Obama's Close Race and Preventing War with Iran

Elections DA 1/150
Valley High School Rishi Shah
1NC Shell Obama is leading, but race is very close Reuters, 10/23/12, Obama holds narrow lead two weeks ahead of election, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-usa-campaign-pollidUSBRE89K0A920121023
President Barack Obama pulled slightly ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in a Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on Tuesday, but the race remained essentially tied with two weeks to go until the November 6 election. Obama led Romney among likely voters by a statistically insignificant margin of 1 percentage point, 47 percent to 46 percent. The four-day online tracking poll includes some responses taken after the two candidates' final televised debate, but the full impact will not register for several days. Obama maintains a larger advantage in the state-by-state battle that will determine the outcome of the election. Ipsos projects that Obama holds an edge in the most hotly contested states, including Florida, Virginia and Ohio, and is likely to win by a relatively comfortable margin of 332 electoral votes to 206 electoral votes. The poll has reflected a tight race since shortly after the two candidates met for their first debate on October 3. But a substantial portion of voters remain up for grabs. Roughly 20 percent of those surveyed say they could switch their votes or have not yet made up their minds. [INSERT LINK HERE]
Independents will blame Obama Resurgent Republic 11 (according to a poll by Resurgent Republic, VOTERS BELIEVE AMERICA IS WORSE OFF THAN WHEN OBAMA TOOK
OFFICE 11/8, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/voters-believe-america-is-worse-off-than-when-obama-took-office) Resurgent Republic conducted a survey of 1000 American voters October 30 through November 2, 2011, with full results available here. Following are key highlights pertaining to President Obamas perception among Independent voters: If President Obama's reelection campaign is a referendum on the
incumbent, as are almost all reelection campaigns, then he remains in deep trouble a year out from the election, because Independents believe the country is worse off than when he was inaugurated. Cont Republicans and Independents think Barack Obama and the Democrats control Washington,
while Democrats think Republicans in Congress are in control. In yet another indicator of the low esteem with which Washington is held in the country, each party views the other one as in control. Republicans view Obama and the Democrats as controlling Washington by 67 to 15 percent, while Democrats view Republicans as in control by 55 to 26 percent. Independents split more evenly, but still view Obama/Democrats in control by 39 to 34 percent
And, Swing State Independents hold the key to victory Galston 12 (Walliam A., Ezra Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institutions Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a senior fellow. A former policy advisor
to President Clinton Six Months To Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins 5/10/12 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/10%20obama%20campaign%20galston/Where%20the%20Presidential%20 Contest%20Stands.pdf)KY
Independent voters in the most competitive states may be the quintessential swing group, perhaps holding the key to victory for either Obama or his Republican opponent. Since last fall, their support has shifted toward Obama over his likely Republican opponent Romney, after previously favoring Romney. And it is those independent voters -- particularly women -- who are driving Obama's overall lead in swing states. So while both campaigns will make considerable efforts to make sure their core supporters vote, the other big piece of their strategy would be finding the issues or themes that help win over independents in the states where either candidate has a reasonable chance of
winning..
Obama winning the election is key to prevent Israel strikes on the Iranian nuclear program Hayden 12 (By Tom Hayden 2/19/12 The coming war with Iran Is GOP rhetoric setting the stage for an Israeli attack?
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/coming-war-with-iran/content?oid=5104826 - BRW) Standing in the way, according to the article, is President Barack Obama, whom the Israelis suspect has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them. The same conclusion has been suggested e lsewhere. So the stage is set
for nuclear brinksmanship in an American presidential-election year. The role of Republican candidates is to ensure that the second condition is met, that of tacit support for an Israeli strike, even if forced by political pressure. The balance of forces is lopsided at present, with most Americans worried about Iran and unprepared to resist a sudden outbreak of war, Congressdominated by supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committeeand the media are not prepared to oppose a strike. A short successful wara highly dubious prospectwould be accepted by American public opinion until serious consequences set in afterward. Any public expression of protest against this war is far better than silence, of course. But the greatest
Elections DA 2/150
opportunity for protest may be in the arena of the presidential-election drama now playing out. It is fair and accurate to say both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are collaborating, for political reasons, to push Obama into war during the presidential election, with Rick Santorum on the bench if needed. The New York Times has also now documented, in a front-page story, the millions spent by casino billionaire
Sheldon Adelson and his Israeli wife to save Gingrichs presidential campaign. Ade lson was pleased when Gingrich, seemingly out of nowhere, recently condemned the Palestinians as an invented people. Adelson owns a newpaper chain in Israel supportive of the Netanyahu government and is a vocal opponent of a negotiated settlement. No one in the mainstream media so far has written the story of Romneys past consulting and business partnership
with Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu at Boston Consulting Group, but his campaign rhetoric echoes Netanyahus position, that Obama cant be trusted to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. The Romney and Gingrich campaigns create an unrelenting pressure on Obama to support an attack on Iran with little countervailing pressure. But neither the Republicans nor the Israeli hawks are comfortable being charged with using political pressure to start a war. Santorum, whose Republican ranking is third, is equal to Romney and Gingrich in his hawkish
position toward Iran. Santorum has deep support from right-wing Christian groups who believe that war in the Middle East will hasten the Second Coming.
Avoiding war with Iran may be Obamas best option in policy and politics, if he can navigate the campaign winds. The question is whether any organized force has his back. Iran Israel war causes extinction Hirsch 5 - Professor @ UC San Diego (Jorge, Can a nuclear strike on Iran be averted, November 21st, EMM - BRW)
The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have
been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear. Why a
Nuclear Attack on Iran Is a Bad Idea Now that we have outlined what is very close to happening, let us discuss briefly why everything possible should be done to prevent it. In a worst-case scenario, the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will
storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. In a best-case
scenario, the U.S. will destroy all nuclear, chemical, and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise attack, and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. In the short term, the U.S. will succeed, leaving no Iranian nuclear program, civilian or otherwise. Iran will no longer threaten Israel, a regime change will ensue, and a pro-Western government will emerge. However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are dire. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many
more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth's population many times over.
Elections DA 3/150
2NC Overview
DA outweighs and turns the casea) probability only we explain a coherent scenario for extinction after the US bombs Iran, they will invade Iran. The US will stop them with nuclear weapons, destabilizing the Middle East. Countries like Pakistan will be overtaken, and its nukes will be used, drawing in Russia and Israel. This crosses the nuclear threshold, and nuclear war will escalate until the world is destroyed thats Hirsch. b) Obama will do plan if he wins Levy, 12 (Alon, transportation commentator @ market urbanism and urbanophile, profiled in national review online as transportation expert, 1/25,
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/25/on-infrastructure-hopes-for-progress-this-year-look-glum/
Both the correct strategy and the strategy that the administration seems to be pursuing is to wait until 2013. Obama will probably win reelection, and if Gingrich manages to defeat Romney in the primary, then Obama will win by a considerably margin and probably get enough coattails to obtain a friendly Democratic Congress. In that situation, the Tea Partys influence will drop to close to zero, and a transportation bill that includes nonzero money to local transit and to HSR becomes an option. At this stage even Romney looks vulnerable, but still less so than Gingrich.
I dont think theres much hope coming from the current Congress. Obama probably realizes it.
Elections DA 4/150
Elections DA 5/150
***UNIQUENESS***
Elections DA 6/150
UQ Wall
Obama will win our polls assume the final debate he also has an advantage in the key swing states like Florida, Virginia, and Ohoi this could change because 20% of voters could still potentially change their mindb thats Reuters. Obama will win LGBT support Patrick Range McDonald, Oct. 25 2012, (Staff Writer at LA Weekly, Gays Could Win Presidential Election for Barack Obama, Says Gallup Report
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/10/barack_obama_williams_institute_gays_win_election.php)
and taking a strong pro-gay marriage stand could help President Barack Obama's reelection effort. According to the Gallup Report, with the presidential race running so tight, gays' and lesbians' overwhelming support for Obama could help him edge out Republican candidate Mitt Romney. "When LGBT voters are added to the electorate," a press statement from UCLA's Williams Institute declares, "Obama moves slightly ahead of Romney. These findings suggest that the highly Democratic vote of the LGBT population could be enough to swing a very close election toward Obama." The Gallup Report was conducted by Williams Institute Distinguished Scholar Gary J. Gates and Gallup Editor-in-chief Frank Newport. Their exhaustive
Guess ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" research was based on more than 120,000 interviews of LGBT men and women, the largest such sample ever collected, according to the Williams Institute. They found that 71
percent of LGBT Americans who are registered voters back the re-election of President Obama. Interestingly, 22 percent of LGBTs support Romney. That huge pro-Obama percentage, concludes Gates and Newport, may be the extra push the president needs to win the presidential election. The Gallup Report also points out that LGBTs aren't all bleeding heart liberals. Forty-five
percent of gay individuals consider themselves as "liberal or very liberal." Twenty percent say they are "conservative or very conservative." Thirty-five percent think of themselves as "moderate." "While LGBT voters clearly tilt toward Democratic candidates," Gates says in a press release, "it was clear from the data that the community is not a monolithic political group, and notably, LGBT Americans who express more conservative political preferences share many of the traits common to other Americans with those political views." During his four years in office, President Barack Obama helped push through and signed legislation that ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban that disallowed gays from serving openly in the military. Obama also backed off defending the anti-gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. And Obama stated publicly that he supports legalized gay marriage. It's not far-rea ching to say that Obama has done more to advance the equality of American gays and lesbians than any other president in the history of the United States.
Obama winning debate win, but the outcome could still change Ford 10/19 (Chris, 10/19/12, Chris Ford: Obama win in presidential debate could get him over the line, Voxy, http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/chris-fordobama-win-presidential-debate-could-get-him-over-line/1273/138255) RYS President Obama's
win the US presidential debate could just get him over the line. Why? Apart from one or two flaws, Obama did the business he should have done against Romney two weeks ago. President Obama, like a prize fighter, came out swinging from the get go. He was determined not to make the same mistakes he did two weeks ago when it seemed that he was involved in a love in with Romney as against a political debate with him. The simple maxim of political debates is that while you might find your opponent personally likeable, that doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he or she says. While Obama agreed with Romney on the primacy of the free market (given the more libertarian predispositions of Americans), the Democrat at least set out the key difference between him and his Republican opponent - that government can better facilitate employment, health, education and training opportunities for Americans. The Republicans don't appear to have much of a policy on any of those fronts. In foreign affairs, though, it was more of the same national security consensus that they essentially agreed upon. Of course, the Republicans (who take a comparatively more hawkish line on these issues than Democrats) laid a trap through Romney's challenge to Obama over the lack of security at the US Consulate in Benghazi prior to the September 11 attacks by armed Islamist militants. As many commentators have said (and I agree with them) Obama didn't provide a clear answer and Romney didn't follow it up on attack. However, Romney's weakness and Obama's strength is domestic policy. I noticed (through watching CNN's coverage) that the audience worm (surveying undecided voters reaction) wriggled upwards when Obama talked about wealthy millionaire Romney's low tax payments compared to those made by average Americans. It seems that more Americans are convinced of the need for more progressive income taxes, at least, during this time of economic crisis so that everyone is seen to be paying their fair share. The president also came across well with his defence of Medicare and Medicaid and the need to retain social security payments for older Americans. And, of course, his defence of PBS and Sesame Street against the ravages of Romneyism appeared to be well received. While the American election result is far from decided this year, it seems that
Elections DA 7/150
Obama might have regained some of the edge he lost after the first debate. For America's sake and the world's sake, I hope that this will be the case. Obama will win, but its close thirteen models prove Wilkins 10/18 (Emily, 10/18/12, Infozine, Models Predict Obama Will Barely Win 2012 Election,
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/53475/) RYS
Fluctuating polls arent the only way to predict an election. Thirteen different models published in the October issue of Political Science and Politics (PS) give incumbent President Obama the win but just barely. Washington, D.C. - infoZine - Scripps Howard
Foundation Wire - The forecasts, which show the election to be much closer than the 2004 or 2008 elections, give Obama an average .06 percent lead ahead of Romney. James E. Campbell,
a political science professor at the University of Buffalo, helped select and edit the models for the October issue of PS. Campbell and three other professors who created forecasts spoke Oct. 16 at the National Press Club. Campbell said that despite the attention given to them, small gaffes and trips do not define an election. Its not just Did Mitt Romney say too much? Campbell said. Its not just Did Paul Ryan drink too much at the debate? Those kinds of things arent really important. According to an average of 13 models created by political science professors across the U.S., President Barack Obama will win the election by .06 percent. SHFWire photo by Jory Heckman. This is the third election year the models have been collected into PS. In 2004 and 2008, a majority of the models correctly predicted the elections of George W. Bush and Obama. Obama is leading, but race is very close Reuters 10/16/12, Obama Extends Lead over Mitt Romney:
poll_n_1970745.html
Reuters Poll, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/obama -romney-
U.S. President Barack Obama gained ground on Republican rival Mitt Romney in the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on Tuesday for the third straight day, leading 46 percent to 43 percent. Released hours before the presidential contenders face off for their second debate, the poll showed the number of undecided voters had increased, indicating a drop of support for Romney among the coveted voting bloc. The poll showed that Obama has recovered some ground from his slide after a poor showing in his first presidential debate. After dropping below Romney in the wake of the Oct. 3 debate, Obama regained the lead on Sunday and has increased that by one percentage point each day this week.
Elections DA 8/150
A2: Gallup Poll

Their Gallup poll is wrong Silver 10/18 (Nate, 10/18/12, Gallup vs. the World, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/) JS Our regularly scheduled forecast update for Wednesday slipped through the cracks. The FiveThirtyEight forecast was not much changed based on Wednesdays polls, however, with Barack Obamas chances of winning the Electoral College increasing incrementally to 65.7 percent from 64.8 percent. Well catch up with Thursdays polls with the next update. In the meantime, Im going to focus on one particular survey, the Gallup national tracking poll. The Gallup national tracking poll now shows a very strong lead for Mitt Romney. As of Wednesday, he was ahead by six points among likely voters. Mr. Romneys advantage grew further, to seven points, when Gallup updated its numbers on Thursday afternoon. The Gallup poll is accounted for in the forecast model, along with all other state and national surveys. However, its results are deeply inconsistent with the results that other polling firms are showing in the presidential race, and the Gallup poll has a history of performing very poorly when that is the case. Other national polls show a race that is roughly tied on average, while state polls continue to indicate a narrow advantage of about two points for President Obama in tippingpoint states like Ohio. The forecast has Mr. Obama as a narrow favorite in the election largely on the basis of the state polls. (You can read my thoughts here on the challenge of reconciling state and national poll data.) Our database contains records from 136 distinct pollsters that have released at least one state or national survey at some point in this election cycle. Of those, 53 are active enough to have issued at least one survey since Oct. 1. With so much data to sort through, it will usually be a counterproductive use of ones time to get overly attached to the results of any one particular poll. Whether you look at the relatively simple averaging methods used by Web sites like Real Clear Politics, or the more involved techniques in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, the Gallup national tracking poll constitutes a relatively small part of the polling landscape. Let me walk you through the rules for how the FiveThirtyEight model weighs the Gallup poll relative to all the other information it accounts for. This explanation will be modestly technical you may want to skip ahead to the next section if you arent concerned with these details. The Role of the Gallup Poll in the FiveThirtyEight Model There are two major pieces of information that were looking to extract from each poll. One is simply the raw number who is ahead or behind? The other is the trend it shows in the race which candidate is gaining or losing ground? Different types of polls are relatively more and relatively less useful for these purposes. Because national tracking polls like Gallup are published every day, they are useful for the trend part of the calculation, measuring the change in the race against a constant baseline. Each poll receives a weight in the FiveThirtyEight trend-line calculation based on its sample size and its pollster rating. The model accounts for the fact that tracking polls use an overlapping set of interviews. A three-day tracking poll might consist of interviews conducted on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for instance. When the polling firm issues its next release of the survey, a fresh set of interviews from Thursday will replace the ones from Monday in the sample. Thus, we reduce the weight assigned to each edition of a tracking poll to avoid counting the same interviews multiple times. Even so, there are quite a few interviews conducted by a tracking poll over the course of a week about 3,000 per week in the Gallup national tracking poll, for instance. But Gallup is not the only national tracking poll. There are six published on most days; the others are from Rasmussen Reports, Ipsos, the RAND Corporation, Investors Business Daily and United Press International. (A seventh daily tracking poll, from Public Policy Polling, made its debut on Thursday.) Of the daily tracking polls, the Gallup survey receives the largest weight in the trend-line calculation. It uses a larger sample size than most other polls, and it has a methodology that includes calls to cellphone voters. On the other hand, the pollster ratings are also based in part on past accuracy, and Gallups performance is middling in that department. It mostly gets a lot of weight by comparison, since the tracking surveys are a mediocre group on the whole. The trend-line adjustment also looks at other national polls when they are published, like the New York Times/CBS News or the Wall Street Journal/NBC News surveys. This is a high-quality group of polls; the disadvantage is that they are published only occasionally. State polls are also useful for determining the overall trend in the race. In this case, the advantage is the abundance and diversity of data: there might be 10 or 20 state polls published on a typical day,
Elections DA 9/150
often from 5 or 10 polling firms. The trend-line calculation applies a 50 percent penalty to the weight assigned to state polls because trends in any one state could be an aberration. However, the states generally rise and fall together when there is a shift in the national climate and if one candidate makes an especially large gain in one state, it must necessarily be counterbalanced by others in which it is below average. The relative amount of weight assigned to each type of poll is fluid rather than fixed, and depends on the overall volume of data. On days when a large number of state polls is published but few national ones, they will generally be the more useful source for making inferences about the trend in the race. But on average since Oct. 1, the Gallup national tracking poll has accounted for 12 percent of the information that the model uses to calculate the trend line. The other daily tracking polls, collectively, have accounted for 24 percent of the data, and the occasionally published national polls for 19 percent. Finally, the state polls account for about 45 percent of the data used to calculate the trend-line adjustment.
Elections DA 10/150
A2: Spendng Now

Our uniqueness evidence assumes this spending and still concludes that any new spending will cause congressional backlash thats Ford. Government expenditure unpopular public wants deficit reduction Drake 11 (Bruce Drake, staff to Poll Watch Daily, Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Want Deficit Reduction Plan be a Combination of Budget Cuts & Tax
Increases, Press, 11/18/11, http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/11/18/big-majority-of-americans-want-deficit-reduction-plan-to-be-combination-of-budget-cuts-taxincreases/) NA As Democrats and Republicans on the congressional supercommittee wrangle over to what extent if any tax increases should be part of a deficit reduction plan ,
a new Pew Research Center poll finds more than six-in-ten Americans believe that tax increases as well as cutting major programs should be part of any proposal. Sixty-two percent said a combination of both should be used to tackle the nations debt, while 17 percent preferred a budget-cutting approach and 8 percent favored eliminating red ink with the
help of tax increases.
Elections DA 11/150
A2: Infrastructure Not Key

