Continuing Resolution Negative - DDI 2013 SS

8/13/2019 Continuing Resolution Negative - DDI 2013 SS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/continuing-resolution-negative-ddi-2013-ss 1/74

Continuing Resolution DA

Piecemeal reform nowNational Law Review, 08/06 (“Prospects for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The House

of Representatives Kicks the Can Down the August Recess Road”, 08/06/13,

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/prospects-comprehensive-immigration-reform-house-

representatives-kicks-can-down-augu, accessed 8/6/13, JF)

The U.S. House of Representatives left town last week for the long August recess without

passing one immigration-related bill. House Republicans made it quite clear that the Senate-

passed S. 744, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act, would never be taken up by the House. To date, the House has five immigration bills

reported out of either the Judiciary or Homeland Security Committee. The Comprehensive

Immigration Reform bill that the House Gang of 8 (now 7) has been working on for the past 18-plus months has not be introduced and the common wisdom is that it will not be the vehicle

that will be used in the House. None of the five bills have been brought to the floor for a vote.

When the House returns in September, there is a feeling that the bills might be brought up in

the following order: The Border Security Results Act (H.R. 1417) was introduced on April 9,

2013 by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul and approved by the House

Homeland Security Committee on May 20, 2013 by voice vote. H.R. 1417 requires results

verified by metrics to end The Department of Homeland Security’s ad hoc border approach and

to help secure our nation’s porous borders. The Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act (H.R.

2278), also know as The SAFE Act, was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 18,

2013. The SAFE Act seeks to improve the interior enforcement of our immigration laws by

preventing the Executive Branch from unilaterally halting federal enforcement efforts. To this

end, the bill grants states and localities the authority to enforce federal immigration laws. The

Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772) was introduced on April 26, 2013 by Rep. Lamar Smith and

approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2013. This bill discourages illegal

immigration by ensuring that jobs are made available only to those who are authorized to work

in the U.S. Specifically, the bill requires employers to check the work eligibility of all future hires

though the E-verify system. The Supplying Knowledge Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels or

STEM Visas Act (H.R. 2131), also known as The SKILLS Visa Act, was introduced by Rep. Darrell

Issa on May 23, 2013. The SKILLS Visa Act changes the legal immigration system for higher-

skilled immigration and improves programs that make the U.S. economy more competitive. The

SKILLS Visa Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2013. On April 26,

2013, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte introduced the Agricultural

Guestworker Act (H.R. 1773), also known as The AG Act. The Committee approved this bill onJune 19, 2013 in a voice vote (20-16). This bill attempts to provide farmers with a new guest

worker program to ease access to a lawful, agricultural workforce that employers may call upon

when sufficient American labor cannot be found.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/prospects-comprehensive-immigration-reform-house-representatives-kicks-can-down-augu









1nc

Continuing Resolution will pass but political capital is key – republicans won’t

risk 2014 majority

Matthews, 7/26 – (Laura Matthews, Associated Press Staff Writer for the International

Business Times. July 26, 2013. “Short On Time, Republicans Could Tackle Debt Ceiling Crisis

With Continuing Resolution,” http://www.ibtimes.com/short-time-republicans-could-tackle-

debt-ceiling-crisis-continuing-resolution-1360925)//SDL

The U.S. debt ceiling deadline that will likely occur in late October or November may trigger a public policy

crisis unless Capitol Hill Republicans and President Barack Obama act to avert one.¶ The reason?

Some Republicans say the debt ceiling issue will be coupled with the issue of funding the U.S. government beyond Sept. 30.

Congress must pass a temporary appropriations bill known as a continuing resolution or a regular

budget by Oct. 1 to fund government agencies next fiscal year and prevent a shutdown.¶ “Those

two are going to be weaved together whether there’s a 30-day separation or not,” Rep. Lee Terry told the Hill. ¶ The

last budget resolution fight occurred in late 2012 and was settled with a late New Year's Day 2013 agreement that angered many

Republicans because it contained an income tax increase on upper-income adults.¶ The last debt ceiling fight in July/August 2011brought the U.S. to the brink of default, and although the default was averted, it resulted in a damaging, unprecedented downgrade

of the U.S. government's debt.¶ Economists and market analysts generally agree that a U.S. government default would send a shock

wave through global financial markets. U.S. government bonds are considered the safest in the world, and many other interest rates

are priced based on the 10-year and 30-year U.S. Treasury notes' prices. A downgrade of the U.S. government's debt, let alone a

default, would cause institutional investors to "reprice" risk -- something that would almost certainly send interest rates higher,

among other damaging consequences for the U.S. and global markets and economies.¶ Several Republicans told the Hill

that they're worried about the looming fiscal crises because they are yet to receive any

directive from GOP leaders. The House will be in recess for much of August and when its members return in September

they will have only nine legislative days -- meaning the House Republicans will be under immense pressure

to keep the doors of government agencies open and prevent a delay in paying debt

obligations.¶ The lack of directives doesn’t mean leaders are going to stand by idly , however.

Indeed, reports are that House Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio, is planning on being more aggressive in

the fall because the ability of the GOP majority to move legislation through the House depends

on it.¶ “The only two things that really risk the Republican majority in 2014 would be if we shut

down the government or if we defaulted on the debt,” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told the National Journal. “So I

think these demand real leadership . I do think those are far more important than

immigration, because, again, they’ve got real-live consequences and real dates.”

LINK

Continuing resolution key to the global economy – US default causes investing

scare

Matthews, 7/26 – (Laura Matthews, Associated Press Staff Writer for the International

Business Times. July 26, 2013. “Short On Time, Republicans Could Tackle Debt Ceiling Crisis

With Continuing Resolution,” http://www.ibtimes.com/short-time-republicans-could-tackle-

debt-ceiling-crisis-continuing-resolution-1360925)//SDL

Economists and market analysts generally agree that a U.S. government default would send a

shock wave through global financial markets . U.S. government bonds are considered the

safest in the world, and many other interest rates are priced based on the 10-year and 30-year U.S. Treasury notes' prices. A



downgrade of the U.S. government's debt, let alone a default, would cause institutional

investors to "reprice" risk -- something that would almost certainly send interest rates higher,

among other damaging consequences for the U.S. and global markets and economies.

Nuclear warMerlini, Senior Fellow – Brookings, 11 [Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center

on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute

for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009,

he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and

Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic relations,

European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and

technology. A Post-Secular World? Survival, 53:2, 117 – 130]Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of

oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system . One

or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states , perhaps even

involving the use of nuclear weapons . The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global

economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great

Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever

the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would self-

interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of

multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India

and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become

unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be

sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.



***2nc Overview***

The Disad outweighs and turns the case –

Government shutdown sends a shock through global markets and collapses the world

economy – that’s Merlini 11. That causes a crumbling of the international order and leads to

use of nuclear weapons. This would roll back the plan because no economic engagement

would be possible under conditions of economic collapse and nuclear war.

Round specific turns case analysis -

Economic decline outweighs — interdependence prevents countries from going

to war. This is also a reason for why we turn case because none of their

conflicts happen when countries want to maintain prosperity. Plan undermines

this restraint.

Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4/20/ ’7, Trade, Democracyand Peace, p. http://www.freetrade.org/node/681

A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic

integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations

have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger

government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the

economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war.

Timeframe fast –

A. Disad kicks in as soon as they don’t pass CR - collapse is almost immediate.

Dawkins ‘10 (Tanya, Yes! Magazine chief board member, 5/10, Yes!http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/america-the-remix/financial-transactions-tax-a-little-tax-

on-the-big-casino) Currency speculation and financial deregulation topped a recent U.N. Conference on Trade and Development special report as

root causes of the recent breakdown of the global economy. Existing regulations encourage casino-like financial

markets. Trillions of dollars in currency trades, for example, do nothing to create real jobs, goods, and services. They only create

paper profits from momentary exchange-rate fluctuations. This lightning-fast, globe-trotting speculation easily eludes

regulation and taxation. Yet it can destabilize entire economies and it places more grounded, long-term business and

investment at a significant competitive disadvantage. An FTT could help with both the need to rein in speculation and the need to

fund vital projects. The Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that an FTT of only one-half of one percent would

generate at least $60 billion to $100 billion dollars in the United States alone.

B. Impact happens on September 30th – that’s way before the aff can solve

Levinson 8/2Alexis Levinson (reporter) “Pelosi faults the ‘make matters worse’ congress for leaving for

recess” The Daily Caller 8/2/13

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/02/pelosi-faults-the-make-matters-worse-congress-for-leaving-

for-recess/#ixzz2b33Qo7se

The fiscal year comes to an end on September 30, along with the continuing resolution that is

currently funding the government. As of yet, congress has reached no deal to continue



funding the government past that date. And the House will be in session for only nine more days before that

deadline.



***2nc Uq and Int. Link***

Continuing resolution is set to pass in Congress now – but political capital is key

to avoid a “public policy crisis” and get leadership needed to pass the bill –

that’s Matthews 7/26. Republicans are under immense pressure and Boehner

has become more aggressive to work towards a compromise – all of the

Republicans are nervous about risking 2014 majority in Congress if the US

defaults.

1. Continuing resolution at the top of the docket – PC key

Parsons, 7/30 – (Christi Parsons, Associated Press Staff Writer for the Las Angeles Times. July

30, 2013. “Obama offers new 'grand bargain' of corporate tax cuts and jobs,”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-economy-

20130731,0,4447369.story)//SDL

Now, the president is making clear his intent to try moving in a different direction, starting withthe newly refurbished grand bargain. Aides say Tuesday's announcement is the first of several new ideas Obama

will roll out as he prepares for budget negotiations this fall.¶ The White House and Congress face two

major deadlines in coming months: The government's authorization to spend money on many

programs will expire at the end of September unless Congress passes the annual appropriations bills before then,

which seems unlikely. Later in the fall, the government will once again need to raise its debt ceiling.¶ Under Obama's plan, the top

corporate rate would be cut to 28% from 35% for most businesses. Manufacturers would get a preferred rate of 25%.¶ As part of the

deal, the government could levy a one-time fee on earnings that multinational corporations have kept overseas. That would

generate billions of dollars in revenue, but only for a limited period. Obama's proposal could take some of that money and use it to

fund infrastructure projects, White House economic advisor Gene Sperling said.¶ Obama did not say Tuesday how much he wants.

But in his State of the Union address this year, the president named a $50-billion figure, with $40 billion aimed at the highways,

bridges, transit systems and airports in the most urgent need of repair.¶ Even with the exact dimensions of the new plan unknown,

analysts questioned whether the president expected lawmakers to take it at face value.¶ "He's delivering this major

economic pivot 72 hours before Congress leaves for a five-week recess," said Chris Krueger, managingdirector and senior policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities' Washington Research Group. "It almost seems like they're just throwing

a bunch of stuff at the wall just to say they're trying."¶ Obama may be "laying down markers" for the coming fight over the debt

ceiling, Krueger said.¶ "Any time the White House talks about infrastructure spending, Republicans kind of roll their eyes," he said.

"All they hear is 'stimulus.'"¶ In addition to disliking the new spending, House Republicans also oppose a tax overhaul that changes

the code for corporations, but not for individuals. Owners of small businesses who use the individual tax code would be at a

disadvantage if only the corporate tax rate were cut, they say.¶ The GOP has also demanded that corporate tax reform be "revenue

neutral," not raising money for job creation or any other goal, said Brendan Buck, press secretary for House Speaker John A. Boehner

(R-Ohio).¶ "After offering us two things he knows we oppose, the president is asking for additional stimulus spending which, as you

know, we also oppose," Buck said Tuesday. "So the president is taking his idea of tax reform, making it worse, and then demanding

ransom of more stimulus spending to get it.¶ "Some bargain," he said.¶ White House aides said Obama's proposal was revenue

neutral because the money for the construction projects would come from the one-time fee or other new revenue that would not

be permanent.¶ In his speech, Obama said he went to Chattanooga because he wanted to talk about "good jobs" in a "durable,

growing industry." Amazon recently announced it would hire 5,000 additional workers at centers around the country — jobs that

reportedly pay more than hourly wages at McDonald's but less than a middle-class salary.¶ White House aides defended the choice

of Amazon as the location for the speech, saying that many families expect to cobble together part-time jobs in order to live a

middle-class lifestyle.¶ Giving his second economic speech in as many weeks, Obama said he was looking for a wayto "break free of the same old arguments, where I propose an idea and Republicans just say

no because it's my idea."¶ "As Washington heads toward another budget debate," Obama

said, "the stakes could not be higher."

2. Political capital is key and top of the docket

O’Brien, 8/1 – (Michael O’Brien, Political Reporter for NBC News. August 1, 2013. “Boehner

backs short-term measure to avoid government shutdown,”



http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/01/19818215-boehner-backs-short-term-

measure-to-avoid-government-shutdown?lite)//SDL

Those legislative meltdowns set the stage for a politically tricky battle this fall over avoiding a government

shutdown and defaulting on the national debt. Boehner essentially said Thursday that he didn't

think there would be enough time for lawmakers to finish spending bills for the next fiscal year

following its August recess, which begins next week. For that reason, he called for the continuing resolution -

- a short-term measure that would keep the government open. Similar legislation has been routine in the past, but itnernal

Republican politics could come back into play during that fight.

