such events could lead to the destruction of property, inadvertent loss of life, or accidental war.

                                                      Space Debris Links


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        7
Document1                                                                                                              Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1

Cleaning up space debris is cost ineffective
Julie Beck, 11/29/10, staff writer for PopScience, “Russia Invests $2 Billion To Clean Up Space Debris”,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/russia-invests-2-billion-clean-space-debris
      Hare-brained schemes for cleaning up space debris have been batted around for some time, but Russia has finally put some
      money down on a real project. Russia’s space corporation, Energia, is going to invest $2 billion to build a space pod to fly
      around and knock the junk out of orbit and out of our way. Hopefully it will burn up in the atmosphere, or land in the
      ocean, and not rain down on Chinese villagers. This pod could help reopen orbits that are currently inaccessible to future
      spacecraft due to the amount of shredded metal and empty hulls of dead satellites floating around. Using an ion drive, it
      will gently nudge these useless scraps out of orbit. Energia plans to have completed testing on the pod, which will have a
      nuclear power core, by 2020, and have it in service no later than three years after. It will have a lifespan of about 15 years,
      enough time to make a significant dent in our space debris problem. Energia is also working on developing an “interceptor”
      spacecraft using similar technology. This craft would be able to derail any incoming comets or other outer-space projectiles
      that might be hurtling towards Earth, and change their trajectory just enough that they miss us.

                                                             SPS Links
Solar Powered Satellites will inevitably be cost ineffective
National Space Society, October 2007, “Space Solar Power: Limitless Clean Energy From Space”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm
      The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight
      in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions
      problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities
      of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is
      literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space
      solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar
      power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used
      on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power
      transmission can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet. High development cost. Yes, space solar power
      development costs will be very large, although much smaller than American military presence in the Persian Gulf or the
      costs of global warming, climate change, or carbon sequestration. The cost of space solar power development always needs
      to be compared to the cost of not developing space solar power.

Cost of Solar Powered Satellites would exceed any other system of production
Kevin Chao and James Chang, 2/20/08, contributors to Design4Development.com, “The Power of Power”,
http://design4dev.wetpaint.com/page/Solar+Power+Satellites
      Perhaps one of the greatest downfalls of the SPS system would be cost. In the range of 80 billion dollars, the costs of this
      system far exceed any of the other systems of production. Even the fact that the technology offers benefits far into the
      future would seem unreasonable in terms of cost. In comparing SPS to the two systems that generate most of the world’s
      power, nuclear and coal, the cost of SPS drastically outweighs. Take nuclear power for example. A typical reactor costs
      approximately 5 billion to build, a mere 20th of a SPS without taking into account, the base stations. Fossil fuels account
      for 65% of the world’s energy production and are even cheaper due to its availability and flexibility with regards to use. It
      would seem then, that currently established means of energy production are capable enough of handling the power needs of
      any developing nations. Yet with any growing society, energy demands are expected to rise and without stable energy
      sources, demand will exceed supply and costs will begin to rise. It is then that in terms of cost and sustainability, the true
      benefit of the SPS system begins to outweigh those monetary costs in the long run. Fossil fuels currently are highly
      available and consequently, the cost of this fuel is dramatically cheaper than that of any other power source.

                                                  Space Colonization Links
Space Colonization is inordinately expensive
Al Globus, 4/29/11, works for NASA Astrobiology, “Space Settlement Basics”, http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html
      Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and operate. For



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        8
Document1                                                                                                              Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                         1
      example, the current cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20 million. To enable large scale space
      tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude.
      Space tourism has launch requirements similar to space settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing
      technology my be necessary to enable space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per
      pound for operational vehicles. One candidate for a major improvement in manufacturing technology is molecular
      nanotechnology. An important branch of nanotechnology is concerned with developing diamonoid mechanosynthesis. This
      means building things out of diamond-like materials, placing each atom at a precise location (ignoring thermal motion).
      Diamond is 69 times stronger than titanium for the same weight and is much stiffer. If spacecraft were made of diamonoid
      materials rather than aluminum, they could be much lighter allowing more payload. For an excellent analysis applying
      nanotechnology to space development, see McKendree 1995 Diamond mechanosythesis may enable a radical transportation
      system that could allow millions of people to go to orbit each year -- an orbital tower.

Space Colonization is cost ineffective
HumansFuture, 2010, Future of Human Evolution Website, “Space Colonization”,
http://www.humansfuture.org/space_colonization_economics.php.htm
      At the present time there is not a viable purely economic argument in favor of space exploration. With the cost of sending
      just one kilogram into orbit at around $10,000, access to space remains within the realm of governmental control. The cost
      of launching an object into space has not decreased since Apollo 11 went to the moon in 1969, and the cost of launching the
      space shuttle remains at a whopping $400 million a flight. This effectively allows governments (along with their associated
      bureaucracy and political chains) to control the space agenda, completely shutting out the private interests of capable,
      forward-thinking individuals and organizations. It is our opinion that the only way to make interstellar space travel a reality
      this century is through the introduction of competitive market forces to drive the cost of launch down to a fraction of
      current levels. This means, of course, the privatization of space.

                                                           Mining Links
Effective Space Mine System would Cost $2 Billion
Kosiak 07 ( Steven M. Kosiak, Steven M. Kosiak is Director of Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments. Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons.
. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, October 31, 2007. page 61, TA)
     The cost of developing and procuring space mines is difficult to estimate. Among other things, this is because the space
     mines could vary substantially in terms of size and sophistication. Based on historical cost relationships between satellite
     weight and costs, however, and assuming average system complexity, a reasonable estimate is that space mines in the 10-
     100 kilogram class would cost an average of some $5–25 million to acquire. Assuming, consistent with the above
     discussion of SBI ASAT requirements, that the US military would want to be capable of targeting 10-100 enemy satellites,
     total acquisition costs for such a system would be projected to range from some $100–500 million for 10 space mines, to
     perhaps $500 million to $2 billion for 100 space mines. Development costs might account for as much as half of total
     acquisition costs in the case of a 10-satellite purchase, and 15 percent of those costs in the case of a 100-satellite buy.

                                              Supplemental Spending Links
                                                ________________________
                                                   ***Internal Links***
                                       Spending Kills the Economy – General
US deficit spending hurts the global economy
Chris Kitze, writer for the Market Oracle, ’11 (March 10 2011, “Signs of Impending Doom for Global Economy 2011,”
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26811.html)
      Meanwhile, the United States is also covered in a sea of red ink and the economic situation in the largest economy on earth
      continues to deteriorate rapidly. It is as if the entire world financial system has caught a virus that it just can't shake, and
      now it looks like another massive wave of financial disaster could be about to strike. Does the global economy have enough
      strength to weather a major oil crisis in 2011? How much debt can the largest nations in North America and Europe take on


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                         9
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                         1
      before the entire system collapses under the weight? Will 2011 be a repeat of 2008 or are we going to be able to get through
      the rest of the year okay? Only time will tell. But it is quickly becoming clear that we are reaching a tipping point. If the
      price of oil keeps going up, all hopes for any kind of an "economic recovery" will be completely wiped out. But if the globe
      does experience another economic slowdown, it could potentially turn the simmering sovereign debt crisis into an absolute
      nightmare. The U.S. and most nations in Europe are having a very difficult time servicing their debts and they desperately
      need tax revenues to increase. If another major economic downturn causes tax revenues to go down again it could unleash
      absolute chaos on world financial markets. The global economy is more interconnected than ever, and so a major crisis in
      one area of the world can have a cascading effect on the rest of the globe. Just as we saw back in 2008, if financial disaster
      strikes nobody is going to escape completely unscathed.

                                           Spending Leads to Unemployment
Lack of fiscal discipline hurts the economy – sustains unemployment and perpetuates recession
Paul J. Sullivan, Professor at Georgetown University, 6/20 (Al Arabiya News – Washington, 6/20/2011, “Frightening profligacy,
poor fiscal discipline, disputatious democracy and uncertain leadership in the United States,”
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/20/153996.html)
      Much of the fiscal indiscipline in many countries is due to the political invertebracy of many in the political leadership. The
      profligacy of the past is catching up with the present and could have deep repercussions in the future. The time for
      leadership, fiscal courage, and some hard thinking and choices is now. Otherwise, the financial crisis of the 2000s could
      seem quite mild compared to the brewing economic troubles out there.
      The effects of not getting things in order could spread far beyond the gates of Athens or the beltway of Washington. It is,
      however, not too late to get moving on the solutions and the tough decisions.
      I have an odd sense of foreboding mixed with cautious optimism about the US. In the past the US has worked its way out of
      very difficult times. One can think of the Great Depression and other deep recessions in its past going back even to the start
      of the country. One can also see a lot of strength in the inventiveness and entrepreneurial nature of the US. It is a powerful
      economy and society with many very hard working people.
      However, this situation seems fundamentally different than in difficult times in the past because the culture of discipline,
      and especially fiscal discipline, and the society’s and governments views toward debts have changed – even since the 1980s
      – considerably.
      If anyone is struggling to figure out why the US unemployment rate will likely remain high for some time to come, and it
      could take many years to get back down to 5 to 6 percent unemployment rates, then look to the government, household and
      other debts that are drags on the economy.
      Also, debt is what got the US economy and a good part of the rest of the world economy into the difficult positions they
      have been in recent years.
      Let’s hope our leaders in business, government, thought leaders in society, and others can do the right things on time, and
      the US economy, and by implication much of the rest of the world economy, can get back on track before the next
      economic storms hammer so many lives once again.

                                          Spending Kills Investor Confidence
Massive spending increases hurts investor confidence
The Bank for International Settlements, organization of central banks, 6/26 (June 26th 2011, “Overview of the economic chapters,”
http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2011e_ov.htm)
      Over the past year, the global economy has continued to improve. In emerging markets, growth has been strong, and
      advanced economies have been moving towards a self-sustaining recovery. But it would be a mistake for policymakers to
      relax. From our vantage point, numerous legacies and lessons of the financial crisis require attention. In many advanced
      economies, high debt levels still burden households as well as financial and non-financial institutions, and the consolidation
      of fiscal accounts has barely started. International financial imbalances are re-emerging. Highly accommodative monetary
      policies are fast becoming a threat to price stability. Financial reforms have yet to be completed and fully implemented.
      And the data frameworks that should serve as an early warning system for financial stress remain underdeveloped. These
      are the challenges we examine in this year's Annual Report. Interrelated imbalances made pre-crisis growth in several
      advanced countries unsustainable. Rapidly increasing debt and asset prices resulted in bloated housing and financial sectors.
      The boom also masked serious longterm fiscal vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could trigger the next crisis. We
      should make no mistake here: the market turbulence surrounding the fiscal crises in Greece, Ireland and Portugal would



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        10
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                         1
      pale beside the devastation that would follow a loss of investor confidence in the sovereign debt of a major economy.
      Addressing overindebtedness, private as well as public, is the key to building a solid foundation for high, balanced real
      growth and a stable financial system. That means both driving up private saving and taking substantial action now to reduce
      deficits in the countries that were at the core of the crisis.