Extend that although Independents support Obama now, they strongly support the Republican ideal of reducing the budget deficit and government spending. 42% said reducing the budget deficit was the single most effective way of strengthening the economy and 64% said they are worried about the national debt thats Galston. And, extend that the plan costs a lot of money thats _______. None of their alternative causality evidence talks about independent voters. Make them read a piece of evidence which says these alterative causalities will affect the way independent voters vote. Government expenditure unpopular with public and congress Kohut 12 (Andrew Kohut, president of Pew Research Center, Debt and Deficit: A Public Opinion Dilemma, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
6/14/12, http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/14/debt-and-deficit-a-public-opinion-dilemma/) NA The issue of the debt and the deficit and what to do about it has paralyzed Washington lawmakers. But when it comes to measures for reducing the deficit on which they might reach common ground, they will get little help in building support for an agreement by turning to public opinion.
In my years of polling, there has never been an issue such as the deficit on which there has been such a consensus among the public about its importance and such a lack of agreement about acceptable solutions. When the public was asked in March to volunteer the most important problem facing the nation, only unemployment and the economy were cited more often. The deficit has also risen in importance in the public mind when Americans are asked at the beginning of each year what they believe to be the top national priorities for the president and the Congress. The Pew Research Center began measuring national priorities in 1997. Jobs, education, Social Security, Medicare and the budget deficit were at the top of the list then just as they are now, in 2012. The deficit had earlier slipped as a
priority during the last years of the Clinton administration when the budget was in surplus and following the 9/11 attacks when terrorism rose as a priority. Today, however, the budget
deficit stands out as one of the fastest growing priorities for Americans, rising 16 percentage points since 2007 and ranking third with 69% calling it a top priority. Only the economy and jobs, ranking first and second at 86%
and 82% respectively, have registered bigger increases over this period hardly surprising, given the financial meltdown that began in 2008 and whose impact is still being felt today.
Elections DA 12/150
A2: Bush Blamed for Econ

Their evidence is not comparative of the 2012 presidential election candidates. Even if people blame Bush more than Obama for the economy, they still will hold the Obama administration more responsible for dealing with the economy vs. Romney.
The president gets the credit or blame for the economy Greenblatt 11 (Alan, Can A President Really Fix A Bad Economy?, NPR, Nov 16, 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/141762700/can -a-president-reallyfix-a-bad-economy)//KR President Obama's
problem is not unusual. Every president gets the blame when times are bad. "If there's one issue over which a president can lose an election, it's the economy," says Stephen Weatherford, a political scientist at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. Presidents can influence fiscal policy, if they have the support of Congress which Obama lacks at this point. But even when
presidents can persuade Congress to go along, there are limits to how much they can influence the economy as a whole, Weatherford says. They can't force firms to hire workers or banks to lend money, for instance. Nevertheless, presidents always receive either more credit or blame than they deserve for the way things are going. "Expectations are high for the president too high and unrealistically high," says George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. That's a political reality every modern president has understood. "There's such an exaggerated view of what they can do," says presidential historian Robert Dallek. President Taft said that
"people think the presidents can make the grass grow and the skies turn to blue. It's simply out of their reach." Here's a quick survey of how presidents have responded to economic challenges in recent decades. Scroll down to see how three key economic indicators changed during each administration.
Federal Administration is always blamed polls prove The Hill 11 (The Hill, Washington News, Poll: Americans Blame Wall Street for Economic Woes, but Fault Washington More, 10/18/11,
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/188105-poll-americans-blame-wall-street-for-economic-woes-but-fault-washington-more) NA
While Americans blame Wall Street for the country's economic woes, they blame Washington, D.C., more, according to a new poll. The Gallup/USA Today poll found that 64 percent of Americans blame the weak economy more on the federal government , while 30 percent blame major financial institutions over the federal government. More specifically, 78 percent of Americans say that Wall Street deserves "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of blame for the poor economy, and 87 percent say Washington either deserves "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of the blame
Elections DA 13/150
A2: Uniqueness O/Ws Link

Our evidence specifically indicates that Obamas current lead can be overcome 20% of voters could still potentially change their mind thats 1NC Reuters Obama is Winning Now but the Plan Triggers a Spending Link Which is Big Enough to Stop Obama Winning. Make Them Read Specific Evidence About Why Passing Their Aff Would Not Upset Obamas Lead in the Elections.
Elections DA 14/150
Elections DA 15/150
***LINK***
Elections DA 16/150
1NC Generic
Republicans in Congress oppose infrastructure spending, plan not likely to pass Thoma, Mark, 8/28/12, macroeconomist and time-series econometrician at the University of Oregon, Republicans: We Wont Build That, The Fiscal Times,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/08/28/ Republicans-We-Wont-Build-That.aspx#page1 We will also hear claims that, despite growing evidence to the contrary, the fiscal stimulus didnt work. Criticism about the government debt will surely follow, and it will be clear that theres
no room in Republican plans for infrastructure or debt relief programs to speed the recovery. If theres any policy Republicans ought to be able to support, its infrastructure spending. Its inherently a supply-side policy, it helps to promote future economic growth, and its an investment with large, positive net benefits. But Republicans see a we wont build that approach to infrastructure spending, an approach that is harmful to our prospects for recovery and to our prospects for future economic growth, as a way to reclaim the presidency.
Elections DA 17/150
2NC Generic
Transportation is unpopulara) key symbolism Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9
"I think that transparency is a good thing.
(5/18)
Some of the biggest abuses in the process [in the past] were transportation projects," infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a $223 million earmark in the last highway bill for a project in Alaska that came to symbolize wasteful pork barrel spending.
said Mr. Altmire, D-McCandless, citing the
b) most visible earmarking Natter, 8 (Ari, Columnist @ Bloomberg news, Ranking Member Transportation Committee, Pacific Shipper, 11/3, lexis)
Perhaps more than any national campaign in recent history, the major candidates have staked out very clear and decidedly different stances on
transportation infrastructure investment. McCain has made criticism of earmarks something of a crusade in his campaign, and says he wants
to send more decisions on spending priorities to the states. "I believe that a higher share of the taxes collected at the gas pump should go back to the state where those taxes were paid," the Arizona Republican told the American Automobile Association in an interview with AAA newsletter, "and I've co-sponsored legislation that would allow states to keep almost all of their gas tax revenues for their own transportation projects without interference from Washington." "We've got a problem," Mortimer Downey, a former deputy secretary of transportation in the Clinton administration and an adviser to the Obama campaign, told a public forum in Washington last week on transportation policy. "Infrastructure needs more investment. It is important, it is crumbling, and other countries are doing more than we are. We've got national issues we need to deal with, and transportation is the critical tool for doing that." He said the Obama camp has "a vision" for the next highway bill. "It should be a much better bill than the last couple. It shouldn't have so many earmarks in it," Downey said. At the same forum, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to the McCain campaign, said the spending priorities are critical. "There is no area where earmarking has been more visible than in highway bills. We have to get more bang for the buck." James Burnley, a former DOT secretary under two Republican presidents who also has advised the McCain campaign, said in an interview that if McCain is elected, "You will have two additional issues; one, he has said he is against increasing any taxes; second, he is deadly serious when he says he is not going to accept earmarks, so I think you would have the ultimate historic constitutional clash about the earmarking issue." Downey notes the earmark approach "is going to be a very tough diet to get off of," and comments from transportation backers in Congress suggest just how strong the opposition to a McCain plan would be. "If John McCain wants to say earmarks to build bridges on the I-5 so trucks don't have to detour across the Cascade Mountains are pork, well then he's an idiot," Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said at an American Road and Transportation Builders Association conference in September. "If John McCain is elected, we are going to have a diminutive surface transportation bill," DeFazio said last month. "McCain's resident fellow at the Urban Land Institute.
attitude on infrastructure is like that of the public's, that it's just a bunch of boondoggle pork barrel bridges to nowhere ," said Robert Dunphy, a senior Its not just the GOP base fiscal discipline concerns massively outweigh transportation for dem and independent voters Pew, 11 (Pew Research Center, 1/20, http://www.people-press.org/2011/01/20/about-the-surveys/) Reducing the budget deficit, or national debt, rated as a top policy priority during the 1990s, declined in importance in the early part of this decade, and has made a comeback in recent years. In January 2002, four months after the 9/11 attacks, just 35% said that reducing the budget deficit should be a top policy priority for President Bush and Congress. By the beginning of Bushs second term, in January 2005, 56% said that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority. In January 2009, shortly before Obama took office, 53% rated the deficit as a top priority. That increased to 60% last year and 64% in the new survey. Currently, about as many rate the deficit as a top priority as did so in December 1994 (65%), at
the end of Bill Clintons second year in office. Deficit an Out -of-Power Concern? Typically, members of the party that does not hold the White House view reducing the deficit as a more important priority than do members of the presidents party. This pattern was particularly evident duri ng the Bush administration. From 2002 to 2008, substantially more Democrats than Republicans rated reducing the budget deficit as a top priority. On several occasions during the Clinton administration, more Republicans than Democrats said that reducing the deficit or paying off the national debt was a top priority. In
the new survey, 68% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats see reducing the budget deficit as a top policy priority (this difference is not
statistically significant). While deficit reduction ranks fifth among Republicans, it is the 9th-ranking priority for Democrats. Crime Declines as Public Priority With declining crime rates, the proportion saying that reducing crime should be a top national priority has fallen dramatically. The percentage rating crime as a major priority fell nearly 30 points from 76% to 47% between 2001 and 2003. But these percentages subsequently increased to 53% in 2004 and 2005, and 62% in 2006 and 2007. Since January 2007, the proportion saying that crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress has fallen by 18 points to 44%. Compared with a decade ago, there has been an across-the-board decline in the percentage viewing crime as a major priority. However, as was the case in 2001, poor people and lesseducated people are far more likely to rate crime as a top policy priority than are better educated and more affluent people. More than half of those with no more than a high school education (58%) and those with family incomes of less than $30,000 (54%) say that reducing crime should be a top priority. That compares with just 27% of college graduates and an identical percentage of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more. Notably, these gaps were about as wide in 2001, when overall concern over crime was much greater. Persistent Partisan Differences over Priorities Roughly four-in-ten Democrats (41%) say that dealing with global warming should be a top priority for the president and Congress, compared with 29% of independents and just 10% of Republicans. The wide partisan gap over the importance of
Elections DA 18/150
dealing with global warming is not new it was approximately as large in 2010 and 2009. Democrats also are far more likely to view reducing health care costs (28point partisan gap), dealing with the problems of the poor (26 points), protecting the environment (24 points), and improving the educational system (23 points) as top
Improving the nations roads, bridges, and transportation does not rank as a particularly high priority for Democrats, Republicans or independents. Still, Democrats are more likely to see this as important (41% top priority vs. 30% of independents, 26% of Republicans. This is the case for dealing with
priorities than are Republicans. These differences also are in line with previous policy priority surveys. obesity as well.
Funding collapses theoretical support becomes key election issue regardless of how its paid for Berstein Research, 12 (Sanford C. Bernstein is widely recognized as Wall Streets premier sell-side research firm. Our research is sought out by leading
investment managers around the world, and we are annually ranked at the very top of acknowledged arbiters. In independent surveys of major institutional clients, Bernstein's research is ranked #1 for overall quality, industry knowledge, most trusted, best detailed financial analysis, major company studies, most useful valuation frameworks, best original research, and most willing to challenge management. In Institutional Investors 2010 annual client survey, the le ading survey by which analysts in our industry are evaluated, 100% of our U.S. Analysts were recognized as among the best in their respective fields -- more than any other firm on Wall Street, 2/3, http://www.fraternalalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Washington-Research-2012-Preview-Transportation-Funding.pdf) Expected passage of a long-term aviation financing bill next week gives ground transportation advocates cause for hope, but that's likely a red-herring. The
politics surrounding how to pay for infrastructure financing simply remain too hot to handle in an election year . President Obama has run away from any discussion of increasing the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax, while Republicans won't support a tax increase of any kind to pay for new spending, even if some groups are willing to pay additional taxes. Those views are generally consistent with a voting public that wants to spend more on transportation infrastructure but does not want to foot the bill out of their own wallets.
Elections DA 19/150
1NC Airports
The public hates airport upgrades Stark 4-20 (John, 4-20-2012, Bellingham airport neighbors raise noise complaints, THE BELLINGHAM HERALD,
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/04/19/2115130/bellingham-airport-neighbors-raise.html) //AS BELLINGHAM - Some neighbors of Bellingham International Airport are complaining that the rapid
growth in commercial air service is
coming at their expense. "Four years ago I hardly noticed an airplane," said Pamela Cady, who lives off Northwest Road about three miles north of the end of the main runway. "Now, planes are cranking quite low over our homes. ... I would never have bought (a home) there had I known that all these airplanes were going to be flying overhead." Cady was one of several people who raised noise issues at a Thursday, April 19, public information session on the process of updating the airport's master plan. Future construction projects must be
included in the master plan if they are to be eligible for Federal Aviation Administration grants.
Elections DA 20/150
2NC Airports
Obama gets credit and swings key election districts general turns dont apply because aviation infrastructure is uniquely popular Bilotkach, 10 Volodymyr, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, October, http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~vbilotka/Draft_September10.pdf
(the october date is correct even though the web address says September) The literature suggests three possible sources of political influence: the White House (President), the US Senate, and the Congressional Committees. We hypothesize that the impact of the White House should be the strongest in this particular case recall that passing the economic stimulus legislation was one of Barack Obamas priorities as a candidate. As for hypotheses related to the impact of the White House, we can suppose th at ARRA grants might have been used to reward districts which showed support to Obama, as evidenced by the election results. An alternative explanation grants
could be used to sway voters in the districts where support for Obama was not sufficiently strong is less plausible, as the grants have been appropriated
after the election and almost four years before the next Presidential election is scheduled to take place. Cont Conclusion about impact of the White House on the grant allocation process stems primarily from the Tobit regression results. These show positive association between the district level Presidential election results and the amount of funds allocated to the airport. We have suggested that such association is consistent with rewarding districts for their contribution to the election outcome. Recall that elsewhere in the literature impact of the White House on allocation of federal funds has been detected by Garrett and Sobel (2003). Note we have checked for the existence of separate effects for the districts in which Obama won, or districts with small Obama-McCain vote differential, and did not find any. We of course need to note that the association between the airport infrastructure grants and the Presidential election results does break
rewards have been targeted to the specific districts. Moreover, study of aviation related infrastructure offers an attractive environment for examining the more general issue of political factors behind the allocation of federal funds. Airports and airfields are ubiquitous, unlike, for instance, tornadoes or corn fields. Also, airports are generally viewed favorably by the public, unlike some other kinds of federally provided infrastructure (e.g., prisons). For this study, we make use of information on the airport infrastructure grants, appropriated under the ARRA of 2009.
down once we factor in adjacent districts; however, such a result does not necessarily weaken our conclusion, it only shows We supplement this data with airport characteristics, simple demographic measures, congressional district level results of November 2008 election (both Presidential and House), and Senate election results. Data analysis suggests the following general conclusions about the supposed impact of political factors on allocation of ARRA airport infrastructure grants. First, results of the presidential election appear to affect the amounts of grants, but do not have an impact on whether the airport receives the grant. Second, controlling for the State level composition of the Senate, we find that airports located in the States carried by a Republican at the latest Senate election show higher likelihood of obtaining the grant; the amounts involved are also higher. At the same time, airports located in States represented by two Democratic Party senators are also more likely to obtain the grants, other things equal. Third, we do not find strong evidence of impact of the House of Representatives election results or membership in Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Throughout the world, regulators have been reconsidering the role of the airports. Also, our understanding of the determinants of public infrastructure investment, and especially of the role of political factors, is far from complete. This study is one of the first attempts at looking into both issues together. We find that political factors matter. The next issue to be addressed and the one which will require a more thorough investigation of these political factors is what our results imply for such important public policy issues as airport regulation, privatization, and congestion.
Airport infrastructure investment boosts president in key swing states perception of mass benefits Bilotkach, 10 Volodymyr, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, October, http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~vbilotka/Draft_September10.pdf
(the october date is correct even though the web address says September)
The federal government plays a crucial role in the infrastructure investment in the U nited S tates, including allocation of funds to the airports. Given that airports are perceived to bring substantial benefits to the respective communities, federally funded airport infrastructure projects are both sought after, welcomed, and should be beneficial to the politicians capable of securing the funds. Complicated structure of the American political system creates possibilities for strong influence of political factors on the process of allocation of infrastructure investment funds. Understanding the role of politics in this area is of no trivial importance, as currently perception of the airports role is being revised. An increasing number of countries have started
viewing airports as the firms rather than the infrastructure objects. Privatization and deregulation of the airports is also becoming more common. It is believed that involvement of the private sector will bring about efficiency gains, and that privately run airports may be more willing and able to contribute to solving the congestion problem. This
study offers the first look at the issue of impact of political factors on the aviation infrastructure
investment in the USA. We take advantage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (more broadly known as the Stimulus) to examine
contribution of political factors to allocation of the $1.1 billion worth of the airport grants included into the package. The Stimulus provides an excellent case for studying political economy of airport (and more generally, infrastructure) investment, at least as far as involvement of the federal government is concerned. The law was set up rather hastily Barack Obama was elected President in November of 2008, inaugurated on January 20, 2009, and ARRA became law on February 17, 2009. The criteria for the airport infrastructure projects to be funded under the ARRA were rather vague 2 . We can therefore suspect that the airport infrastructure grants could have been used by the Administration, or the Congress as a mechanism to reward districts which brought more votes in the latest election. Additionally, members of the corresponding Congress Committees (in particular, of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) might have used ARRA as an opportunity to bring more money to their districts. Empirical research on the impact of politics on transport infrastructure investment deals mostly with the European data. The studies examining US evidence are rare, and include McFadden (1976) and Knight (2004). The former study looks at determinants of highway project selection by the California Division of Highways, while the latter examines congressional voting on transportation projects. Our data analysis showed the association between the airports location in the Congressional District with the larger Obama -McCain vote differential in November 2008 Presidential election, and the amount of the ARRA grant received by the airport. At the same time, district level election results are poor predictors of whether the airport receives the grant; and estimation results are not entirely robust to taking election results from the adjacent districts into consideration. We also detect rather robust evidence of the impact of Senate on the grant allocation process. This paper contributes to two broad strains of literature. First, we extend the literature on public provision of infrastructure. Research in this area has been addressing the issues of both effects of the publicly provided infrastructure on private sector productivity, and the determinants of the infrastructure investment.
Elections DA 21/150
The former literature (e.g., Aschauer, 1989; Holz-Eakin, 1994) is much richer than the latter. Studies of the determinants of public infrastructure investment include Cadot et al. (2006), Castells and Sole-Olle (2005), Kemmerling and Stephan (2002, 2008), Fridstrom and Elvik (1997), Bel and Fageda (2009). All the listed papers study infrastructure investment in Europe, and the latter has the most relevance to our paper, as it examines (and confirms the existence of) the impact of political factors on airport investment in Spain. On the US side, we find a lot of studies asserting the disproportionate power of the Senate 3 (e.g., Hoover and Pecorino, 2005) and Congressional Committees (e.g., Garrett et al., 2006) in allocation of the federal funds across the jurisdictions. Garrett and Sobel (2003) find that states
which are politically important to the president will have a higher rate of the disaster declaration; the authors also find the election year effects
on the amounts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster payments. The only studies of political determinants of transport infrastructure investment in the US are McFadden (1976) an examination of project choices by California Division of Highways, finding limited impact of political determinants on the selection process; as well as Knight (2004), asserting that congressmen respond to common pool incentives when voting for transportation projects.
Elections DA 22/150
1NC Bering Strait