3. Will Pass – Pelosi statements prove Obama’s practically non-partisan and

working hard with the Senate

Howley, 8/2 – (Patrick Howley, Reporter for the Daily Caller. August 2, 2013. “Pelosi: Obama

‘one of the most practically non-partisan presidents’,”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/02/pelosi-obama-one-of-the-most-practically-non-partisan-

presidents/)//SDL

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that President Obama is “one of the most

practically non-partisan presidents ” that she has ever seen in her career and that he “ really isworking” to forge a budget agreement .¶ “Here’s the thing — the president is one of the most practically non-

partisan presidents I have seen in the White House. I’ve been there since Ronald Reagan, and he really is working to try to g et some

bipartisan agreement. They’ve been working very hard to try to get the Senate consensus or some

agreement on how we can avoid a shutdown of government but also how you can even remove all doubt

that we’re not going to honor the full faith in credit of the United States of America by lifting the debt ceiling,” Pelosi said Friday in

an interview with the USA Today editorial board.¶ “There are some glimmers, a possibility of coming to a

grand bargain. The president is talking about a grand bargain for middle-income jobs, but the bigger, the grander the bargain

the more you can accommodate, shall we say, other things you don’t like so much. But weighing all the equities, this is the way

that we need to go forward,” Pelosi said.



8/4 Update

Will pass the House – Boehner’s on board

Howley 8/4

Patrick Howley (reporter) “Obama struggles to push ‘Better Bargain’ economic campaign” TheDaily Caller 8/4/13

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/04/obama-struggles-to-push-better-bargain-economic-

campaign/#ixzz2b4JtSjM7

The president is refocusing on the economy as the federal government, in the absence of a

fiscal year 2014 budget, survives on a temporary continuing budget resolution that expires

September 30. Republican House Speaker John Boehner hopes merely to pass another

continuing resolution after returning from congressional recess in September, but Texas Sen.

Ted Cruz and other Senate Republicans are pushing to block all continuing-resolution budget

bills and potentially force a government shutdown until Obamacare is defunded.



***2NC Link (Read this with specific links)***

Plan crowds out fiscal issues – only nine days left

Levinson 8/4Alexis Levinson (reporter) “Some members of Congress want to cut recess short” The Daily

Caller 8/4/13 http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/04/some-members-of-congress-want-to-cut-

recess-short/

The government is currently funded by a continuing resolution that expires on September 30.

Between now and then, Congress must agree on another continuing resolution – no easy feat

given the current divisions between the two parties – or pass appropriations bills, an even less

likely outcome. And there is little time to do either: the House is in session for a mere nine

days between now and the end of the fiscal year.



AT: Lobbies Link Turn

1. Long timeframe – lobbies lobby, that takes time – no card suggests it’s immediate

2. No reason the lobbies spend the political capital on Continuing Resolution – would need toread a card they support it

3. Link proves lobby support isn’t able to overcome unpopularity



***Uniqueness***

Will Pass – No GOP Block

Know Obama won’t abandon ObamacareDon’t want Public Backlash

Reyes 8/5 (http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/05/opinion-senator-cruz-and-his-pointless-and-

shameful-health-care-threats/ Raul A. Reyes “Senator Cruz and his pointless and shameful

health care threats”)

Cruz hopes to block passage of the continuing resolution that is necessary to finance the

government after September 30. But no matter how much Cruz amps up the rhetoric, his

threats are pointless and empty. As the Washington Post points out, he would need 41

Republicans in the Senate or 218 House Republicans to support such a filibuster. His plan has

nowhere near that level of support. Besides, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Office

says that implementation of the Act will occur regardless of defunding. Many of Cruz’scolleagues recognize that his plan is a losing proposition. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) called it

“the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of.” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) termed it “the political

equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum.” Neither Speaker of the House John Boehner nor

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), both of whom oppose the health care law, are in favor of Cruz’s

approach. These Republican lawmakers understand that President Obama is not going to

abandon his signature legislative achievement. They also know that holding the whole

country hostage to their will is not a wise idea. Consider that the last time Republicans shut

down the government, during the Clinton Administration, it resulted in a backlash against the

GOP.

Top of the docket - Boehner calls for continuing resolution











Will Pass – Pelosi statements prove Obama’s practically non-partisan andworking hard with the Senate

Howley, 8/2 – (Patrick Howley, Reporter for the Daily Caller. August 2, 2013. “Pelosi: Obama

‘one of the most practically non-partisan presidents’,”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/02/pelosi-obama-one-of-the-most-practically-non-partisan-

presidents/)//SDL

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/05/opinion-senator-cruz-and-his-pointless-and-shameful-health-care-threats/








Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that President Obama is “one of the most

practically non-partisan presidents ” that she has ever seen in her career and that he “ really is

working” to forge a budget agreement .¶ “Here’s the thing — the president is one of the most practically non-

partisan presidents I have seen in the White House. I’ve been there since Ronald Reagan, and he r eally is working to try to get some

bipartisan agreement. They’ve been working very hard to try to get the Senate consensus or some

agreement on how we can avoid a shutdown of government but also how you can even remove all doubtthat we’re not going to honor the full faith in credit of the United States of America by lifting the debt ceiling,” Pelosi said Friday in

an interview with the USA Today editorial board.¶ “There are some glimmers, a possibility of coming to a

grand bargain. The president is talking about a grand bargain for middle-income jobs, but the bigger, the grander the bargain

the more you can accommodate, shall we say, other things you don’t like so much. But weighing all the equities, this is the way

that we need to go forward,” Pelosi said.



***PC key***

PC Key, Obama needs to change course

Crawford 8/2 --- (Lacy Crawford is a graduate of the University of North Carolina

at Charlotte, where he majored in International Studies and Political Science, and

is a Communications Associate for Social Security Works, August 2, 2013,

“Prepare For the Next Fiscal Cliff — Obama and Republicans Are Going Back to

War,” PolicyMic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/57799/prepare-for-the-

next-fiscal-cliff-obama-and-republicans-are-going-back-to-war)Some may disagree on what exactly constitutes the next fiscal cliff , but with our budget having already hit the debt

ceiling in May and the Treasury Department undertaking extraordinary measures to pay the government’s bills, the alarm has

been sounding off pretty loudly.

Despite this, Speaker Boehner is signaling that he does not plan to heed any warning and is willing to

cause real damage by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling. "We're not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in

spending. It's as simple as that," he said.

The Senate is no better. A group of Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) has indicated they

are willing to shut down the government if Obamacare is not defunded. Taken together, these threats

illustrate a total disregard for the financial health of the country. Looming in the not-so-distant future is the Continuing

Resolution, legislation that funds the government and is set to expire on September 30.

There is plenty of blame to go around. President Obama must also change course in order move the

country forward before his final term in the White House is up. Throughout his presidency, he has shown a

willingness to put programs, that American people across the political spectrum support, on

the cutting board in order to reach a deficit reduction deal with Republicans. This strategy does not work, but

the White House still entertains cutting these programs through the Grand Bargain, which is the potential deal to slow spending and

reduce the debt. Like many in Washington over the past four years, the Tea Party is unwilling to allow for any more tax increases

since the last fiscal showdown. Instead, the president should forcefully make the case to the American people that programs like

Social Security deserve to be expanded instead of cut.

PC Key to overcome Senate Republicans

Howley 8/4 --- (Patrick Howley is a reporter for the Daily Caller, August 4, 2013,

“Obama struggles to push ‘Better Bargain’ economic campaign,” Daily Caller,

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/04/obama-struggles-to-push-better-bargain-

economic-campaign/#ixzz2bFpm2FVS)President Obama has laid out a new set of economic priorities heavily focused on protecting American

workers from companies outsourcing their jobs overseas.

The president is refocusing on the economy as the federal government, in the absence of a fiscal year

2014 budget, survives on a temporary continuing budget resolution that expires September 30.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner hopes merely to pass another continuing resolution after

returning from congressional recess in September, but Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and other Senate

Republicans are pushing to block all continuing-resolution budget bills and potentially force a

government shutdown until Obamacare is defunded.

The White House released a promotional video for Obama’s “A Better Bargain for the Middle Class” campaign last Wednesday, and

Obama devoted his weekly address Saturday to his “better bargain.” The official White House website

currently lays out his campaign’s central talking points.

Obama pledges to “simplify the tax code for business,” borrowing terminology often used by conservative Republican politician s.

Obama offers four components of this plan, proposing to “End incentives to ship jobs overseas,” “Lower tax rates

for businesses that create jobs in the U.S.,” “Lower tax rates for manufacturers” and “Cut taxes for small businesses.”



Obama key to compromise

Sasso 8/3 --- (Brendan Sasso is a staff writer for The Hill, August 3, 2013, “Obama:

Shutting down the government won't help middle class,” The Hill,

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315375-obama-shutting-down-the-government-wont-help-middle-class#ixzz2bFrZmLsT)President Obama warned congressional Republicans on Saturday not to try to use the threat of a

government shutdown to defund the health care law.

"Gutting critical investments in our future and threatening national default on the bills that Congress has already racked up – that’s not an economic plan," Obama said in his weekly address. "Denying health care to millions of Americans, or

shutting down the government just because I’m for keeping it open – that won’t help the middle class."

Republican lawmakers including Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) have

argued that congressional Republicans should block any government funding bill that provides

money for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature health care law.

If Congress fails to pass a spending resolution by Sept. 30, it would trigger a government shutdown.

In his speech, Obama also reiterated his complaint that Republicans have focused on "phony" scandals.

"Too often over the past two years, Washington has taken its eye off the ball," he said. "They’ve allowed an endless parade of

political posturing and phony scandals to distract from growing our economy and strengthening the middle class."Obama has referred to "phony scandals" in previous speeches. When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked earlier this

week what the president was referring to, he pointed to the controversy over the IRS's targeting of conservative groups and the

attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.

Obama said in his speech that he is open to working with Republicans to reform the federal

tax code, but only if the government also invests money in job creation."We can put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our infrastructure. We can boost manufacturing, so more American

companies can sell their products around the world," Obama said. "And we can help our community colleges arm our workers with

the skills they need in a global economy – all without adding a dime to the deficit."

Obama Key

News Journal 8/5 --- (The Daytona Beach News Journal Online, August 5, 2013,

“Government shutdown would benefit no one,” http://www.news-

journalonline.com/article/20130806/OPINION/130809723/1027?Title=Governme

nt-shutdown-would-benefit-no-one-&tc=ar#)Congress is facing a budgetary dilemma again, and some members want to use the occasion to force a

showdown with the White House.

It’s a bad idea. Congress should work out a budget with President Barack Obama without the

drama of a federal government shutdown or a new and dramatic vote on the Affordable Care Act, also known

as Obamacare. It’s the best way to avoid doing damage to a still-struggling economy.

Political capital is key















UQ and PC Key

Continuing resolution at the top of the docket – PC key

Parsons, 7/30 – (Christi Parsons, Associated Press Staff Writer for the Las Angeles Times. July30, 2013. “Obama offers new 'grand bargain' of corporate tax cuts and jobs,”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-economy-

20130731,0,4447369.story)//SDL

Now, the president is making clear his intent to try moving in a different direction, starting with

the newly refurbished grand bargain. Aides say Tuesday's announcement is the first of several new ideas Obama

will roll out as he prepares for budget negotiations this fall.¶ The White House and Congress face two

major deadlines in coming months: The government's authorization to spend money on many

programs will expire at the end of September unless Congress passes the annual appropriations bills before then,

which seems unlikely. Later in the fall, the government will once again need to raise its debt ceiling.¶ Under Obama's plan, the top

corporate rate would be cut to 28% from 35% for most businesses. Manufacturers would get a preferred rate of 25%.¶ As part of the

deal, the government could levy a one-time fee on earnings that multinational corporations have kept overseas. That would

generate billions of dollars in revenue, but only for a limited period. Obama's proposal could take some of that money and use it to

fund infrastructure projects, White House economic advisor Gene Sperling said.¶ Obama did not say Tuesday how much he wants.But in his State of the Union address this year, the president named a $50-billion figure, with $40 billion aimed at the highways,

bridges, transit systems and airports in the most urgent need of repair.¶ Even with the exact dimensions of the new plan unknown,

analysts questioned whether the president expected lawmakers to take it at face value.¶ "He's delivering this major

economic pivot 72 hours before Congress leaves for a five-week recess," said Chris Krueger, managing

director and senior policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities' Washington Research Group. "It almost seems like they're just throwing

a bunch of stuff at the wall just to say they're trying."¶ Obama may be "laying down markers" for the coming fight over the debt

ceiling, Krueger said.¶ "Any time the White House talks about infrastructure spending, Republicans kind of roll their eyes," he said.

"All they hear is 'stimulus.'"¶ In addition to disliking the new spending, House Republicans also oppose a tax overhaul that changes

the code for corporations, but not for individuals. Owners of small businesses who use the individual tax code would be at a

disadvantage if only the corporate tax rate were cut, they say.¶ The GOP has also demanded that corporate tax reform be "revenue

neutral," not raising money for job creation or any other goal, said Brendan Buck, press secretary for House Speaker John A. Boehner

(R-Ohio).¶ "After offering us two things he knows we oppose, the president is asking for additional stimulus spending which, as you

know, we also oppose," Buck said Tuesday. "So the president is taking his idea of tax reform, making it worse, and then demanding

ransom of more stimulus spending to get it.¶ "Some bargain," he said.¶ White House aides said Obama's proposal was revenue

neutral because the money for the construction projects would come from the one-time fee or other new revenue that would not

be permanent.¶ In his speech, Obama said he went to Chattanooga because he wanted to talk about "good jobs" in a "durable,

growing industry." Amazon recently announced it would hire 5,000 additional workers at centers around the country — jobs that

reportedly pay more than hourly wages at McDonald's but less than a middle-class salary.¶ White House aides defended the choice

of Amazon as the location for the speech, saying that many families expect to cobble together part-time jobs in order to live a

middle-class lifestyle.¶ Giving his second economic speech in as many weeks, Obama said he was looking for a way

to "break free of the same old arguments, where I propose an idea and Republicans just say

no because it's my idea."¶ "As Washington heads toward another budget debate," Obama

said, "the stakes could not be higher."