                                              Spending Kills Small Business
                                           Spending Causes Dollar Dumping
Increased spending causes credit downgrade – kills dollar leadership and hurts US
The Washington Post, News Source, 4/19 (April 19th 2011, “U.S. credit rating downgrade: the Armageddon scenario,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-economy/post/us-ratings-downgrade-the-armageddon-
scenario/2011/04/19/AFnE0n5D_blog.html)
      A credit rating downgrade for the United States would spell even more financial trouble for the U.S. government,
      hampering its ability to borrow money as investors demand higher yields to make up for the increased risk. That would
      cause its national debt to balloon further and increase the need to hike taxes or make even more painful cuts in spending.
      But the real Armageddon scenario would occur when the impact of a sovereign downgrade hit the rest of the U.S. economy.
      The U.S. “risks eroding its standing at the core of the global monetary system,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and co-
      chief investment officer at PIMCO, wrote in a commentary piece for the Financial Times. Pension funds and investment
      trusts that are bound by covenant to invest only in AAA-rated debt could be forced to dump U.S. holdings. Banks that do
      the bulk of their business in the U.S. could themselves face downgrades. Eventually, the dollar could lose its status as the
      world’s reserve currency. The ripple effects of Standard & Poors’ decision to downgrade its outlook for the U.S. were
      already spreading on Monday. The agency also downgraded its outlook for five AAA-rated U.S. insurance groups: Knights
      of Columbus, New York Life Insurance, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association
      of America and United Services Automobile Association. In downgrading their outlook from stable to negative, S&P noted
      that these companies are “constrained by the U.S. sovereign credit rating because their businesses and assets are highly
      concentrated in the U.S.” S&P analyst David Zuber and his colleagues wrote that they took into account “direct and indirect
      sovereign risks—such as the impact of macroeconomic volatility, currency devaluation, asset impairment, and investment
      portfolio deterioration.” How likely is this nightmare scenario to happen? There are 19 sovereigns rated AAA by the S&P.
      Of those, only the United States has a negative outlook. There are a number of countries that have lost AAA ratings over
      the past 20 years—including Canada, Denmark, Finland and Sweden—but they ended up regaining them. Goldman Sachs
      analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a research note on Tuesday that while he agrees with S&P that the “current trajectory of
      fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long-term” and that the U.S. “already appears to be on the edge of AAA territory,”
      he has a somewhat more optimistic view of the U.S. situation over the next few years and assumes that some fiscal
      tightening is likely to occur.

Deficit spending makes default more likely – impact is catastrophic
The Los Angeles Times, News Source, 6/2 (June 2nd 2011, “Moody's warns of U.S. credit rating downgrade if no debt ceiling deal
comes soon,” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/06/moodys-warns-it-could-downgrade-us-credit-rating-if-no-deal-
comes-soon-on-debt-ceiling.html)
    Moody's Investors Service warned Thursday that it could downgrade the U.S. government's AAA credit rating if there is no
    progress in the next six weeks on a deal to raise the nation's $14.29-trillion debt ceiling. The credit rating agency said it saw
    a "very small but rising risk of a short-lived default" by the government on its obligations to holders of Treasury bonds and
    other debt. The nation reached the debt ceiling May 16. But the Treasury Department has been juggling some finances to
    keep the government from default as President Obama negotiates over significant spending cuts that congressional
    Republicans have made a condition to any increase in the debt ceiling. Those "extraordinary measures" will run out Aug. 2,
    the Treasury said. Moody's said that although it "expected political wrangling" in Washington, "the degree of entrenchment
    into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations." "The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the
    odds of a short-lived default," Moody's said. "If this situation remains unchanged in coming weeks, Moody's will place the
    rating under review." A meeting at the White House on Wednesday between Obama and House Republicans failed to make
    any progress. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Thursday met with the large House freshman class -- many of
    which are Tea Party supporters opposed to increasing the debt limit -- to make the case that a U.S. default would be
    catastrophic to the economy. Moody's said "if progress in negotiations is not evident by the middle of July" it would place
    the U.S. credit rating on review for possible downgrade because of the risk of a short default. Moody's probably would



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        11
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1
      downgrade the rating to AA shortly after such a default occurred. If default were avoided and a deal struck, the rating
      probably would not be reduced, Moody's said. "Any loss to bondholders would likely be minimal or nonexistent, as
      Moody's anticipates that a default would be cured quickly," Moody's said. Thursday's warning came after another leading
      credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, last month lowered its outlook for the U.S. to "negative" because of the lack of
      progress on its large debt and budget deficit. S&P kept the U.S. at a AAA rating, but the downgrade to the outlook meant
      that there was at least a 33% chance the rating would be lowered in the next two years. Moody's said Thursday it had kept a
      stable outlook on the U.S. credit rating because it assumed there would be "meaningful progress" over the next 18 months
      in dealing with the nation's increasing debt. But that outlook could change to negative if there was no deal to address the
      deficit as part of the debt-ceiling negotiations, the agency said. The U.S. would probably keep its AAA rating if a default is
      avoided, but "whether the outlook on the rating would be stable or negative would depend on whether the outcome of the
      negotiations included meaningful progress toward substantial and credible long-term deficit reduction," Moody's said.

                                               Spending Causes Crowd Out
                                                 Spending Causes Inflation
                                                     AT: Tax Hikes Solve
High taxes crush small businesses and kill jobs
The Essene, a Daily Kos Community Site, ‘9 (July 16th 2009, “A Universal Tax to Pay for Universal Health Care,”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/16/754259/-A-Universal-Tax-to-Pay-for-Universal-Health-Care)
      However, the high income tax surtax is not painless for the middle class. Its cost will fall principally on those small family
      businesses that create 80% of our jobs, and the middle class already suffers from a desperate shortage of jobs. Politicians
      can be sure that the middle class will notice a jobless recovery, assuming recovery can even begin. Almost all small
      businesses have "pass-through treatment" where the owners include the business income in their federal income tax returns
      and then pay tax on it, whether they receive cash or not. Thus, family and other small businesses pay tax not at corporate
      rates, but at individual rates. Small business owners, therefore, have to pay the surtax or any tax increase in marginal rates
      on their business income whether they spend the money or reinvest it in their businesses, leaving the owners with less
      capital to expand or hire. On the other hand, big international corporations pay nothing more in tax, leaving small
      businesses at a competitive disadvantage and unable to raise prices to offset the increased tax.

Republicans will oppose any tax increase – it’s their dogma
Albert R. Hurt, Executive Editor for Bloomberg News, 7/17/11, “Republicans’ Idealogy Dooms Deal on U.S. Debt”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/us/18iht-letter18.html
      WASHINGTON — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in the heat of the high-level budget deliberations, told Republicans
      that their intransigence over taxes was a matter of ideology, not economics. It’s also about coalitions and contributors.
      Congressional Republicans rejected a grand-bargain deficit reduction plan that would have slashed spending, including on
      entitlements, while raising revenue. Raising taxes, charged Republicans like the House majority leader, Representative Eric
      Cantor of Virginia, would be a job killer in a struggling economy. Mr. Cantor pulled the rug out from the efforts of a fellow
      Republican, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, and President Barack Obama to strike a historic deal. It was about
      politics, not jobs. Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton engineered big tax increases that were followed by
      robust economic gains. Politically, however, tax cuts are the glue that holds together the Republican coalition. It used to be
      anti-Communism until the Berlin Wall came down. There’s still a divide on social issues, and even a number of anti-
      abortion or anti-gay rights Republicans don’t consider these questions priorities. With the wars in Afghanistan and Libya,
      it’s tough to distinguish between the foreign policy positions of conservatives and those of liberals. There is no such
      confusion when it comes to taxes. With enforcers like the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist looking over their shoulders,
      Republican politicians know that if they even entertain the idea of higher taxes, they throw away any national ambitions,
      may be threatened in a primary, and, if in a position of leadership, face a revolt from the rank and file.

No tax raises – Norquisit’s anti-tax pledge
Jason Hanna, 7/15/11, “Politicians’ pledges show interest groups’ sway”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/14/pledges.interest.groups/
      Some political analysts watching the debt ceiling talks in Washington lament that the no-tax-hike pledge signed by most



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       12
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1
      congressional Republicans may prevent a grand compromise in which tax increases accompany spending cuts. To the man
      who leads the interest group behind the pledge, that's pretty much the idea.Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax
      Reform -- the group whose oppose-all-tax-increases vow was signed by 235 House members and 41 senators, almost all of
      them Republicans -- said the pledge is doing what it's supposed to: preventing what he says are mistakes of 1982 and 1990,
      namely agreeing to tax increases and watching promised spending cuts evaporate."When you take the pledge, it ends the
      constant badgering of people asking you to raise taxes here, there and everywhere," said Norquist, whose group wants to
      shrink the federal government and believes any new revenue would enable continued government growth. "Once you keep
      putting a tax increase on the table, spending cuts disappear." "If someone says that this makes it difficult to make a big
      budget deal (with tax increases), that's the point," he said. "... The only reason that (President Barack) Obama is even
      talking spending restraints is because of this pledge."

Tax hikes won’t happen – Republican refusal
CNN 6/29/11 Deirdre Walsh, Xuan Thai, and Kate Bolduan, “Republicans reject president’s call to include tax revenues in debt
deal” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/republicans-reject-presidents-call-to-include-tax-revenues-in-debt-deal/
     Republican congressional leaders Wednesday rejected President Barack Obama's call to include tax revenues as part of a
     deal to raise the debt ceiling. Obama said at a White House press conference Wednesday that he's already made concessions
     to significantly cut spending for government programs. In return, he said, Republicans should now accept proposals to end
     corporate tax subsidies, such as those given to oil and gas companies or tax breaks for hedge fund managers. The president
     tried to label Republicans as more interested in protecting special interests than getting a deal done before the U.S. defaults
     on its financial obligations later this summer. He singled out one tax break that gives corporations a deduction for buying
     company planes. "You'll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You'll just have to pay a little more." Obama said. But
     House Speaker John Boehner flatly dismissed any proposal that would add revenues to a debt limit agreement. "The
     president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House," Boehner
     said in a written statement. Boehner repeated his position that any deal to up the nation's borrowing authority must include
     spending cuts greater than the amount the debt limit is raised, reforms to control spending over the long term and be "free
     from tax hikes." "The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process," Boehner stated.

                                             AT: Spending Key to Stimulus
Cutting spending creates a better stimulus than raising spending
A. Adrianson, the Heritage Foundation, ’10 (September 16th 2010, "Spending Cuts Are Good for the Economy,"
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/spending-cuts-are-good-for-the-economy/)
      Reducing budget deficits by cutting government spending has a stronger record of economic stimulus than either reducing
      the deficit with tax increases or increasing government spending. That’s what Harvard economists Albert Alesina and
      Silvia Ardagna have found in their recent research. They examined 107 instances of large reductions (at least 1.5 percent in
      one year) in budget deficits as well as 91 instances of large increases (over 1.5 percent in one year) in budget deficits over
      the past 40 years. They found that when an economy expands following deficit reduction, spending cuts were the largest
      part of the adjustment. At the same time, when recessions followed deficit reduction, tax increases were the predominant
      policy. The authors also found that when budget deficits increased, tax cuts had a more expansionary impact on the
      economy than spending increases.

                                                            AT: Keynes
Their authors are wrong – Keynesian economics is too outdated
Jason Bradley, former military member, ‘11 (June 27th 2011, “Keynesians Are both Wrong and Dangerous,”
http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/06/27/keynesians-are-both-wrong-and-dangerous/)
      The Keynesian school of thought on the economy is that of the potential instability of the private sector and the
      undependability of the market driven self-adjustment factor. Keynes during his day said that in times of depression (or deep
      recessions) the government should focus entirely on spending by injecting the national economy with lots of cash. So the
      task was simple: spend more on goods and services thereby shifting aggregate demand in the other direction and presto we
      are out of the recession. However, Keynes put forth these thoughts during the Great Depression. In which inflation was not
      a threat, prices were falling, and unemployment was reaching 25 percent. Since the goal was to get the national economy
      back to full employment, the only model used for analysis was the aggregate demand curve in relation to real GDP gaps.
      There was no need to study aggregate supply and aggregate demand, prices and real job growth because he was only



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       13
Document1                                                                                                                Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                           1
      interested in what market participants would buy during the depression if the economy was producing at full capacity. So a
      new model called the Keynesian Cross was coined which basically focuses on the differences in total spending to the value
      of total output. It doesn’t account for true distinctions for price levels and real output, i.e., real job growth. An increase in
      aggregate demand effects real output and prices but doesn’t always translate to a dollar-for-dollar improvement in real
      GDP. Again, and to his defense, Keynes’ ideas were during the Great Depression — falling prices, etc., — this is not the
      Great Depression, so when supply and demand increases so do prices. As a result we still stay short of full employment,
      consumer spending stays down, wages become relatively low, the economy fails to rebound and possibly falls back into
      recession.