Bering Strait project would be political death for American politicans due to ties to Reverend Moon, crazy cult leader dude Schoifet, Mark, 9/4/12, Sun Myung Moon, Church Head Who Ran Business Empire, Dead at 92, San Francisco Gate,
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Sun-Myung-Moon-Church-Head-Who-Ran-Business-3838146.php#page-3
Concern about Moons organization increased after November 1978, when more than 900 followers of the Reverend Jim Jones, the leader of the Peoples Temple cult in Guyana, died after drinking cyanidelaced fruit punch. The controversy over Moons practices died down after the 1980s as membership waned and he focused on his business interests outside the U.S., such as a newspaper in Argentina and an estimated 1.7 million acres of real estate in Brazil and Paraguay. He built a compound in Uruguay. He grew increasingly disillusioned with the U.S., calling it a Hell on Earth that was heading for destruction. In later years, he focused on one of his pet projects: a proposal to build a $200 billion tunnel under the Bering Strait to connect North America with Asia.
Elections DA 23/150
2NC Bering Strait

Bering Strait Tunnel would cost lots of capital. Barry, 11 [Mark, Senior Fellow for Public Policy, Summit Council for World Peace, 10-4-2011, Universal Peace Federation,
http://www.upf.org/programs/bering-strait-project/4017-mp-barry-advancing-the-bering-strait-tunnel-project-in-the-united-states-and-canada] For international and strategic reasons, a sustained
lobbying effort in Washington, DC, and Ottawa eventually will be necessary, but at present any effort in either capital would probably not make much difference. Promoting critical components of a Bering Strait crossing, such as an Alaska Canada Rail Link, will have to be a private sector-led effort, and the farther away from the Pacific Northwest you are, the less awareness and interest there is in this railroad. An ACRL will have to first garner widespread support from Alaska, Yukon, and Alberta, which in the long run will be much more effective. A high profile and costly Washington, DC, lobbying office is not relevant or needed at this stage. Congress will move only when the private interests are on board and jobs are quantified. This support will only happen from the ground up -- from Alaska to Washington, DC (and from western
Canada to Ottawa), and not the other way around. Regional support, in both the private and public sectors, for an ACRL must be very strong over a sustained period in order to get Congresss attention.
The plan would be unpopular with the public and Congressthey dont trust Russia
THE REGISTER 2011 (Kremlin Green lights Alaska-Siberia Tunnel, Aug 24, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/24/siberia_alaska_tunnel/) Alaskans and residents of the other 49 states and Canada's 10 provinces and three may need some convincing. The goal of the railway, after all, wouldn't be merely to offer sub-zero tourism, but to open up trade routes through which Siberia's immense cache of raw materials could flow to the US. But seeing as how the Russian Bear has used and likely will use again its trade powers to press its influence on countries to its west, Canadian and US leaders might not be keen on developing a dependency on its neighbor across the Bering Strait.
This time out, however, the Kremlin appears to be serious although territories
Elections DA 24/150
1NC CCS
Public opposes Stephenson 8 - Director, Natural Resources and Environment
@ GAO Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.item s/d081080.pdf
Thus far at least, there has been little public opposition to the CO2 injections that have taken place in states such as Texas to enhance oil recovery. However, several notable studies explain that this lack of publicly-expressed concern may reflect more a lack of knowledge about CCS rather than confidence that the process is safe. 56 This is suggested in the IPCCs 2005 report on CCS
which stated, for example, that there is insufficient public knowledge of climate change issues and of the various mitigation options and their potential impact. In another 2005 study, researchers surveyed 1,200 people, representing a general population sample of the United States, and found that that less than 4 percent of the respondents were familiar with the terms carbon dioxide capture and storage or carbon storage. Some of the stakeholders we interviewed explained that public
opposition could indeed grow when CCS extends beyond the relatively small projects used to enhance oil and gas recovery, to include much larger CO2 sequestration projects located in more populated areas. One noted, in particular, that a lack of education about CCSs safety could potentially create confusion and fear when commercial-scale CCS is implemented.
Elections DA 25/150
2NC CCS
Plan faces public opposition Amann 10 Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts (Rachel Amann, December 31, 2010, A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the
Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Com pact Commission, http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)//DR. H In addition to the purity issue and the EPA actions on CO2, there
also are political issues associated with the development of the CO2 infrastructure. Whether CO2 is treated as a commodity, pollutant, or transport resource to be managed, the likelihood of public opposition to pipeline transport is high , just as with other resource infrastructure.
Elections DA 26/150
1NC Dredging
Port dredging projects are in political limbo, unpopular Schwartz, John, 8/21/12, Panama Canals Growth Prompts US Ports to Expand, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/us-ports-seekto-lure-big-ships-after-panama-canal-expands.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www
To Robert Puentes, a transportation expert at the Brookings Institution, the problem of whether the ports are overbuilding for a Panama payoff is one of planning. We are the only industrialized country on the planet that doesnt have a comprehensive freight policy, he said. As for port development, he said, I cant see the federal government picking winners and losers in such a politically charged environment, but they could provide a little more guidance where right now they are providing none.
Elections DA 27/150
1NC EV
Electric Cars Unpopular-Free Market proves TimesFreePress.com 12-Chatanooga Times Free Press, March 19th, 2012, (GMs Suspension Of Chevrolet Volt Production a rebuke of federal subsidies,
accessed at http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/19/time-to-end-failed-subsidies/, accessed on 7/19/12)
The free market has provided a symbol of how unpopular electric cars are despite subsidies the government showers on them to promote their development and purchase. Washington uses your tax dollars to give $7,500 tax credits to people who buy certain electric-powered vehicles. The state of Tennessee unwisely offers a $2,500 credit as well. But despite the government's defraying the cost of the cars, the public simply doesn't want them.
Elections DA 28/150
1NC Gas Tax

The highway trust fund does not have public support rural areas hate it Kredell 12 Writer for USC News (Matthew, University of Southern California News, Transit Policy Is Pivotal on Road to the White House,
7/19/12, http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/33401/transit-policy-is-pivotal-on-road-to-the-white-house/) The problem with that is that next year the highway trust fund is going to be officially bankrupt, Schweitzer said. We cant keep passing these extensions. More permanent solutions include raising the federal gas tax; focusing on user fees, fares, tolls and ticket sales rather than taxes; creating a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to fund public-work
The first two options do not go over well with voters. In my opinion, the conversation is much better now than it was a decade ago, Rhoads said of spreading user fees. Its there but its just highly unpopular among voters, so theres not many leaders [who will put it] on their agenda. There are a lot of people, particularly the ones who live in rural areas, who dont understand why they should be paying for rail in Dallas and would like to see the federal gas tax eliminated. As a donor state that contributes more gas tax to the feds than it gets back, California would be
endeavors; and reducing the federal transit role or eliminating it all together and make it a local issue. better off by turning that 18.4 cents per gallon into a state tax.
Elections DA 29/150
2NC Gas Tax

Public hates it obsessive penny-pinching. Kimberlin, 12 (Joanne, Tolls turmoil raises questions about Va. gas tax, The Virginian-Pilot, the FHA, March 18, 2012,
(http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/tolls-turmoil-raises-questions-about-va-gas-tax)//AS
Tax hikes are rarely popular, but the gasoline tax is particularly untouchable , especially when pump prices are climbing on their own. Elections can flip at the cost of a fill-up, an expense that's not only unavoidable, but impossible to ignore. Giant signs flash the going rate outside every gas station. It all makes us hyper-aware, said Carl Davis, a senior analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "If bananas go up a penny or two, people don't notice," Davis said, "but they'll drive around - sometimes obsessively - trying to save that much on gas." The mindset is reflected across the country. The average state hasn't raised its gas tax in over a decade, and 14 have gone twice that long, leaving a wake of busted road budgets,
rusting bridges, crippling congestion and an ever-increasing reliance on tolls to foot the bills.
Elections DA 30/150
1NC Highways
Highway/Surface Transportation Funding Uniquely unpopular public has lost all confidence A.G.C. 11 (THE CASE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE & REFORM: Why and How the Federal Government Should Continue to Fund Vital Infrastructure in the
New Age of Public Austerity THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA AGCs Case for Infrastructure & Reform in based in large part on comments from leaders, including those who participated in a March 2, 2011 panel discussion hosted by the association and The Weekly Standard, including Reason Foundations Robert Poole, Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton, Oklahoma Congressman James Lankford and the U.S. Chamber of Commerces Bruce Josten. May 19th http://www.agc.org/galleries/news/Case-for-Infrastructure-Reform.pdf)
Just because our federal infrastructure investments have delivered tremendous national benefits, that doesnt mean many current
federal infrastructure programs arent in need of a change. On the contrary, there is little doubt that our current federal approach to investing in infrastructure is flawed. Indeed, many of those flaws
undermine and devalue federal infrastructure investments, helping reinforce public skepticism in the governments ability to efficiently and effectively meet basic needs. Nowhere are those flaws more glaringly apparent than with our current approach to surface transportation funding. The once-focused federal program that was the envy of the world for building the Interstate Highway System has fallen out of favor with the public and many policy analysts. Yet since
the completion of the original Interstate Highway System, there has been no clear role or
Elections DA 31/150
1NC HSR
HSR Unpopular Reason 11 (Poll Finds Support for Toll Roads,Public-Private Partnerships, Reason Foundation, December 20, 2011, http://reason.org/news/printer/poll-findssupport-for-toll-roads-p)//AS
In terms of transportation spending priorities, 62 percent want to prioritize funding for road and highway projects, while 30 percent want to prioritize funding for mass transit projects. As the debate over high-speed rail continues in California and elsewhere, a solid majority of Americans, 55 percent, say the private sector should build high-speed train systems where it thinks riders will pay to use rail. Just 35 percent of Americans believe federal and state governments should build high-speed rail systems where they think
the trains are needed.
Elections DA 32/150
2NC HSR
HSR is unpopular because of budgetary reasons Koenig 6/7 (Brian, 6/7/12, California Voters Turn on High-Speed Rail Project, The New American,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11646-california-voters-turn-on-high-speed-rail-project) RS
After enduring a series of financial and logistical hiccups, Californias landmark high-speed rail project has become increasingly unpopular among voters, as the projects enormous price tag continues to inflate and as the states budgetary woes grow more severe. Without a concrete plan for funding, supporters of the states high-speed rail project pitched a revised proposal in April to lawmakers and the general public. Due to severe budget constraints, the updated plan narrowed the scope of the project while speeding up construction to save money. Furthermore, about $1 billion in voter-approved bonds will be available to revamp
existing tracks, which will purportedly make rail service more efficient and potentially bring in more customers. In a previous article, The New American reported on the revised proposal: The newly minted plan expedites completion of the first true U.S. high-speed rail system, moving it to 2028, trimming the project timeline by five years and shaving $30 billion off the original budget drafted last year by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In 2008, when residents first voted to authorize the bonds, they were told the overall cost of the project would be $45 billion and four years later, the total became $98 billion. The new proposal has reduced that number to $68.4 billion, still $23.4 billion more than the original total. However, despite
the purported cost savings, the rail system still relies heavily on shaky federal funding and speculative private-sector investments. "We've seen numbers in the $30 billion, $40 billion, the $90 billion range, and now we're back in the $60 billion range," Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) said at the time. "I think there is understandably both some confusion and skepticism about what is the system going to cost, and then there's the question of where is the money going to come from?" Due to such uncertainty, voters in the state are turning on the project, as a new poll conducted by USC-Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times found that 55 percent of California voters want the $9-billion bond issue which was approved in 2008 to fund early stages of the rail system back on the ballot. And a startling 59 percent affirmed that they now would vote against it. While labor unions have been staunch supporters of the project, a sizable 56 percent of union households now oppose the funding plan, the poll added. Even Democrats, the projects most prominent supporters, have become skeptical, as 47 percent now reject the bond issue. The Times explained that revenue projections and overall use of the high-speed rail are also in question: The poll found that most voters don't expect to use it. Sixty-nine percent said they would never or hardly ever ride it. Zero percent said they would use it more than once a week. Public opinion surveys cannot predict the
revenues and ridership a rail service might generate. The poll results raise questions about whether the system would serve as a robust commuter network, allowing people to live in small towns and work in big cities or vice versa. On the other hand, 33% of respondents said they would prefer a bullet train over an airplane or car on
states economic condition has become bleaker, and many initial promises about the rail line have been altogether abandoned. The estimated cost has nearly doubled, and it is now scheduled to share track with freight trains and slower commuter trains in certain areas, which will severely hamper the very intent that is, speedy and efficient transportation of the project. Moreover, agriculture groups and freight rail lines have warned that the routes would compromise their interests; schools, businesses, and homeowners have also voiced their concerns over the project. Last Friday, farm groups filed an environmental lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, requesting a preliminary injunction to halt rail construction. This suit has been added to a growing list of other filings, and more agricultural interests are threatening suits as well. "We think a preliminary injunction against construction will occur because there were so many violations in the authority's environmental impact report," stated Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau. California voters have clearly reconsidered their support for high-speed rail, said Dan Schnur, who directed the USC Dornsife/Times Poll. They want the chance to vote again and they want to vote no. The growing budget deficit is making Californians hesitant about spending so much money on a project like this one when theyre seeing cuts to public education and law enforcement. The public has become even more skeptical of the high-speed rail line as Gov. Jerry Brown has threatened severe cuts in education spending among other public programs due to the states expanding budget gap. "The growing budget deficit is making Californians hesitant about spending so much money on a project like this one when they're seeing cuts to public education and law enforcement," Schnur noted. "But they also seem to be wary as to whether state government can run a big speed rail system effectively."
trips between L.A. and the Bay Area. Since voters approved the $9-billion borrowing scheme, the
Elections DA 33/150
1NC Marine Highways

Marine Waterways political nightmare tanks capital Meyers, 12 staff writer for Politico (Jessica Meyers, Federal marine highways project hard to launch, Politico, 5/22/12,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76633.html | AK)
Mention Americas highways and notice the nods. Talk about its marine highways and watch the blank stares. A Department of Transportation initiative intended to promote the countrys water routes has failed to make substantial inroads despite a 2007 federal law, escalating highway congestion and a push for greener transport. These
river and coastal corridors, known as marine highways or short-sea shipping, thrive in Europe and exist in a handful of U.S. regions. Theyre billed as the future a cheaper and more fuel-efficient option for an overburdened transportation system. But marine
highways remain more a political talking point than an industry reality. Trucks and railroads maintain the upper hand on speed. Waterways have less experience carrying container goods than bulk cargo. And companies remain leery of an uncertain market filled with tax hurdles and ship shortages. Without greater demand, the water road concept wont float. Its a chicken-and-egg type of thing, said Sean Connaughton, a former DOT maritime administrator who created the departments Americas Marine Highway Program. Shippers wont commit until theres reliable service, but you cant have that until shippers commit. To do that, the industry needs an almost mythical nexus of federal incentives, public recognition and state support. Connaughton, now Virginias secretary of transportation, told POLITICO that the federal DOTs marine highway push languished partly because it coincided with the economic downturn. Transportation funding disappeared for paved roads, much less a quiet transportation mode still trying to prove its worth. The bottom line, he said, is freight doesnt vote. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has designated 18 marine highway
corridors in recent years and directed more than $110 million toward marine highway projects. The agency backs the Marine Highways Cooperative, a public-private partnership dedicated to developing the countrys 25,000 miles of water routes. The Obama administration is committed to inv esting in innovative marine transportation services along Americas coast and waterways, in order to relieve c ongestion on our roadways, make our transportation system greener and develop the vast unused capacity on our waterways, said DOT spokesman Justin Nisly. Not all Democratic lawmakers agree. I personally dont think it has happened as well as it should, Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), ranking member of the House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, told POLITICO. This administration has yet to request any funding goals for a marine transportation system. We still have a ways to go. Maritime groups point to the elimination of a so-called double tax as the place to start. All cargo that comes into the country is subject to a harbor maintenance tax. But shippers have to pay an additional tax if goods are off-loaded in one location and shipped to a second port. When freight moves by land, it doesnt face this second tax. Putting
this forward would be an indication of how serious the government is to help the industry into existence, said C. James Patti, the president of the Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development. Its a lightning rod. Several lawmakers have keyed on the issue. This system encourages people not to use the water, Rep. Patrick Tiberi, (R-Ohio), a Ways and Means Committee member, told POLITICO. He has sponsored a bipartisan bill to gut the tax. It levels the playing field and achieves some balance in the movement of goods, he sai d. Like similar bills in previous sessions, it hasnt gotten far. The tax issue also delves into transport equality. Trucks already pay higher user fees and railroads are
mostly self-financed. Even if the bill were to pass, the industry would need enough ships to carry the goods. A longtime law known as the Jones Act allows only American built and manned ships to operate between U.S. ports. The problem: American companies dont want to build container vessels for an invisible buyer. When financing a vessel, its great to have an established market to point to, said Paul Bea, a maritime adviser who specializes in marine highways. Back to the Catch-22. American Feeder Lines just ended its nine-month container ship service along the Northeast largely because of a shortage of suitable vessels. The
markets
arent there, said Chris Coakley, the vice president of governmental affairs for Saltchuk Resources, a company that started with marine transport and now manages a variety of trade operations. Theres not a retail connection to the maritime industry. Waterways are a bit of a public relations nightmare. UPS stops at the front door. Rail toots by towns. Container ships dont pop up on the drive to work.
Elections DA 34/150
1NC Mass Transit