Will pass – Political capital key for negotiations

NBC News, 8/2 – (NBC News Political Staff. August 2, 2013. “Analysis: Congress on summer

break; out like a lamb,” http://www.kgw.com/news/politics/Analysis-Congress-on-summer-break-out-like-a-lamb-218134351.html)//SDL

*** Out like a lamb: Congress leaves town Friday for five weeks (returning Sept. 9th), and they leave a lot of

unfinished business on the table. In short, September and October now are going to be a mess. The assumption was

there would at least be some spending bills moved, the Farm bill dealt with, and possibly progress on immigration. And, yet, nothing

really happened other than a few deals on nominations in the Senate and the student loan compromise (which took ALL MONTH to

get done). And there is one common thread for the lack of progress and stunning inertia, inability

of the GOP to get on the same page on any of these issues. The only thing they can get on the same page

about are symbolic items that have no chance of becoming law. (See today’s 40th vote in the House against Obamacare, which, p er



NBC’s Frank Thorp is slated to take place around 11:00 am ET.) After the fail ed spending bill written by Republicans (the

transportation and housing bill known as THUD, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) tried to save face by letting it

be known that he was not in favor of pushing for a government shutdown and endorsed a

temporary continuing resolution to fund the government. He really has no choice. The

president and Democrats know what they want out of the issues going forward . And as long as

Republicans don’t have a realistic strategy, they’re going to find themselves with a losing hand and Boehner knows it. He’s simply

hoping he can keep kicking the can until something changes. But that comes with risks…

Will pass – political capital key to pass CR before the deadline

Mathes, 8/4 – (Michael Mathes, Associated Press Staff Writer. August 4, 2013. “As Congress

departs, a United States gov't shutdown looms in the distance,”

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/afp/2013/08/04/385501/p1/As-

Congress.htm)//SDL

House Speaker John Boehner insisted Congress would have “ample time” to thrash out a CR

and avert a shutdown, and he stressed that he had the votes to set spending limits at sequester levels.¶ “Looking

forward, Washington must confront some serious choices that we're going to deal with this

fall,” Boehner said.¶ “President Obama and his party in the House and Senate are in denial about

Washington's spending problem.”



***A2 Specific 2ac’s***



A2 N/U – Repubs block Obamacare

1. Most republican senators won’t block Obamacare – they realize empirics and

ramificationsBarro, 7/26 – (Josh Barro, Associated Press Staff Writer for Business Insider. July 26, 2013.

“The Senate GOP Won't Shut Down The Government Over Obamacare,”

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-senate-gop-wont-shut-down-the-government-over-

obamacare-2013-7)//SDL

The idea, from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is that Republicans should refuse to vote for any continuing

resolution—that's the appropriation bill that Congress will have to pass to keep the government open past Sept. 30—if it

contains money to implement the health care law.¶ Lee's strategy won't work because the

CR is must-pass legislation . If Republicans tie an Obamacare-defunding demand to it, no bill

will pass, and they'll get blamed for shutting down the government , which will be

unpopular.¶ Eventually,

they'll cave, the government will reopen, the health law will still be implemented, and the

Republicans will suffer political damage . It's a strategy that's just asking for pain.¶ Lee and his

colleagues understand this. York got a quote from an anonymous Republican Senate aide explaining why various Tea Party senators

want to pursue the strategy even though they know it's doomed:¶ "We have to try," says the Senate aide. "Having this fight will

show the people who sent us here that we are a party of principle. And after we lose this fight, all of our guys are going to have an

issue that we can run on and win."¶ The key phrase in this quote is "all of our guys." Which guys is he referring to?¶ A

government shutdown wouldn't endear Senate Republicans to the public as a whole. That's

why Republican senators like Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Tex.) are publicly dissing the Lee

strategy.¶ But it would give Tea Party senators like Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.) big, public opportunities to "stand up to

Obamacare" and improve their standing with the sort of very conservative voters who have a lot of influence in the Iowa caucuses. A

government shutdown as a Hail Mary against Obamacare might be the sort of thing Cruz could run on and win Iowa.¶ It's a good

example of the diverging incentives facing individual Republican officials and the party as a whole. Individual senators can benefit by

picking fights that make it harder for the party to build a majority electoral coalition. But in this instance, most senators

seem to realize that would be a mistake .¶ It won't be that hard to get a CR through the Senate. The more difficult

question will be the House, where individual members are more conservative and represent districts where they can more easily

disregard broad public opinion.¶ But last time House Republicans had the opportunity to force a

government shutdown, in March, they got gun-shy , realizing that the shutdown fights of 1995-6 under Speaker

Newt Gingrich did not play out well for Republicans.¶ Boehner may have to break the "Hastert Rule" to pass the CR: That is, he'll let

it come to a vote and pass mostly with Democratic support. But far from angering his caucus, he will be giving them exactly what

they want. They will be able to avoid a government shutdown fight without ever having to vote

to fund Obamacare.¶

2. Filibuster impossible:

A. No filibuster – needs ridiculous majority

Milbank, 8/1 – (Dana Milbank, Associated Press Staff Writer for the Washington Post. August1, 2013. “House Republicans just itching for a shutdown,”

https://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/01/opinion/house-republicans-just-itching-for-a-

shutdown/)//SDL

Newcomer Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who is pushing for a shutdown showdown, spelled it out on Andrea

Tantaros’ radio show: “We need 41 Republicans in the Senate or 218 Republicans in the House, to

stand together, to join me” in saying that “we will not vote for a single continuing resolution that funds even a penny of

Obamacare.” Cruz has since taunted “scared” Republicans who oppose his idea and dismissed as “cocktail chatter” the notion that a

government shutdown would be a bad move for Republicans.



B. Not gonna get it

Alpert, 7/30 – (Bruce Alpert, Associated Press Staff Writer for New Orleans Times. July 30,

2013. “David Vitter signs GOP letter threatening government shutdown without repeal of

ObamaCare,”http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/david_vitter_signs_on_to_repub

.html)//SDL

The letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, organized by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, was signed by11 fellow Republicans, including Vitter. It cites the president's recent decision to delay a mandate for one year that requires

employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a penalty while going ahead with implementation of the rest

of the law, including an individual mandate to purchase insurance -- with subsidies for low-income Americans -- as scheduled in

January.

C. 1995 Scare

Carden, 8/1 – (Dan Carden, Associated Press Staff Writer for NWI Politics. August 1, 2013.

“Hoosier's Obamacare funding fight could force government shutdown,”

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/hoosier-s-obamacare-funding-fight-

could-force-government-shutdown/article_96ba028e-698b-5102-952e-

756455d7f6ca.html)//SDL

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, so far is not embracing Stutzman's proposal. A similarplan by four Tea Party senators also is failing to catch on in that chamber.¶ Many Republicans

fear a government shutdown, recalling that the 1995 GOP-led shutdown was critical in helping

Democratic President Bill Clinton win re-election.

D. Liberal media exaggerates threat

Schallhorn, 7/24 – (Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Associated Press Staff Writer for Red Alert Politics.

July 24, 2013. “Mike Lee: September’s continuing resolution vote ‘the last stop on the

Obamacare Express’,” http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/07/24/mike-lee-septembers-continuing-

resolution-vote-the-last-stop-on-the-obamacare-express/)//SDL

Lee also stressed that despite what the liberal media is reporting, Republicans aren’t planning

on shutting down the government when that day comes.

E. Boehner corrals GOP – idea of filibuster is a nonstarter





Conservatives , for instance, have insisted that any measure to continue funding the government be

linked to legislation that would also completely defund President Barack Obama's signature

health care reform law. Though that prospect is a nonstarter with the Democratic Senate and

the White House , GOP leaders are under immense pressure from the party's grassroots to

provoke another showdown over "Obamacare."¶ On Thursday, Boehner kept coy about whether he would adopt

such a strategy.¶ "No decisions have been made on how we're going to proceed with the CR," he said.¶ But Boehner faces the

very real prospect of Democrats again forcing Boehner to pass such a CR with Republican

votes alone, forcing the speaker to corral conservatives who might threaten to jilt their leader

if the continuing resolution doesn't touch on Obamacare.



F. Polls

Milbank, 8/1 – (Dana Milbank, Associated Press Staff Writer for the Washington Post. August

1, 2013. “House Republicans just itching for a shutdown,”

https://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/01/opinion/house-republicans-just-itching-for-a-

shutdown/)//SDL

“‘Irresponsible’ is a term that doesn’t go nearly far enough,” says Norm Ornstein, the American EnterpriseInstitute scholar who has become a scold of congressional Republicans. “You could say it’s a do-nothing Congress

but that doesn’t do justice to it. These guys are doing something, which is to destroy the

economic fabric of the country by holding the functions of government hostage to a non-

negotiable demand to eliminate Obamacare.”¶ In a sense, the inaction on spending is just another sign of the

dysfunction in the chamber that has prevented negotiations on an overall budget framework, put bipartisan immigration legislation

on ice and created a standoff on the farm bill that will, if not overcome, cause milk prices to jump to as much as $8 per gallon next

year. But provoking a government shutdown would take things to a whole new depth.¶ A

shutdown is unlikely to achieve the goal of repealing health care reform; Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.,

one of the top political minds in the House, cautions his colleagues that shutting down the

government would be a “suicidal political tactic.” Polls suggest the same.

3. Cooler heads will prevail – political ramifications check Republican’s behavior Matthews, 7/23 – (Laura Matthews, Associated Press Staff Writer for the International

Business Times. July 23, 2013. “Continuing Resolution 2014: Can Republicans Really Force A

Government Shutdown Over Obamacare?” http://www.ibtimes.com/continuing-resolution-

2014-can-republicans-really-force-government-shutdown-over-obamacare-1357459)//SDL

“I think that cooler heads will unquestionably prevail,” he said. “I find it hard to believe that a

majority in either house would end up embracing such a position. The political ramifications of

that sort of behavior would be catastrophic for those who voted for it.”¶ Those ramifications, Aaron said,

would hurt the party’s prospects in 2014 and Republican leadership won’t allow such a threat

to follow through.¶ “I hope that’s the case,” he said. “In any event it seems to me to be a disastrously

misguided approach to pursuing one's opposition to the Affordable Care Act.”

4. Several key republicans oppose Rubio’s shutdown plan – Coburn sites 90’s

government shutdown

CBSNews, 8/1 – (CBS News Politics, Associated Press Staff Writers. August 1, 2013. “Senate

GOP Members Oppose Rubio Shutdown Plan,” http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/08/01/senate-

gop-members-oppose-rubio-shutdown-plan/)//SDL

Running contrary to Rubio’s claims and the plan to defund the Affordable Care Act are several

Senate Republicans and the law itself .¶ Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) said the plan to shut down

the government or default on the debt is not achievable. Senator Coburn told the Washington Post that

most of the law is mandatory spending that isn’t covered in year-to-year budgets.¶ “A good portion

of the health-care law is mandatory spending and repealing that would require two-thirds of the House and 67 votes in the Senate. I

don’t see happening,” Senator Coburn told the Washington Post.¶ Republican Senator Richard Burr

(R-N.C.) called the Rubio-Lee-Cruz plan to shut down the government if they can’t get Obamacare

defunded “the dumbest idea” he had ever heard. Republican Senator John McCain also warned

against more government shutdown “shenanigans.”¶ Complicating matters for more moderate Senate and

Congressional Republicans is that much of the right-wing blogosphere and pundits are giving fuel to the fire of believing a

government shutdown would defund Obamacare and help the GOP.¶ “Let me tell you what happens when you

shut down the government: You start seeing the consequences. Who controls what is left operating? The

president. As soon as the first Medicare bills go unpaid, where do you think the pressure will be? And what’s the likelihood the

president will collapse on the most significant legislative accomplishment of his administration?” Coburn told the Post. “The y have



no idea, I was in it. I experienced it.”¶ Coburn is referring to the last time the government shutdown due

to partisan politics in the 1990’s. During that shutdown, Republicans suffered much more

politically than President Bill Clinton and other Democrats.¶ It’s a bit of history Coburn and

other more experienced GOP members don’t want to repeat just months before the start of

the mid-term campaign season.



A2 Appropriations Bill Solves

No compromise and not enough time for any appropriation bills

Smith 8/5Abby Smith (reporter) “Shutdown looms in Washington” The Columbus Dispatch 8/5/13

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/05/shutdown-looms-in-

washington.html

“Appropriations bills in the Senate and the House are farther apart than they have ever

been, ” he said. “It’s very hard to see how they are going to agree to anything very smoothly.”¶ At

a news conference on Thursday, Boehner said, “It’s clear that we’re not going to have the

appropriations bill finished by Sept. 30. I believe a continuing resolution (spending measure) for some short period

of time would probably be in the nation’s best interest. But having said that, the idea of operating for an entire year under a CR is

not a good way to do business.”¶ With partisan gridlock seemingly inevitable, political analysts also question the

ability of Congress to reach a grand bargain as they work to raise the debt ceiling.