                                                 ________________________
                                                       ***Impacts***
                                                    AT: Economy Resilient
                                          AT: US Not Key to Global Economy
                                                   Dollar Dumping Impacts
                                                            War Impacts
                                                          Econ Turns Heg
                                                        Econ Turns Prolif
                                                ________________________
                                                ***Military Tradeoff DA***
                                                ________________________
                                                    ***Uniqueness***
                                                     No Military Cuts Now
Military spending is increasing, no risk of DOD cuts now
Donna Cassata 7/8/11, Associated Press, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43688283/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
      On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill
      that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. The strong bipartisan embrace of the measure came as White
      House and congressional negotiators face an Aug. 2 deadline on agreeing to trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts and
      raising the borrowing limit so the U.S. does not default on debt payments. While House Republican leaders agreed to slash
      billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy
      efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account
      beginning Oct. 1 Concerns about undermining national security, cutting military dollars at a time of war and losing defense
      jobs back home trumped fiscal discipline in the House. Only 12 Republicans and 75 Democrats opposed the overall bill.
      "In the midst of a serious discussion about our nation's debt crisis, House Republicans demonstrated responsible leadership
      that sets priorities and does not jeopardize our national security interests and our nation's ongoing military efforts," Rep.
      Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said in a statement. But Rep. Barney Frank, D-
      Mass, scoffed at the suggestion that "everything is on the table" in budget negotiations between the Obama administration
      and congressional leaders. "The military budget is not on the table," he said. "The military is at the table, and it is eating
      everybody else's lunch." The bill would provide $530 billion to the Pentagon and $119 billion to cover the costs of the
      wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would provide a 1.6 percent increase in pay and buy various warships, aircraft and
      weapons, including a C-17 cargo plane that the Pentagon did not request but is good news for the Boeing production line in
      Long Beach, Calif. During three days of debate, the House easily turned back several efforts to cut military spending,



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                          14
Document1                                                                                                              Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                         1
      including amendments by Frank on the Democratic side and and tea party-backed freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.

No defense cuts in sight – house divided
Alexander 06/23 (David Alexander, Staff writer for newsdaily.com, 2011/06/23, White House criticizes House defense spending
bill, http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre75m803-us-usa-budget-defense/, TA)
       WASHINGTON, June 23, 2011 (Reuters) — The Obama administration sharply criticized a $649 billion defense spending
       bill in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday as lawmakers began debating next year's Pentagon
       funding, including the war in Afghanistan. The White House said in a policy statement it strongly opposed elements of the
       defense appropriations bill in the House because of proposed spending cuts and restrictions on the handling of Guantanamo
       detainees. "If a bill is presented to the president that undermines his ability as commander-in-chief or includes ideological
       or political policy riders, the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto," the statement said. The White House
       raised its concerns as the House began debating the bill to set levels for most military spending for the 2012 fiscal year
       beginning in October. The measure was expected to face a large number of amendments, including a move to halt U.S.
       participation in the NATO-led campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi by barring any spending on the effort.
       With President Barack Obama struggling to reduce the nation's $1.4 trillion deficit, war-weary lawmakers facing cuts to
       social programs used the debate to press the administration to end the war more quickly and cut defense spending more
       deeply. The current House measure cuts Obama's spending request by $8.9 billion. "As we spend over $2 billion a week on
       this decade-long war, critical programs, like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, food stamps and
       Medicare are on the chopping block. Enough is enough. There is no military solution in Afghanistan," said Representative
       Barbara Lee, who pledged to seek an amendment to end funding for the Afghan war. Representative Alcee Hastings said
       the United States needed a "lean and powerful" military but "we also have great needs in this country and we cannot
       continue to slash funding for essential programs here at home in favor of ever-increasing funding for wars abroad." The
       appropriations bill is a long way from final passage. The Senate's version of the bill is still in committee. Whatever version
       is ultimately passed by the House would have to be reconciled with a bill adopted by the Democratic-led Senate before it
       would go to Obama for his signature.

                                            No [Specific Program] Cuts Now
                                                   Military Strong Now
                                                ________________________
                                                   ***Internal Links***
                                          Spending Trades Off with Military
                                             Spending Trades Off with F-35
F35 on the chopping block
Farmham 7/19 ( Alan Farnham, Pentagon Budget Cuts: Who Loses, Who Wins? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/400-billion-
defense-cuts-kill-weapons-programs-hurt/story?id=14083111, TA)
     Production lines for all the following military aircraft are already set to close: C-17 (Long Beach, Calif.); C-130 (Marietta,
     Ga) and F-18 (Seattle, Wash.). Also under attack: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Lockheed Martin at sites that
     include Fort Worth, Texas. The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, it became even more expensive in July
     when additional costs of $771 million were announced, earning the censure of Sen. John McCain, a long-term critic of the
     program. The Congressional Budget Office has proposed cutting the F-35 program altogether, which it says would produce
     a savings of $27 billion over the next five years and $260 billion longer-term. CBO recommends that the Pentagon, instead
     of continuing with the F-35, upgrade F-16s and F/A-18s to give them some of the costlier plane's capabilities. Other CBO
     recommendations include such unspectacular but cost-effective changes as consolidating into one entity the three
     duplicative systems of military commissaries and retail stores that now serve current and retired military. Gordon England,
     a former secretary of the Navy and former deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush, advised Panetta in New
     York Times op-ed piece to "resist the temptation to quickly kill procurement programs" or to make "proportional cuts to
     programs across the board." He suggests the new Secretary instead find savings by sharing weapon development costs with
     U.S. allies. "Manufacturing equipment for the American and foreign militaries simultaneously saves Washington money
     because more units are produced and overhead costs are shared," he says. Further, it could create "thousands of American


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        15
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                         1
      jobs."

The F-35 is vulnerable to cuts
Cassata 11 ( Donna Cassata, AP's political editor, Apr 13, 2011, Spending Cuts Bill Hits Defense and Foreign Aid,
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/13/spending-cuts-bill-hits-defense-and-foreign-aid/, TA)
      House GOP freshmen led the charge to cancel $450 million for a second engine for the nearly 2,500 F-35 fighters the Navy,
      Air Force and Marine Corps plan to buy and fly over the next 40 years. Neither Obama nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates
      wanted the second engine, with Gates telling Congress that it required an additional $3 billion to develop and that spending
      such money "in a time of economic distress" was a waste. But Boehner and other House GOP leaders backed the extra
      engine built by General Electric and Rolls Royce in Ohio and Indiana.

                                       AT: Military Spending is Off the Table
Defense cuts are on the table – putting national security at risk
Lochhead 11 (Carolyn Lochhead, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington bureau chief. She has been a DC correspondent for
the Chronicle since 1991. February 07, 2011
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-07/news/27105642_1_defense-budget-defense-spending-defense-cuts/2, TA)
      Leading conservative defense experts have begun to ask how much is enough. Kori Schake, a former Bush administration
      national security official, called the debt "the major threat to American security." "While I don't think defense should be the
      only thing cut," Schake said, "defense should make a contribution to the broader national goal of solvency." The new
      budget plan that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., issued Thursday slashes domestic spending but
      allows defense spending to rise $8 billion this year. Still, that is half the amount Obama requested. Outside groups are
      calling for much bigger savings of $1 trillion over a decade. Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, first
      proposed cuts that size last summer but had few takers. Since then, the president's bipartisan deficit commission and the
      Domenici-Rivlin study called for similar $1 trillion-range cuts. Even cuts this size would preserve massive U.S. military
      superiority, Adams said. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy for the libertarian Cato Institute, argued for scaling
      back the global military mission, such as bases in Germany and Japan and nuclear arsenals that were aimed against the
      Soviets. Frank said current budgets support "intervention in the affairs of other countries" and are "irrelevant to our own
      security." Since the November election, GOP leaders have shifted course on defense cuts, saying they are on the table. But
      Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
      said he would "oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or jeopardize our national security." Conservative voices
      A group of conservative leaders influential in the Tea Party movement, including former House Majority Leader Dick
      Armey of Freedom Works and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, wrote to GOP leaders in December saying it
      was "outrageous" to say reducing military spending to Bush-era levels is insufficiently pro-military.

                                     AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
                                                        AT: No Tradeoff
                                             AT: NASA Has Enough Money
                                               ________________________
                                                     ***Impacts***
                                              Military Spending Key to Heg
Defense cuts to our overstretched military would be catastrophic - hegemony and national security
Schoen 11 (Douglas Schoen is a political strategist, January 08, 2011, The Risky Rush to Cut Defense Spending,
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/08/the-risky-rush-to-cut-defense-spending.html, TA)
      As we begin a new year, the United States is at a major crossroads in foreign policy. The end of 2010 saw North Korea’s
      assault on the disputed Yeonpyeong Island, the revelation that Pyongyang had developed a secret, highly sophisticated
      uranium enrichment plant with 2,000 centrifuges, and, of course, the massive WikiLeaks dump that jeopardized diplomacy



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        16
Document1                                                                                                           Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                       1
      around the world. These incidents are just a few highlights of the foreign policy complications the U.S. must deal with, in
      addition to the ongoing challenges to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, prevent al Qaeda threats from around the globe, and
      fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet for mostly good and some bad reasons, all the discussion back at home is about
      how to reduce defense spending, without giving any serious attention to what we need to do to maintain the strongest
      possible defense to meet the myriad challenges before us. The country faces a soaring federal deficit, out-of-control
      government spending, and mandates from the American electorate to reduce spending, cut the deficit, and balance the
      budget. As the next Congress implements spending cuts to accomplish the latter, it is almost certain that the defense budget
      will be a prime candidate for cuts, as defense spending now constitutes about 19 percent of the federal budget and more
      than half of all U.S. discretionary spending. Moreover, the election of a number of new Republican members of Congress
      who have a profound skepticism of defense will increase pressure across the board to reduce our level of expenditures at
      precisely a time when our challenges, at the very least, are getting more complicated. The United States’ defense is
      overstretched as it attempts to fight two wars, terrorism, and dangerous nuclear development. We are facing a national
      crisis, as we must figure out how to maintain a strong defense while trying to reduce defense spending. The bottom line is
      that we know that cuts in defense are coming, but if those cuts are too substantial and without real thought to the full
      international picture, we run a grave risk to our well-being as a nation. We could compromise our position as a world leader
      and would potentially even undermine the capability of our armed forces. Presently, neither the “elite” nor the general
      public has figured out how to make cuts without jeopardizing security and our place as a world leader. Voters support
      sweeping cuts of federal spending and believe that defense can be cut, as there is no sense that the U.S. is at risk in a way
      that requires more defense spending. In polling I conducted earlier this month, almost half, 47 percent, say federal spending
      should be cut by 20 percent, and 36 percent say federal spending should be cut by at least 5 percent. The area of federal
      spending voters say should be cut first is defense. Twenty-nine percent say they would reduce national security spending in
      order to cut government spending, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Further, my recent poll shows that
      voters favor decreasing defense spending rather than increasing it to fund the war in Afghanistan, 44 percent to 21 percent.
      But while Americans want to decrease federal spending and particularly defense spending, they also want the U.S. to play a
      leadership role in the world. Fifty-eight percent say the United States has the responsibility to be a leader of the world,
      while 34 percent say the U.S. should not try to be a leader of the world, according to my poll data. A look at opinions
      among elites and policy makers shows that they also lack an agreement about how defense spending should be cut. The
      consensus that has emerged at the elite level among Democrats on the left, Republicans on the right, and those in the center
      is that defense spending should be cut. The Democrats have always been hostile toward the military and prefer cutting
      defense spending to entitlements. Conservative Republicans and Tea Party advocates are skeptical of foreign incursions and
      are also willing to cut defense. The center’s embrace of cutting defense spending is largely a result of Secretary of Defense
      Robert Gates. In 2009, Gates called for a significant reduction in weapons systems as part of his 2010 Defense Department
      budget, which amounted to $300 billion in savings. Last year, Gates advocated for personnel-related cuts by calling for
      sweeping cuts in defense contractors and a freeze on the growing number of senior leadership positions and written reports.
      Additionally, he proposed eliminating the Joint Forces Command in Virginia. Gates, however, views these cuts as a
      redeployment of resources rather than a reduction of defense spending. He does not support an overall reduction of the
      defense budget—he believes that the money saved from these cuts should be used more intelligently for alternate, high-
      priority needs. Meanwhile, Erskine Bowles, co-head of the federal deficit-reduction commission established by the White
      House, supports Gates’ proposed defense cuts but believes that they should be permanent as part of the reduction of overall
      federal spending. In the commission’s proposal to cut spending and reduce the deficit, it identifies $200 billion in
      discretionary spending cuts by 2015, with half the savings coming from reductions to Pentagon spending. Of the $100
      billion proposed defense cuts, $28 billion would come from the overhead savings Secretary Gates has promised, assuming
      that these savings would be used to reduce spending rather than be used in other defense areas. Twenty billion dollars
      would come from reducing procurement by 15 percent and $9.2 billion would come from freezing noncombat military pay
      at 2011 for three years. Gates has called the commission’s proposed defense cuts “catastrophic” and says they would hurt
      our defense significantly. Obama has endorsed Gates’ defense cuts and will likely endorse the deficit commission’s
      proposed spending cuts in some form. But Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the
      U.S. nuclear arsenal, which is responsive to the bipartisan Perry-Schlesinger commission, which advocated this year for an
      immediate upgrade of our nuclear armaments. This would add substantially and unpredictably to defense costs going
      forward, even though there is no sense of how this money would be appropriated by Congress. Such conflicting opinions
      and actions only add to the confusion surrounding this issue.