The Public Opposes Mass Transit Barnes 11- Fred Barnes is an executive editor of The Weekly Standard , March 7th, 2011, (The way we drive Now. accessed at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/way-we-drive-now_552546.html, accessed on 7/19/12)
The simple fact is most people prefer to travel by car because its convenient, which mass transit rarely is. They can go from place to place directly, choosing their own route and schedule. They can do so day and night. They can stop as frequently as they wish for any reason (do errands, drop off kids, etc.). This phenomenon has a name: freedom.
Elections DA 35/150
1NC NIB
NIB unpopular- we already have TIFIA Yarema, 11 --- chair of the Infrastructure Practice Group at the law firm, Nossaman LLP (10/12/2011, Geoffrey, Congressional Documents and Publications,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing - "National Infrastructure Bank: More Bureaucracy and More Red Tape" Factiva, JMP) Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Geoff Yarema. I chair the Infrastructure Practice Group at the law firm, Nossaman LLP. We advise state and regional transportation agencies around the country in the innovative procurement, contracting and financing of large transportation projects in ways that minimize the use of federal gas tax revenues. Nossaman has assisted in the delivery of many of the signature projects that have utilized the foundational mechanisms provided by the existing surface transportation authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, helping to build the next generation of transportation infrastructure. I was also privileged to serve, at the behest of former Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, as a Commissioner on the 'National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (the "Financing Commission"). My testimony today reflects my experience on the ground advising public agencies and my two years of work on the Commission. A. The Evolution of Federal Infrastructure Funding. As the Subcommittee is well aware, the role of the federal government in delivering large transportation infrastructure projects is changing. Historically, the function of the federal government has been to provide both funding and to regulate how that funding is spent. Today, federal resources for transportation infrastructure fall far short of need and the expectation that the federal government would or could fix the nation's aging surface transportation system with a direct infusion of federal dollars is fading. Compelled by these very real fiscal constraints, the
federal government has been moving away from the traditional, apportionment-based funding paradigm and toward a credit assistance and incentives-based model that leverages fewer federal dollars to maximize local, state and private contributions to finance large transportation projects of regional and national significance. B. The Evolution Is Already Underway. This shift in thinking about the federal government's role in financing transportation infrastructure is
evidenced by one of the key components of President Obama's proposed Jobs Act: the much-buzzed about national infrastructure bank. The concept, as the President has explained it, would be to use federal dollars to leverage private investment to finance large public works projects. The President has touted the ability of an infrastructure bank to harness substantial private and other non-Federal dollars for capital-intensive projects, including transportation projects that are critical to mobility, goods movement and economic growth. Frankly, I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more because, as
far as transportation projects are
concerned, we already have a national infrastructure bank - it's called TIF1A. Authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, the TIFIA program has been providing federal credit assistance to large-scale highway, transit and rail projects since 1998. In the 12 years that the U.S. Department of Transportation (the "USDOT") has been administering the TIFIA program, we have seen how effective federal offerings of tow-cost financing can be in accelerating the delivery of qualified projects - projects that generate significant economic benefits, implement new technologies and attract private and non-Federal investment. Under TIFIA, the USDOT helps project sponsors, including state departments of transportation, transit operators, local governments and private entities, to assemble project capital by providing long-term financial assistance in the form of secured loans, loan guarantees and letters of credit. Currently, TIFIA credit assistance is available to finance only 33% of the eligible costs of a project, the applicant needing to demonstrate the creditworthy means of repaying the TIFIA loan and funding the remaining two-thirds of eligible project costs from private investment, commercial loans, federal-aid highway or transit grants. In this way, TIFIA loans provide foundational financing that encourages public sponsors to identify and dedicate project funding from non-federal sources. Costs the U.S. Treasury incurs to provide TIFIA credit assistance typically amount to about 10% of the face value of the credit provided. Therefore, every $1 of TIFIA credit subsidy creates $10 in the face amount of a loan, which in turn, helps finance a $30 project. In terms more proportional to the scale of project eligible for TIFIA assistance, $100 million in federal credit subsidy can result in $1 billion in federal loans to support a $3 billion project. With this unique level of leverage, TIFIA helps build major projects of regional and national significance at a relative bargain price to the federal government.
Elections DA 36/150
2NC NIB
National Infrastructure Bank is unpopular HRA 2011 Hart Research Associates (The Rockefeller Foundation, Public Opinion Strategies,
The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey, 02/14/2011, 7/20/12, http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/80e28432-0790-4d42-91ec-afb6d11febee.pdf) Even with a highly polarized electorate that remains steadfast in its belief that things in the nation are off on the wrong track there is wide agreementacross the partisan spectrumthat leaders in Washington should be seeking common ground. Nowhere is this more true than legislation related to the country s transportation infrastructure.
Indeed, two in three voters say that making improvements in infrastructure is very important, and most voters say that in its current state the nations transportation system is barely adequate. Voters seek better and safer roads and more public transportation options, widely agreeing that the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system . Moreover, few believe that current government spending in this area is efficient and wise, and voters welcome a range of reforms in how transportation projects are financed. At the same time, as is the case with many spending-related issues today, voters are unwilling to personally pay for additional funding of national transportation projects. While wide support exists for encouraging more private investment, imposing penalties on over-budget projects, and establishing a National Infrastructure Bank, there is very little support for increasing the federal gas tax or increasing tolls on interstate highways and bridges.
Elections DA 37/150
1NC Title XI
Elections DA 38/150
--Loan Guarantees
Failures of loan guarantees make them unpopular
Lacey 11 reporter for Climate Progress (Stephen, House Republicans Complain about Loan Guarantees.. with $11.8 Billion in Loan Guarantees in Their Districts, 9/23/11, http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/23/house-republicans-complain-about-loan-guarantees-with-11-8-billionin-loan-guarantees-in-their-districts/)//EM Playing up the Solyndra bankruptcy to the highest political degree possible, Republicans are using their best rhetorical tricks. They have homed in on two phrases to describe loan guarantees calling them a tool of crony capitalism and claiming that they allow the government to pick winners and losers. Practically every conservative politician speaking to the press about Solyndra has used these phrases, often in the exact same
sentence.
Elections DA 39/150
--2NC LG link
Failures of title 11 loans make them unpopular in The lacey evidence cites solydras default as evidence that loan guarantees fail to produce economic innovation. Even if you win that the voters like the navy, that is not going to factor into their vote
This is empirically true- title 11 loans are seen as a failure to the industry Darcy, Welsh, and Marcus, 2009Engineering Duty Officer at US Navy, Professor of the Practice of Naval Construction and Engineering and Professor of Marine
Systems (Joseph, Mark and Henry, Short Sea Shipping: Barriers, Incentives and Feasibility of Truck Ferry, MIT, June 2009, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.mit.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1721.1%2F49879%2F464231726.pdf%3Fse quence%3D1&ei=pRrhT6WvB8Oh0QWGyezZDA&usg=AFQjCNHtk_8v9stCI1RMUYpvpx5_z6xy4g)//NJain
In the not too distant past, ship owners and companies desiring to enter the sea shipping trade were able to raise capital privately and be aided by the Federal Government with a mortgage guarantee known as Title XI mortgage insurance. Title XI is a part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 that established the Federal Ship Financing Guarantee Program to assist private companies in obtaining financing for the construction of ships and the modernization of U.S. shipyards [37]. Where these guarantees are available, interest rates encountered are invariably lower for the shipowners. In the current political climate, however, the mortgage guarantees appear as none too subtle subsidies to the shipping industry. This is evidenced by the Maritime Administrations reluctance to issue Title XI guarantees. Between 1985 and 1987, 129 Title XI defaults cost the government nearly $2B [37]. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 imposed stricter requirements on the issuance of these guarantees, improving their performance until between 1998 and 2002, nine Title XI loans defaulted. These defaults combined with the credit 43 crunch and sub-prime loan failures, will most likely make lending requirements even more strict. Shipping incentives in the United States
have had a semi-sordid past. Most recently (and most importantly since it is fresh in the mind of the government and lawmakers) the failure of American Classic Voyages was a black eye for MARAD which was required to complete a $367M obligation when a Title XI loan guarantee had to be settled in 2001 [38].
GoP doesnt like loan guarantees Snyder 5-16 Staff writer for Bloomberg (Jim, Loan-Guarantee Winners Back Loans as Republicans Complain, 5/16/12, Bloomberg Businessweek,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-16/loan-guarantee-winners-back-loans-as-republicans-complain)//RD
a U.S. Energy Department loan-guarantee program that House Republicans said showed failures in President Barack Obamas job-creating efforts. John Woolard, chief executive
Executives from four renewable-energy companies defended officer of BrightSource Energy Inc. (BRSE) (BRSE), told lawmakers today that a $1.6 billion guarantee for a solar-generating facility in California will create 1,400 construction jobs at its peak. Without the backing, the company probably would have invested more overseas, he said. Executives said the program encouraged
Republicans led by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee stimulus oversight panel, said government shouldnt pick who wins and who loses. The program wasted vast sums of money, Jordan said today at a committee hearing. The Obama administrations energy programs are being investigated by House Republicans, who have focused on the collapse of Solyndra LLC about two years after winning a $535 million loan guarantee. Jordans panel has expanded the probe. At todays hearing, Republicans said e-mails from BrightSource in 2011 showed a cozy relationship with the White House, and suggested politics was behind the awards. In one e- mail, Woolard asked Jonathan Silver, then director of the loan program,
investment, and that the projects were awarded after rigorous U.S. review. to proofread a letter BrightSource Chairman John Bryson planned to send Bill Daley, White House chief of staff, asking for help with the Energy Department loan. Bryson is now Commerce secretary and Daley has left the White House. Not Appropriate Woolard said BrightSource decided that it was not appropriate to write Daley. In April, the department completed BrightSources loan guarantee, more than a year after it gave the company a conditional commitment. Woolard said the company won its loan on the merits.
GoP opposes loan guarantees Geman and Colman 7-11 both staff writers for The Hill (Ben and Zack, OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Loan Guarantee Battle Flares in House, 7/11/12, The Hill E2 Wire, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/237399-overnight-energy-loan-guarantee-battle-flares-in-house)//RD House Republicans will take fresh shots at the Energy Departments (DOE) loan guarantee program Thursday, with the House Energy and Commerce Committee holding a hearing about the GOPs No More Solyndras bill. The draft legislation named after the failed DOE-backed solar company would sunset the loan guarantee program; place new parameters on reviews of existing applications; and prevent so-called subordination of taxpayer interests to private investors in any loan guarantees. The panel will hear from witnesses including the acting head of DOEs loan program. Republicans say the No More Solyndras bill is needed to reform and ultimately phase out a program that they allege has been wasteful with taxpayer dollars, noting the collapse of Solyndra and bankruptcy of some other companies that have received loan guarantees. Our No More Solyndras Act will ensure taxpayers are no longer vulnerable to the Obama administrations game of crony
Elections DA 40/150
capitalism, said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the GOPs point man on the Solyndra probe, when rolling out the draft bill Tuesday. But DOE officials say those headwinds shouldnt obscure the wider successes of the program. Damien LaVera, a DOE spokesman, said the department takes the use of taxpayer dollars seriously and is strengthening oversight of the program, which was first authorized in a bipartisan 2005 energy law and expanded in the 2009 stimulus. As we have consistently said, there is a degree of risk inherent in helping new, innovative technologies get off the ground. Congress recognized that risk by putting aside $10 billion in loan loss reserves, he said in a statement. But this Administration believes that just because there is risk here, that doesnt mean we should throw up our hands and cede the jobs of the future to China, Spain, or anywhere else.
Elections DA 41/150
--SSS
The plan is a political lightning rod tanks capital Meyers, 12 staff writer for Politico [Jessica Meyers, Federal marine highways project hard to launch, Politico, 5/22/12,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76633.html ]
Mention Americas highways and notice the nods. Talk about its marine highways and watch the blank stares. A Department of Transportation initiative intended to promote the countrys water routes has failed to make substantial inroads despite a 2007 federal law, escalating highway congestion and a push for greener transport. These river and coastal corridors,
known as marine highways or short-sea shipping, thrive in Europe and exist in a handful of U.S. regions. Theyre billed as the future a cheaper and more fuelefficient option for an overburdened transportation system. But marine
highways remain more a political talking point than an industry reality. Trucks and railroads maintain the upper hand on speed. Waterways have less experience carrying container goods than bulk cargo. And companies remain leery of an uncertain market filled with tax hurdles and ship shortages. Without greater demand, the water road concept wont float. Its a chicken-and-egg type of
thing, said Sean Connaughton, a former DOT maritime administrator who created the departments Americas Marine Highway Program. Shippers wont commit until theres reliable service, but you cant have that until shippers commit. To do that, the
industry needs an almost mythical nexus of federal incentives, public recognition and state support. Connaughton, now Virginias secretary of transportation, told POLITICO that the federal DOTs marine highway push languished partly because it coincided with the economic downturn. Transportation funding disappeared for paved roads, much less a quiet transportation mode still trying to prove its worth. The bottom line, he said, is freight doesnt vote. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has designated 18 marine highway corridors in recent years and directed more than $110 million
toward marine highway projects. The agency backs the Marine Highways Cooperative, a public-private partnership dedicated to developing the countrys 25,000 miles of water routes. The Obama administration is committed to investing in innovative marine transportation services along Americas coast and waterways, in order to relieve congestion on our roadways, make our transportation system greener and develop the vast unused capacity on our waterways, said DOT spokesman Justin Nisly. Not all Democratic lawmakers agree. I personally dont think it has happened as well as it should, Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), ranking member of the House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, told POLITICO. This administration has yet to request any funding goal s for a marine transportation system. We still have a ways to go. Maritime groups point to the elimination of a so-called double tax as the place to start. All cargo that comes into the country is subject to a harbor maintenance tax. But shippers have to pay an additional tax if goods are off-loaded in one location and shipped to a second port. When freight moves by land, it doesnt face this second tax. Putting
this forward would be an indication of how serious the government is to help the industry into existence, said C. James Patti, the president of the Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development. Its a lightning rod . Several lawmakers have keyed on the issue. This system encourages people not to use the water, Rep. Patrick
Tiberi, (R-Ohio), a Ways and Means Committee member, told POLITICO. He has sponsored a bipartisan bill to gut the tax. It le vels the playing field and achieves some balance in the movement of goods, he said. Like similar bills in previous sessions, it hasnt gotten far. The tax issue also delves into transport equality. Trucks already pay higher user fees and railroads are mostly self-financed. Even if the bill were to pass, the industry would need enough ships to carry the goods. A longtime law known as the Jones Act allows only American built and manned ships to operate between U.S. ports. The problem: American companies dont want to build container vessels for an invisible buyer. When financing a vessel, its great to have an established market to point to, said Paul Bea, a maritime adviser who specializes in marine highways. Back to the Catch-22. American Feeder Lines just ended its nine-month container ship service along the Northeast largely because of a shortage of suitable vessels. The
markets arent there, said Chris Coakley, the vice president of governmental affairs for Saltchuk Resources, a company that started with marine transport and now manages a variety of trade operations. Theres not a retail connection to the maritime industry. Waterways are a bit of a public relations nightmare. UPS stops at the front door. Rail toots by towns. Container ships
Elections DA 42/150
--2NC SSS
SSS is unpopular, our evidence indicates that people think that it is inconvenient to have large barges passing by their cities, our evidence also indicates that it is perceived as a political lightning rod during times of economic uncertainty The public views it as boosting a failing industry and will tank the unions ILWU, 10 [(Intl Longshore and Warehouse Union), Coast Longshore Division Newsletter, Winter 2010, Republished in Longshore and Shipping News, http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2011/02/the-caseagainst-short-sea-shipping/] Subsidy and promotion of SSS by the governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico, is an effort, one of several fronts, to deregulate maritime transportation and drive organized labor consequentially from the Industry. SSS is not a panacea for additional union jobs. It is just the opposite. Scarce government tax dollars should be used for land-based infrastructure designed to efficiently move containers to and from established ports. We need dedicated freight corridors, bridges, rail enhancements and dredging that bring stability to the industry not the funding, promotion, and blind acceptance of a concept that even with subsidy will fail, and drag organized labor down with it. Title XI failures make ship-subsidies unpopular Darcy et al 09 (Joseph Darcy Engineering Duty Officer at US Navy, Mark Welsh Professor of the Practice of Naval Construction and Engineering and Henry Marcus Professor of Marine Systems, Short Sea Shipping: Barriers, Incentives and Feasibility of Truck Ferry, MIT, June 2009] In the not too distant past, ship owners and companies desiring to enter the short sea shipping trade were able to raise capital privately and be aided by the Federal Government with a mortgage guarantee known as Title XI
mortgage insurance. Title XI is a part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 that established the Federal Ship Financing Guarantee Program to assist private companies in obtaining financing for the construction of ships and the modernization of U.S. shipyards]. Where these guarantees are available, interest rates encountered are invariably lower for the shipowners. In
the current political climate, however, the mortgage guarantees appear as none too subtle subsidies to the shipping industry. This is evidenced by the Maritime Administrations reluctance to issue Title XI guarantees. Between 1985 and 1987, 129 Title XI defaults cost the government nearly $2B. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
imposed stricter requirements on the issuance of these guarantees, improving their performance until between 1998 and 2002, nine Title XI loans defaulted. These defaults combined with the credit 43 crunch and sub -prime loan failures, will most likely make lending requirements even more strict. Shipping incentives in the United States have had a semi-sordid past. Most recently (and most importantly since it is fresh in the mind of the government and lawmakers) the failure of American Classic Voyages was a black eye for MARAD which was required to complete a $367M obligation when a Title XI loan guarantee had to be settled in 2001.
Elections DA 43/150
Elections DA 44/150
***INTERNAL LINKS***
Elections DA 45/150
Link Booster Tiny Shifts Matter

Even tiny swings have huge impact determine the outcome Abramowitz, 6/7/12 Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist, Center for politics, 6/7/12 http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
With five months to go until Election Day 2012, all
indications are that the presidential race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is going to go down to the wire and that the outcome will ultimately be decided by voters in 10-15 battleground states in which neither candidate has a decisive advantage. These findings raise an important question for the Obama and Romney campaigns. In deciding how to allocate
money and other resources, how much emphasis should they give to mobilizing potential supporters versus persuading undecided voters? The answer to this question depends on the characteristics and political attitudes of two key groups of voters in the battleground states: unregistered supporters and undecided registered voters. In order to compare the potential payoffs of a strategy emphasizing mobilization compared with a strategy emphasizing persuasion, I analyzed data from a March 20-26 Gallup Poll in 12 key battleground states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. This was the most recent battleground state polling data available for analysis. A total of 1,046 adults were interviewed on landline and cellular telephones, including 871 registered voters. Swing voters: Unhappy with Obama but unenthusiastic abou t voting One important finding from Gallups March swing state poll is that there were relatively few swing voters in these swing states. Among registered voters, 49% supported Barack Obama and another 1% indicated that they leaned toward Obama, while 41% supported Mitt Romney and another 2% leaned toward Romney. The March 20-26 survey was conducted at a time when Mitt Romney was still battling with Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination. Now that Romney has locked up the GOP nomination, Obamas lead i n these battleground states may very well be smaller. What is striking, however, is that as early as March, relatively few registered voters were unwilling to state a preference in a Romney-Obama contest. Even combining leaners with the undecided, swing voters made up less than 10% of the electorate in these 12 states. Still, with
the race between Obama and Romney expected to be very close, even a small group of swing voters could decide the outcome . So who are these swing
voters? To answer this question, I compared the characteristics and political attitudes of swing voters (those who were undecided or only leaning toward a candidate) with the characteristics and attitudes of voters who were supporting either Obama or Romney. The results are displayed in Table 1.
Elections DA 46/150
--Ext Small Shifts Matter