Appropriation Bills are a train wreck in the making – 0 percent chance they’ll

pass

Lowey 8/5Nita Lowey (New York 8th District Congresswoman) “2014 Budget Process: Worst is Yet To

Come” Nyack News 8/5/13

http://www.nyacknewsandviews.com/2013/08/nlowery_2014fedbudget/

The 2014 budget and appropriations process has been described as a “slow-motion train wreck ,”

but this is far too generous. For a collision to occur, locomotives must actually meet.¶ Having

failed to avert automatic, across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration for 2013, Congress forced federal departments and

agencies, states and grantees to do more with less, resulting in lost jobs, furloughs, diminished access to vital programs like HeadStart and Meals on Wheels, and a failure to make investments we know are critical to the future.¶ The Ryan budget adopted by the

House majority establishes an insufficient $967 billion top-line discretionary spending level and assumes continuation of

sequestration in 2014 and beyond. Unfortunately, the legislative actions, transfers and reprogrammings, and deferrals of long-term

priorities that mitigated the worst effects of sequestration in 2013 are no longer available.¶ House appropriations bills

considered so far have made clear the consequences of the majority’s unwillingness to

eliminate sequestration for 2014 — from steep cuts to Amtrak and renewable energy and efficiency investments, to

the deprivation of 200,000 women and their babies of access to nutrition assistance, to the gutting of enforcement efforts for tax

fraud and key consumer financial protections.¶ And the worst is yet to come. The House majority has yet to

hold full committee mark-up sessions on the bills for which 2014 allocations were slashed

most dramatically, down an average of 21 percent from last year’s enacted levels. The effects on medical research, schools,

job training, clean air and water, and diplomacy and development will be devastating.¶ These drastic cuts disregard the fact that

Congress has already achieved $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction since 2010, $1.5 trillion of which come from discretionary

investments.¶ Despite the House majority’s supposed fealty to the 2014 sequestration spending level, it has exceeded by more than$47 billion the 2014 cap on defense spending of $498 billion. Without action by Congress, the administration would be forced to

sequester the remainder, exacerbating already severe deficiencies in military readiness. Funding levels that look robust now would

create a national security crisis overnight.¶ In stark contrast to these draconian and unnecessary cuts under Chairwoman

Barbara Mikulski’s leadership, the Senate is considering appropriations bills drafted to conform with

the top-line spending level to which Democrats and Republicans agreed in the Budget Control

Act. At a top-line spending level of $1.058 trillion, appropriations bills are lean yet maintain the critical services and investments on

which American families rely.¶ To keep the federal government from shutting down at the end of the



fiscal year in September, the $91 billion gap in discretionary spending levels between the

House and Senate bills must be bridged . There are no winners if Congress fails in its duty.



A2 Congress on Recess

Congress looking to cut recess short to start negotiations

Levinson 8/4Alexis Levinson (reporter) “Some members of Congress want to cut recess short” The Daily

Caller 8/4/13 http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/04/some-members-of-congress-want-to-cut-

recess-short/WASHINGTON – You can still smell the jet fumes of the planes that ferried members of Congress away from Washington for their

five full weeks of congressional recess Friday — but not everybody wanted to go.¶ Some members of Congress are still

hoping that leadership may call them back before September, when they will face a looming

deadline to agree on a deal to fund the government before the fiscal year ends on September 30.¶

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia spent the final few weeks before Congress went into recess calling for the House of

Representatives to stick around and finish the appropriations process.¶ “By any objective measure, we have failed to perform our

most basic legislative duties” and fund the government, Rigell told The Daily Caller.¶ The government is currently funded by a

continuing resolution that expires on September 30. Between now and then, Congress must agree on another continuing resolution

– no easy feat given the current divisions between the two parties – or pass appropriations bills, an even less likely outcome. And

there is little time to do either: the House is in session for a mere nine days between now and the end of the fiscal year.¶ “Tradition

has it’s place,” Rigell said of the traditional August recess. “But this idea that, well it’s tradition that we break for five

weeks, well look, we’re not in normal times. … When you’ve got a fiscal morass, and you’re

just in a real fix, to shut down and turn off the lights and lock the door? I can’t even begin to

process it.”¶ Rep. Rob Wittman, another Virginia Republican, joined Rigell last week in voting against the rule that allowed

Congress to recess for the month of August, something that is rarely done.¶ “We need to be here,” he told TheDC. “There’s

so many things that need to be done. I’m concerned that with all the things stacked up with the September 30 deadline.” ¶ Both said

their colleagues were supportive of their idea to keep Congress open during summer break and that their idea had not made them

pariahs.¶ “There is truly widespread agreement that breaking for five weeks is not the right thing

to do,” Rigell said, noting that he had only spoken to Republicans about it. ¶ “What I’m hearing is, ‘Well, Scott, you’re saying the

right thing.’ Whether that translates into them taking the same step, I don’t know,” he added.¶ Even Democratic Minority Leader

Nancy Pelosi sounded on board with the idea in a press conference Friday shortly before members headed out of town.¶ “How do

we explain to the American people that we’re going into an August recess and … we still have no jobs bill, we have no budget bill,

and we have the threat of shutting down government and not raising the debt ceiling without repealing the Affordable Care Act?”

she asked.¶ “I wish that we could stay,” Pelosi said. “Our members are prepared to stay and work.”



A2 Immigration top of docket

Immigration is no longer at the top of the docket – that’s 1NC Matthews. The

CR issue is much more important than immigration – so Boehner has called for

budget negotiations over immigration.

“those are far more important than immigration, because, again, they’ve got real-live

consequences and real dates.””



A2 No link (plan small/short term)

1. Fiat answers this. The way the plan spends still eats the link even if the

actual spending money is small or short term.

2. New Link -- Small programs key to budget fights – battles occur at the

margins.

Schick, 2K (Brookings Institute, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, and Process, Pg. 73)

In the private world of budgeting, where many of the numbers are compiled, technical considerations often prevail. But in the

public arenas, political forces are on display, with politicians tweaking the budget at the margins

to obtain more spending or tax cuts than a strict application of the technical rules would allow.

Although only a few percentage points (or less) of the totals, the margins are the political

battlegrounds for budgeting. They represent the incremental changes from one year to the next,

differences between Democrats and Republicans, and elusive accommodations between the

president and Congress. In budgetary battle each side is armed with numbers that make its case; the numbers disagree

because the political combatants disagree. In the end, however, there can be budgetary peace only if presidential and congressionalpolitical arithmetic add up to the same numbers.

3. Small violations of budgetary rules spillover.

Schick, 2K (Brookings Institute, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, and Process, Pg. 53)

Budgeting pertains to the future, and since the future is unknown, it can only be assumed. Small

changes in the underlying assumptions can yield large differences in budget entries. Yet the budget

says more about its numbers than about its assumptions. The assumptions are where political opportunism and

manipulation thrive.



A2 plan is FY2014 – next budget

Plan must always be fiscal year 2013: Funds always charged against current

budget.Schick, 2K (Brookings Institute, The Federal Budget, pg. 37)

Money that first becomes available for obligation in a particular fiscal year is counted as new

budget authority in that year’s budget. Under this rule, when Congress makes an advance

appropriation, the new budget authority is charged to the year in which the money first

becomes available for obligation.



A2 Plan increases growth

Solvency long-term, internal link is short-term. A shutdown in an already weak

economy obviously has a stronger internal link to growth than the Aff’s long-

term effect on the economy.



A2 Shutdown doesn’t hurt the econ

Shutdown jacks the economy – 1nc Matthews. Investors pull out – causes

global economic repercussions



A2 econ decline no cause nuclear war

1. Economic collapse causes numerous scenarios for nuclear war

Harris & Burrows 9 – Professors of History @ Cambridge PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) & member of the

NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit Mathew, and Jennifer “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the

Financial Crisis” 2009 http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of

intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the

Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more

instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated,

the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and

multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral

institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not

be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in

which

the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt

in aconstantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those

risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move

up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the

Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025,

however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities

within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established

groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct

sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized,

particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an

economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown

of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear

weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop

new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and

consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship

that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran.

Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an

unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well

established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance

capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable

indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short

warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on

preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world

continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and

there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive

countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in

interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for

example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of

war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval

buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal

stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding

targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased

tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational

http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf










A2 De-Coupling

De-coupling wrong.

Mathew J. Burrows, Counselor -- National Intelligence Council, and Jennifer Harris, Member

of NIC's Long Range Analysis Unit, April, '9 (Washington Quarterly, 32:2)Such was the world the NIC foresaw as the crisis unfolded. Now, emerging markets the world over have lost more than half of their

value since September 2008 alone. Banks that have never reported a net loss earnings quarter were dissolved in a matter of days.

Even with the one year anniversary of the Bear Stearns collapse approaching in March, markets may have yet to find a floor. The

proportions of the current crisis hardly need familiarizing. As the panic has not yet given way to a lucid picture of the impacts, most

economists and political forecasters are smart enough to shy away from sweeping predictions amid the fog of crisis. Yet, in the post-

crisis world, it seems conceivable that global growth will most likely be muted, deflation will remain a risk

while any decoupling of the industrialized from developing countries is unlikely, the state will be the

relative winner while authoritarianism may not, and U.S. consumption as the engine for global growth will slowly fade. Whether U.S.

political and market clout will follow, and whether U.S. political leadership will come equipped with knowledge of the strategic

forces affecting the United States remains to be seen. How Much of a Geopolitical ‘‘Game Changer’’ is the Financial Crisis? Mapping

the NIC’s predictions against early facts, one of the most interesting observations is less about any particular shock genera ted by the

financial crisis and more about its global reach. If anything, the crisis has underscored the importance of

globalization as the overriding force or ‘‘mega-driver’’ as it was characterized in both the NIC’s 2020 and 2025 Global

Trends works. Developing countries have been hurt as decoupling theories, assertions that the

emerging markets have appreciably weaned themselves from the U.S. economy, have been

dispelled. This second epicenter of the crisis in emerging markets could also continue to exacerbate and prolong the crisis.

Alongside foreseeable exposures, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are less predictable panics like Dubai, whose

debt was financed on suddenly expensive dollars. Even those with cash reserves, such as Russia and South Korea, have been severely

buffeted.



A2 1995 shutdown

This shutdown is unique because of the weak economy

DailyKos, 13 – (Associated Press Staff Writer for Kos Media. January 14, 2013. “GovernmentShutdown: What It Is, and What It Isn't,”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/14/1178981/-Government-Shutdown-What-It-Is-and-

What-It-Isn-t)//SDL

During the 1995-1996 shutdown, the United States was not undergoing any economic turmoil

besides the effects of the shutdown. While Bill Clinton certainly left office with the first projected budget surplus since 1969, he

was working with a stable economy. It was a relatively safe time to consider budget cuts and to

start paying down the deficit.¶ Today, we're still recovering from 'The Great Recession' and the new

economic fad is that the only way out of the recession is to immediately and severely cut spending. President Obama has already cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars (and as pointed out by Jed Lewinson, it's $2.4 trillion counting

new tax revenue). Cut too much spending at this point, and the government will depress demand

and potentially drive the country back into recession.¶ This is not the time to aim for a

balanced budget. This is not a family trying to balance its budget- families don't have B-52s. This is the world'slargest economy trying to stay afloat without making bad decisions.



***A2 Generic Politics Answers***



A2 Political Capital Not Real

Political capital theory is true

Beckman 10 – Professor of Political ScienceMatthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, “Pushing the Agenda:

Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004,” pg. 61-62

For cases where the president wants to lobby but has limited political capital to draw on (0 < C <

C1), looking back, Figure 2.11 affirms the intuitive: the president's legislative options are limited. Lacking enough

capital to induce leaders to accept any sort of "deal" that is better than he could get from lobbying pivotal voters, the president and his staffers'

only viable strategy is the vote-centered one. But, of course, even executing the vote-centered strategy does not yield much

influence; the president simply does not have enough "juice" to substantially alter members'

preferences or, in turn, the outcome. The president's prospects improve substantially, though, when

he allocates even modest levels of political capital (C, < C < c,.) to lobbying for a particular initiative. At this

point - specifically, at C1 _ an agenda-centered-strategy becomes viable. That is, with a medium investment of political

capital, now the president has enough resources to get opposing leaders to cut a "deal" with the

White House that is better than he could get from just lobbying pivotal voters. In fact, even with this rather mode st infusion of political capital,

C, to 4, an agenda-centered lobbying strategy allows a president to exert even more influence than would be possible with a massive investment ( up to

Gj) in voce-centered lobbying. And granting the president even more political capital to invest in an issue (c,. < C) only adds to an agenda-

centered strategy's attractiveness and effectiveness compared to the more familiar vote -centered strategy. Overall, the

predicted impact of the president's agenda-centered lobbying is real, and potentially substantial,

but also highly conditional. In contrast to a vote-centered strategy, which can be employed whenever a president is willing a nd able to invest

lobbying resources in advocating an issue, the White House's agenda-centered strategy only applies with (I) a far-off status quo, and (2) a medium to

large supply of political capital. Absent these prerequisites, the president's fate turns on pivotal voters and his ability to influence them via vote-

centered lobbying. But often these strategic stars do align - that is, the president is flush with political capital when seeking to change a distant status quo - and when they do, an agenda-centered strategy affords presidents not just a second path for exerting

influence but also a better path. Indeed, under these favorable conditions, the president gets far more policy

bang for his lobbying buck from an agenda-centered strategy than a vote-centered one - without having to prevail in an all-out floor

fight for pivotal voters' support.

Even if PC theory isn’t true, key legislative players believe it is

Schier, 11 – Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton

College (Steven E, December. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Presidential Authority

Problem and the Political Power Trap.” Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol. 41 Issue 4, pp 793-

808.)

The concept of political capital captures many of the aspects of a president's political

authority. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in

Congress, public approval of the president's conduct of his job, the president's electoral margin, and patronage

appointments (Light 1999, 15). Light derived this list from the observations of 126 White House staff members he interviewed

(1999, 14). His indicators have two central uses. First, Light's research reveals that they are

central to the “players' perspective” in Washington. That is, those “in the game” view these

items as crucial for presidential effectiveness . Second, they relate to many central aspects of political

authority as defined by Skowronek. So on both theoretical and practical levels, the components of

political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. The data here will reveal that presidents

over the last 70 years have suffered from a trend of declining levels of political capital, a trend

that is at the heart of their political authority problem.



Many scholars have examined particular aspects of presidential political capital, from congressional support (for example, Bond and

Fleisher 1992, 2000; Mayhew 2005; Peterson 1993) to job approval (Brace and Hinckley 1991; Kernell 1978; Nicholson Segura and

Woods 2002). From these, we know that presidential job approval is influenced by economic performance, tends to drop over time,

and that divided government can boost job approval. Also, job approval and control of Congress by fellow partisans boosts

presidential success in floor votes but does not produce more important legislation than does periods of divided government. These

“micro” findings, however, comport with a “macro trend” of declining presidential political

capital over time. This analysis explores that macro trend and relates it to previous micro findings.