Defense cuts would be massive – jeopardizing security needs




Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      17
Document1                                                                                                        Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                  1
Hellman 10 (Christopher Hellman, military policy analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Senior
Research Analyst at the Center for Defense Information, Jul 15, 2010, Pentagon Spending on the Chopping Block,
http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/at-long-last-pentagon-spending-on-the-chopping-block, TA)
      The Task Force’s report proposes cuts such as reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,000 and cutting the
      number of submarines and missiles which carry them; cutting the total number of active duty members of the Army and
      Marine Corps to 50,000 below their levels before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; cutting certain weapons programs
      including the Joint Strike Fighter, the V-22 “Osprey” tilt-rotor aircraft, and the total number of Navy aircraft carriers; and
      reforming the Pentagon’s health care and compensation systems. As one might expect, reaction to the Task Force Report
      has been mixed, with traditional Pentagon supporters attacking it for being poorly timed, given that the nation is at war, and
      claiming it will lead us toward a military ill-prepared to meet our nation’s security needs. Meanwhile, moderates and fiscal
      conservatives view it as a responsible way to make defense cuts in a time of severe budget austerity. Those who have spent
      years arguing that military spending is a drain on more important domestic priorities welcome it as a step towards a more
      common sense approach to military budgeting.

                                            [Specific Program] Key to Heg
                                     Military Spending Key to the Economy
                                     [Specific Program] Key to the Economy
                                                     Heg Key to Space

                                             ________________________
                                              ***NASA Tradeoff DA***
                                             ________________________
                                                 ***Uniqueness***
                                                   No NASA Cuts Now
Current NASA cuts will be restored
John Timmer, 7/8/11, http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/hubbles-successor-may-be-casualty-of-government-
cutbacks.ars
     Instead of a budget increase, the House Appropriations Committee is now considering a 2012 budget that would see
     NASA's budget drop by $1.6 billion next year; the Obama administration had requested a slight increase. The proposed
     budget would explicitly kill the JWST, leaving NASA without a new, updated observatory for the indefinite future. This
     budget is still a long way from becoming law, so there's a chance that the funding will be restored during future
     negotiations. But given the large number of programs that appear to be on the chopping block, a billion dollar commitment
     to NASA seems like the JWST's most significant hurdle yet.

U.S. government continues to be leader in space spending
Reuters, 4/9/08 “Global space spending up 11 percent to $251 billion”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-space-
economy-idUSN0836688320080409
     More than half of global space economic activity stemmed from purchases of commercial satellite-based products and
     services. Another 25 percent came from U.S. government spending, according to The Space Report 2008 released by the
     Space Foundation, a Colorado Springs, Colorado, nonprofit advocacy group.
     Activity in two commercial satellite services, television and the U.S.-funded Global Positioning System navigation tool,
     expanded the quickest, the 116-page report said.
     "All sectors of space continue to grow despite economic woes in many countries," said Marty Hauser, who heads research
     and analysis for the group. "The space economy appears to be poised for steady growth in coming years."
     The United States accounted for 81 percent of global government space spending, said the report, citing "available



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                 18
Document1                                                                                                         Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                    1
      information."

                                             No Earth Sciences Cuts Now
NASA’s Earth Science has plenty of money now
Courtland 9, associate editor at IEEE Spectrum, 5/8/09, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17097-earth-science-gets-boost-in-
nasa-budget.html
     The White House would like to boost NASA's Earth science activities by $1.2 billion over five years, according to a 2010
     budget request announced on Thursday. According to the request, the agency's earth observation programme would outstrip
     that of its planetary science division by late 2013. Under the president's budget, NASA would receive $4.5 billion in 2010
     for science, a $26 million decline from 2009 funding levels passed by Congress. But the agency's science directorate also
     received a $400 million boost in an economic stimulus package passed earlier this year. The longer-term projections in the
     science budget also include an increase. "We're very pleased with this budget," Ed Weiler, the associate administrator for
     the agency's science mission directorate, told reporters on Thursday. Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, the
     agency would get some $1.2 billion more for science, including stimulus money. "Over those five years, we're seeing an
     extra $1.2 billion over the budget we had last year. This increase is entirely in the earth science arena," Weiler told
     reporters. According to the request, funding for NASA's earth science programme would increase to $1.65 billion
     beginning in late 2013. At that point the programme would outstrip NASA's planetary science programme in funding,
     receiving an extra $17 million in fiscal year 2014. The boost will help accelerate the schedules of two Earth-observing
     satellite missions by one year, Weiler said. The Soil Moisture Active and Passive mission, which measures soil moisture
     levels globally, would launch as early as 2013. ICESat-II, which will track changes in ice cover at the poles, could launch
     as early as 2014. Both missions were identified as priorities in an independent 2007 report.

                                                 No Telescope Cuts Now
Empirics prove talks of slashing are just posturing and rhetoric—the telescope is almost finished and
enriches human spirit
Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to
communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where
he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught
science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next
Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT)
     It's not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has
     sucked in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very
     existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial
     Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. But that just makes the cancellation of the
     Webb seem worse. "It's a double whammy," says Natalie Batalha, a high-ranking member of the science team for the
     Kepler probe, the spectacularly successful planet-hunting mission that's been delivering discovery after discovery since its
     2009 launch. "The whole community has sacrificed to fund [the James Webb Space Telescope]. Everyone was unhappy,
     but we all knew how valuable it would be. And now you have Congress talking about canceling it." (See "Kepler Telescope
     Finds Swarm of New Worlds.") What makes the Webb so valuable is, first of all, its huge light-gathering mirror — more
     than 21 ft. (6.4 m) across, compared with Hubble's 7.8 ft. (2.4 m). It's so big that the mirror can't go up as a single piece of
     glass. Instead, it's made of 18 smaller mirrors that will unfold in space to form a mosaic. Since fainter objects are also
     generally older and more distant, the Webb will be able to study galaxies, dust clouds, and cosmic processes at the earliest
     stages of the history of the universe. Better yet, unlike the Hubble telescope, the Webb is designed to see mostly in infrared
     light — the kind emitted not only by distant galaxies but also by planets. The telescope won't be able to take pictures of
     earthlike planets at distant stars — they're too faint and too close to their stars, even for the Webb — but it can pick out
     bigger planets and give astronomers a sense of what they're made of and how they formed. (See "Deep Space Photos:
     Hubble's Greatest Hits.") Beyond that, scientists have already made enormous progress on the project, not only on
     manufacturing the mirrors for the Webb but also in developing electronic cameras to take maximum advantage of those
     mirrors — the same sort of technology that lets the Hubble take such fantastic images and do such extraordinary science.
     After so much money has been sunk into the work, it would be insane, say scientists, to throw it all away. Certainly,
     Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super
     Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                   19
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                           1
      reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is
      now a vast, $2 billion doughnut-shaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. (Watch TIME's video "Herschel:
      The Telescope for Invisible Stars.") Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can
      argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and
      accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that
      there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider
      over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be
      available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes;
      so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to. On the other hand, even the budget cutters in Congress would probably agree
      that it's a good thing for America to be the world's leader in science and technology. And they might even agree, if pressed,
      that plenty of things are worth doing simply because they enrich the human spirit. Back in 1969, the Cornell particle
      physicist Robert Wilson went before Congress to testify in favor of building an earlier generation of accelerator. How, a
      Senator asked him, would this project help improve the security of the country? "It has nothing to do directly with
      defending our country," answered Wilson, "except to make it worth defending."

Uniqueness goes neg—Hubble was 3 times over budget and still got done—Webb is too important
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
       TURNER: Well, I think the Webb is the successor, as you said, to the Hubble Space Telescope. And in every dimension,
       it's a quantum leap: seven times the collecting area. It will be a million miles from Earth at L2, which is a much better
       observing site. It will go in the infrared. And the importance of the infrared is the most interesting things in the universe
       have their light in the infrared, so distant objects where it's red-shifted, cool things that are forming like planetary systems,
       and also things that are shrouded by dust, you can see through the dust in the infrared. And so the science goals of the
       James Webb Space Telescope are to look at the first stars and galaxies, to watch galaxies being assembled from their
       individual parts, stars and dark matter and so on and so forth, image planets and perhaps find evidence for water on the
       planets and watch the birth of stars and planetary systems. I think in one short statement, you know, Hubble revolutionized
       astronomy, and I think the Webb telescope has just as much or even more potential. FLATOW: Ron, wasn't the Hubble
       over budget, too? COWEN: Yes, it was, by - it was I think maybe triple what its original budget was, something like
       that. And, I mean, you know, it just seems to me this is what - actually, I was speaking to Alan Boss this morning, who is
       the - he's chair of a subcommittee that advises NASA. And what he's saying is that, you know, okay, if you want to punish
       NASA, well, this is not like a trip to the woodshed, this is like a trip to the guillotine and that, you know to kill the whole
       mission doesn't, I think, make sense. There have been a lot of cost overruns, and, you see there's a lot of pressures. In the
       article I wrote in April for Science News, even when this mission was first proposed something like 15 years ago, people
       were afraid to say how much it would really cost. And Mike Griffin, who is a former administrator of NASA, said, you
       know, it's a game of you lie, and I'll swear to it. But Congress is, in a way, part of this game because if the mission perhaps
       - if the actual budget was stated in the first place for how much it would really cost, they may - people fear at least that they
       would say no, forget about it, we'll never do something for $5 billion or $6.5 billion. TURNER: Maybe I could put that in
       perspective a little. So this is a very, very ambitious project. And about a year ago, Senator Mikulski was worried about
       how the project was proceeding. And I think what started the sequence of events that led to what the House did last week
       was this report that came out, led by Casani, the Casani reporter, the independent cost review panel. And basically what
       they said was this project is going to cost at least $1.5 billion more than one thought. So that would put it closer to $7
       billion. That it has been mismanaged, but money has not been wasted. So the real issue is what Ron was saying, is that the
       mismanagement was headquarters and Goddard kind of playing footsy and not being honest with the real cost or the
       schedule. And, you know, to again put it in perspective, right now it's about 75 percent done. An analogy I heard the other
       day, it's as if you're putting together an airplane or a car, and you've ordered parts from around the world, and you get a
       report that all the parts are made, and all that we have left to do is to assemble it. So we've got most of the pieces together,
       and now is the time to assemble it. More than half of the money has been spent. There are no technical hurdles. I should
       have said that. The Casani panel said there are no technical hurdles. This is very, very ambitious, but they have surmounted
       the technical hurdles. They just need more money to get this done. Now, given the current situation with our budget - and
       this is something I'm not qualified to comment on because I'm a scientist and very excited about this, this country has real
       budgetary problems. And the question is: Who are we really punishing if we cancel this project, where we spent close to $4
       billion, and there's only, you know, $3 billion left to spend? Who are we punishing? Is that teaching NASA a lesson, or are
       we being pennywise and pound foolish? COWEN: I think the problem also is that each year that this mission is delayed -
       and this is also what the Casani report said - it's going to cost more money and more money and more money. And the fear



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      20
Document1                                                                                                                Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                            1
      is that it will cost so much if you don't give it the funding it needs now that if it didn't - if it wouldn't get launched in 2022
      or something, it wouldn't get launched at all because it would be that much more costly. And that was the problem all along
      because it was originally set for launch in 2010 or 2011, and each year that it didn't get the money it needed, it cost more
      and more money. You have to keep personnel together and everything, and it just cost more. FLATOW: But is there not
      something to the point that if there were - if everybody was playing this game of what it really cost, and there was, I'll use
      the word deception early on because we were winking and nodding to each other about what the real cost of it should be,
      isn't there some justification in saying, you know, you guys should have been up front with us, and we could have made a
      decision then on this? TURNER: Well, let me comment on that. I think most - what NASA really does is rocket science,
      and it's not building widgets. It's really pushing the edge of what is possible. And for the most part, NASA projects are on
      schedule and on budget. And every once in a while - and we're talking about two of the examples today, the Hubble and the
      James Webb - NASA does a project where you're really literally reaching for the stars, and you are taking a giant leap
      forward. And, you know, again, Hubble I think was over by more than what Ron said, and it just changed, fundamentally
      changed astronomy, added to American pride, and it convulsed NASA. And so I think the big dilemma is, how do you deal
      with these big projects that are going to produce game-changers, where you really reach maybe a little beyond your grasp to
      try to do something really, really big? And how do you wall that off and prevent it from causing larger problems? And I
      think the number one lesson from this report from a year ago is at the very least, you always have to be up front, that if
      you're hiding the true schedule and cost, that's not going to serve anyone well. And I think that's a very important lesson to
      learn. I think people were shocked a year ago that the number, the additional amount of money was so large. And so I think
      that's a very, very important lesson. But I would not want NASA not to try to reach for the stars because NASA is us. And
      when we do things like the Hubble, and when we do things like the James Webb, no other nation can do that, and great
      nations like ours do great things, and the Hubble and the Webb I think are examples of that.