Small swings matter its super close and next couple months key Abramowitz, 12 (Alan, Senior Columnist, Center For Politics.org, Prof Poli Sci @ Emory, 5/23, http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/whatdoes-president-obama%E2%80%99s-may-approval-rating-tell-us-about-his-reelection-chances/) Whether we base our prediction on President Obamas 47% approval rating in the Gallup Poll in early May or a more sophisticat ed forecasting model incorporating economic conditions and the time for change factor, it appears likely that we
are headed for a very close election in November. Both models make Obama a slight favorite to win a second term. However, the final outcome will depend on the actual performance of the economy and the publics evaluation of the presidents job performance in the months ahead. Those interested in assessing where the presidential race stands
should focus on these two indicators rather than the day-to-day events of the campaign, which tend to dominate media coverage of the election.
Its super tight could go either way now Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 5/17, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12510)
But its the 58.8 percent chance of Obama winning that interests me today, because that prediction stands in stark contrast to what most
pollsters, Democrats and Republicans alike, whom I talked with privately, believe. The number crunchers who conduct and analyze polls, and others who study these things closely, see a lot of metrics pointing to a very close contest that could go either way. They dont see an election in which either Obama, or Mitt Romney, is likely to have an almost six-in-10 chance of winning. Take the polls, for example. The averages of all major national polls show the race as extremely close. Pollster.com
gives Obama a 1.2-percentage-point lead over Romney, 46.3 percent to 45.1 percent. Realclearpolitics.com pegs Obamas lead at 2 points, 47 percent to 45 p ercent. Gallups seven-day tracking poll puts the presidents lead at 1 point, 46 percent to 45 percent. Undecided
voters, particularly, often break away from
well-known, well-defined incumbents (the what you see is what you get rule for those in office). Does this really translate into a strong advantage for the president? Obamas job-approval ratings are often upside down in pollster parlance, with disapprovals running higher than
approvals in both Pollster.com (46.9 percent approve; 48.4 percent disapprove) and Realclearpolitics (48 percent approve; 48.5 percent disapprove). Gallup also shows 47 percent approve and disapprove numbers for the week of May 7-13. Is
that really a decisive edge? In terms of the Electoral College, seven statesColorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginiaare likely to be extremely close. New Hampshire might also be tight. (I
am increasingly skeptical that Obama can win North Carolina.) I pay a lot of attention to the top-dollar surveys by the Obama and Romney campaignsand, for that matter, what highly regarded pollsters doing surveys for various senatorial and gubernatorial candidates and for ballot initiatives in the states say. I dont put a lo t of stock in the dime-store polls, which bloggers and Internet armchair analysts so avidly follow (ask them about calling cell phones; that separates the top-notch pollsters from the cut-rate crowd). Dont get me wrong: Im not predicting that Obama will lose. Im only pointing out that the
discrepancy is real between what the pros on the sidelines and those in the press box are seeing, versus those with the view from the cheap seats. Just sayin.
Elections DA 47/150
Obama Push Normal means is Obama push only way plan can pass
Wytkind, 10
Ed Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, 10/27, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/obama-infrastructure-a-toppri.php?comments=expandall#comments But todays political stalemate is unlike any weve seen in recent history. The knee-jerk reactions to the Columbus Day meeting from a handful of congressional leaders while not a surprise to anyone were an illustration of a chronic problem in Washington that has derailed action on critically needed bills to invest billions in our nations surface, aviation and maritime transportation system. Its clear that were going to need the Administrations leadership if were going to do anything worth doing.
Past experience and Obama priorities prove

Van Beek, 10
Steve Van Beek, Chief of Policy and Strategy and Director, LeighFisher, 10/28, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/obama-infrastructure-a-toppri.php?comments=expandall#comments President Obama has devoted more White House attention to transportation policy than we have seen from the White House in 50 years . In addition, the Miller Center report, well summarized by Greg Principato, is only the latest report by an esteemed group of transportation leaders documenting the problems of our current policies and recommending solutions to fix them. Few disagree with the notions that our current policies are failing us and than we need a new national transportation policy. Indeed, the stack of good policy reports sitting on my bookshelf is easily over a foot high. Whether we are considering the surface or the FAA authorization--or policies governing maritime, rail, livability or any other issue of transportation policy--the problem is not knowing what we need to do, the problem is doing it. While we have advocates and analysts of various stripes on this blog, I would bet that 90% of the participants would agree on 85% of what needs to be done on transportation policy. Sure, vested interests and advocates will be as they always are, results focused. Depending on where they sit, they will be concerned about their company's bottom line, the interests of members in their organization or association and/or the case they advocate. Thus, while the industry will continue to debate parts of the authorizations, ultimately those issues will be resolved as they always are--in committee, on the House and Senate floors, and through the bicameral reconcilation process. The problem is not finding a magic formula for policy, or practicing alchemy to find the necessary resources to enact the policy, but the task is figuring out the politics. What we need is the collective will and leadership to enact long-term authorizations and policies. How do we move the process forward? Based on past experience, we need the Obama Administration to lay out detailed policy and funding plans (or at the very least set boundaries for what it is prepared to accept) and we need committee and party leaderships that are willing to work together in a bipartisan manner to find solutions. Fortunately, this highly charged electoral season will soon be in the rearview mirror. Then our elected representatives need to do what we elect them to do: legislate.
( ) Their premise is backwards Obama knows transportation faces opposition, but DOES get involved in pushing.
Freemark 12
(Yonah Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist He created and continues to write for the website The Transport Politic The Transport Politic Feb 14th http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/02/14/the-presidents-budget-full-of-ambition-short-on-congressional-support/ The executive branchs proposed spending for FY 2013 would greatly expand spending on transit and intercity rail, but it face s a hostile Congress. It brings good news, however, for five California rail projects and new light rail lines for Charlotte, Honolulu, and Portland. The White House has introduced a budget and a reauthorization proposal that
would significantly increase investment in transportation infrastructure over the next six years. Though the legislation as currently designed will not be passed into law because of reluctance from Congress, the Obama Administrations continued efforts to expand funding for sustainable mobility options are to be praised. Over the course of the next six years, the Administration proposes significant
expansions in transit and rail spending, increasing those programs from 22.9% of the overall DOT budget for surface transportation in fiscal year 2013 (and 21% in actual spending in FY 2011) to 35.7% of the budget in FY 2018. See table below. Though expenditures on highways would increase significantly as well, it would be in public transportation modes that the real expansion would be made. Significant spending on intercity rail almost $50 billion over six years as well as new transit capital projects ($21 billion) and state of good repair (SOGR, at $32 billion) would be the most important contributions of the program. In addition to revenues from the fuel tax (which no one seems willing to advocate increasing), the White House proposes to pay for its transportation bill by reducing the size of the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which is used to support armed operations abroad. Because of the decision to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the amount of money needed for this purpose is lessened, and thus the p ossibility of expanding spending on transportation. Most of the Presidents proposal is unlikely to see the light of day in the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans newly hostile to the idea of using Highway Trust Fund revenues to pay for transit projects. Yet their proposal would create a $78 billion funding shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund over the next ten years according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Thats with $0 committed to transit! The Administration proposal, on the other hand, is fully funded (or at least accounted for*) and would transform the Highway Trust Fund into the much more reasonably titled Transportation Trust Fund; the priorities of each piece of legislation are very clear. The defection of several House Republicans away from their own partys transportation bill suggests that the legislation may not even get out of their chamber. At this point, the Senates bipartisan, mostly status-quo-extending two-year transportation reauthorization bill is now the most likely of all three proposals to be official government policy by the end of the spring. But even it faces the strong possibility of being ditched in favor of a simple extension of the existing bill, which will expire on March 31 according to the current law. Nonetheless, the Obama Administrations plans for this expansion in transit funding, which mirror similar proposals from previous years, are a reminder of the ambitions for improved transportation that are possible in this country but continue to be derailed by political forces hostile to
Elections DA 48/150
choose to take it.
the idea of investing in the nations infrastructure . This is a serious proposal to significantly improve the state of the nations rail and bus systems if we
( ) Obama will draw himself into transportation legislation he wants to show election contrast.
Freemark 11
(Yonah Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist He created and continues to write for the website The Transport Politic The Transport Politic February 8th, 2011 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/02/08/the-white-house-stakes-its-political-capital-on-a-massive-intercity-railplan/) Whatever the immediate success of the Presidents proposal, Mr. Obama is making evident his plan to promote himself as the candidate for a renewed America, one in which the future is won through public investment in essential infrastructure. This represents a very real contrast to the political posturing of his Republican opponents, who have been staking their political cause on being opposed to government spending of almost any type. Mr. Biden concluded his speech with the following: If we do not take this step now, if we do not seize the futu re, you tell me how America is going to have the opportunity to lead the world economy in the 21st Century like we did in the 20th. We cannot settle. We are determined to lead again. And this is the beginning of our effort to, once again, lead the future.
( ) Normal means forces Presidential involvement in some aspect of the negotiation. Given GOP composition in Congress, some White House wrangling must take place. They cant sever this it makes debate less educational and they become a moving target. Its a voter we could never win.
Elections DA 49/150
Obama gets credit
Obama gets involved and disproportionately targets funds to key political states
Bilotkach, 10 Volodymyr, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, October, http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~vbilotka/Draft_September10.pdf (the october date is correct even though the web address says September) The federal government plays a crucial role in the infrastructure investment in the U nited S tates, including allocation of funds to the airports. Given that airports are perceived to bring substantial benefits to the respective communities, federally funded airport infrastructure projects are both sought after, welcomed, and should be beneficial to the politicians capable of securing the funds. Complicated structure of the American political system creates possibilities for strong influence of political factors on the process of allocation of infrastructure investment funds. Understanding the role of politics in this area is of no trivial importance, as currently perception of the airports role is being revised. An
increasing number of countries have started viewing airports as the firms rather than the infrastructure objects. Privatization and deregulation of the airports is also becoming more common. It is believed that involvement of the private sector will bring about efficiency gains, and that privately run airports may be more willing and able to contribute to solving the congestion problem. This study offers the first look at the issue of impact of political factors on the aviation infrastructure investment in the USA. We take advantage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (more broadly known as the Stimulus) to examine contribution of political factors to allocation of the $1.1 billion worth of the airport grants included into the package. The Stimulus provides an excellent case for studying political economy of airport (and more generally, infrastructure) investment, at least as far as involvement of the federal government is concerned. The law was set up rather hastily Barack Obama was elected President in November of 2008, inaugurated on January 20, 2009, and ARRA became law on February 17, 2009. The criteria for the airport infrastructure projects to be funded under the ARRA were rather vague 2 . We can therefore suspect that the airport infrastructure grants could have been used by the Administration, or the Congress as a mechanism to reward districts which brought more votes in the latest election. Additionally, members of the corresponding Congress Committees (in particular, of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) might have used ARRA as an opportunity to bring more money to their districts. Empirical research on the impact of politics on transport infrastructure investment deals mostly with the European data. The studies examining US evidence are rare, and include McFadden (1976) and Knight (2004). The former study looks at determinants of highway project selection by the California Division of Highways, while the latter examines congressional voting on transportation projects. Our data analysis showed the association between the airports location in the Congressional Distric t with the larger Obama-McCain vote differential in November 2008 Presidential election, and the amount of the ARRA grant received by the airport. At the same time, district level election results are poor predictors of whether the airport receives the grant; and estimation results are not entirely robust to taking election results from the adjacent districts into consideration. We also detect rather robust evidence of the impact of Senate on the grant allocation process. This paper contributes to two broad strains of literature. First, we extend the literature on public provision of infrastructure. Research in this area has been addressing the issues of both effects of the publicly provided infrastructure on private sector productivity, and the determinants of the infrastructure investment. The former literature (e.g., Aschauer, 1989; Holz-Eakin, 1994) is much richer than the latter. Studies of the determinants of public infrastructure investment include Cadot et al. (2006), Castells and Sole-Olle (2005), Kemmerling and Stephan (2002, 2008), Fridstrom and Elvik (1997), Bel and Fageda (2009). All the listed papers study infrastructure investment in Europe, and the latter has the most relevance to our paper, as it examines (and confirms the existence of) the impact of political factors on airport investment in Spain. On the US side, we find a lot of studies asserting the disproportionate power of the Senate 3 (e.g., Hoover and Pecorino, 2005) and Congressional Committees (e.g., Garrett et al., 2006) in allocation of the federal funds across the jurisdictions. Garrett and Sobel (2003) find that states which are politically important to the president will have a higher rate of the disaster declaration; the authors also find the election year effects on the amounts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster payments. The only studies of political determinants of transport infrastructure investment in the US are McFadden (1976) an examination of project choices by California Division of Highways, finding limited impact of political determinants on the selection process; as well as Knight (2004), asserting that congressmen respond to common pool incentives when voting for transportation projects.
Obama will play the largest role and voters love it

Bilotkach, 10 Volodymyr, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, October, http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~vbilotka/Draft_September10.pdf (the october date is correct even though the web address says September)
The literature suggests three possible sources
of political influence : the White House (President), the US Senate, and the Congressional Committees. We
hypothesize that the impact of the White House should be the strongest in this particular case recall that passing the economic stimulus legislation was one of Barack Obamas priorities as a candidate. As for hypotheses related to the impact of the White House, we can suppo se that ARRA grants might have been used to reward districts which showed support to Obama, as evidenced by the election results. An alternative explanation grants could be used to sway voters in the districts where support for Obama was not sufficiently strong is less plausible, as the grants have been appropriated after the election and almost four years before the next Presidential election is scheduled to take place. Cont Moreover, study of aviation related infrastructure offers an attractive environment for examining the more general issue of political factors behind the allocation of federal funds. Airports and airfields are ubiquitous, unlike, for instance, tornadoes or corn fields. Also, airports are generally viewed favorably by the public , unlike some other kinds of federally provided infrastructure (e.g., prisons). For this study, we make use of information on the airport infrastructure grants, appropriated under the ARRA of 2009. We supplement this data with airport characteristics, simple demographic measures, congressional district level results of November 2008 election (both Presidential and House), and Senate election results. Data analysis suggests the following general conclusions about the supposed impact of political factors on allocation of ARRA airport infrastructure grants. First, results of the presidential election appear to affect the amounts of grants, but do not have an impact on whether the airport receives the grant. Second, controlling for the State level composition of the Senate, we find that airports located in the States carried by a Republican at the latest Senate election show higher likelihood of obtaining the grant; the amounts involved are also higher. At the same time, airports located in States represented by two Democratic Party senators are also more likely to obtain the grants, other things equal. Third, we do not find strong evidence of impact of the House of Representatives election results or membership in Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Throughout the world, regulators have been reconsidering the role of the airports. Also, our understanding
Elections DA 50/150
of the determinants of public infrastructure investment, and especially of the role of political factors, is far from complete. This study is one of the first attempts at looking into both issues together. We find that political factors matter. The next issue to be addressed and the one which will require a more thorough investigation of these political factors is what our results imply for such important public policy issues as airport regulation, privatization, and congestion.
Elections DA 51/150
Obama = Credit/Blame Obama gets credit and blame among independent voters NSOR, 11 (North Star Opinion Research, Resurgent Republic, Dr. Whit Ayres, president of North Star Opinion Research, co-founded Resurgent Republic with
former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie and Impacto Group CEO Leslie Sanchez. North Star partners with Resurgent Republic to conduct surveys and focus groups on popular issues and trends that help shape public debate over the proper role of government, 11/8, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/voters-believe-america-is-worseoff-than-when-obama-took-office) Resurgent Republic conducted a survey of 1000 American voters October 30 through November 2, 2011, with full results available here. Following are key highlights pertaining to President Obamas perception among Independent voters: If President Obama's reelection campaign is a referendum on the incumbent, as are almost all reelection campaigns, then he remains in deep trouble a year out from the election, because Independents believe the country is worse off than when he was inaugurated. Cont Republicans and Independents think Barack Obama and the Democrats control Washington, while Democrats think Republicans in Congress are in control. In yet another indicator of the low esteem with which Washington is held in the country, each party views the other one as in control. Republicans view Obama and the Democrats as controlling Washington by 67 to 15 percent, while Democrats view Republicans as in control by 55 to 26 percent. Independents split more evenly, but still view Obama/Democrats in control by 39 to 34 percent.
( ) White House gets blame for everything

Teitelman 11
Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal. In 2003, Min Magazine chose him as one of the 21 Most Intriguing People in media and in 2008 B2B Magazine selected him as for a Media Business Innovator Award. Mr. Teitelman also worked as a writer and editor for Forbes and Financial World. In addition, he is the aut hor of two books, Profits of Science: The American Marriage of Business and Technology and Gene Dreams: Wall Street, Academia and the Rise of Biotechnology, both published by Basic Books. He is a graduate of the College of William & Mary, with masters degrees in international affairs and journalism from Columbia University. The Deal August 1, 2011 -- lexis The debt ceiling looks like it will be raised, though who knows? The House Republicans believe they have won -- they at least are spinning that furiously, which presents the unlikely sight of a blackmailer crowing about his successful operation, joined by a variety of seething left-of-center pundits -- and with the scent of Obama blood in the water, maybe they'll hold out for even greater cuts or a deal that protects defense spending. Generally, as the media emerges in full-throated roar, Obama is being declared the big loser from both sides of the aisle; see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-diminishedpresident.html?ref=todayspaper|Ross Douthat and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&ref=global|Paul Krugman in today's New York Times. Perhaps. Obama's polls have been falling, probably because the president these days gets blamed for everything from a bad economy to Mississippi flooding to lousy student test scores, as if he's less a political leader and more a medicine man. We elect shamans, not people. Perhaps he did play this all wrong; in politics, substance -- "reality" that we've heard so much about these days -- means little. Obama's big mistake, at the end of the day, was his belief that he could occupy a center in a viciously polarized arena. As the columns and blogs suggest this morning, we've got a deal, but we've also got a nasty political problem. From an electoral perspective -- and part of that political problem is that we can't seem to forget, for even a moment, the permanent campaign -- Obama is already being declared a loser in 2012. We'll see. The electoral issue, particularly in a presidential campaign, is what's more important: deficit reduction (with all the affiliated issues: tax hikes or entitlement cuts) or the blackmail problem, which is to say, the Congress problem. How big is the center these days? How will that center recall these events -- and the possibility that we may see more hostage taking in years ahead? The debt ceiling struggle was a long and ugly tussle, managing to confirm the conventional wisdom of Washington inaction, bloviation, stalemate and failure. It was wildly irresponsible, dangerous and absurd. It shook people up. Several weeks ago, the Times' Thomas Friedman saw the crisis as an opportunity for a "radical center" to emerge, independent of both increasingly toothless, in terms of discipline, parties. I'm skeptical of the formation of an actual center party but not of center bloc. Today, in the blitz of punditry and spin, the center seems to have vanished. But electorally, it does feel as if there's stirring discontent with the highly ideological approach to politics from both parties. That, of course, may be wishful thinking. I take it as good news -- I'm undoubtedly grasping at straws here -- that the commentary today has a thread of reflection about the deeper governance problems. In The New York Times, Jacob Hacker and Oona Hathaway http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/our-unbalanced-democracy.html?ref=global|offer a bracing perspective on a Congress that has increasingly over time eluded accountability, distorting the relationship with the executive. "The debate has threatened to play out as a destructive but all too familiar two-step, revealing how dysfunctional the relationship between Congress and the president has become. The two-step begins with a Congress that is hamstrung and incapable of effective action. The president then decides he has little alternative but to strike out on his own, regardless of what the Constitution says. Congress, unable or unwilling to defend its role, resorts instead to carping at 'his' program, 'his' war or 'his' economy -- while denying any responsibility for the mess it helped create." This helps explain the ease of which Republicans have walked away from the wild spending of the George W. Bush years. In fact, all this feels familiar, both the congressional fecklessness -- remember the plague of earmarks -- and the accrual of presidential power in the form of executive orders, signing powers and Bushian arguments of pre-eminent executive power in warmaking, eavesdropping or torture. Everyone understands the barriers to congressional action: supermajority requirements, like the Senate's filibuster rule, and, as Hacker and Hathaway argue, legislative my-way-or-the-highway mechanisms, like a debt ceiling or a balanced budget amendment. But there are far more problems than those. Campaigns have grown more and more expensive, and PACs and corporate donors have become more and more essential. Lobbyists proliferate. Congress has evolved a system to avoid the big issues while keeping a flow of benefits going to their supporters and constituents. Party discipline has broken down, replaced by fundraising prowess. The demands of the permanent campaign are such that it demands a kind of branding for candidates: clear, simple, straightforward, ideological and mostly idiotic. Compromise, complexity and dealmaking become deeply suspect to an electorate that believes they've been sold down the river. Paradoxically, the creation of permanent campaigns fosters the opportunity to challenge from the extreme -- particularly in the House. Hard times makes this likelier.Brad DeLonghttp://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/are-we-shifting-toward-a-parliamentarysystem.html| touches on some of this, but then takes it to another place. He writes today, "One possibility is that Cantor and Boehner have figured out something that has been inherent in the system since FDR but that few people recognized. Perhaps the president is now the ultimate status quo player in the government: Whatever goes wrong the public takes to be his fault and his responsibility. If anything goes badly wrong his political adversaries pick up the pieces and are strengthened. In that case, whenever the desires of the president conflict with the desires of the speaker of the House, the president has little leverage. Any speaker who does not fear disaster can roll any president. In this future, any bill that a speaker insists is must-pass gets attached to a debt-ceiling increase, and -- unless there are people in the Senate equally willing to risk disaster, which is unlikely because senators are status-quo players too -- so becomes law. It's like a parliamentary system, with the debt-ceiling votes filling the role of votes of confidence."Much of this makes eminent sense, though I'm not convinced that we're heading toward a parliamentary system; there's
Elections DA 52/150
simply no way to discipline the members in any way except at the polls. But what it does point out is how weak the forces of the status quo can be when arrayed against the extremes. That's the real worry here.
Elections DA 53/150
Obama Popularity Key Obama Popularity key and can still swing
Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/12, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12364) When a president runs for reelection, his job-approval ratings are more significant than the trial heats. Voters who approve of the job a president is doing are very likely to vote to reelect him. Voters who disapprove are very likely to support the presidents opponent. Obamas job ratings have ranged in recent weeks from as low as 44 percent to as high as 50 percent. The RealClearPolitics average and the
Huffington Post/Pollster.com trend estimate show Obamas approval rating at 48 percent and his disapproval score at 47 percent.
Only obamas approval rating matters Romney is irrelevant

Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 3/29, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12313 When you look back at Barack Obamas 7-point victory over John McCain in 2008, think of a four-legged stool. Obama needed each leg to support his candidacy. One leg was independent voters (29 percent of the vote); they chose Obama over McCain by 8 percentage points, 52 percent to 44 percent. The
second leg was young voters, ages 18-29 (18 percent of vote); they broke for Obama by 34 percentage points, 66 percent to 32 percent. The third leg was Latinos (9 percent); they favored Obama by 36 points, 67 percent to 31 percent. And, finally, African-Americans (18 percent) backed Obama by 91 percentage points, 95 percent to 4 percent. To win reelection, Obama doesnt need to match those performances, unless he dramatically underperforms with othe r demographic groups. But he needs to get relatively close to them to build a sufficient popular-vote cushion to assemble 270 electoral votes. Lets focus for now on just one leg of the stool, the young voters. Visit any college campus today, and you are likely to sense a lack of passion and energy for Obama. Its far from clear that he can reproduce the unusually strong turnout among younger voters that he sparked in 2008 or match the 66 percent performance level he achieved then. The data back up the doubts. Gallup tracking surveys in January and February recorded Obamas job -approval rating at 52 percent and 54 percent, respectively, among 18-to-29-year-olds. The polling suggests he would win the majority of the youth vote, but not anything close to 66 pe rcent. As with other key voter groups, Obamas numbers with young Americans are better than they were last fall, when his approval ratings among that sector were typically in the mid-to-high 40s. The pattern is a common theme across so many voter groups: Obama is doing better, but his gains arent enough to put him close to 2008 levels . You may have noticed that
I tend to focus on job-approval numbers rather than trial-heat figures from candidate matchups. Historically, when you have a president seeking reelection, the approval ratings for that incumbent are better measures of voter support than the trial-heat figures. When an incumbent is running, the election is usually a referendum on that person rather than a choice between two people.
Obama Popularity key but can still shift

Silver, 12 (Nate, 5/15, chief pollster for New York Times 538 election polling center. Regarded as top -level pollster based on distinct mathematical models
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/a-30000-foot-view-on-the-presidential-race/)
is still also worth paying attention to Mr. Obamas approval rating. These have a history of predicting electoral outcomes at least as closely as head-to-head polls in the early stages of the race,
Although we are getting to the point where these national polls are at least worth a passing glance, it especially for incumbent presidents. Mr. Obamas approval ratings have not moved all that much. For the last month or two, they have been essentially even. Right now, in the RealClearPolitics average, 48.3 percent of Americans approve of the job that Mr. Obama is doing, and 48.6 percent disapprove. A president can get reelected with numbers like those. Obviously, he can also lose. But the fact that Mr. Obamas approval ratings are close to even means that it should not be surprising that the numbers in his matchup against Mr. Romney are getting closer to even, too. I am not a purist who says that candidates and campaigns make no difference. That said, the most reliable benchmark in the past of when presidential results deviate from those predicted by approval ratings is when one of the candidates has a relatively extreme ideology, like Barry M. Goldwater or George S. McGovern. Mr. Romney does not qualify as an extremist by the various measures we can look at that attempt to quantify this objectively neither does he qualify as a moderate. Instead, he is a generic Republican, who might run fairly close to the outcomes predicted by Mr. Obamas approval ratings. Mr. Romney also went through a period where his favorability ratings were quite poor. However, they have since improved to about even, possibly because his job has been less complicated since the effective end of the Republican primary campaign. It is not uncommon for favorability ratings to shift over the course of a campaign, particularly once the primaries end.
Elections DA 54/150
A2: Too Soon Now is key to the election -- voters make up their minds several months out and once a trend sets, it will determine the winner
Malone, 6/7/12 Jim Malone, Romney Rising, Obama Slipping, Voice of America News, 6 -7-2012 (http://blogs.voanews.com/2012election/2012/06/07/romney-rising-obama-slipping/) So yes, five months is a long time for the voters to decide. But recent presidential election history shows that many voters begin to make up their minds at this point in the election cycle, and that relatively few minds can be changed between now and Election Day. If its true that the cement is beginning to set, the Obama White House may not have a lot of time to change the dynamics of a race that shapes up as a straight up or down vote on how this president has handled the national economy.
Not too early historical data disproves

Abramowitz, 12
(Alan, Senior Columnist, Center For Politics.org, Prof Poli Sci @ Emory, 5/23, http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/what-does-presidentobama%E2%80%99s-may-approval-rating-tell-us-about-his-reelection-chances/) According to a Gallup Poll analysis of recent polling data on the mood of the American public, President Obama appears to face a difficult road to winning a second term in November. The specific indicators of the national mood included in Gallups analysis were economic confidence, the percentage of Americans citing the economy as the countrys most important problem, satisfaction with the state of the nation and approval of the presidents job performance. While all of these indicators have shown some improvement in the past year, according to Gallup they all remain at levels that suggest trouble for the incumbent. For example, only 24% of Americans said that they were satisfied with the direction of the country and 66% cited the economy as the most important problem facing the nation. There is little evidence about how indicators like satisfaction with the direction of the country or perceptions of the most important problem facing the nation affect the outcomes of presidential elections. However, there is strong evidence that an incumbent presidents approval rating, even several months before Election
Day, has a strong relationship to the eventual outcome of the election.
Early voting is a game changer- pushes every deadline forward and makes early organization and fundraising critical- Romney is especially adept means now is key for Obama
Slate, 3-12-2012 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/03/mitt_romney_s_early_voting_mastery_his_rivals_never_stood_ a_chance_.html
The political media may have welcomed the closing of polls on recent evenings in Florida, Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio with an air of suspense, but the members of Mitt Romneys team knew they already had more votes than their opponents. In the case of Florida, Romneys advisers believed Newt Gingrich would need an extraordinary Election Day performance to catch up; in Arizona, they were certain it was mathematically impossible for either Gingrich or Rick Santorum to do so. Even a late surge or Romneys own collapse was unlikely to redraw the outcome. You want to get as many people to vote absentee-ballot as you canit saves money and banks votes, says Rich Beeson, Romneys political director. So no matter what happens in the last week you have votes in the bank they cant take away. Once-meaningful distinctions between early voting, voting-by-mail, and absentee ballots are being erased as 32 states now offer voters
the chance to cast their ballot before Election Day without a justifying excuse (as traditional absentee balloting required). It probably amounts to the most radical change to American voting culture since the abolition of poll taxes . In 2008, one-third of Americans are believed to have voted by a method other than showing up in person at a polling place on the first Tuesday in November, some doing so as early as September. Romneys canny and competent handling of these varied early-voting processes this year has helped him accumulate a seemingly insurmountable lead in delegates. He is running the only modern, professional campaign against a field of amateurs gasping to keep up, and nowhere is that advantage more evident than in his mastery of early voting When state authorities searched for ways to update their election procedures after the
chaos of the 2000 recount, many decided to expand the window for voting. Political scientists, campaign consultants, and election administrators speculated about who stood to benefit most. Those who said such reforms would boost democratic participation cited an economic logic: Reducing the inconveniences involved in voting would, in effect, lower its cost and make it appealing to more people. A decade later, there is scant evidence that new opportunities to vote have significantly affected the electorate: The limited research in the area suggests that those who are already predisposed to voteand make up their minds well in advanceare the most likely to seize on the lower costs to cast a ballot on their own schedule. But early voting has changed electoral economics. In effect, candidates have to administer Election Day operations for a period as long as two months. In general elections, those costs are often saddled by party organizations that can share the benefits across multiple candidates. In primaries, campaigns are on their own, and the expansion of early voting reinforces existing advantages for campaigns that are rich, skilled, and experienced. It looks like the better organized campaign does better, says Christopher B. Mann, a former Democratic campaign
Elections DA 55/150
consultant and party official who ran early-vote programs and now studies them as a University of Miami political scientist. If you look at the primaries, its largely to Romneys advantage because he has the funding, the infrastructure, and the sophistication to take advantages of things in a way the other candidates couldnt.
Small swings matter its super close and next couple months key
Abramowitz, 12
(Alan, Senior Columnist, Center For Politics.org, Prof Poli Sci @ Emory, 5/23, http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/what-does-presidentobama%E2%80%99s-may-approval-rating-tell-us-about-his-reelection-chances/) Whether we base our prediction on President Obamas 47% approval rating in the Gallup Poll in early May or a more sophisticat ed forecasting model incorporating economic conditions and the time for change factor, it appears likely that we are headed for a very close election in November. Both models make Obama a slight favorite to win a second term. However, the final outcome will depend on the actual performance of the economy and the publics evaluation of the presidents job performance in the month s ahead. Those interested in assessing where the presidential race stands should focus on these two indicators rather than the day-to-day events of the campaign, which tend to dominate media coverage of the election.
Not too early Obama popularity early in race matters but can still shift
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/a-30000-foot-view-on-the-presidential-race/)
is still also worth paying attention to Mr. Obamas approval rating. These have a history of predicting electoral outcomes at least as closely as head-to-head polls in the early stages of the race,
Although we are getting to the point where these national polls are at least worth a passing glance, it especially for incumbent presidents. Mr. Obamas approval ratings have not moved all that much. For the last month or two, th ey have been essentially even. Right now, in the RealClearPolitics average, 48.3 percent of Americans approve of the job that Mr. Obama is doing, and 48.6 percent disapprove. A president can get reelected with numbers like those. Obviously, he can also lose. But the fact that Mr. Obamas approval ratings are close to even means that it should not be surprising that the numbers in his matchup against Mr. Romney are getting closer to even, too. I am not a purist who says that candidates and campaigns make no difference. That said, the most reliable benchmark in the past of when presidential results deviate from those predicted by approval ratings is when one of the candidates has a relatively extreme ideology, like Barry M. Goldwater or George S. McGovern. Mr. Romney does not qualify as an extremist by the various measures we can look at that attempt to quantify this objectively neither does he qualify as a moderate. Instead, he is a generic Republican, who might run fairly close to the outcomes predicted by Mr. Obamas approval ratings. Mr. Romney also went through a period where his favorability ratings were quite poor. However, they have since improved to about even, possibly because his job has been less complicated since the effective end of the Republican primary campaign. It is not uncommon for favorability ratings to shift over the course of a campaign, particularly once the primaries end. (Note obviously dont read this card after august!!!)
Now key swing voters will decide by end of august

USA Today, 12 (5/7, lexis)
Seven of 10 voters in those states say their minds are firmly made up and won't change. Both campaigns are focused not only on firing up enthusiasm among those core supporters but also winning over the 7% who are undecided and the 24% who are only loosely committed to a candidate. Under the United States' unique Electoral College system, that fraction of voters in a dozen states are likely to decide who can claim the presidency for the next four years. Based on turnout in 2008, these swing voters in the swing states consist of roughly a million people in Virginia; 1.6 million in Ohio; 2.5 million in Florida; 220,000 in New Hampshire -- a total of about 13 million voters out of an expected national turnout of more than 130 million. The next six months, when political spending will likely top $2 billion, will be aimed in large part at winning them over. In the 2008 campaign, almost precisely the same proportion of voters were up for grabs until late August, when it began to decline sharply with the choice of a Republican vice presidential candidate and the political conventions. By Election Day, the number of uncommitted voters nearly disappeared.
Trends from recent elections prove people make up their minds early
Roll Call, 6/9/05 Surveys from 2004 show that voters have become less and less likely to cross party lines when voting for president or Members of Congress. Not only that - these voters were also paying attention, and quite possibly making up their minds, early in the election cycle. Typically, voter interest in elections peaks
in October and November. But according to Autry's data, 63 percent of voters told pollsters in February 2004 that they were "very interested" in the election - 8 and 15 points higher than the percentage who had said they were very interested in October and November of 2000 and 1996, respectively. And in 2004, the degree of interest climbed all the way until Election Day, finishing up at a remarkable 74 percent. While it's possible that a confluence of unusual factors made 2004 unique, both Autry, of the firm Public Opinion Strategies, and Democrat Fred Yang of the firm Garin-Hart-Yang, agreed that early interest in elections has gone hand in hand with increasing party-line voting for federal offices. "Something has happened in the 21st century with President Bush and Democrats," Yang told the conference, sponsored by the University of North Carolina's program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life. "It's harder for Democrats in federal races to win crossover votes from Republicans." Yang added that signs of heightened voter interest in the 2006 midterm elections are already showing up in early polls. "Democrats are saying they'll vote for the Democrat, even if it's someone they've never heard of, and Republicans are saying they'll vote for a Republican, even if it's someone they've never heard of," he said. "This heightened partisan voting is starting at an extremely early stage."
Elections DA 56/150
Now is key campaign mode and fundraising

Wolf Blitzer, CNN, Jan 12th 2012, http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/blitzers-blog-pres-obama-in-full-campaignmode/?hpt=sr_mid (BJN)
(CNN) - President Obama is now in full re-election campaign mode. If there was any doubt, just check out the campaign speeches he delivered Wednesday night at three separate fundraising events in Chicago. Ive said before, Im not a perfect man, he told one Chicago group. Im not a perfect president. But Ive promised you this, and Ive kept this promise. I will always tell you what I believe. I wil l always tell you where I stand. I will wake up every single day thinking about how I can make this country better, and I will spend every ounce of energy that I have fig hting for you. The audience, of course, erupted in applause. He inspired them. It was vintage 2008 Barack Obama on the campaign trail. If you need further evidence that he already is way deep in campaigning, just check out the amount of money hes raised so far, without any Democratic primary challenger. When all the numbers are in on the Republican side, I suspect we will see that Obama raised more money in the last quarter than all the Republican candidates combined. That doesnt include the super PACs on the Republican and Democratic sides.
Not too early to predict

Sides, 12 (John, Prof polis ci @ G. Washington, 3/12, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/in-defense-of-presidential-forecastingmodels/?partner=rss&emc=rss) Third, if we look at the models in a different way, they arguably do a good enough job. Say that you just want to know who is going to win the presidential election, not whether this candidate will get 51 percent or 52 percent of the vote. Of the 58 separate predictions that Nate tabulates, 85 percent of them correctly identified the winner even though most forecasts were made two months or more before the election and even though few of these forecasts actually incorporated trial heat polls from the campaign.
Elections DA 57/150
A2: Too Late/Cant Change perception of economic performance Public perception of Obamas economic policy can still swing
Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 3/26, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12306) A far more important factor in determining whether voters decide to renew Obamas contract for another four years is whether they see his stewardship of the economy as a success. Has he done as well as anyone could realistically have done? Or did he have other priorities like health carethat
seemed to merit more attention than dealing with a worsening economic downturn and dramatically escalating unemployment? With each passing week we will get a new crop of statistics that will provide clues as to how the economy is faring. Will the narrative be a continuation of the improvement seen since last fall? Or, will this spurt have been more temporary, bumping against headwinds in the form of high energy prices, a global economic downturn, and recession in Europepreventing that pattern from continuing through the November election? How will the economy perform over the seven months between now and the election? Upcoming economic reports are likely to answer the question about whether Obamas presidency will be judged as a success. The Conferen ce Board on Tuesday will release its latest survey of consumer confidence. On Friday, the Thomson/Reuters/University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment will be released. These are the two most closely watched measures of how Americans see the economy now, and what their expectations are for the coming months. A week from Friday, the March unemployment figures will be reported. Analysts will look to see whether the improvement in the jobless picture seen over the winter will continue or whether it has leveled off. Some speculate that rapidly rising gasoline prices may ease sooner, rather than skyrocketing through the spring and summer, as many have forecasted. Which forecasts turn out to be right will be hugely important both politically and for the economy. Up until now, much of the spike in gas prices has been offset by unusually low heating bills paid during the fourth-warmest winter on record, and the warmest since 1990. The Wall Street research firm ISI Group, as of Oct. 3, had charted 16 out of 20 weeks as having more negative economic news and developments than positive ones. Since October 10, it has marked 25 weeks in a row of more positive than negative news and developments. But it has noted that the positive mix last week was not particularly convincinga possible sign that the recent upbeat pattern may be breaking up. Right now, a fair number of voters sit on the fence when it comes to assessing Obamas performance on the economy. They are disappointed that he didnt do better, but they are unwilling to pass final judgment. How the economy fares in the coming months will determine which side of that fence these voters decide to come down on.
Voters can break one way or other even in final weeks

CNN, 6/4 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/cnn-electoral-map-seven-states-up-in-the-air-in-fight-for-white-house/)
The map currently indicates that seven states are true toss-ups. Those states are Colorado (9 electoral votes), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13). Eighty-five electoral votes are up for grabs in those seven states. Four states currently lean towards Obama: Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). Four states currently lean towards Romney: Arizona (11), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), and North Carolina (15). "Elections generally break one way late, meaning if you head into the final weeks with six toss-ups, four or five - and sometimes all - break with the winner. And so that could well happen this time. But if you look at the map today, this looks a lot more like Bush vs. Gore than it does Obama vs. McCain," says CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, anchor of "John King, USA." "It's no surprise that Florida and Ohio are toss-ups and potential 'deciders' - they traditionally play that role in presidential politics. What is fascinating is the number of plausible scenarios under which one or two of the 'smaller' battlegrounds could prove decisive," King added. "Iowa and New Hampshire, for example - what a delicious storyline if it all ends in the states where it began. Colorado and Virginia are relative newcomers to the 'swing state' role, and now critical to what amounts to a multi-dimensional chess game." Overall, 15 states right now are either toss-ups or lean towards either the president or Romney. "The 2012 presidential election likely will be decided by these 15 key states, worth a total of 183 electoral votes," CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon says. "Determining what qualifies as a battleground state is not an exact science, but it's a rough mix of several criteria, including polling, past election results, the state's political, demographic, and economic trends; whether the campaigns and parties will devote resources to the state, such as ad spending, candidate visits, field offices, and staff, and the presence of other high-profile races on the ballot. CNN's Electoral Map will take into account all these factors, as well as its own reporting and analysis."
(NOTE Obviously dont read this after august)
Swing voters arent locked up wont decide until late august