Political capital theory is true – newest data proves that presidents have

significant legislative influence

Beckman 10 – Professor of Political Science

Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, “Pushing the Agenda:

Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004,” pg. 2-3Developing presidential coalition building as a generalizable class of strategies is itself instructive, a way of bringing cla rity to presidential –

congressional dynamics that have previously appeared idiosyncratic, if not irrational. However, the study’s biggest payoff comes

not from identifying presidents’ legislative strategies but rather from discerning their substantive

effects. In realizing how presidents target congressional processes upstream (how bills get to the floor, if they do) to influence downs tream policy

outcomes (what passes or does not), we see that standard tests of presidential influence have missed most of it.Using original data and new analyses that account for the interrelationship between prevoting

and voting stages of the legislative process, I find that presidents’ legislative influence is real,

often substantial, and, to date, greatly underestimated.

Empirical studies and expert consensus proves political capital is key to the

agendaWang 10 ( Yuhua Wang Department of Political Science University of Michigan, he is also a member of the Wo Wang Clan, a

group of poli sci profs who are also ill rappers. “Congressional Weakness, Political Capital, and the Politics of Presidentia l Agency

Design” http://sitemaker.umich.edu/wangyh/files/presidential_agency_design_yuhua_wang.pdf)

Presidents’ popularity with the public is a resource that may influence members of Congress (Neustadt

1960). Some recent studies have noticed the “political capital” the president possesses (Light 1999; Johnson and Roberts

2005). Several scholars demonstrate that popular presidents are able to win more often in Congress (Brace and Hinckley 1992;

Edwards and Wood 1999;Ostrom and Simon 1985; Rivers and Rose 1985). Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond (1998) argue that, “ Washingtonians

widely accept the view that Congress is more inclined to give presidents what they want when

public support is high rather than low” (873). For Light, presidents’ strength includes their public approval ratings and t heir

margin of victory in the most recent election (Light 1999: 32). When these factors increase, presidents gain political

capital and are therefore more likely to garner Congressional support for their domestic

agenda in Congress. Although some studies identify methodological and theoretical reasons to question the importance of presidential

capital (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Collier and Sullivan 1995), it is worthwhile to test this in models of agency design. This paper predicts that when

Congress is strong and united, “weak” presidents enjoy less discretion creating agencies by executive orders; in contrast, po pular presidents are not

constrained by Congress in agency design1

Obama has to use his PC within a few months of his election or his ability to

influence passage will close

Spiliotes 9Dean Spiliotes taught presidential politics in the Government Department at Dartmouth College

and in the Politics Department at Saint Anselm College. At Saint Anselm, Dean also served as

Director of Research for the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, where he led a statewide

survey research initiative, The New Hampshire Civic Index, designed to measure the civic

knowledge, attitudes and behavior of New Hampshire citizens. Vacation, All I Ever Wanted

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/wangyh/files/presidential_agency_design_yuhua_wang.pdf





published 07-23-2009 http://www.nhpoliticalcapital.com/readblobstory.php?id=566 Accessed

7/17/13 CSmith)

There is a reason why President Obama has been hell-bent on getting health care through

Congress this summer. A few decades ago, the political scientist Paul Light wrote in his book, The President’s

Agenda, about the dangers of the cycle of decreasing influence. Light argued that a president’s

political capital is at a maximum just after winning election and rapidly declines over time,making the achievement of major policy successes more difficult the longer the legislative

process drags on. Obama’s behavior on multiple policy fronts over the past six months

suggests that he is well aware of his limited window of opportunity, and the possibility that

with just a few small changes in the political environment it could close shut at any moment.

PC is real and key-and Obama needs to use it now or he’ll lose it

Mackenize 83(G. Calvin Mackenzie, The Goldfarb Family Distinguished Professor of Government at Colby

College where he has taught since 1978. He is a graduate of Bowdoin College, where he served

as a Trustee from 1986-1998, and he has a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard. The President'sAgenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Carter (with Notes on

Ronald Reagan). by Paul Charles Light The Journal of Politics, Vol. 45, No. 2 (May, 1983), pp. 528-

530 Accessed 7/17/13 CSmith)

Light sets out to determine how recent presidents and their staffs have selected the issues on which they will concentrate their time,

energy, and political capital. That pursuit leads him into a much fuller assessment of the whole executive role in the domestic policy-

making process. It results in a general explanation cum theory of the domestic policy frustrations of contemporary administrations

which Light calls the "No Win Presidency." Light relies heavily on two categories of evidence. One is an

ambitious set of interviews he conducted with 126 White House staff members from the

administrations of John Kennedy and his successors. The other is records of the OMB clearance process for

legislative proposals. They are two quite different data sources, and they are used here in a

way that is entirely complementary. The former provides vividness of insight; the latter servesas a reliable measure of agenda timing and a consistent con- firmation of the interview

findings. Light's argument is complex. To summarize it briefly hardly does it justice. But I shall try. He suggests that a new

president is possessed of certain resources which are essential to his efforts to shape the

domestic agenda. The most important of them are time , information, expertise, energy, and political

capital. As these resources are developed and squandered over time, two contrary patterns

emerge: a cycle of decreasing influence and a cycle of increasing effectiveness. A president's oppor-

tunities for influence are on the wane just as his staff's ability to take advantage of those opportunities improves. Except at

the outset of a second term when the two cycles may be in benign (but temporary) alignment, it is

a no win situation for a president bent on setting his own agenda priorities. In a long and thoughtful concluding chapter Light denies

the inevitability of the leadership straitjacket he has described and suggests a series of escape routes that a wise president might

follow.

PC key, presidents can only juggle a few bills at a time

Barrett and Edwards 99(George C. Edwards III and Andrew Barrett Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M

University. He also holds the Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies and has served as the Olin

Professor of American Government at Oxford and the John Adams Fellow at the University of

London Prepared for presentation at the Congress and the President in a Partisan Era

Conference sponsored by the Program in American Politics in the Center for Presidential Studies,

http://www.nhpoliticalcapital.com/readblobstory.php?id=566






Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, Presidential Agenda Setting in Congress Published

February 5-6, 1999. http://www-polisci.tamu.edu/upload_images/9/SP13Agenda.pdf Accessed

7/17/13 CSmith)

The White House must obtain agenda space for its proposals in order to build momentum and

obtain congressional commitments of support for them. Moreover, it is to the president’s advantage for Congress to

use his proposal as the starting point in marking up a bill (McKelvey 1976). Having the president’s own proposal on

the agenda makes his bargaining position known to members of Congress and provides him a

greater chance to define the terms of debate and thus the premises on which members of Congress make

their decisions (Edwards 1989, 206-209). In addition, the White House wants to ensure that its proposals compete favorably with

other proposals on the agenda. If presidents are not able to focus Congress’s attention on their priority

programs, the programs will become lost in the complex and overloaded legislative process.

Moreover, presidents and their staff have the time and energy to lobby effectively for only a few

bills at a time, and the president’s political capital is inevitably limited. As a result, presidents wish to

focus on advancing their own initiatives rather than opposing or modifying the proposals of others. Thus, the White House

not only wants its initiatives to be on the congressional agenda but also prefers to have fewer

congressional initiatives with which it must deal.

http://www-polisci.tamu.edu/upload_images/9/SP13Agenda.pdf%20Accessed%207/17/13








A2 Dickinson/Ideology

1. Issues in congress take into account the full political spectrum – look at Healthcare having a

huge impact on the rest of the agenda

2. This doesn’t answer our specific scenario - Our uniqueness indicates that Obama’s influence

is barely keeping the compromise going – if he stabs them in the back, he’s not going to get

them to vote for continuing resolution

Ideology doesn’t drive politics

Lee 9 - Ph.D. in Political Science from Vanderbilt University in 1997. She was a Research Fellow at the Brookings Institution from

1997-98. From 1998-2003 she taught in the political science department at Case Western Reserve University. In 2002-2003, she

worked on Capitol Hill as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow. Frances E. Lee joined the faculty at

Maryland in the Fall of 2004. She teaches courses in American government, the public policy process, legislative politics, and

political institutions. She is also Director of the Government & Politics Honors Program. (2009, “Beyond ideology *electronic

resource+ politics, principles, and partisanship in the U.S. Senate,” UMich Libraries

http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10356756)

The central argument of this book is that ideological disagreement alone does not begin to account for

the extent of party conflict in Congress. Matters of ideological controversy are a potent source

of partisan discord in the contemporary Congress, and Republican and Democratic legislators

are undoubtedly farther apart in ideological terms than they were 30 or 40 years ago (Binder 003;

Brownstein 007; McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal 006; Rohde 1991; Sinclair 006; Theriault 008). Nevertheless, there is far

more party conflict in the Congress than one would expect based on the ideological content of

the congressional agenda or the policy differences between liberals and conservatives. To

routinely attribute disagreement between congressional Republicans and Democrats to individual members’ ideological

differences is to overlook how the parties’ competition for elected office and chamber control

systematically shapes members’ behavior in office. Party conflict also stems from the

competitive struggle for office and influence, not only from members’ policy preferences.

Failure to take adequate account of ongoing electoral and power struggles results in theoriesof congressional politics without the politics. Congressional parties hold together and battle with

one another because of powerful competing political interests, not just because of members’

ideals or ideological preferences. Party members experience what David Truman (1959) called “shared risk.”

Members’ electoral and institutional interests are bound up with the fate of their parties.

Control of the institution enables a political party to further its members’ political goals of

winning office and wielding power, as well as its ideological goals. Majority party members have a

common interest in maintaining that control. Members of the minority party have a collective interest in becoming the majority

and taking control. This book argues that fellow partisans’ shared risk has wide-ranging effects on congressional party

politics. It leads members of one party to support efforts to discredit the opposition party on the

grounds of its incompetence and lack of integrity, not simply to oppose its ideological policy

agenda. It persuades members to rally around the initiatives of their own party’s president,

and, as a mirror image, the other party to resist initiatives championed by an opposing party’spresident. It prompts members to routinely back up their own party leadership’s efforts to

exert control over the floor agenda. And it encourages members and leaders to steer the

congressional agenda toward issues that allow them to differentiate themselves from their

partisan opposition and thus to make the case that voters should prefer one party over the

other. Members’ diverging political interests drive the parties apart on many issues that bear

no clear or direct relationship to the principled policy disagreements between liberals and

conservatives.



The President has a large influence over passage

Larocca 11 – Professor of Political Science at Oakland University (Roger, “The Bicameral Context of Presidential Agenda Setting”,

Congress & the Presidency, Volume 38, Issue 2, May 2011, accessed from: Taylor and Francis Online, ETC)

In Model 4, I also ran a parallel simulataneous probit model on House and Senate final passage for comparison. The president'simpact from the agenda-setting stage (Model 2) is very similar to his impact at the passage stage. I

believe that this offers evidence of the importance of the centrality of the agenda-setting stages in the House and Senate for

determining what passes in these chambers. Perhaps the most dramatic difference between the agenda-setting model and the

passage model is that the House and Senate have a stronger influence on each other in the passage model. Given the relatively

similar levels of presidential influence in the two models, this suggests that the president's indirect impact is even

stronger at the passage stage than at the floor stage. Overall, the floor consideration and passage of issues in

each chamber are among the most important influences on the f loor consideration and passage of issues in the other chamber. It is

this mutual influence that opens the possibility for the president to have indirect influence through

one chamber on the other. The combined direct and indirect effects that the president

exercises over the House and Senate agendas makes him a formidable agenda setter in both chambers.

The president's impact on the Senate in particular seems to arise partly from the indirect impact of his influence on the House

agenda. Studies, like Model 1, that examine the president's influence on the Senate, without controlling for the impact of the House,

are likely to overestimate the president's direct influence on the Senate.

President political capital makes issues more likely to pass – studies confirm

Larocca 11 – Professor of Political Science at Oakland University (Roger, “The Bicameral Context of Presidential Agenda Setting”,

Congress & the Presidency, Volume 38, Issue 2, May 2011, accessed from: Taylor and Francis Online, ETC)

I predicted that the president would exercise stronger positive direct effects on floor consideration in the House than in the Senate

for his major addresses to Congress. As I hypothesized, the magnitude of the direct and indirect effects of all of the independent

variables decreases as Issue scope increases, because broader issues are more likely to reach the floor simply because they cover

more bills. Table 3 shows that the president's speeches directly increase the chance of an issue

reaching the House floor by anywhere from 13.3 to 9.5 percentage points as Issue scope increases from 1 to 10

bills, while speeches only induce a 10.2 to 7.9 percentage point direct increase on the Senate floor across the same range. However,

because Table 4 shows that the House has a greater influence on the Senate than vice versa, the president exercises a

greater indirect influence on the Senate than the House. The president's speeches indirectly increase the

probability of House floor consideration from 3.0 to 2.4 perecentage points as Issue scope ranges from 1 to 10 bills,

but speeches induce a 9.6 to 5.9 percentage point indirect increase on the Senate floor across the same

range. As a result, Table 4 shows that the president's speeches actually exercise very similar levels of total influence on floor

consideration in the House and Senate, but most of the House influence is direct, whereas almost half of the Senate influence is

indirect.



PC finite

Capital is finite

Ryan, 2009 – Former Director of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies

(Selwyn, “Obama and Political Capital,” 1/18/2009,www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968, JMP)

Obama will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps more

than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe

that his inauguration is one of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is,

however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's world of instant communication, which

once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political leaders like George Bush

and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did not know

how to husband political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They

squandered it as quickly as they emptied the contents of the public vaults. Many will be

watching to see how Obama manages his assets and liabilities register. Watching with hope

would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's face inscribed with theplaintive words, "I Trust You."