                                                 ________________________
                                                    ***Internal Links***
                                           Spending Trades Off within NASA
Funding would trade off within NASA’s budget
Dan Leone, 7/11/11, “House Budget Bill Would Leave it to NASA To Apportion Bulks of Cuts”
      WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers who voted last week to kill NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope as part of a broader
      effort to roll back federal spending to pre-2008 levels would leave it to the space agency to decide how to apportion the
      bulk of a deep top-line budget cut, according to a congressional report obtained by Space News. The House Appropriations
      commerce, justice, science subcommittee approved a 2012 spending bill July 7 that would give NASA $16.8 billion, or
      $1.6 billion less than it received for 2011 and nearly $2 billion less than the White House requested for the agency for next
      year. The legislation, which is scheduled to be taken up July 13 by the full House Appropriations Committee, spelled out
      specific spending levels for NASA’s nine major budget accounts and a handful of programs, including the Webb telescope.
      While appropriators traditionally detail the numerous additions and subtractions they make to an agency’s budget in lenghty
      reports accompanying the spending bills, this year the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science committee opted to
      leave it to NASA to make many of the line-item cuts. “Rather than including a detailed table showing the recommended
      levels for each individual project and activity proposed in the budget request, the Committee has chosen to provide a table
      that focuses more generally at the theme and program level with a limited amount of additional detail,” the House
      Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee wrote in the report accompanying its 2012 appropriations bill.
      “This will permit NASA some discretion to allocate available funds according to the most urgent priorities and needs.”

                                      Spending Trades Off with Earth Sciences
Additional Spending on NASA space programs trades off with Earth Science development
Berger 5, Deputy Editor at Space News and Associate Editor at Inside Washington Publishers, 5/2/05,http://www.space.com/1028-
nasa-exploration-focus-blamed-earth-science-cuts.html
     House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) expressed alarm over recent budget cuts and delays in
     NASA's Earth science program that a recent National Research Council report attributed to the U.S. space agency's shift in
     focus toward lunar and Mars exploration. "This report has to be a red flag for all of us," Boehlert said during an April 26
     hearing examining how Earth science programs fare in NASA's 2006 budget request. "We need to stop, examine what's
     happening, and make sure that the fiscal 2006 budget for NASA - whatever its top-level number - includes adequate


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                           21
Document1                                                                                                            Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                       1
      funding to keep Earth science moving forward for the foreseeable future." NASA merged its Earth science and space
      science programs into a single organization, the Science Mission Directorate, in 2004 and no longer maintains separate
      budgets for the two activities. But according to a House Science Committee analysis of NASA's budget request, of the
      $5.47 billion included for the Science Mission Directorate, only $1.36 billion would be spent on Earth science activities, a
      drop of 8 percent below the 2005 level and 12 percent less than the 2004 level. Earth science spending would continue to
      decline in 2007, NASA projections show, even as overall science funding would grow by $500 million. "At NASA, the
      vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget that no
      longer supports already-approved missions and programs of high scientific and societal relevance," the report states.
      "Opportunities to discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished as mission after mission is canceled, descoped, or
      delayed because of budget cutbacks, which appear to be largely the result of new obligations to support flight programs that
      are part of the Administration's vision for space exploration."

Spending on Space exploration cuts into climate and earth science studies
Foust 11, aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. He is the editor and publisher of The Space Review and has written for
Astronomy Now, 2/9/11, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/09/human-spaceflight-versus-earth-sciences/
     There are a number of issues with the letter. They claim that NASA spent “over a billion dollars” on “studying global
     warming/climate change” in FY2010. The agency got about $1.4 billion for all Earth sciences research in FY10, according
     to agency budget documents. There’s no breakout for how much of that went specifically to climate change research,
     though. The letter also claims that the “lion share” of NASA’s share of stimulus funding went to climate change studies. In
     fact, only about a third of the agency’s stimulus funding, $325 million, went to Earth sciences programs, to accelerate
     development of Earth science spacecraft. Human spaceflight got even more: $400 million, including $50 million for the
     CCDev program. And their claim that NASA’s core mission is human spaceflight is not supported by other documents,
     ranging from the National Aeronautics and Space Act from 1958 to the latest NASA authorization act, which declared that
     NASA “is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science,
     aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration” and that “NASA plays a critical role through its ability to provide data
     on solar output, sea level rise, atmospheric and ocean temperature, ozone depletion, air pollution, and observation of human
     and environment relationships”. A bigger issue, though, is that this letter may be indicative of a bigger battle some in
     Congress want to wage between human spaceflight and Earth science. Some members have openly expressed their
     skepticism about the validity of climate change research, questioning either the existence of global warming or the role of
     human activities in causing climate change. The letter to appropriators makes no judgment on the quality of validity of such
     research, only NASA’s role in supporting it, but some might see that unspoken argument there. For example, one of the
     letter’s signers, Rep. Brooks, said last week in regards to NASA funding that there would be “hearings soon on global
     warming” by the House science committee without going into more details. An attack on Earth sciences funding to support
     human spaceflight could create or reinvigorate opponents of human spaceflight programs, reminiscent of previous debates
     between human spaceflight and robotic space exploration advocates—a battle that the agency presumably would want to
     avoid.

                                         Spending Trades Off with Telescope
The James Webb Telescope is on the chopping block
Chamberlain 7/13 (Kenneth Chamberlain is a staff writer. July 13, 2011 “House Panel Slates Hubble Successor for Elimination
in NASA Budget” http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/house-panel-slates-hubble-successor-for-elimination-in-nasa-budget-20110713 JT)
     NASA's James Webb Space Telescope may be on the budget chopping block this week, and astronomers are more than a
     little unhappy. Designed to be the successor to the enormously successful but aging Hubble Space Telescope, the Webb
     telescope was tentatively scheduled to launch in 2018. Work on it so far has cost $3 billion, but it's eventually expected to
     cost $6.8 billion, making it an attractive target for budget trimmers. The planned appropriation for NASA by the House
     Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee eliminates funding for the Webb telescope. The full
     committee on Wednesday approved the subcommittee's recommendation. The telescope "is billions of dollars over budget
     and plagued by poor management," the subcommittee wrote in its overview of the legislation for funding NASA and a host
     of other agencies. Astronomers disagree. Such a cut "would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves while simultaneously
     undercutting the critical effort to utilize American engineering and ingenuity to expand human knowledge," the American
     Astronomical Society complained. "The United States's position as the leader in astronomy, space science, and spaceflight
     is directly threatened by this proposal." The Webb telescope sees in the infrared spectrum, and it is expected to be able to
     image objects that were created just after the Big Bang gave birth to the universe. Hubble has been able to see back in time
     to just 200 million years after the Big Bang. Webb is designed to see even farther back in space and time than that. The


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      22
Document1                                                                                                          Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1
      telescope isn't the only pawn in play as the Obama administration proposals get hacked by the Republican-led committee
      (PDF).

Webb Space Telescope is targeted for cuts
Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to
communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where
he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught
science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next
Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT)
     It was fun while it lasted. Last week, a House subcommittee proposed to kill off funding for the James Webb Space
     Telescope. The new instrument — which would orbit the sun just a little farther out than the Earth — is the heir apparent to
     the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's flagship space-science project. Some kind of second act was always seen as a good
     idea, but the folks on the Hill have a right to be exasperated with the way this one is turning out: the Webb, originally
     proposed in the mid-1990s under the name the Next Generation Space Telescope, was supposed to launch by 2007 and cost
     about $500 million. But it's gotten progressively more expensive, less powerful and further behind schedule. An
     independent review board reported last November that the poorly managed Webb (uninspiringly renamed after a former
     NASA administrator) could end up costing up to $6.8 billion and wouldn't launch until 2015 at the earliest. With the
     Republican-dominated House determined to slash spending everywhere it can, the Webb is a nice, juicy target. It's
     not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked
     in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science.

                                      Spending Trades Off with Dark Energy
JWST bad—trades off with dark energy programs
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
       FLATOW: There are people who say that this telescope was taking up too much of NASA's budget, other science suffering
       because this is so expensive. How do you answer that, Michael or Ron? COWEN: I mean, I think that's - I mean, it is taken
       off - has taken off 40 percent of NASA's astrophysics budget, and there are other missions that seem to be in jeopardy
       like one that is proposed to look for dark energy, this mysterious stuff that is making the universe expand faster and faster
       and has been called the biggest puzzle in physics in the - over the past century. But I mean, it is also true if you kill this
       mission now, the James Webb, there won't be a future flagship mission that NASA will have. I think there is so much
       potential, personally, to make new discoveries, the fact that 75 percent of it has been completed. What I think has to be
       done is to make sure that the next game-changing telescope after this, that there are things in place that this mistake won't
       happen a third time. And it's not clear, to me, with all the pressures from Congress. I don't know if they're making it any
       easier. They're - punishing is not actually going to solve the overarching problem here, in my opinion. Punishing...
       TURNER: Yeah. I think you raised an important point, Ira, which is that when the Webb bleeds, the rest of the astrophysics
       program hemorrhages. And that is a serious problem because if this is completed it will put great stress on the rest of the
       budget. And just to illustrate this, I probably will never use the James Webb Space Telescope, but I'm Mr. Dark Energy
       and the project that Ron was talking about, I think, could very well get postponed or squeezed out by the James Webb
       Space Telescope, and so that is a problem.