USA Today, 12 (5/7, lexis)
Seven of 10 voters in those states say their minds are firmly made up and won't change. Both campaigns are focused not only on firing up enthusiasm among those core supporters but also winning over the 7% who are undecided and the 24% who are only loosely committed to a candidate. Under the United States' unique Electoral College system, that fraction of voters in a dozen states are likely to decide who can claim the presidency for the next four years. Based on turnout in 2008, these swing voters in the swing states consist of roughly a million people in Virginia; 1.6 million in Ohio; 2.5 million in Florida; 220,000 in New Hampshire -- a total of about 13 million voters out of an expected national turnout of more than 130 million. The next six months, when political spending will likely top $2 billion, will be aimed in large part at winning them over. In the 2008 campaign, almost precisely the same proportion of voters were up for grabs until late August, when it began to decline sharply with the choice of a Republican vice presidential candidate and the political conventions. By Election Day, the number of uncommitted voters nearly disappeared.
Voters can still easily switch

Ettinger, 6/12/12
Elections DA 58/150
Yoruam Ettinger, Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Obamas Steep Uphill Reelection Battle, 6 -12-2012 (http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/yoram-ettinger-obamas-steep-uphill-reelection-battle/2012/06/12/)
12. The history of US politics suggests that, in most campaigns, incumbents rather than challengers win/lose elections. Irrespective of the long-term and severe economic crisis, and regardless of the results of the June 5, 2012 Wisconsin election, November is still five months away. That is sufficient time for unexpected developments including significant blunders by Obama and Romney which could determine
the outcome of the election either way.
Its super close and shifts can still happen

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/a-30000-foot-view-on-the-presidential-race/) Although we are getting to the point where these national polls are at least worth a passing glance, it is still also worth paying attention to Mr. Obamas approval rating. These have a history of predicting electoral outcomes at least as closely as head-to-head polls in the early stages of the race, especially for incumbent presidents. Mr. Obamas approval ratings have not moved all that much. For the last month or two, they have been essentially even. Right now, in the RealClearPolitics average, 48.3 percent of Americans approve of the job that Mr. Obama is doing, and 48.6 percent disapprove. A president can get re-elected with numbers like those. Obviously, he can also lose. But the fact that Mr. Obamas approval ratings are close to even means that it should not be surprising that the numbers in his matchup against Mr. Romney are getting closer to even, too. I am not a purist who says that candidates and campaigns make no difference. That said, the most reliable benchmark in the past of when presidential results deviate from those predicted by approval ratings is when one of the candidates has a relatively extreme ideology, like Barry M. Goldwater or George S. McGovern. Mr. Romney does not qualify as an extremist by the various measures we can look at that attempt to quantify this objectively neither does he qualify as a moderate. Instead, he is a generic Republican, who might run fairly close to the outcomes predicted by Mr. Obamas approval ratings. Mr. Romney also went through a period where his favorability ratings were quite poor. However, they have since improved to about even, possibly because his job has been less complicated since the effective end of the Republican primary campaign. It is not uncommon for favorability ratings to shift over the course of a campaign, particularly once the primaries end .
Elections DA 59/150
AT: Election is Rigged Election not rigged- 2006 proves

Hayden 07 (Craig Hayden is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Southern Californias Center on Public Diplomacy. Craigs dissertation at the USC Annenberg School for Communication examined the role of presidential advisors in sustaining the Bush administration's media-driven rhetorical campaign for war against Iraq. Previous to his academic studies, he worked as a marketing professional for a series of technology-centric firms in California. Craig Hayden also holds an MA in International Relations from USC, and a BA in Politics and Economics from the University of California, Santa Cruz. April -- PUBLIC RELATIONS, PELOSI, AND THE U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY MACHINE -http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/070412_public_relations_pelosi_and_the_us_public_diplomacy_ machine/)
For example, what better way to convey the workings of a democracy than an election? One
could argue that the 2006 November elections, which witnessed a dramatic transfer of political power in the United States, was demonstrative of U.S. values and institutions in a very direct way. How did the Arab press cover it? Jihad El-Khazen declared in the November 9 edition of the pan-Arab Al-Hayat: "I expected that Bush and the Republicans
would lose, but the extent of their defeat was beyond my expectations, despite remarkable indications at the eleventh hour. In their electioneering, the Republican candidates propagated the belief that they had nothing to do with President Bush and his 'shipwreck.'" Across Arab media outlets, both online and in print, the event was heralded as a repudiation of the Bush administration's policies. More important for public diplomacy, this was often framed as a transition of power carried out by the will of the American people . The election was not depicted as rigged. It was democracy in action. Fast forward a few months to Speaker Nancy Pelosis controversial visit to Syria in early April of 2007. While the U.S. media worked itself into a momentary (and largely unwarranted) frenzy over whether the trip was appropriate, this moment was also an event laden with public diplomacy implications. Could this trip demonstrate the pluralistic nature of American politics, and counter Arab media portrayals of the Bush administration as an autocratic and ideological regime? Ultimately, how did the Pelosi visit function as part of the "public diplomacy machine?" The results are not entirely encouraging, and reflect a cynicism in Arab media over the direction of American politics and possibilities for U.S. policy change. The very same Jihad El-Khazen stated in the April 10 issue of Al-Hayat that: I hope that no Arab, especially in Syria, would misunderstand the truth about the policy of the head of the Democratic majority in Congress. El-Khazen was reminding his audience that there are less differences between Bush's policies and those of his Democratic opponents than probably imagined. Meanwhile, a public opinion poll conducted on Al-Arabiya.com on April 11 revealed that a large number of people believed Pelosi's visit to Syria was "merely a struggle between the two main parties in the United States," rather than a significant change in U.S. policy. Much of the coverage on Arab television outlets Al-Jazeerah and Al-Arabiya reflected the frame that the visit was a political maneuver, and some commentators noted that Syria was using the event as stunt for its own propaganda efforts. Despite the political competition frame that dominated Arab coverage of the trip, it generally did show that competition was possible in the politics of American foreign policy. And that in itself may be constructive for public diplomacy. Representing U.S. foreign policy as something more than the whim of a President works toward demonstrating the democratic political culture of the United States. Events such as these are significant moments. They impact the ongoing ebb and flow of messages that define and contextualize public diplomacy. Their representation in media concretizes the symbolic communication in public diplomacy. And, these events are often beyond the control of public diplomacy planners. This means that those responsible for public diplomacy need to be attentive to the actions that speak for the United States, and their subsequent representation in crucial foreign publics. The Rapid Response media analysis unit formed by Karen Hughes is an obvious example of this kind of attention. Also, there is a paradigmatic (or at least stated) trend spreading through the State Department to understand that every action, every foreign service officer, and every public statement they make carries some form of public diplomacy quotient. While the State Department seems to be "getting" this point I wonder about the rest of U.S. leadership. The "public diplomacy machine" is the product of communicative action (both intentional, symbolic, or otherwise). If this is true, what can we expect if our politics communicates our values? Read Comme nts (4) | Add Your Own Email this Technorati Links Add to del.icio.us Subscribe to this feed Digg This! ELIZABETH GILL LUI on April 13, 2007 @ 10:15 am: Our heinous and misguided neocon driven foreign policy will trump any and every good and valid public diplomacy gesture conceived by the DOS or Madison Avenue. The world is not stupid,nor can it be duped, by trying to sell American values when we ourselves are living up to them. Elizabeth Lui on April 13, 2007 @ 10:16 am: sorry...ARE NOT LIVING UP TO THEM! Alan J Simpson on April 14, 2007 @ 5:42 am: May I remind the young writer that holding US Elections up as a shining beacon to the world has a major flaw. Bush won both times by major voter fraud and redrawing the electoral districs thanks to henchman Tom DeLay. In addition no amount of Diplomacy, Government or Corporate will replace failed neo-fascist ideologies (nor ultra-left wing ones either) that cause so much disruption around the world. If a Mugger is kicking the crap out of a victim on the ground don't expect the victim to be enthusiastic about the tune the mugger is whistling. And the Rapid Response Media Unit response by Karen Hughes? Will they wear Black SWAT Team uniforms and go round beating Arab News Bureaus who criticize the US and Israel? Let's get some realism into this debate and end the rhetoric and window dressing. The world, and the electorate has had enough, and they haven't even seen the bill for Bush's Folly yet! Think Democracy and carrying out the Will of the People. What a novel concept! Craig Hayden on April 16, 2007 @ 12:08 pm: The problem with wholesale rejection of the current public diplomacy situation is that it solves nothing. Granted, I'm not sure what policy-makers can (or feel inclined to) do about "fixing" American public diplomacy. For the past two posts, I've tried to speculate on tangible venues for improving American public diplomacy outside of just saying "nothing will work." I recognize that many believe that public diplomacy will only start to "improve" once Bush leaves office. I would also argue that many other countries have followed similar tactics in dealing with the U.S. Better to wait it out and see who comes next. I think that leaves a lot of well-intentioned efforts at improving public diplomacy on the sidelines. Whatever the case, Americans will have to live with the legacy that the current administration has wrought - a severe decline in U.S. credibility being the most obvious and injurious to future international relations. Credibility does not spring from the schoolyard logic of declining to negotiate for fear of appearing weak. Credibility comes from (among other things) acting like a mature, responsible nation-state and adhering to the norms and institutions that sustain international "society." Credibility equates to the character of the United States. To resign oneself to conspiratorial depictions of a subverted U.S. democracy is to undercut the practice of democratic dissent. When we "perform" democracy, we convey the tenets of our democratic institutions and cultural values, and that's the heart of what public diplomacy (or soft power, or whatever you want to call it) is all about. My main point here is that I think U.S. public diplomacy can benefit political dissent. To translate frustration over the current administration's foreign policy is demonstrate faith and the possibility that the U.S. has not crossed some symbolic threshold for foreign audiences that no public diplomacy can ever hope to redress. I'm not saying that official public diplomacy can solely repair damage to U.S. image. Because of that, the sphere of public diplomacy needs to expand, and include evidence for how the U.S. tries to correct itself (rather than appear captive to a political machine.) Sure, policies need to change to help "fix" the image of the U.S. But how we, as citizens and the media outside of government, frame our arguments, symbolically asserts that it can indeed be fixed.
Sure, U.S. elections are not perfect. But then again, if the system was as "broken" as some skeptics claim, how could the results of 2006 have occurred? U.S. political culture remains an asset for public diplomacy - and to suggest it as no longer viable is to remove a pillar of credibility that
public diplomacy (nor the U.S. image in total) can afford to lose. My position is unfortunately realistic - as there are few other sources of social capital left to draw upon to shore up the sagging reserves of credibility. If the U.S. cannot "play to its strengths" what is left for public diplomacy?
Elections DA 60/150
No impact to rigging- not effective

Rossi 04 (Mark Antony Rossi is a published author of seven books including "Mother Of All Machines: A Bioethics Primer" and recently released "The Intruder Bulletins: The Dark Side of Technology.". Virus in the System: Ethics and Electronics in the Election Process The Ethical Spectacle September 2004 -- http://www.spectacle.org/0904/rossi.html) The title of this article harkens thoughts of the Bush-Gore election of 2000; a serious slugfest hinging on hanging chads and blue-haired Floridians. But I am not referring to that fair election which was ultimately Senator Gores to lose and lose he did. A number of tactical campaign errors certainly cost him the presidency, namely losing his home state of Tennessee, distancing himself from Clinton, and choosing a decent yet boring running mate Senator Joseph Lieberman. Elections are usually lost by dumb mistakes. In the near future elections may be stolen by corporate entities in collaboration with hidden agents of either major political party. Some might laugh and say its already been done, Mark. Referring to the legendary union tampering of West Virginian votes for the Kennedy presidential election, or even farther back in the Truman elections before he became president. In both instances criminal elements in cahoots with collaborative members of the political establishment steered these elections to victory. However; in both instances it can also be argued any undue influence might not had such a dramatic effect since these candidates were generally favored by the public. Either way dubious elections results in a democracy is still the exception and not the rule. The great majority of American elections are fair and honest, if not always politically or practically desirable to certain groups or even the common good. Freedom is messy.
Elections DA 61/150
Elections DA 62/150
Econ Issues Key
Only economic issues will matter

Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 5/14, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12496) Its unlikely that same-sex marriage is going to push the economy out of the dominant role in this election. Indeed, short of a major international incident, it is unlikely that any other issue will displace the economic ones . But gay marriage was the most discussed issue last week. The most remarkable thing
was not President Obamas announcement that he would embrace same-sex marriage, even if it wasnt exactly premeditated. Instead, it was a memo from a very prominent and well-respected Republican pollster suggesting that his party should treat the issue with considerably more caution than it has in the past.
Economic Issues key and even small perception of changes create big swing
Cook, 12
(Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/26, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12429) Regular readers of this column know that in analyzing the 2012 presidential race, I have been preoccupiedsome would say obsessedwith the state and direction of the U.S. economy. Presidential elections have many moving parts and can turn on many things, but rarely is a single factor more important than the economy when an incumbent is up for reelection. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted among 1,000 adults from April 13-17, supports that view. Overall, 49 percent said they approve of the job that President Obama is doing, and 46 percent said they disapprove. The poll, conducted by Democrat Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff, pegs Obamas approval rating just 1 point higher than the cur rent averages by RealClearPolitics and Huffposts Pollster.com, as well as the Gallup tracking average, for the week of April 16-22. Not much disparity there. Obamas lead in the horse race with Mitt Romney was 6 points in the NBC/WSJ poll, 49 percent to 43 percent. His advantage was a little less in some of the other surve ys. RealClearPolitics pegged Obamas lead at 3.7 points; Pollster reported 2.7 points. For April 18-23, the Gallup tracking poll had the president up by 7 points, 49 percent to 42 percent. If you focus on the economy, though, the situation looks more complicated. Obamas NBC/WSJ job rating on handling the eco nomy is 45 percent approval and 57 percent disapproval. Those numbers are less favorable than his overall approval rating. When respondents were asked whether they thought Obamas p olicies had helped or hurt economic conditions, or had made no difference at all, 36 percent said they had helped, 30 percent said they made no difference, and 33 percent said they had hurt. Obviously, you can push the made no difference group in either direction. But the 63 percent who said that Obamas policies either made no difference or hurt economic conditions do not bode well for the president. When asked whether they thought the economy would get better, get worse, or stay about the same over the next 12 months, 38 percent said that it would get better, 42 percent said it would stay the same, and 19 percent predicted that things would get worse. With 61 percent believing that the economic picture will either get worse or stay the same, the public clearly remains very nervous about the economyagain, not good news for the president. Respondents were given a choice of 13 positive attributes and asked whether each better describes Obama or Romney; the good news for the president is that the respondents associated 10 attributes more with him than with his challenger. They are, in descending order of advantage: being easygoing and likable; caring about average people; being compassionate enough to understand average people; dealing with issues of concern to women; looking out for the middle class; being knowledgeable and experienced enough to be president; being consistent and standing up for his beliefs; sharing your positions on the issues; and being honest and straightforward. Obama also had a narrow advantage, within the margin of error, on setting the proper moral tone for the country. Taken together, the results suggest that Obamas reelection should be a slam dunk, right? Not necessarily. Although Romney had the advantage on only two attributes, they were having good ideas for how to improve the economy (by 6 points) and changing the business as usual in Washington (by 7 points). Those sound a lot like central tenets of Obamas campaign four years ago. So Obama had the advantage on most of the attributes, but Romney led on two of the most impo rtant ones. The results arent convincing enough to give the advantage to either Romney or Obama. All of these findings reinforce the view that the economy will be a very important factor in the election, regardless of whether it improves or just bumps along. Obama badly needs the countrys economic performance over the next six months to validate his policies and decisions. If the overall economy improves, job creation increases, and consumer confidence goes up, those markers will serve as validation. If the economy is bouncing along, with growth at a subdued level and unemployment still at or above 8 percent not the 9 percent of a year ago, but hardly in the 7.2-to7.4 percent range that boosted President Reagans 1984 reelection fortunes after the 1982 recessionthe public will be in no mood to validate Obamas policies and decisions. Gallups most recent polling suggests that Obama has received a bit of a boost from the decline in gasoline prices ; his approval rating bumped up to 50 percent in three consecutive days of Gallups three-day moving averages. The bump shows just how volatile public attitudes are, particularly when
important economic issues are involved. That volatility isnt likely to change between now and Election Day. The economy will determine this election.
Economy and jobs are the key issue

Pew, 12 (Pew Research Center, 1/23, http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/23/public-priorities-deficit-rising-terrorism-slipping/) With the nations economy still struggling and unemployment still high, economic concerns continue to top the publics policy agenda for President Obama and Congress. More than eight-in-ten cite strengthening the economy (86%) and improving the job situation (82%) as top priorities. These numbers have fluctuated only slightly since the start of 2009.
Elections DA 63/150
Jobs most important econ issue
Jobs legislation is most important issue for voters