Obama’s political capital is finite

Weisenthal 2009 (7/21, Joe, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/another-bad-

poll-for-obama-2009-7)

The last 10 days have seen a spate of fresh polls all showing the same thing -- thatthe President's honeymoon period is coming to an end, and that he doesn't haveunlimited political capital. He is, after all, human, and despite the mindblowing ineptitude of the Republican

opposition, political warfare hurts. The bad polls are coming just as (or maybe because) the President is really digging into the

politically charged healthcare debate. Politico: Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic

allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped offsignificantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll. Just as Obamaintensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement withCongress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust thepresident has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they

do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42. But the news is also bad for the GOP. A series of high-profile affairs, the political suicide of

Sarah Palin, and a broad display of sheer buffoonery at the Sotomayor hearings ("Wait, just to clarify, have you now or have you ever used the

term 'wise Latina'?") hasn't helped their brand. So the President takes a hit, but they gain nothing.



A2 Winners Win

PC finite

Gerson, 12/17 (Michael, 12/17/10, Washington Post, “When it comes to politics, Obama's ego

keeps getting in the way,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604039.html )

In some areas - such as education reform or the tax deal - Obama's governing practice is better than his political skills. But these

skills matter precisely because political capital is limited. The early pursuit of ambitious health-

care reform was a political mistake, as former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel internally argued. But every president has

the right to spend his popularity on what he regards as matters of principle. Political risks, taken out of conviction

with open eyes, are an admirable element of leadership.

Yet political errors made out of pique or poor planning undermine the possibility of

achievement. Rather than being spent, popularity is squandered - something the Obama administration has

often done.

Winner’s win theory not true for Obama American Prospect, 5-16-11, p.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power

Obama won more legislative trophies during his first two years than Clinton did, but in many

respects, they were poisoned chalices. Health reform proved broadly unpopular because of

political missteps—a net negative for Democrats in the 2010 midterm. The stimulus, though

valuable, was too small to be a major political plus. Obama hailed it as a great victory rather

than pledging to come back for more until recovery was assured. He prematurely abandoned

the fight for jobs as his administration’s central theme, though the recession still wracked the

nation. And because of the administration’s alliance with Wall Street, Obama suffered both the

appearance and reality of being too close to the bankers, despite a partial success on financial

reform. Obama’s mortgage-rescue program was the worst of both worlds—it failed to deliver

enough relief to make an economic difference yet still signaled politically disabling sympathy for

both “deadbeat” homeowners and for bankers. (See this month’s special report on page A1.)

Health care fight proves winner’s win isn’t true for Obama

William GALSTON 11-4-10 [William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings,

“President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties”

Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]

From the beginning, the administration operated on two fundamental political premises that

turned out to be mistaken. The first was that the economic collapse had opened the door to the

comprehensive change Obama had promised. As incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

famously put it, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In fact, as Emanuel himself

came to realize, there was a tension between the steps needed to arrest the economic declineand the measures needed to actualize the president’s vision of fundamental change. The

financial bailout and the stimulus package made it harder, not easier, to pass comprehensive

health reform.

Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum

from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth:

with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states

to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604039.html








price if they supported cap-and- trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political

fundamentals than did administration strategists.

The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted

much too long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full

public view. Much of the public was dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the seemingly endless

health care debate strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was poorly aligned with

the economic concerns of the American people. Because the administration never persuaded

the public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen

as diversionary, even anti-democratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may

turn out to be a policy success; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and remains—

a political liability.

Unpopular policies aren’t ‘wins’, they drain Obama’s capital and spillover

Morgan 12(Tom Morgan- Political Capital, Published March 12 2012

http://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2012-03-12/14376/Political-capital/ Accessed 7/17/13

CSmith)

Sometimes watching a president is like watching a small business operator. Or the CEO of a big business. Or the big

business itself. This is particularly true with President Obama. It can help you understand why he does what he

does. A president arrives from his election with political capital. This is a currency he can spend.

It is made up of the good wishes of the people who voted for him. And good wishes from

many who did not. These are people who simply want a president to do a good job. A small

business also owns capital. This is money, assets of the business. And the good wishes of customers, employees, bankers who

finance it. A CEO has capital too. It is the support of the board that hired him or her. As well as the analysts on Wall Street who

watch his moves under a microscope. Meanwhile, a big business has capital in the form of money and other assets. The vital

question is: How wisely do each of these spend their capital? Let us say the small business deploys its capital wisely. This earns more

capital in the form of more customers, more business, happy employees. Since it made good use of its capital, it also can now

borrow more easily from the bank. If it spends its capital poorly, its business does not grow. Maybe shrinks. So its options get

trimmed. Likewise, the CEO. By deploying his capital wisely he earns more support from his board. If he deploys it poorly, he loses

support. He will be less likely to get his way, because of his track record. The story is the same for the big company. If it spends its

capital wisely it builds markets, builds business. It earns more profit, which can be additional capital. Its shares have increased in

value. It can more easily issue new shares, for additional capital. It can more easily sell bonds, for more capital. If it spends its capital

unwisely, the opposite happens. It loses capital. And thereby loses opportunities. Because it has less capital to pursue them.

President Obama spent most of his political capital on unpopular projects. On Obamacare, for

instance. At no point has a majority of voters favored it. His green projects are another case. A

majority of voters don’t like them. Especially now, when so many have failed. And when we learn

how the guys who got the billions in government money gave tens of millions to the president’s campaign. The President has spent

smaller amounts of his political capital on a range of initiatives that were equally unpopular. And by creating policies that

disappointed or angered majorities of voters. The President’s moves clearly caused his party to lose control

of the House and to lose ground in the Senate. This is like the CEO losing support of some key board members. It

is like the small business losing the confidence of the loan officer at the bank. It is like the big company losing the confidence of Wall

Street. Each of them will have to scrub some plans because they no longer have the capital to spend on them. This includes the

President. Lots of critics accuse the President of kicking various cans down the road. They point

to the Iran crisis. And Social Security reform, so badly needed. And Medicare reform, needed

even more. And tax reform, desperately needed. The President kicks these cans down the

road because he has no other choice. He has spent his political capital. He does not have the

support to tackle them. Not in Congress, especially the House. Not with the public. His poll

numbers have not been healthy. They tell us that on this run-up to the election he cannot afford to offend any of his

supporters.

http://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2012-03-12/14376/Political-capital/





Presidents only have finite political muscle and if it’s not used early within their

inauguration or make an unpopular decision they lose it

Eshbaugh-Soha 4(Dr. MATTHEW ESHBAUGH-SOHA Associate Professor-Political Science at UNT. The Politics of

Presidential Agendas Published January 12th 2004

http://www.psci.unt.edu/~EshbaughSoha/jun05prq.pdf Accessed 7/17/13 CSmith)

House (Edwards 1983) and high public expectations (Waterman, Jenkins-Smith, and Silva 1999), presidents are bound to be aware of

their public standing. More popular presidents should be inclined to offer more long-term and important policies than less popular

presidents, if only because they think that a stronger public standing gives them greater leeway to pursue such policies. In other

words clearly important to presidential success in Congress. A newly elected president’s arrival in Washington

typically coincides with a perceived electoral mandate, goodwill from the public and media,

and an air of bipartisan cooperation (Dominquez 2002). Presidents know that their political capital

is high upon taking office (Light 1999), so long as they “hit the ground running” (Pfiffner 1988),

they anticipate that their first years are most conducive to legislative success. The honeymoon

also applies to a president’s second term. As presidents become familiar with intricacies and peculiarities of the

office, they learn how to manage more situations effectively. If presidents are reelected, Light

(1999: 39) claims, “The first days of the second term offer the greatest opportunity for presidentialeffectiveness.” Therefore, Presidential agendas will be larger, and presidents will offer more

major and incremental policies during their first years of both terms. Honeymoon is a dummy variable: 1

for the first year of a president’s first and second terms and 0 otherwise.

Overreaching creates backlash- guts winners win

Politico 12 *“RNC hopefuls predict Obama backlash”, 1/5+

The candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee predicted at a Monday debate that the Obama

administration would outspend its political capital and spark a ballot box backlash. “I think

they’re going to give us the gift of an overreaching, overpowering government that will limit

our freedom,” South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson said, arguing that Obama’s agenda would amount to

“overpromising and building up bigger government.” Saul Anuzis, who chairs the Michigan GOP, agreed that

Obama’s agenda would open up political opportunities for Republicans.

Winners win does not apply to Obama-empirics prove

Galston 10 (William,11-4, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack

Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute)

Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum

from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth:

with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and

states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy

price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political

fundamentals than did administration strategists.

http://www.psci.unt.edu/~EshbaughSoha/jun05prq.pdf%20Accessed%207/17/13





PC high now

Obama not expending pol cap on other stuff now

Steven Metz is a research professor of national security affairs and director of research at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. 17

Jul 2013, World Politics Review, Strategic Horizons: America’s Limited Leverage in Afghanistan,

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13095/strategic-horizons-america-s-limited-leverage-in-afghanistan

Unfortunately, these factors are not in place in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is hesitant to expend the

political capital needed to overcome domestic opposition to cutting a deal with the Taliban

given the press of other issues, including paralysis over the budget, Syria, Egypt, North Korea,

Iran and Snowden’s assaults on the intelligence system. More importantly, the United States has little leverage over

Karzai's government, the Taliban and its associates or Pakistan. Both Karzai and the Pakistani government believe that America's focus on al-Qaida

means that the United States needs them more than they need the United States. Hence they are largely immune to pressure,

threats, suggestions or entreaties from Washington. And neither is particularly interested in an outright end to the extremist threat within their borders

since the threat holds America's interest, keeps outside assistance flowing in, mutes internal dissent to some degree and jus tifies heavy-handed

security measures to protect the regimes.



AT: Intrinsicness

If we win the thesis of political capital, the disad is an opportunity cost

Politics DA’s are good – forces research into current issues and keeps debate interesting



AT: Vote no

This argument is asinine – we’re not debating the plan in congress– the judge isn’t the

president, they just decide whether or not the plan is a good idea

If they win that we’re debating in front of congress, vote them down because their plan isn’t

phrased like a bill so neg on presumption



AT: Bottom of the docket

Any appeal to sequencing when the plan occurs is an arbitrary insertion of time that has no

literature basis and in practice makes uniqueness impossible







Hegemony

Government shutdown kills hegemony

Reich, 13 – (Simon Reich, Professor in Division of Global Affairs at Rutgers University. April 1,

2013. “Budget cuts: will American military power suffer?” http://theconversation.com/budget-cuts-will-american-military-power-suffer-13122)//SDL

A strong consensus among economists and policy wonks is that the slow and fragile American

economic recovery, five years after the 2008 crisis, will be endangered by any prolonged government

shutdown. Unemployment, “down” to 7.7%, may begin to rise again. ¶ Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has remained critical of

the Republican budget plan drafted by Republican leader Paul Ryan. EPA/Michael Reynolds¶ Yet an abiding question concerns the

effect of these domestic convulsions on America’s global standing, and its capacity to pursue its foreign policy goals. The most

obvious effect of the budget wrangling so far was the unprecedented downgrading of the United States’ credit rating by Standard

and Poors in August of 2011.¶ Yet this proved more symbolic than tangible. The United States has continued to borrow from foreign

investors in unprecedented amounts, The Dow Jones stock market index has reached new highs, unemployment has slowly declined

and its domestic housing market has roared back to life. Foreign investors clearly don’t treat an American budget crisis the way they

do a Cypriot one.¶ The more obvious issue concerns the possibility of cuts in the defense budget,

and their effects on America’s military capabilities. Senior Republicans want to preserve the

military budget intact. Their position presents a paradox: They are the traditional proponents of strong national defence.But as advocates of deep and prolonged budget cuts to a variety of social services (what Americans generally refer to as

“entitlement programmes”), it is hard for them to also argue that there is something special about the defense budget as the wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq wind down. That apparent contradiction hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying. While the issue of foreign

policy was relegated to the sidelines at last year’s Republican presidential convention in Tampa, there has been a trumpet

call by them to defend the defence budget in the current session of Congress.

Heg solves great power warsZhang and Shi, 1/22/11 – Yuhan Zhang is a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.;

Lin Shi is from Columbia University. She also serves as an independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the

World Bank in Washington, D.C. (America’s decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry,

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/)

This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and

perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its

economy remains the world’s largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that

separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is

shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and

prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over the past two decades, no other

state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances,

motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and

accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and

the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power

conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the

pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where

power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged,and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and

redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence

as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century,

accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had

begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would

eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s

security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with



democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics:

enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and

groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of

such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have

appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system,

proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s

influence declines? Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited

people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as

parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a

profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic

world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic

rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO

might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill

the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders.

Free markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers

would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In

the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies,

with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international

regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American hegemony is one

where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an

authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation

barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.



Econ k2 Heg

Economic strength key to American influence- largest internal link

Hubbard, Assistant at Open Society Foundations Washington, ’10 [Jesse, 2010Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Analysis By: Jesse Hubbard Jesse

Hubbard Program, District Of Columbia International Affairs Previous National Democratic

Institute (NDI), National Defense University, Office of Congressman Jim Himes Education

PPE at University of Oxford, accessed: 7/13/13, ML]

Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearson’s r-value is -.836. In the case of American hegemony, economic

strength is a better predictor of violent conflict than even overall national power, which had

an r-value of -.819. The data is also well within the realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the

data for British hegemony was not as striking, the same overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both

periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively related with violent

conflict , and yet use of force by the hegemon was positively correlated with violent conflict in both cases. Finally, in

both cases, economic power was more closely associated with conflict levels thanmilitary power. Statistical analysis created a more complicated picture of the hegemon’s role in fostering

stability than initially anticipated. VI. Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers

regarding the complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned first to the existing theoretical literature on hegemonic

stability theory. The existing literature provides some potential frameworks for understanding these results. Since

economic strength proved to be of such crucial importance, reexamining the literature that focuses on hegemonic stability

theory’s economic implications was the logical first step. As explained above, the literature on hegemonic stability

theory can be broadly divided into two camps – that which focuses on the international economic system, and that

which focuses on armed conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from

the first camp are still of relevance. Even Kindleberger’s early work on this question is of relevance.