                                     AT: [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
                                                      AT: No Tradeoff
                                            AT: NASA Has Enough Money
                                             ________________________
                                                   ***Impacts***
                                           NASA Spending Key to Climate


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                  23
Document1                                                                                                            Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1

                                                Telescope Key to Competitiveness
The telescope is key to US science competitiveness
Martins 7/18 (Robyn Martins, Times-Reporter contributor 7-18-2011 “Don't cut telescope funding”
http://www.timesreporter.com/opinion/columnists/x1797069354/Dont-cut-telescope-funding JT)
      Save the telescope! Save the telescope! If I had the wherewithal and could march around the Capitol, I’d be shouting these
      very words while stomping around in my noisiest shoes and waving a big sign in support of what we are about to lose. A
      House subcommittee recently has voted to discontinue funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and I believe
      that’s a shortsighted decision that will cost us dearly in something more significant than upfront dollars. The telescope in
      question is the successor to the Hubble telescope, and it will employ new technology to reveal to us parts of the universe
      that have been previously invisible. Once launched, it will orbit one million miles from Earth; and its main mirror, which
      has just been polished, will collect seven times the amount of light collected by the Hubble. The largest telescope ever to be
      launched into space, the JWST will detect infrared radiation, which is essential for capturing images of distant objects we
      have yet to see — supernovae, black holes, evolving galaxies, the birth of distant stars and new solar systems. Michael
      Collins, member of the Gemini 10 and Apollo 11 teams, said, “It’s human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand.
      Exploration is not a choice, really; it’s an imperative.” This telescope has the potential to enrich mankind with new insight
      and to help us satisfy our very nature. To date, the United States has taken the lead on the project, but beginning with the
      first planning sessions in 1996, more than 15 countries have signed on, enlisting scientists and engineers around the globe
      to develop technologies, manufacture highly refined parts and assemble and test the finish product. High-tech jobs have
      been created for this project, and the scientific benefits from it will be immeasurable for generations to come. Hands-on
      work began on the telescope in 2004, and now 75 percent of the project has been completed, and the majority of the cost
      has been paid, which was no small bill. The project was first judged to cost $3.5 billion but has come in at closer to $5
      billion, and estimates suggest as much as $1.5 billion may still be needed to bring us to launch date scheduled later this
      decade. And there lies the issue at hand. In the interest of frugality, we are now declaring this technological marvel an
      extravagance and scrapping it to save $1.5 billion. For what we spend waging war in Afghanistan in a matter of days, we’re
      willing to relinquish our role as a global leader in science and technology; and we’re set to forgo discoveries beyond our
      wildest dreams — to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. If we were having this conversation before work on the project
      had begun, I could accept deciding to hold off until we bring down the deficit and begin generating greater revenue. But we
      aren’t. We’re having it when we’re in the homestretch, and what we’re saying now is “let’s just throw it all away.” In a
      statement defending the JWST, the American Astronomical Society said, “The whole Nation can rightly take pride in the
      engineering and scientific accomplishment that the completion and launch of such instruments represents. We are the only
      nation that could lead such an effort; we should not shirk from completing the project when the most difficult engineering
      challenges have already been overcome.” In short, we talk up our role as global leaders in science and technology, yet we
      cut ourselves off at the knees just when we have the opportunity to put monumental deeds behind our words. Our leaders
      tell us it’s time to make difficult choices in setting our national priorities. They’re right, but I’m envisioning a nation in
      which we look only downward, putting our noses to the grindstone without inspiration, without hope for greater things,
      without the triumphant achievements we know can be ours. Now, more than ever, we need to keep our eyes up and our
      arms stretched toward the stars, instead of dragging our knuckles on the ground as we scrap everything but the bare
      essentials. The curiosity of our children, the future of our scientific development and our very nature depends on it. It’s an
      imperative.

Impact—JWST is key to American tech dominance, jobs, and jump starting public interest
Pachal 7/14 (Peter Pachal is PCMag's News Director and has been covering consumer technology in print and online for more than
a decade. He holds degrees in journalism and engineering. July 14, 2011“Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb
Telescope” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp JT)
     "The proposal... to terminate the James Webb Space Telescope would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves," said the
     American Astronomical Society in a statement. "Such a proposal threatens American leadership in the fields of
     astrophysics and advanced space technology while likely eliminating hundreds, if not thousands, of high-tech jobs." One of
     the engineers who worked on components for the Webb, Sarah Kendrew, wrote in a blog post for the Guardian, "For
     scientists, its loss will slow progress in understanding the physics that governs the universe at a time when huge advances
     are within our reach. Engineers, who have successfully completed many aspects of the observatory, will see more than a
     decade of work go to waste. The public will lose the opportunity to marvel once again at the amazing place that is our
     universe: the thousands of planets that populate our own galaxy, the places where new suns are born, the first galaxies at the
     dawn of time."


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       24
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1

                                               ________________________
                                               ***Fiscal Discipline Aff***
                                               ________________________
                                                  ***Non-Uniques***
                                                      Economy Low Now
                                                Fiscal Discipline Low Now
                                             Investor Confidence Low Now
                                                Small Businesses Low Now
                                                    Dollar Dumping Now
                                               ________________________
                                                  ***Link Takeouts***
                                                        AT: Space Links
                                                        AT: Moon Links
                                                        AT: Mars Links
                                            ________________________
                                        ***Internal Link Takeouts/Turns***
                                     AT: Spending Kills the Economy – General
                                      AT: Spending Kills Investor Confidence
                                          AT: Spending Kills Small Business
                                       AT: Spending Causes Dollar Dumping
                                           AT: Spending Causes Crowd Out
                                                AT: Spending Raises Taxes
Tax increases inevitable – it’s simple arithmetic
David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, 7/12/11 NYT, “Why Taxes Will Rise in the End”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/business/economy/why-taxes-will-rise-in-the-end-david-leonhardt.html
      Polls show that most Americans are opposed to raising the federal debt ceiling. Even when the Pew Research Center
      included the consequences in its question — a national default that would damage the economy — slightly more people
      were against raising the ceiling than were for it. How could this be? Above all, I think it reflects a desire to return to the
      good old days. Not so long ago, nobody was talking about tax increases or Medicare cuts, and the federal budget seemed to


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       25
Document1                                                                                                             Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                         1
      be in fine shape. If only we could get back to the past — get spending under control, as the cliché goes — we’d be O.K.
      The debt ceiling, with its harsh finality, offers the chance. Unfortunately, this nostalgic view depends on a
      misunderstanding of the budget. It imagines a budget in which the United States indefinitely has the world’s highest
      medical costs, its largest military, an aging population and, nonetheless, taxes that are among the world’s lowest.
      Economists have a name for that combination: a free lunch. Free lunchism is ultimately the problem with the no-new-taxes
      pledge that so many politicians have adopted. A refusal to raise taxes, no matter how principled, cannot take us back to the
      good old days. It would instead lead to a very different American society. For taxes to remain where they are, Washington
      would need to end Medicare as we know it, end Social Security as we know it, severely shrink the military — or do some
      combination of the above. “We cannot repeat the past when it comes to the federal budget,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of
      the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, recently wrote. “The aging of our population and the rising cost of health
      care have changed the backdrop for federal budget policy in a fundamental way.” The most important part of the recent
      Republican budget plan, written by Representative Paul Ryan, was that it acknowledged this reality (in its details, if not its
      packaging). It called for no tax increases. To make the numbers come close to adding up, the plan also called for
      eliminating the current Medicare and replacing it with a system in which the elderly would buy less generous private
      insurance plans. Such is the price of no new taxes. Early indications are that Americans don’t like Mr. Ryan’s plan all that
      much. In upstate New York this spring, a Democrat won a typically Republican House district by campaigning relentlessly
      against the plan. National polls show huge majorities favor keeping Medicare and Social Security in som7ething
      approaching their current form — much larger majorities, tellingly, than oppose an increase in the debt ceiling. In the near
      term, Congressional Republicans have decided to play down the Ryan plan. Most continue to oppose new taxes, without
      going so far as to explain the consequences. They will have little trouble sticking to that position through the current debt
      ceiling fight, because the deficit does not need to be solved immediately. Eventually, though, drawing up a credible deficit
      plan with neither Ryan-like cuts nor higher taxes will be impossible. And you can already see the start of a potential
      Republican compromise. It revolves around raising taxes, on net, by shrinking corporate or individual loopholes. The
      country’s highest-ranking Republican, John Boehner, the speaker of the House, signaled his openness to such a deal last
      week. (Mr. Boehner abandoned the deal under pressure from Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican and a
      Tea Party ally.)

Taxes will inevitably have to rise
Ezra Klein, 7/13/11 Washington Post, “Why Taxes will rise” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-taxes-will-
rise/2011/07/11/gIQARWffCI_blog.html
      In Tuesday’s column on taxes and subsequent posts, I’ve focused mainly on historical tax rates. Revenues right now are
      less than 15 percent of GDP — a 50-year low, and well below the 19+% that historically accompanies balanced budgets.
      But more important than where the budget has been is where it’s going. And the answer, due to the baby boomers, is up.
      Right now, about 13 percent of the country is 65 or older. By 2030, when the last of the baby boomers retire, that’ll be up to
      18 percent. That means fewer workers and more retirees. And that means federal spending will go up as a percent of GDP,
      at least unless you have some way to keep all those retirees in the workforce or decide they don’t get Social Security and
      Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office runs a calculation in which they split the rise in health-care costs into two
      parts: “excess cost growth,” which is basically how much faster health-care spending grows than everything else, and
      “aging,” which is the growth in federal spending on health care because more old people means more people depending on
      federal benefits. In the long-run, excess cost growth is the real problem. But over the next 25 years, aging is a much bigger
      deal. In 2035, it’ll mean federal spending has to rise by 3.5 percentage points — and that’s just for health care, and it’s
      assuming we manage to get cost growth completely under control this year. So this is a very optimistic, very incomplete
      calculation, but let’s run it anyway. Between 1980 and 2007, federal spending averaged about 21 percent of GDP. Add 3.5
      percentage points and you get 24.5 percent of GDP. So in a world where we slap a tight lid over the growth in health-care
      costs, where our efforts to control costs work beyond our wildest dreams, taxes are going to have to equal something near
      to 24.5 percent of GDP. Perhaps we’ll go through a period of real austerity and we’ll make very tough choices and we’ll cut
      an impressive four percentage points of GDP from federal spending. Fine. Now we’re at 20.5 percent of GDP. Taxes are
      still going up. The reality is that we’re going to have higher taxes in the coming years, and beyond that, we’re going to have
      higher taxes than we’ve traditionally had during periods in which taxes were relatively high. That’s not because Democrats
      want higher taxes, nor because Republicans are poor negotiators. It’s because the country’s demographics will change. If
      you want to draw some further policy conclusions out of this, I’d say it underscores the reasons liberals should worry about
      debt, as it shows how easy it would be for spending on the old to squeeze out all sorts of investments in the young and
      supports for the poor, and why conservatives should get serious about what sort of tax increases they would find most
      acceptable, as taxes are going to go up one way or the other. But you could also stop short of all that. The real point here is
      we’re moving to an age mix that’s going to require higher spending and that’s going to mean higher taxes. There’s really no



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        26
Document1                                                                                                         Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                    1
      way around it.

                                            AT: Spending Causes Inflation
                                                   AT: Greece Analogy
No debt crisis escalation – dollar is the world’s reserve currency
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 3/25 (Seeking Alpha, “Paul Krugman Is Wrong: The
United States Could Not End Up Like Greece,” 3/25/2011, http://seekingalpha.com/article/260141-paul-krugman-is-wrong-the-
united-states-could-not-end-up-like-greece)
     Actually this is not right for the simple reason that the United States has its own currency. This is important because even in
     the worst case scenario, where the deficit in United States spirals out of control, the crisis would not take the form of the
     crisis in Greece. Greece is like the state of Ohio. If Ohio has to borrow, it has no choice but to persuade investors to buy its
     debt. Unless Greece leaves the euro (an option that it probably should be considering, at least to improve its bargaining
     position), it must pay the rate of interest demanded by private investors or meet the conditions imposed by the European
     Union/IMF as part of a bailout. However, because the United States has its own currency it would always have the option
     to buy its own debt. The Federal Reserve Board could in principle buy an unlimited amount of debt simply by printing
     more money. This could lead to a serious problem with inflation, but it would not put us in the Greek situation of having to
     go hat in hand before the bond vigilantes. This distinction is important for two reasons. First, the public should be aware
     that the Fed makes many of the most important political decisions affecting the economy. For example, if the Fed refused to
     buy the government's debt even though interest rates had soared, this would be a very important political decision on the
     Fed's part to deliberately leave the country at the mercy of the bond market vigilantes. This could be argued as good
     economic policy, but it is important that the public realize that such a decision would be deliberate policy, not an
     unalterable economic fact. The other reason why the specifics are important is because it provides a clearer framing of the
     nature of the potential problem created by the debt. The deficit hawks want us to believe that we could lose the confidence
     of private investors at any moment, therefore we cannot delay making the big cuts to Social Security and Medicare they are
     demanding. However if we have a clear view of the mechanisms involved, it is easy to see that there is zero truth to the
     deficit hawks' story. Suppose that the bond market vigilantes went wild tomorrow and demanded a 10 percent interest rate
     on 10-year Treasury bonds, even as there was no change in the fundamentals of the U.S. economy. In this situation, the Fed
     could simply step in and buy whatever bonds were needed to finance the budget deficit. Does anyone believe that this
     would lead to inflation in the current economic situation? If so, then we should probably have the Fed step in and buy huge
     amounts of debt even if the bond market vigilantes don't go on the warpath because the economy would benefit enormously
     from a somewhat higher rate of inflation. This would reduce the real interest rate that firms and individuals pay to borrow
     and also alleviate the debt burden faced by tens of millions of homeowners following the collapse of the housing bubble.
     The other part of the story is that the dollar would likely fall in this scenario. The deficit hawks warn us of a plunging dollar
     as part of their nightmare scenario. In fact, if we ever want to get more balanced trade and stop the borrowing from China
     that the deficit hawks complain about, then we need the dollar to fall. This is the mechanism for adjusting trade imbalances
     in a system of floating exchange rates. The United States borrows from China because of our trade deficit, not our budget
     deficit. This also puts the deficit hawks' nightmere story in a clearer perspective. Ostensibly, the Obama administration has
     been pleading with China's government to raise the value of its currency by 15 to 20 percent against the dollar. Can anyone
     believe that China would suddenly let the yuan rise by 40 percent, 50 percent, or even 60 percent against the dollar? Will
     the euro rise to be equal to 2 or even 3 dollars per euro? This story is absurd on its face. The U.S. market for imports from
     these countries would vanish and our exports would suddenly be hyper-competitive in their home markets. As long as we
     maintain a reasonably healthy industrial base (yes, we still have one), our trading partners have more to fear from a free fall
     of the dollar than we do. In short, this another case of an empty water pistol pointed at our head. The deficit hawks want to
     scare us with Greece in order to push their agenda of cutting Social Security, Medicare and other programs that benefit the
     poor and middle class. This is part of their larger agenda for upward redistribution of income. We should be careful to not
     give their story one iota of credibility more than it deserves. By implying that the United States could ever be Greece,
     Krugman commits this sin.

                                               Spending Key to Stimulus
                                              ________________________


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                 27
Document1                                                                        Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                               1
                                              ***Impact Takeouts***
                                                Economy Resilient
                                          US Not Key to Global Economy
                                                 AT: War Impacts
                                            ________________________
                                          ***Military Tradeoff DA Aff***
                                            ________________________
                                               ***Non-Uniques***
                                                Military Cuts Now
                                           [Specific Program] Cuts Now
                                                Military Weak Now
                                            ________________________
                                           ***Internal Link Takeouts***
                                       Spending Trades Off with Other Stuff
                                        Military Spending Will Never be Cut
                                        [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
                                                   No Tradeoff
                                             NASA Has Enough Money
                                            ________________________
                                         ***Impact Turns and Takeouts***
                                         AT: Military Spending Key to Heg
                                         AT: [Specific Program] Key to Heg
                                     AT: Military Spending Key to the Economy
                                     AT: [Specific Program] Key to the Economy
                                                Defense Cuts Good
Military cuts benefits US leadership




Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                             28
Document1                                                                                                            Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                        1
Athey 11 (Jean Athey is the coordinator of Peace Action Montgomery County, Maryland, and the secretary of the Peace Action
National Board of Directors, June 2nd, 2011, http://masspeaceaction.org/1261, TA)
     Defense Secretary Robert Gates is barnstorming the country to make the case for high defense spending. He recently said,
     “As we make the tough choices needed to put this country’s finances in order . . . there will undoubtedly be calls . . . for us
     to sharply reduce our international commitments and the size and capabilities of our military,” which Gates thinks would be
     a very bad idea. He suggests that any cuts to the military budget should be based on a strategic review, in which we decide
     what it is we want to do and thus how large and how expensive a military we need. Yes—let’s have a strategic review, an
     honest one, conducted in public and not given to obfuscation, a public debate in which we as a nation decide, clearly and
     unambiguously, what we want our international role to be and the trade-offs we are willing to accept for that role. In his
     May 23 speech, Gates said that the goals of the U.S. military are “to sustain alliances, to protect trade routes and energy
     supplies, and to deter would-be adversaries”—in other words, to police the world. This is a different mission from defense
     or national security. U.S. citizens have never explicitly endorsed the role of global hegemon, and as part of a strategic
     review, they might like to reflect on how much it costs. Every U.S. citizen pays about $3,000 per year for military
     spending, approximately four and a half times more than the citizens of any other country in the world. Other NATO
     countries spend an average of just over $500 per capita, with Russia slightly over $500 and China around $50. The amount
     of our taxes that goes to military spending has almost doubled in constant dollars over the last decade. In total spending,
     although the U.S. FY2012 U.S. military budget is now being debated in Congress, it is expected to rise over one percent to
     some $820 billion (now to include the two current wars previously funded by supplementals). China ranks second, with an
     estimated total of $120 billion. Actually, the figure above underestimates U.S. military spending, since so much of that is
     spread throughout the government and is not found in the Pentagon budget. Many analysts believe that the true amount of
     U.S. military spending even now exceeds $1 trillion annually. To what extent can our economy sustain this unprecedented
     level of military spending, and do Americans really want to assume the expense of policing the world? Former president
     Dwight D. Eisenhower, a military man himself, clearly understood the trade-offs. In his first State of the Union Address,
     Eisenhower said, “Our problem is to achieve adequate military strength within the limits of endurable strain upon our
     economy. To amass military power without regard to our economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind
     of disaster by inviting another.” Eisenhower knew that national strength and military power are not the same things at all,
     and that in fact, excessive military spending can quickly destroy a nation. “There is no way in which a country can satisfy
     the craving for absolute security,” Eisenhower said, “but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to
     reach that illusory goal through arms alone.” On May 25, Gates warned that with a smaller budget, the military “will be
     able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things.” Yes, and that is just the point. If the military had had less money at
     its disposal, perhaps we could have avoided the disastrous war in Iraq, the decade-long war in Afghanistan, and now, a new
     and undeclared war in Libya. And if we had back the money already spent on those wars plus the out-year costs, estimated
     at $4 to $6 trillion by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz, we would not today be worrying about the national debt.
     Rather than trying to police the world in a time of great economic insecurity, if given a choice, Americans might well opt
     for a policy of military restraint as our international role, in which we substitute extensive economic and cultural
     engagement for force as the default mode. Many people believe that such a policy would make us safer, not more
     vulnerable. Military analyst Benjamin H. Friedman, for example, writes that, “A force reduction strategy . . . would reduce
     the possibility of fighting unnecessary wars, limit the number of countries that build up their military to balance U.S.
     forces, remove an impetus for nuclear weapons proliferation and prevent foreign peoples from resenting us for occupying
     their countries.”

Defense cuts will benefit defense
Gurney 10 (Matt Gurney is assistant editor, comment and a member of the National Post editorial board. Matt Gurney: America's
military goes on the chopping block, May 10, 2010, http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/10/matt-
gurney-america-s-military-goes-on-the-chopping-block.aspx, TA)
      Republicans and defence hawks will have a field day with this. They've been warning for years that the Democrats want to
      gut America's defences, and now can claim to have proof. Will the cuts proposed by Gates amount to "gutting"? It's
      impossible to say, but it's unlikely — Congressmen need to get re-elected and will zealously defend any defence contractors
      in their districts whilst simultaneously boosting their own national security credentials. But certainly, some big-ticket
      expenditures will join further production of F-22 stealth fighters on the chopping block. (Indeed, Gates is already in the
      midst of a very public spat with the Navy over the future size of the American carrier fleet — Gates thinks 10 ought to be
      enough, but the Navy is adamant that only 11 will do.) Such cuts have been coming for a while. NASA has already been
      virtually shut down so it was only a matter of time until the military came under the axe. The cuts, if done properly, might
      not be harmful — military history has shown again and again that top-of-the-line weapons get more and more expensive
      and less effective. Primitive firearms easily overwhelmed the expensive, cumbersome armour worn by medieval knights.



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       29
Document1                                                                                                          Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                   1
      Machine guns could wipe out whole battalions of infantry. In modern times, enormous battle tanks can be knocked out by
      RPGs wielded by an insurgent, high-tech choppers fall victim to shoulder-fired missiles and multi-billion-dollar aircraft
      carriers fear a swarm of cruise missiles worth a measly few million. And South Korea recently lost an advanced warship,
      almost certainly to a torpedo fired by the far less advanced North Korean fleet. If Gates' reforms create a more agile,
      flexible military, America might benefit. If the axe is wielded indiscriminately and with an eye only towards reining in
      America's chronic deficits, that would be very bad news for the Free World. National Post Read more:
      http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/10/matt-gurney-america-s-military-goes-on-the-
      chopping-block.aspx#ixzz1SZ07RG45

                                                   AT: Heg Key to Space

                                             ________________________
                                            ***NASA Tradeoff DA Aff***
                                             ________________________
                                                ***Non-Uniques***
                                                       NASA Cuts Now
Massive cuts in NASA’s budget across the board
Zach Rosenberg, 6/7/11, “US House Appropriations cuts NASA Budget,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/06/359215/us-house-appropriations-cuts-nasa-budget.html
      The House Appropriations Committee, which dictates how the government spends money, has released a draft of the
      commerce, justice and science appropriations bill cutting NASA's FY 2012 budget by $1.6 billion. The proposed budget
      includes overall cuts from FY 2011 in NASA science ($431m cut), exploration ($152m cut) and operations ($1.4b cut).

House Appropriations makes cuts from NASA and NOAA
PR Newswire, (press release), 7/12 (7/12/11, " AIA Concerned by NASA, NOAA Cuts ", http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/aia-concerned-by-nasa-noaa-cuts-125446723.html
      The Aerospace Industries Association is concerned about the substantial cuts being made to the budgets of NASA and
      NOAA in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science markup of the fiscal year 2012
      appropriations bill.
      "We recognize that tough economic times call for tough choices," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey.
      "However, cutting NASA and NOAA this deeply threatens American leadership in space and impairs our ability to make
      life-saving weather predictions."
      The subcommittee's markup cuts NASA's space programs by 10 percent from the President's request and nearly 13 percent
      from the NASA authorization passed last October. AIA acknowledges that many NASA mission areas were adequately
      supported—but some suffered draconian cuts. Given the current fiscal environment, AIA believes the $18.7 billion in
      funding proposed by the President provides the minimum required for these important programs. AIA supports
      appropriations reflecting the policy priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 as closely as possible and opposes
      the termination of programs contrary to the priorities of the Authorization Act.
      With the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA must be adequately funded to continue our visible national
      commitment to space exploration, science, aeronautics and technology leadership—something that 58 percent of Americans
      recently polled by the Pew Research Center supported.
      "Each ride to the space station that NASA buys from Russia is the annual equivalent of 1000 American aerospace jobs,"
      Blakey said. "We should be paying Americans instead of Russians."
      In addition, NOAA would get $1 billion less than the President's request—an 18 percent cut in a year when storms have
      already taken hundreds of lives and shown the need for accurate forecasts. Our public safety, national security and
      economic recovery argues for fully funding NOAA to get observing programs back on track and mitigate any loss in
      coverage due to aging systems.

Appropriations committee agrees to cut NASA budget by 2 billion


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                  30
Document1                                                                                                          Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                      1
Florida Today 7/11 (7/11/11, " Our views: Reject NASA cuts (July 12) ",
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110712/OPINION/110711014/Our-views-Reject-NASA-cuts-July-12-)
      The committee voted to cut its budget to $16.8 billion, a 9 percent reduction that would badly hurt efforts to get private
      rockets flying around 2015 from Cape Canaveral, a program that holds the most promise to return Americans into orbit on
      U.S. launchers soon.
      The funding level is $1.6 billion below last year and $1.9 billion below the president’s request.
      The cuts would also kill the troubled James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A recent
      FLORIDA TODAY investigation showed the project was $5.2 billion over budget and years behind schedule.