Kindleberger posited that the economic instability between the First and Second World Wars

could be attributed to the lack of an economic hegemon (Kindleberger 1973). But economic

instability obviously has spillover effects into the international political arena. Keynes,

writing after WWI, warned in his seminal tract The Economic Consequences of the Peace that Germany’s economic

humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the nation’s political culture (Keynes 1919). Given later events, his

warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second World War, however, the European continent

has not relapsed into armed conflict . What was different after the second global conflagration? Crucially,

the United States was in a far more powerful position than Britain was after WWI. As the tables above

show, Britain’s economic strength after the First World War was about 13% of the total in strength in the

international system. In contrast, the United States possessed about 53% of relative economic

power in the international system in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild

Europe’s economic strength with billions of dollars in investment through the Marshall Plan, assistance

that was never available to the defeated powers after the First World War (Kindleberger 1973). The interwar years

were also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars that likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast,

when Britain was more powerful, it was able to facilitate greater free trade, and after World War II, the United

States played a leading role in creating institutions like the GATT that had an essential

role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an

important factor in the overall security environment should not be discounted, especially given the

results of my statistical analysis. Another theory that could provide insight into the patterns observed in this

research is that of preponderance of power. Gilpin theorized that when a state has the

preponderance of power in the international system, rivals are more likely to resolve their

disagreements without resorting to armed conflict (Gilpin 1983). The logic behind this claim is simple –

it makes more sense to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This simple yet powerful theory can

help explain the puzzlingly strong positive correlation between military conflicts engaged

in by the hegemon and conflict overall. It is not necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon

instigates further conflict in the international system. Rather, this military involvement could be a function of the

hegemon’s weaker position, which is the true cause of the higher levels of conflict in the international system.



Additionally, it is important to note that military power is, in the long run, dependent on economic

strength. Thus, it is possible that as hegemons lose relative economic power, other nations

are tempted to challenge them even if their short-term military capabilities are still strong. This would

help explain some of the variation found between the economic and military data. The results of this analysis are of

clear importance beyond the realm of theory. As the debate rages over the role of the United States in the world,

hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the table. What this research makes clear is that a

strong hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system.However, this should not give policymakers a justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for

the sake of international stability. If anything,this research points to the central importance of

economic influence in fostering international stability. To misconstrue these findings to justify

anything else would be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a stabilizing role in the international system, but

this role is complicated. It is economic strength, not military dominance that is the true test of hegemony. A weak

state with a strong military is a paper tiger – it may appear fearsome, but it is vulnerable to even a

short blast of wind.



Cyber Terror

Shutdown causes cyber attacks

Sideman 11 --- (Alysha Sideman is a Federal Computer Week Contributor,

February23, 2011, “Agencies must determine computer security teams in face ofpotential federal shutdown,” http://fcw.com/Articles/2011/02/23/Agencies-

must-determine-computer-security-teams-in-face-of-shutdown.aspx?Page=1) With the WikiLeaks hacks and other threats to cybersecurity present, guarding against

cyberattacks has become a significant part of governing -- especially because most government

agencies have moved to online systems. As a potential government shutdown comes closer,

agencies must face new questions about defining “essential” computer personnel. Cyber threats weren’t as

significant during the 1995 furlough as they are today, reports NextGov. The publication adds that agencies

need to buck up and be organized. In late January, government officials, NATO and the European Union banded together in Brussels

to formulate a plan to battle cyber bandits, according to Defense Systems. Leaders there agreed that existing

cybersecurity measures were incomplete and decided to fast-track a new plan for cyber incident response.

Meanwhile, observers are wondering whether the U.S. government has a plan to deal withcyberattacks in the case of a shutdown. The lists of essential computer security personnel

drawn up 15 years ago are irrelevant today, computer specialists told NextGov. In 1995, the only agencies

concerned about cybersecurity were entities such as the FBI and CIA. Today, before any potential government shutdown happens, a

plan of essential IT personnel should be determined, the specialists add. Agencies should be figuring out which

systems will need daily surveillance and strategic defense, as well as evaluating the job

descriptions of the people operating in those systems, former federal executives told NextGov. Hord Tipton,

a former Interior Department CIO, agrees. “If they haven’t done it, there’s going to be a mad scramble,

and there’s going to be a hole in the system,” he told the site. All government departments are supposed to have

contingency plans on deck that spell out essential systems and the employees associated with them, according to federal rules.

Meanwhile, some experts say determining which IT workers are essential depends more on the

length of the shutdown. Jeffrey Wheatman, a security and privacy analyst with the Gartner research

group, tells NextGov that a shutdown lasting a couple of weeks “would require incidentresponse personnel, network administrators and staff who monitor firewall logs for potential

intrusions.” If a shutdown lasted a month or longer, more employees would need to report, he

said, adding: “New threats could emerge during that time frame, which demands people with

strategy-oriented job functions to devise new lines of defense.” Employees who are deemed “essential”

are critical to national security. Cyber warfare or holes in cybersecurity can threaten a nation’s infrastructure. In

particular, the electric grid, the nation’s military assets, financial sector and telecommunications

networks can be vulnerable in the face of an attack, reports Federal Computer Week.

Cyber power causes great power nuclear war

Fritz 9 --- (Jason Fritz is a Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear

Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant, and has

a master of international relations at Bond University, July 2009, “Hacking

Nuclear Command and Control,”

http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf) This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use

open source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be

compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists’

http://fcw.com/Articles/2011/02/23/Agencies-must-determine-computer-security-teams-in-face-of-shutdown.aspx?Page=1



http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf

http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf





capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If access to command and control centres is obtained,

terrorists could fake or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another,

thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear power. This may be an

easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or

dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide

terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographicaldistance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer

tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing

an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an

inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is

particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals.

All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which

operate on a closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods,

such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded

exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail

spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to

the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on

removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may

also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place

increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such as

autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as

nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial

command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is

evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise

the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch

approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as

Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable toestablish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory

response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership;

however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking

communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the

system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network

operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could

remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear

attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and

the US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response

communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, anddisinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster

relief effort and maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use

of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example,

a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed

Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty

in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out

communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion



of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of

war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false

claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and

foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all

encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be

enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromisingcommand and control centres directly.



***Turns Case***



Turns Everything

Econ decline turns every advantage

Silk 93 (Leonard, Professor of Economics – Pace University, “Dangers of Slow Growth”, Foreign

Affairs, 72(1), Winter, p. 173-174)

In the absence of such shifts of human and capital resources to expanding civilian industries, there are strongeconomic pressures on arms-producing nations to maintain high levels of military production and to sell

weapons, both conventional and dual-use nuclear technology, wherever buyers can be found. Without a

revival of national economies and the global economy, the production and proliferation of

weapons will continue, creating more Iraqs, Yuugoslavias, Somalias and Cambodias - or

worse. Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the fires of nationalist,

ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic hardship is not the only cause of

these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on

economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as

environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine,

AIDS and other plagues. Growth will not solve all those problems by itself But

economic growth -

and growth alone - creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such

fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier

environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.



Turns Poverty

Fiscal irresponsibility effects the poor the most – poverty will increase.

Messmore 5/23/11 the William E. Simon fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The

Heritage Foundation Ryan Messmore, Moral Principles and the Budget Debate,http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/23/moral-principles-and-the-budget-debate/

For example, Ryan noted that if the U.S. government continues to drive up the deficit through reckless

spending, “the weakest will be hit three times over: by rising costs, by drastic cuts to programs

they rely on, and by the collapse of individual support for charities that help the hungry, the

homeless, the sick, refugees and others in need.” The failure of many European nations to

address their financial crises has led to “drastic cuts in benefits to the retired, the sick, the

poor, and millions of public employees.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/23/moral-principles-and-the-budget-debate/





Turns Environment

Economic growth’s a prerequisite to environmental care

Sagoff '97 (Mark, The Atlantic, "Do we consume too much?"

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/consume.htm)

Many have argued that economic activity, affluence, and growth automatically lead to resource

depletion, environmental deterioration, and ecological collapse. Yet greater productivity and

prosperity -- which is what economists mean by growth -- have become prerequisite for

controlling urban pollution and protecting sensitive ecological systems such as rain forests.

Otherwise, destitute people who are unable to acquire food and fuel will create pollution and

destroy forests. Without economic growth, which also correlates with lower fertility, the

environmental and population problems of the South will only get worse. For impoverished

countries facing environmental disaster, economic growth may be the one thing that is

sustainable.

Economic decline turns environmentThe Wildlife Society 09, Making Life: The Wildlife Society Blog, international non-profit scientific

and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and

education, 3/31/9

There is no doubt that a deep recession has the potential to hurt wildlife professionals and the

important work they do. Wildlife management and conservation are not free –salaries must be

paid and project expenses covered. Decreased tax revenues and private and corporate

donations flowing into state and federal agencies, universities, consulting companies and NGOs

could result in widespread personnel reductions, either through layoffs, hiring freezes, or

regular furloughs. In addition, money for critical research and conservation projects could dry

up. All this means fewer people spending fewer hours managing and conserving our preciouswildlife resources. This also means fewer people studying wildlife and fewer projects intended to recover threatened or

endangered species. Should these trends continue or worsen, it will not be good for wildlife. Indeed, wildlife management and conservation activities were seriously

underfunded before the recession began. In addition, fewer qualified students or their families may have the resources to support a relevant college or post-graduate education,

thus making pursuit of a career in wildlife management and conservation difficult, if not impossible. This comes at a time when many baby boomers are seriously contemplating

retirement and up to 70% of leaders in natural resource fields, including the wildlife profession, are slated to retire within the next 10-15 years. The economic downturn may

delay some retirement plans, making it difficult for young wildlife professionals to find jobs. Many could go on to work in other professions as a result. However, baby boomers

cannot delay their decisions forever and must leave their jobs at some point due to age or failing health. Thus, one impact of this poorly timed recession could be a huge

demographic hole in the next generation of wildlife and other natural resource professionals. Hopefully, this will be partially offset by what appears to be an increasing interest

by students in public service and in so-called “green” jobs, of which the wildlife profession is certainly a leading indicator. As far as the impact of the recession on wildlife itself is

concerned, the jury is still out. A significant decrease in rampant, poorly thought-out development could, in fact, be good for wildlife, especially if it results in fewer habitats

being modified, fragmented or destroyed. Such trends could be accelerated by economic concerns, which may finally force people to pay more attention to gas mileage and

other forms of wasteful consumerism that harm the environment.On the other hand, a long recession could also become a

convenient excuse for new and even more destructive waves of construction, energy

development, industrialization and agricultural activity across the landscape, many of which will

be characterized as “necessary” for economic recovery. Without a careful assessment of the

consequences, this could hurt wildlife conservation. In such times, science will become evenmore critical for assessing the potential consequences and making well-considered decisions.



Turns Prolif

Economic collapse turns prolif, but growth solves

Burrows and Windrem 1994 – *NYT journalist, professor of journalism at New York University

and the founder and director of its graduate Science and Environmental Reporting Program,**Senior Research Fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security, former NBC producer (William

and Robert, “Critical Mass: the dangerous race for superweapons in a fragmenting world”, p.

491-2, Google Books)

Economics is in many respects proliferation’s catalyst. As we have noted, economic desperation

drives Russia and some of the former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons and technology.

The possibility of considerable profits or at least balanced international payments also prompts

Third World countries like China, Brazil, and Israel to do the same. Economics, as well as such

related issues as overpopulation, drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives.

Unfortunately, that subject is beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that, all things

being equal, well-off, relatively secure societies like today’s Japan are less likely to buy or sell

superweapon technology than those that are insecure, needy, or desperate. Ultimately, solvingeconomic problems, especially as they are driven by population pressure, is the surest way to

defuse proliferation and enhance true national security.



Turns Relations

Growth solves their impact—interdependence

Griswold 2007 - director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies (4/20, Daniel, “Trade, Democracy

and Peace”, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)

A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more

economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those

nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means

human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that

impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the

economic cost of war.

Economic growth is the basis of strong relations and diplomacy.

Summers 1999-10-28 (Lawrence H., fmr Treasury Secretary, current Director of the White

House's National Economic Council, Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University's

Kennedy School of Government, 27th President of Harvard University, "Economic Engagement:The Risks of Malign Neglect" Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/events/1999/1028global-

economics.aspx)

Let me address the economic part of this argument. The first crucial part of what we have done

for 50 years and need to continue to do is to be a vigorous proponent of support for open-

markets policies. The crucial link between closer economic integration and our national security

is this: We are much less likely as a nation to be drawn into conflict if nations of the world are

strong, confident and forging closer connections than if they are financially unstable and

disconnected. Trade promotes prosperity. And by promoting prosperity, it promotes peace. You

know, if you look at the history of the world's conflicts, a surprisingly high fraction have their

roots in economic issues, whether those economic issues are poor economic performance that is a breeding ground for hostile nationalism or whetherthose conflicts have their roots in rising economic power that feels constrained by closed markets abroad. Think about the roots of World War I in German economic expansion

and the barriers it encountered and the roots of the Second World War in the Pacific. There may never have been so radical a change in the bala nce of global economic power

as there has been in the emerging markets of the world, particularly in Asia, in the last 25 years. That it has taken place without major conflict is in no small part a tribute to

increased integration of the world's economies and support for cooperative institutions to cement that integration. By supporting liberalization in

Asia, we have invested in our future security and in the spread of our core values. Examples such

as Korea -- not just in Asia -- as Korea, Taiwan and Argentina illustrate that economic

development and openness bring democratization in their wake. And there is no better way to

spur this process than by integrating these economies into the global marketplace.