                                                    Telescope Cuts Now
House makes major cuts in NASA and stops funding for James Webb Telescope
Space Review 7/18 (Jeff Foust, 7/18/11, " Heavy-lift limbo ", http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1886/1)
      Meanwhile, funding for the SLS is one issue that has been subject to little debate. While House appropriators recently made
      major cuts in the administration’s budget proposal for NASA, including a controversial decision to provide no money for
      the James Webb Space Telescope, an appropriations bill would give NASA all that it asked for, and even a little more, for
      SLS. But as the debate swirls about the utility of the SLS in an ever more conservative fiscal environment, some wonder if
      that’s money well spent. How soon is “soon”?

Cuts will kill James Webb Telescope
Florida Today 7/11 (7/11/11, " Our views: Reject NASA cuts (July 12) ",
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110712/OPINION/110711014/Our-views-Reject-NASA-cuts-July-12-)
      The funding level is $1.6 billion below last year and $1.9 billion below the president’s request.
      The cuts would also kill the troubled James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A recent
      FLORIDA TODAY investigation showed the project was $5.2 billion over budget and years behind schedule. Deep cuts in
      earth science budgets for several U.S. agencies are in store next year under a proposed budget that awaits a vote by the
      House of Representatives. Under the plan drafted by the commerce, justice, and science subcommittee and approved
      Wednesday by the full appropriations committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would
      receive a $100 million cut below its current $4.5 billion budget. The plan also includes a $100 million less for NASA’s $1.7
      billion earth science budget than the agency has proposed. Climate programs at the U.S. Geological Survey, meanwhile, are
      also under the knife under a different proposed spending bill.

James Webb Telescope will inevitably be cut
Ganssle 11, member of NASA's Super Problem Resolution Team, 7/11/11http://www.eetimes.com/discussion/other/4217731/The-
death-of-the-JWST
     According to a press release from the U.S. House Committee on Approriations and the online Space Daily, the US House
     of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science has voted to kill the James Webb
     Space Telescope (JWST). Apparently the JWST, like so many other government programs, is far over budget and schedule.
     Unlike so many other government programs, a year ago the program passed the technical part of a huge design review,
     signaling that the design is sound. The Subcommittee’s recommendations are just that, but they carry significant weight,
     and the thinking is that the JWST will likely be scrubbed.

James Webb Telescope will be canceled anyway
Atkinson 11, senior analyst at Aite Group, 7/6/11 http://www.universetoday.com/87265/proposed-nasa-budget-bill-would-cancel-
james-webb-space-telescope/
     The US House Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee has proposed a NASA spending bill that would put NASA’s
     budget at pre-2008 levels and cancel the $6.5 billion James Webb Space Telescope. Space News reports that the proposal
     would cut $1.6 billion from NASA’s current budget, which is nearly $2 billion less than President Obama’s 2012 budget
     request for NASA, giving the space agency just $16.8 billion to work with. This news is not sitting well with scientists and
     researchers, with one astrophysicist saying this move could “kill US space science for decades.” Dr. C. Megan Urry,
     Director of the Yale Center for Astronomy & Astrophysics and the Chair of the Yale Physics Department said she has
     already written her congressmen and representatives to stand against this bill, “for the good of science, STEM education,
     and the nation.” “I think this is an extremely serious situation,” Urry told Universe Today, “and I think the James Webb
     Telescope is an extraordinarily important mission. It was recommended in the 2000 Decadal Survey and was strongly


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                     31
Document1                                                                                                            Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                       1
      endorsed in the 2010 Decadal Survey, so the science community has supported this mission for a long time.” The
      Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) quickly responded with a statement objecting to the axing
      of JWST, saying “Over the past year, NASA managers and the science community have undertaken a concerted effort to
      establish a budget and technology plan that allows the launch of JWST by 2018. The proposal by the Congress to terminate
      the program comes at a time when these efforts are coming to fruition.” The press release that came out along with the
      draft states that that the bill terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope because it is “billions of dollars over
      budget and plagued by poor management.”

The telescope is gone—voted out and efforts to save it fail
Pachal 7/14 (Peter Pachal is PCMag's News Director and has been covering consumer technology in print and online for more than
a decade. He holds degrees in journalism and engineering. July 14, 2011“Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb
Telescope” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp JT)
     The James Webb space telescope, the successor to Hubble, just came one step closer to being thrown in the trash bin over
     budget cuts. Yesterday the House Committee on Appropriations approved a plan to slash NASA's budget for next year and
     explicitly kill the project. The House and Senate still need to vote on the measure before it becomes law, but it's not
     looking good for expensive Webb. The cost of developing the telescope has ballooned over the years as NASA has had to
     invent whole new technologies in order to make it work properly. Unlike the Hubble, the Webb will be much further from
     Earth in order to shield itself from infrared radiation, and its systems will need to function at extremely cold temperatures.
     Adapting to those conditions has proved pricey for NASA. It's already spent $3 billion on the Webb, and the total cost is
     projected to be about $6.8 billion (it was initially budgeted at $1.6 billion total). However, once launched and put into
     place, the Webb will be so far from Earth that it will be impossible to service, so subsequent costs would involve only
     operating the telescope and analyzing its data (estimated at $1 billion over 10 years). On Tuesday, NASA Administrator
     Charles Bolden made an appeal to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee to save the Webb. "I have tried to
     explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far greater than we got from
     Hubble," Discovery News reported Bolden as saying. "I would only say that for about the same cost as Hubble in real-year
     dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." His words apparently had little effect. Neither did an attempt to restore
     partial funding of the Webb with a eleventh-hour amendment from Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. The
     Republican-dominated committee shot down the measure with a voice vote, Nature reported. As the Webb edges closer to
     oblivion, scientists have voiced concern over the termination of the project, saying that the discoveries it could reveal will
     be well worth the cost.

Transparency is the problem—the telescope is too uncertain
Turner and Flatow 7/15 (Ira Flatow from NPR interviewing Michael S. Turner, director and distinguished professor at Kavli
Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago 7-15-2011 “Funding For James Webb Space Telescope In Jeopardy”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164326/funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope-in-jeopardy JT)
       And I think somehow - I think Ron put his finger on it, fencing it off, more transparency and honesty upfront, I think
       that probably was the biggest problem, not knowing how big a problem this was going to be because NASA is us and we
       want - we are a great nation, and we want to do these game changers.

No hope for the telescope—republican dominated house will slash Webb
Lemonick 7/13 (Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to
communicate climate science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior science writer at Time magazine, where
he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught
science journalism at Princeton University for the past decade. July 13, 2011“After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA's Next
Great Telescope?” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082793,00.html JT)
     It was fun while it lasted. Last week, a House subcommittee proposed to kill off funding for the James Webb Space
     Telescope. The new instrument — which would orbit the sun just a little farther out than the Earth — is the heir apparent to
     the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's flagship space-science project. Some kind of second act was always seen as a good
     idea, but the folks on the Hill have a right to be exasperated with the way this one is turning out: the Webb, originally
     proposed in the mid-1990s under the name the Next Generation Space Telescope, was supposed to launch by 2007 and cost
     about $500 million. But it's gotten progressively more expensive, less powerful and further behind schedule. An
     independent review board reported last November that the poorly managed Webb (uninspiringly renamed after a former
     NASA administrator) could end up costing up to $6.8 billion and wouldn't launch until 2015 at the earliest. With the
     Republican-dominated House determined to slash spending everywhere it can, the Webb is a nice, juicy target. It's
     not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked


Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      32
Document1                                                                                                                Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                                                             1
      in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very
      existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial
      Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. But that just makes the cancellation of the
      Webb seem worse. "It's a double whammy," says Natalie Batalha, a high-ranking member of the science team for the
      Kepler probe, the spectacularly successful planet-hunting mission that's been delivering discovery after discovery since its
      2009 launch. "The whole community has sacrificed to fund [the James Webb Space Telescope]. Everyone was unhappy,
      but we all knew how valuable it would be. And now you have Congress talking about canceling it." (See "Kepler Telescope
      Finds Swarm of New Worlds.") What makes the Webb so valuable is, first of all, its huge light-gathering mirror — more
      than 21 ft. (6.4 m) across, compared with Hubble's 7.8 ft. (2.4 m). It's so big that the mirror can't go up as a single piece of
      glass. Instead, it's made of 18 smaller mirrors that will unfold in space to form a mosaic. Since fainter objects are also
      generally older and more distant, the Webb will be able to study galaxies, dust clouds, and cosmic processes at the earliest
      stages of the history of the universe. Better yet, unlike the Hubble telescope, the Webb is designed to see mostly in infrared
      light — the kind emitted not only by distant galaxies but also by planets. The telescope won't be able to take pictures of
      earthlike planets at distant stars — they're too faint and too close to their stars, even for the Webb — but it can pick out
      bigger planets and give astronomers a sense of what they're made of and how they formed. (See "Deep Space Photos:
      Hubble's Greatest Hits.") Beyond that, scientists have already made enormous progress on the project, not only on
      manufacturing the mirrors for the Webb but also in developing electronic cameras to take maximum advantage of those
      mirrors — the same sort of technology that lets the Hubble take such fantastic images and do such extraordinary science.
      After so much money has been sunk into the work, it would be insane, say scientists, to throw it all away. Certainly,
      Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super
      Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The
      reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is
      now a vast, $2 billion doughnut-shaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. (Watch TIME's video "Herschel:
      The Telescope for Invisible Stars.") Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can
      argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and
      accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that
      there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider
      over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be
      available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes;
      so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to.

All attempts have failed to restore the telescope
O'Neill 7/13 (Ian O’Neill is Space Producer for Discovery Channel’s Discovery News Website. He’s also a trained astrophysicist.
Jul 13, 2011 “James Webb Space Telescope Closer to the Axe” http://news.discovery.com/space/james-webb-space-telescope-closer-to-the-axe-
110714.html JT)
     This could be considered "strike two" for the deeply troubled James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Last week, the House
     Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee made the recommendation that the advanced infrared space
     telescope -- and Hubble's replacement -- be cancelled. On Wednesday, the full House Science, Space and Technology
     Committee has approved the subcommittee's plan. Hubble WATCH VIDEOS: Hubble is always seeing the cosmos in a
     new light. Browse the next big Hubble scoop in the Discovery News Hubble video playlist. ANALYSIS: Eroding NASA
     Science: Space Telescope Scrapped? Although the project isn't dead yet, the 2012 budget still needs to be voted on by the
     House an the Senate, but things are looking grim. Despite a last minute appeal to the House Science, Space and
     Technology Committee by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Tuesday, the Republican-dominated committee were
     unmoved. "I have tried to explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far
     greater than we got from Hubble," Bolden told the committee members. "I would only say that for about the same cost as
     Hubble in real-year dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." Also, in a last-ditch attempt on Wednesday to breathe
     life into the project, Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California whose district covers NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. in
     Pasadena, Calif., tried to insert an amendment that would have partially restored funding, redirecting $200 million from
     NASA's account for Cross Agency Support. The amendment was shot down by a voice vote. $3 billion has already been
     sunk into the project and components for the space telescope are undergoing space-readiness tests. Unfortunately, the
     projected 6.8 billion final price tag -- plus mismanagement troubles -- has attracted budget-cutting lawmakers. Should
     JWST be cancelled, the $3 billion already invested will be lost. Seems like quite a big waste for NASA's already grossly
     underfunded budget, doesn't it? The scientific returns on the JWST would be incalculable; but to politicians, science takes a
     distant second to budget cutting and political points scoring. So what can we do apart from keep our fingers crossed that
     funding will magically appear? Contact your Representative to keep the pressure applied to keep JWST alive, lawmakers



Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                                                            33
Document1                                                                              Dartmouth 2011-2
                                                                                                     1
      have yet to nail the project's coffin shut with a final vote.

                                                 ________________________
                                                ***Internal Link Takeouts***
                                         AT: Spending Trades Off within NASA
                                     AT: Spending Trades Off with [Specific Program]
                                          [Specific Program] Will Never be Cut
                                                              No Tradeoff
                                                   NASA Has Enough Money
                                                  ________________________
                                                    ***Impact Takeouts***
                                           AT: NASA Spending Key to Climate
                                      AT: NASA Spending Key to [Specific Program]




Last printed 4/20/2012 10:51:00 PM
                                                                                                   34

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:24
posted:4/21/2012
language:English
pages:34