Turns Trade

Economy uniquely turns protectionism

Barfield 2009 – resident scholar at AEI (10/1, Claude, “Protectionism and the Global Economic

Crisis”, http://www.aei.org/article/101169, WEA)

The impact on world trade of recent protectionist tendencies--including increased tariffs, anti-

dumping measures, sector subsidies, and "buy national" provisions--depends on the swiftness of

economic recovery from the current crisis. If the global economy continues to improve,

protectionist government policies will likely fade; however, if the recovery weakens and a

recession returns, the pressures for protectionist measures may mount.

The impact of protectionism--both outright and "murky"--on world trade will be highly

dependent on the future course of the economic crisis. If the "green shoots" of an economic

recovery blossom and bear fruit, then the (thus-far) moderate upsurge of protectionist

government actions is likely to fade; if on the other hand, the world should plunge back into a

"double dip" recession then all bets would be off.

Certainly, the absolute numbers chronicling the world economy from 2007 through 2009 arestark. World output slowed appreciably from 3.5 percent growth in 2007 to 1.7 percent in 2008.

Then, for the first time since World War II, the World Bank predicts that in 2009 world GDP will

decline (2.9 percent in the latest projection). Similarly, a decline in foreign direct investment

flows began in 2008 and is projected to deepen in 2009, dropping some 30 percent in year-over-

year numbers.

Trade figures were no exception to the negative trends. World trade by volume grew 6 percent

in 2007, then by only 2 percent in 2008. For 2009, the projection is for an unprecedented

decline of 11 percent.[1]



Turns Terrorism

Turns terrorism

Schaub 4 (Drew, Professor of Political Science – Penn State University, Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 48(2), April)

Despite the caveats, our analysis suggests important policy implications for the war against

terrorism. National governments should realize that economic globalization is not the cause of,

but a possible partial solution to, transnational terrorism. Although opening up one’s border

facilitates the movement of terrorists and their activities, our results show that the effect of

such facilitation appears weak. It does not precipitate a significant rise in transnational terrorist

attacks within countries. This is an important lesson for policy makers who are designing

antiterrorism policies. More important, economic openness, to the extent that it promotes

economic development, may actually help to reduce indirectly the number of transnational

terrorist incidents inside a country. Closing borders to foreign goods and capital may produce

undesirable effects. Economic closure and autarky can generate more incentives to engage in

transnational terrorist activities by hindering economic development. Antiterrorism policymeasures should be designed with caution. They should not be designed to slow down

economic globalization. Promoting economic development and reducing poverty should be

important components of the global war against terrorism. Such effects are structural and

system-wide. It is in the best interest of the United States not only to develop by itself but

also to help other countries to grow quickly. The effect of economic development on the

number of transnational terrorist incidents is large. The role of economic development

deserves much more attention from policy makers than it currently enjoys.

Economic collapse turns terrorism—only growth solves

Fandl 2004 - Adjunct Law Professor - Washington College of Law (Kevin J., 19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev.

587, Lexis)

In his final speech in the United Kingdom as President of the United States, Bill Clinton stressed:

"we have seen how abject poverty accelerates conflict, how it creates recruits for terrorists and

those who incite ethnic and religious hatred, [and] how it fuels a violent rejection of the

economic and social order on which our future depends." 50 His words carried more significance

than he could have known at that moment. 51 The terrorist networks that have come about in

recent history are a significant threat to world security not only because of the suicidal methods

they employ, but also because of the status of the countries [*598] where these networks

recruit new members, engage in training exercises and where the leadership seeks refuge.

These countries are not equipped politically or economically to design proactive plans to uproot

such organizations in their own countries, despite their expressed efforts to do so. 52 They are

developing countries with weak, or no, democratic political structure with which to coordinate

such efforts. They do not have the resources that European countries, for instance, have in place

to take preventative measures in order to sustain peace. 53 The George W. Bush Administration

indicated that it "is aware of the link between desperate economic circumstances and

terrorism." 54 Yet, rather than working to develop sustainable economies capable of both

directly (through increased political pressure and rule of law programs) and indirectly (through

increased employment opportunities and social stability) eradicating terrorism, President Bush

has chosen to dedicate significant resources to a military conquest against the elusive concept



of terrorism itself. 55 Many Americans and, to a much lesser extent, other Western citizens,

support the view that terrorism can be fought with tanks and [*599] bombs. 56 They obstinately

believe that military technology is capable of uncovering each potentially threatening terrorist

cell and keeping the West safe. 57 This conventional method of warfare, while effective in

pinpointing targets in complete darkness, will be useless in eliminating the ideology that fuels

terrorism. Terrorists are non-conventional actors using non-conventional means through

amorphous concepts that cannot be identified, contained, or labeled. These are actors whose

most potent weapon is the communication of ideas among masses of people awaiting an

opportunity for a better life. Many of us watch in excited anticipation for Osama bin Laden's

capture and/or death. However, we should rest assured that whether he is still alive will have no

bearing on the control that his ideas, and the ideas of those like him, have on the impoverished

and desperate in the Middle East, South Asia, and perhaps beyond. No military technology will

be able to destroy the prevalence and furtherance of those ideas. 58



Turns K impacts

Prosperity and growth are essential to progressive social change.

Nordhaus & Shellenberger, 07

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, Ted & Michael,Managing Directors of American Environics, A social values research and strategy firm 35-37

Just as prosperity tends to bring out the best of human nature, poverty and collapse tend to

bring out the worst. Not only are authoritarian values strongest in situations where our basic

material and security needs aren't being met, they also become stronger in societies

experiencing economic downturns. Economic collapse in Europe after World War I, in Yugoslavia

after the fall of communism, and in Rwanda in the early 1990s triggered an authoritarian reflex

that fed the growth of fascism and violence. The populations in those countries, feeling profoundly insecure at the physiological,

psychological, and cultural levels, embraced authoritarianism and other lower-order materialist values. This is also what occurred in Iraq after the U.S. invasion. This shift away

from fulfillment and toward survival values appears to be occurring in the United States, albeit far more gradually than in places like the former Communist-bloc countries.

Survival values, including fatalism, ecological fatalism, sexism, everyday rage, and the acceptance of violence, are on the rise in the United States. The reasons for America’s

gradual move away from fulfillment and toward survival values are complex. Part of it appears to be driven by increasing economic insecurity. This insecurity has several likely

causes: the globalization of the economy; the absence of a new social contract for things like health care, child care and retirement appropriate for our postindustrial age; and

status competitions driven by rising social inequality. Conservatives tend to believe that all Americans are getting richer while liberals tend to believe that the rich are gettingricher and the poor are getting poorer. In our discussion of security in chapter 7 we argue that what is happening is a little bit of both: homeownership and purchasing power

have indeed been rising, but so have household and consumer debt and the amount of time Americans spend working. While cuts to the social safety net have not pushed

millions of people onto the street, they have fed social insecurity and increased competitio n with the Joneses. It is not just environmentalists who misunderstand the

prosperity-fulfillment connection. In private conversations, meetings and discussions, we often hear progressives lament public apathy and cynicism and make statements such

as “Things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better.” We emphatically disagree. In our view, things have to get better before they can get better. Immiseration

theory—the view that increasing suffering leads to progressive social change—has been repeatedly discredited by history. Progressive social reforms,

from the Civil Rights Act to the Clean Water Act, tend to occur during times of prosperity and

rising expectations—not immiseration and declining expectations. Both the environmental

movement and the civil rights movement emerged as a consequence of rising prosperity . It was the

middle-class, young, and educated black Americans who were on the forefront of the civil rights movement. Poor blacks were active, but the movement was overwhelmingly led

by educated, middle-class intellectuals and community leaders (preachers prominent among them). This was also the case with the white supporters of the civil rights

movement, who tended to be more highly educated and more affluent than the general American population. In short, the civil rights movement

no more emerged because African Americans were suddenly denied their freedom than the

environmental movement emerged because American suddenly started polluting.



Turns Racism

Growth stops racism—we turn and solve the impact

Nordhaus and Shellenberger 2008 – founders of the Break Through Institute, Managing

Directors of American Environics, A social values research and strategy firm (Ted and Michael,Break Through, pages 165-6) *note: emphasis and ellipses are in the original text, not the way I

cut it

In his 2005 book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Benjamin Friedman assembled

an impressive body of evidence showing how, during times of economic growth, people become

more empathic, expansive, and generous toward others, including immigrants, racial minorities,

gays, and women. And he described how we become less generous and more status conscious

during times of rising insecurity, such as the period after 1973.

The impact of this economic stagnation on Americans’ attitudes, and the consequences for

American society, were strikingly similar to the changes that had taken place during the

prolonged agriculture depression of the 1880s and early 1890s, and again during the stop-and-

go decade that followed World War I. Movement toward opening American society, eitherdomestically or with respect to outsiders, mostly slowed or ceased . . . Attitudes among average

citizens now forces to question the security of their own economic position and made even

more anxious for their children’s, became less generous and less tolerant . . . In each case large

numbers of people have come to believe that some hidden, purposeful cabal must be at fault,

and only its defeat can restore the America they love and of which they feel a part. An in each

case as they sought that end, the openness and tolerance of our society, and our commitment

to our democratic ideas, have suffered.26



Turns Structural Violence

Economy turns poverty and structural violence and encourages human rights abuse.

Russia Times 3/22/2009 (Ciaran Walsh, "A recession on human rights?"

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-03-22/A_recession_on_human_rights.html,WEA)

The whole world, to some degree, is feeling the effects of the current global downturn. The fear is, however, that the poor and

disadvantaged will be forced to bear the brunt of the suffering. Governments are making tough decisions in

these difficult times. They have been forced through both external and internal financial factors to make cuts and choices that

ensure economic stability. The danger now, however, is that these economic concerns will take precedence over

human rights issues. Speaking last month, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, appealed to both

governments and the corporate world to ensure that their policies and practices do not jeopardize people's human rights. In an

address to a Special Session of the Human Rights Council, Pillay warned that the downturn in economies around the world was

likely to “undermine access to work, affordability of food and housing, as well as of water, basic

health care and education.” She also urged states to “ensure that domestic policy adjustments, particularly those in fiscal

spending, are not taken at the expense of the poor through cutbacks in basic services and social protection mechanisms.” Read

more The apprehension is shared by other groups and advocates. To compound the problem, the fear is that notonly will new human rights issues be born out of the increased poverty the global downturn will

bring, but we – as nations – will begin to turn a blind eye to the issues that already exist. In the rush to

protect ourselves will we leave those in most need of our help exposed? Turning a blind eye Sir Hugh Cortazzi is a distinguished

academic and author. He is also a former British ambassador to Japan and frequent advocate of human

rights. Speaking from his home in London he described his fear for the future: “I think, as people, we tend to turn a

blind eye to human rights issues when we think something else is more important, that

something could be the economy or the threat of war. I think that is a dangerous situation, it’s under standable

but not desirable. It’s a question of priority. What I’m frightened of is people will say: ‘let’s put human rights on

the backburner.” Cortazzi has already seen this shift in focus away from human rights with the new American administration.

As a former diplomat, he recognises the politics at play: “This was certainly the case when US Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton went to China recently. She gave more time to the theme of China’s economic

situation than she did to the human rights issues there. She could have at least given equal time both –

especially when you consider what is happening in Tibet currently.” David Bachman, China Studies professor at the University of

Washington, says it’s hard to tell from history if economic issues usually take precedence over human rights: “Human rights

were really not an issue for the US governments during the Great Depression and the only other major

recession was ’80-’82. Then, President Regan began with his notion of the ‘Evil Empire’ that minimalised all human rights policies in

almost all respects, except to criticise the Soviet Union. So there’s really not a lot to go on.” However, he does believe that it is

inevitable that the focus will not be on human rights issues: “But yes, the US government is going to pay more attention to domestic

issues and fundamental national security issues than human rights,” he continued. Unable to afford rights Losing the focus on

human rights, should it happen, would be anathema to groups like of Amnesty. They believe their work in drawing attention to

rights abuses and putting pressure on governments to change their behaviour is hard enough without having to battle a global

downturn too. The problem is two-fold. On the international front – as seen with Clinton’s visit to China – the hunger for putting

pressure on countries with tarnished rights records is dissipating. While on the home front, cutbacks in education and health care

are also inevitable. Amnesty’s Noreen Hartigan says: “There is a real risk that the most marginalised will be further disenfranchised

during this recession. There is no system to guarantee social justice in decision-making. We need to challenge the notion that we

cannot afford to deliver on economic and social rights.”



Aff Answers



Non-Unique

Nothing budget related – including continuing resolution – will pass in Congress

nowRocky Mount Telegram, 8/3 – (Associated Press Staff Writer for Rocky Mount Telegram.

August 3, 2013. “Congress earned its low approval rating,”

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/congress-earned-its-low-approval-

rating-2128021)//SDL

When lawmakers return to session in September, they face a myriad of difficult issues. A

continuing resolution to fund government operations must be worked out and approved.

Congress must also vote to raise the debt ceiling or risk sending the government into default. ¶

The fate of just those two measures seems dim, if recent history is to be any guide.¶ House

Republican leaders continue to struggle to forge consensus among their own divided caucus. A

routine spending bill had to be pulled from the floor just blast week because the leadership

feared they could not muster the needed votes from their GOP colleagues.¶ Not only hascompromise proved to be elusive, is has even come to be denigrated among the extreme

factions of the parties. But democracy is first and foremost an exercise in the art of compromise,

and that was how Congress used to function for more than 200 years. But the people in

Washington today seem to prefer playing petty political games over working together for the

good of the country.

Continuing Resolution Negative - DDI 2013 SS

Documents