Pew, 12 (Pew Research Center, 1/23, http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/23/public-priorities-deficit-rising-terrorism-slipping/)
As the 2012 State of the Union approaches, the
public continues to give the highest priority to economic issues. Fully 86% say that strengthening the economy should be a top priority for the president and Congress this year, and 82% rate improving the job situation as a top priority. None of the other 20 issues tested in this annual survey rate as a top priority for more than 70% of Americans.
Elections DA 64/150
A2: Thumper - Only on ground econ matters
Its not just economic performance voter perception on economic issues swings key battleground states
Teixeira and Halpin, 11 Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin, Center for American Progress, November, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/11/pdf/path_to_270_execsumm.pdf
Obviously, much could change between now and then but at the outset of the election campaign it is clear that two large forces will ultimately determine the outcome: the shifting demographic balance of the American electorate, and the objective reality and voter perception of the economy in key battleground states. The central questions of the election are thus fairly straightforward. Will the rising electorate of communities of color, the Millennial generation, professionals, single women, and seculars that pushed Obama to victory in 2008 be sufficient and mobilized enough to ensure his re-election in 2012? Or will the Republican Party and its presidential nominee capitalize on a struggling economy and greater mobilization from a conservative base that holds the president in deep disdain?
Voter perception matters its not just the hard economic data
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/what-do-economic-models-really-tell-us-about-elections/) So we can breathe a sigh of relief. The economic fundamentals clearly do make some difference quite a bit really. But we shouldnt expect any miracles. This cute little model would have called the wrong winner in six of the past 25 elections: 1912, 1948, 1952, 1960, 1968, and 2000 (although it would have gotten the winner of the popular vote right in that year). And it would have missed the margin in the popular vote by about 8 points on average, or roughly 4 points for each of the two major candidates (since a vote for one of them means a vote against the other). This seems like a healthy state of affairs. Simple economic variables can account for a little less than half of the variability in election results . The other half falls into the everything else category, including factors such as foreign policy successes and failures, major scandals, incumbency, candidate quality, controversial social legislation and structural factors like changes in partisanship. Technically speaking, some of the variability may also be explained by economic factors that weigh upon voters minds, but
which are not easily quantified by measures like G.D.P. and inflation. Nevertheless, the heuristic its half the economy and half everything else, stupid i s a pretty good way to think about presidential elections. Some models, however, claim to have much more predictive power than this, using economic variables (sometimes along with noneconomic variables) to explain as much as 90 percent of presidential election results. You should be very skeptical of these claims. Perhaps the best-known of these models is the so-called Bread and Peace model designed by Douglas Hibbs of the University of Gothenberg. There are a lot of things to admire about this model. Most notably, its not larded down with superfluous varia bles. Instead, it is based on just two: growth in real, per-capita disposable income (weighted to place more emphasis on the later years of a presidents term than the earlier ones), and the number of military fatalities resulting from U.S.-initiated foreign conflicts. (The latter definition would apply to wars like Iraq or Vietnam but not to something like the Gulf War or World War II where the U.S. was responding to another countrys attack.) Mr. Hibbs, using data from 1952 through 2008, claims to be ab le to explain almost 90 percent of the variance in presidential election results based on these variables alone, missing the results by just a point or two on average: There are a couple of common critiques of this model. One is that the way it defines wars is a bit problematic. For instance, because the Korean War resulted in 14 times more U.S. fatalities than the Iraq War, it had about 14 times more effect on Mr. Hibbss model. Perhaps thats a defensible position U.S. soldiers being killed in action is a very noticeable impact for the public but by other measures we might have expected Iraq to have a larger impact: it was more unpopular than the Korean War, and it was quite a bit more expensive. Nevertheless, the proof is the models predictive power. Mr. Hibbs first released forecasts using this model in 1992, and since then it has performed acceptably well but not superbly, with fairly big misses in 1996 and 2000 but good results in the other years, including 2008. Still, there are some signs that the model is not quite as accurate as claimed. Using these two variables to forecast the results of the elections of 1952 through 1988 the dataset that Mr. Hibbs originally had to work with would have missed the incumbent partys vote share by just 0.8 percentage points, on average. Since then, on the out-of-sample results, the average miss has been 2.6 percentage points. We can, of course, wait to see how this model does in 2012, 2016, 2020 and so forth to get a better sense for how accurate it really is. But I dont have that much patience! So heres what we can do instead its a technique that Ive applied to other models of this type. We can plug in the data from elections prior to 1952, which were outside the period that the model to build its estimates. How would the model have performed in 1948, for example? I dug deep into the bowels of the Census Bureaus Web site and discovered data on disposable income growth dating back to the 1920s. (The data is annual rather than q uarterly, but this is easy to adjust for and should make only an extremely minor difference.) The other variable that Mr. Hibbs uses military casualties isnt pertinent to these years because the only major conflict that the U.S. fought in during this period was World War II, a good war in which the United States was compelled into action because of Axis hostilities and that therefore would not meet Mr. Hibbss definition. Here, again, is how the model performed from 1952 through 2008: Now, lets plug in 1948: Uh-oh. The model did really, really badly in 1948. Disposable income growth was actually negative in the four years preceding 1948, according to M r. Hibbss formula. It would have predicted, therefore, just a 43 percent share of the two-party vote (that is, excluding votes for third parties) for Harry Truman. Instead, Truman got 52 percent of the two-party vote and won the election over Thomas Dewey, much to the Chicago Tribunes surprise. But 1948 was a weird year lots of erratic economic data in the postwar period. How would the model have performed in 1944? Another bad year for the model. Income growth was prodigious in these years, and the model would have expected Franklin Roosevelt to win a landslide victory, getting 66 percent of the two-party vote. Roosevelt booked a solid win, but his actual total of 54 percent of the two-party vote is not particularly close to the models estimate. This election occurred during World War II; perhaps Mr. Hibbs distinction between good and bad wars is less salient to the American public than we might think. But this is a poor result. The 1940 election occurred before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the model performed better in that year, missing Roosevelts vote share by 4 points. But 1936 constituted another big problem. Disposab le income growth between 1932 and 1936 was an astounding 8.5 percent. That should have translated, according to the formula, to Roosevelt receiving 77 percent of the two-party vote. Roosevelt performed really, really well in 1936, winning all but two states, but he won only 62 percent of the vote rather than 77 percent. A similar problem is apparent in 1932. Herbert Hoover presided over the biggest economic disaster in United States history, with per capita income growth declining by 8.4 p ercent. Mr. Hibbss formula would have called for him to win just 16 percent of the major-party vote. Hoover did, in fact, lose in a landslide, but things werent quite that bad. 1928, a seemingly normal year (no depressions, no wars), was another bad one for the model. Although some other economic measures were decent or good, disposable income growth was slow
Elections DA 65/150
enough that the model would have predicted that Hoover would receive 47 percent of the vote and lose the election. Instead, he won in a landslide, defeating the Democratic candidate, Al Smith. If its any consolation, the model would have performed quite well in 1924. Overall, however, the model performs quite poorly on outof-sample results. In the years from 1924 through 1948, and from 1992 through 2008, it would hav e missed the incumbent partys vote share by an average of 7.8 points, and a median of 4.7 points. By contrast, a naive strategy of simply guessing that the incumbent party would win exactly half the vote would have done better, missing by an average of 5.8 points and a median of 4.3 points. If we redo the model using all the data from 1924 through 2008, it explains about 60 percent not 90 percent of the variance in the presidential vote. Importantly, the coefficient on the growth variable is also quite a bit lower, meaning that the electorate is somewhat less sensitive to economic performance. Each percentage point rise in income growth translates to a 1.5 percentage point rise in the incumbent partys vote share, rather than 3.6 percent as the original model implied. And if we remove the war causalities variable and just focus on what the model tells us about the economy, it explains almost exactly half the vote. Thats good, but not much better than our simple G.D.P. -and-inflation model. To be clear, I think Mr. Hibbss model is the best of its kind. But theres nothing magical about it, and the fact that it performed so uncannily well from 1952 through 1988 is not a good r eflection of its predictive power. Core
economic variables explain about half of the presidential vote the rest is up to the candidates and the voters. At the risk of beating a dead
horse, let me reiterate that this is a result that I find intuitively appealing. Id be worried if, as our study of the unemp loyment rate seemed to imply, the economy had no effect on election results at all; that clearly seems wrong given the effect it has upon peoples lives and the medias (appropriate) attention to it. But Id be just as worried if one or two economic variables explained 90 percent of the results. Wars matter, above and beyond what can be measured with a single variable based on military causalities. Watergate mattered. September 11 mattered. Monica Lewinsky mattered. The fact that parties have nominated candidates as strong as Dwight Eisenhower and as weak as George McGovern that matters. It matters that the electorate goes through phases of being relatively more and relatively less partisan. In 2012, things like President Obamas unpopular health care bill, the Republicans unpopular Medicare bill, and the death of Osama bin Laden are likely to matter. So will the economy (those numbers are getting worse for Mr. Obama). But the results are not quite baked in, as some would have you believe. Until we reach the point where the polls become more reliable the nice thing about polls is that they permit voters to determine for themselves them, rather than having preferences inferred by a statistical formula my advice is to look at more rather than fewer pieces of evidence.
what matters to
Voter economic perception can boost Obama even if economy stays weak
Lux 2-20-12 (Mike, Co-founder & CEO Progressive Strategies, Huffington Post, 2012 Scenarios: What if the Economy Heads Back Downhill? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/obama-jobs-2012_b_1289076.html, jj)
So if the economy starts moving in the wrong direction because of either or both of these factors, are things lost for the Obama re-election effort? They sure don't help, but the answer is no. Here's what the Obama team needs to focus on with these dangers in mind: 1. Keep the focus firmly on fighting for the middle class. Most voters don't blame Obama for the tough times, and they are well aware that the Republicans in Congress aren't doing anything to help, but they will blame the president if they think he is not fighting hard for them while they are suffering through these bonecrunching times for the middle class. The Obama team's shift in messaging toward the Teddy Roosevelt style populism he has exhibited in the last few months is working. I am firmly convinced that this message -- in contrast to the of the rich, by the rich, for the
rich campaign of Mitt Romney -- is what has driven his poll numbers in the right direction, not the modestly improving economic numbers most voters don't feel yet.
Its not just hard economics perception and campaign effects matter
Sides, 12 (John, Prof polis ci @ G. Washington, 3/12, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/in-defense-of-presidential-forecastingmodels/?partner=rss&emc=rss) But you cant disentangle the impact of the economy and the campaign that easily. The characteristics of candidates and campaign strategies themselves depend on the economy. Better candidates will challenge incumbents when the economy makes those incumbents vulnerable. Candidates decisions to campaign on the economy will depend on whether they will get credit or take blame for economic conditions. And factors like the economy
often come to matter precisely because they are emphasized in the campaign. That is to say, the campaign can make the forecasting models come true, or at least truer. In short, the economy is bound up with campaigns and elections in may complex ways. There is no simple way to separate the total effects of structural forces like the economy and the total effect of the campaign itself. So although Ill continue to
follow forecasting models and hope that Nates comments, among others, make those models better, the bulk of what we can lear n and should understand about elections will not come from forecasting models.
Voter perception matters shapes electoral effect of hard economic data

Silver, 11
(Nate, 6/2, chief pollster for New York Times 538 election polling center. Regarded as top -level pollster based on distinct mathematical modelshttp://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/on-the-maddeningly-inexact-relationship-between-unemployment-and-re-election/) On the Maddeningly Inexact Relationship Between Unemployment and Re-Election Make no mistake: the higher the unemployment rate in November 2012, the less likely President Obama is to win a second term. But we should be careful about asserting that there is any particular threshold at which Mr. Obama would go from favorite to underdog, or any magic number at which his re-election would either become impossible or a fait accompli. Historically, the relationship between the unemployment rate and a presidents performance on Election Day is complicated and tenuous. An article in todays Times notes, for example, that no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent. That was the unemployment rate in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan resoundingly won a second term. This type of da ta may be of limited use for predictive purposes, however. Reagan won re-election by 18 points, suggesting that he had quite a bit of slack. An unemployment rate of 7.5 percent or even higher would presumably have been good enough to win him another term. Its also not obvious that Roosevelt should be excluded from the calculus, particularly given that the economic crisis the country is working its way out of now is the most severe since his administration. He won re-election in 1936 with an unemployment rate of
Elections DA 66/150
16.6 percent, and again in 1940 with a rate of 14.6 percent. For Roosevelt, at least, the unemployment rate was headed in the right direction: down from 19.8 percent in 1933, the year he took office. This was also true for Reagan, although only barely so: he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent from Jimmy Carter, seeing it drop to 7.2 percent in time for his re-election. The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama took office was 7.8 percent and he may not follow in his predecessors footsteps by leaving it in a better place than he found it. As of last month, private forecasters like Wells Fargo and The Wall Street Journals forecasting panel were anticipating an unemployment rate close to 7.8 percent by late 2012. But those forecasts preceded a bevy of poor economic reports, which may lead some economists to lower their estimates. Looking at unemployment in this way as the rate of change over a presidents term is probably the more worthwhile approach. But it, too, is not always reliable. Unemployment increased by 1.9 percentage points over the course of Rich ard M. Nixons first term, but he won re-election easily. It also increased in George W. Bushs and Dwight D. Eisenhowers first terms, and their re-election bids were also successful. The unemployment rate fell to 3.9 percent from 5.3 percent, meanwhile, in Bill Clintons second term but his vice president, Al Gore, could not beat Mr. Bush in the Electoral College. There are also cases in which the data behaved more intuitively: Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush all faced high unemployment rates when they lost their re-election bids, as did Gerald R. Ford in 1976, and that was surely a factor in their defeats. But historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a presidents electoral performance has been essentially zero. In the chart below, Ive provided unemployment data for the last centurys worth of presidential elections, comparing the unemployment rate on Inauguration Day to the one that the president (or the incumbent partys candidate) faced on Election Day. Data for 1 948 onward is on a monthly basis, while only annual estimates are available before then. The most straightforward application is to compare the unemployment rate to the incumbent partys performance in the popular vote. Historically, there has been no correlation between these variables: Alternatively, we can look at the change in the unemployment rate over the course of a presidential term. This does produce some positive correlation, but its quite weak and almost entirely driven by a couple of outlying data points surrounding the Great Depression: Data from after World War II is less noisy both in terms of the fluctuations in the unemployment rate and the presidential results. But the correlations are not improved any: Another approach is to look only at those cases in which a president, like Mr. Obama, served a full, four-year elected term and was seeking a second one. This cuts the number of data points down to 11 from 25. It does not, however, improve the correlations much, although the second graph which evaluates the change in the unemployment rate for elected presidents seeking a second term is somewhat more promising. Perhaps if you go through enough iterations of this exercise which range of years you look at, which presidents were elected or which ones assumed the office through death or resignation, where you define the starting point and endpoint of a presidents term, which of the several unemployment data series you use you can get the correlations up a bit higher. But almost no matter what you do even if youre more or less deliberately cherry-picking they range from zero to fairly weak. So does that mean that the unemployment rate should just be ignored and that the news medias focus on it is misplaced? No, I think thats emphatically the wrong interpretation. The data is not really strong enough to prove there is a relationship but because there are a relatively limited number of data points, it is also not strong enough to disprove that there is a relationship. In these cases, it is entirely permissible to default to common sense, which is that the unemployment rate should have some effect on a presidents re-election chances. The problem is that whatever signal there is gets filtered through an awful lot of noise. Consider: The unemployment rate itself is subject to fairly significant measurement error.
Voters will interpret the unemployment rate in different ways, and assign the president varying amounts of credit or
blame for it.
Its not just about the hard data

Silver, 11
(Nate, 6/2, chief pollster for New York Times 538 election polling center. Regarded as top -level pollster based on distinct mathematical models http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/on-the-maddeningly-inexact-relationship-between-unemployment-and-re-election/)
Some political scientists prefer other economic indicators to the unemployment rate, and there is evidence that measures like growth in real disposable income do a better job of predicting election results. Here, too, however, we ought to be cautious. There are literally thousands of plausible models that one might
build, using different economic indicators measured in different ways and over different time periods, taken alone or in combination with one another, and applied to different subsets of elections that are deemed to be relevant. Some of these models, through chance alone, will produce a better fit on the historical data but the relationships may be spurious and their predictive power will sometimes not be as strong as claimed. Even the most thoughtful, welldesigned models I like this one, for instance can see their performance deteriorate quite substantially if small, seemingly benign changes are made to their assumptions. Working with data like this gets tricky. We have a good sense for the cards that Mr. Obama holds the different factors that will work for and against him but our idea of how the hand will play out is quite fuzzy, and the rules of the game may change from election to election. Clearly, Mr. Obamas odds will be impaired if his hand contains more deuces and treys than aces and kings and that, in essence, is what weaker data from the labor sector implies for him. But this is an inexact science more so than either journalists or political scientists tend to acknowledge.
Voter perception matters not just economic fundamentals

Silver, 11 (nate, 6/6, chief pollster for New York Times 538 election polling center. Regarded as top -level pollster based on distinct mathematical models
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/the-ten-word-question-that-could-cost-obama-the-election/) I take the middle view here the fundamentals matter, but campaigns do, too . Many of these models, besides, are
predicting a very close election while the consensus view of economists is that although another recession is unlikely, the recovery is likely to proceed in fits and starts.
Elections DA 67/150
A2: Thumper Econ/FoPo Surprises
No major surprises coming now econ and foreign policy are static
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/economically-obama-is-no-jimmy-carter/) The forward-looking data was bad as well. The stock market declined in the six months leading up to May 1980 (even without adjusting for inflation), and the consensus of economic forecasters at the time was that conditions would remain recessionary for the six months ahead. By contrast, the data this year is mediocre, but nowhere near that terrible. Industrial production has picked up quite a bit and is an economic bright spot, which could help Mr. Obama in the manufacturingintensive economies of the Midwest. Inflation has not been a major problem throughout the economy as a whole, although energy prices have been a periodic threat. However, income growth is very slow, as is the growth in consumption as indicated by the broadest measure of it, personal consumption expenditures. (Growth in retail sales has been more robust, but that is a less comprehensive statistic.) Jobs growth has been decent recently, but many economists expect it to slow some in the subsequent months. Gross domestic product in the final six months of the year, likewise, is expected to grow at a below-average rate. Still, there is really no comparison between Mr. Obama and Mr. Carter, who faced an economy that was still bottoming out into a severe and broad-based recession. Mr. Obama, by contrast, faces numbers that are improving but perhaps too slowly. It would probably require an economic shock, instead, to put Mr. Obama in Mr. Carters shoes. This could happen, of course for instance, if there were a meltdown in Europe. Economists differ greatly on whether this would have relatively mild or more catastrophic effects on the American economy. But most versions of it would be enough to leave Mr. Obama as a clear underdog for re-election. Even if that were to occur, however, Mr. Obamas situation might still not be as bad as Mr. Carters. For instance, he does not face an acute foreign policy crisis, at the moment at least, as Mr. Carter did in Iran, and a European-driven recession would probably not be associated with high inflation (although one set off by oil-price instability in the Middle East might). In some ways, in fact, its remarkable that Mr. Carter lost his election to Mr. Re agan by only 10 points. Some of this was because the recession of 1980 was extremely unusual: it was severe but also brief, ultimately persisting for only six months. Mr. Car ters recession technically ended in August 1980, although not in a way that would have been highly visible to consumers and voters at the time. All of this produced some incredibly volatile polling in 1980. Mr. Carter led Mr. Reagan by a wide margin in polls in January and February 1980. The numbers drew closer together in the spring. By the summer, Mr. Reagan had a clear lead, peaking around 25 points in polls conducted immediately after the Republican convention in Detroit. Then, Mr. Carter rebounded, with polls conducted in late October showing him behind Mr. Reagan by only a point or two on average. Mr. Reagan considerably beat his polls on Election Day, however, and won in a landslide. Once we release the election model, we will be a little bit more in sweat the small stuff mode, analyzing the trends in the polling and the economic numbers on an almost-daily basis. So far, however, the 2012 election cycle has been extremely stable as compared with some other years like 1980.
Elections DA 68/150
A2: Thumper Economic Collapse/Recovery Coming No Major Economic Swings before election now its super close so even small shifts in obamas support can determine the outcome
Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/12, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12364) If economists consensus is correct, Democrats who hoped that an improving economy would boost the presidents reelection prospects might be disappointed; Obamas detractors looking for a plunge to seal his fate may be disappoi nted as well. Certainly, the
economy is better today than it was six months ago; gross domestic product growth is higher and unemployment is lower. Conseq uently, the presidents approval ratings have risen. But that trajectory might not continue. In the just-released, April 10 Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 56 top economists, the consensus of forecasts calls for tepid growth between now and the election: 2.2 percent GDP growth for the just-completed first quarter, 2.3 percent for the second quarter, 2.4 percent for the third quarter, and 2.6 percent in the final quarter of the year, The election, of course, falls in the middle of the fourth quarter. While better than the GDP growth of less than 2 percent in the first three quarters of 2011, the outl ook is considerably below the 3 percent pace of last years fourth quarter. For unemployment, this years second-quarter forecast is for 8.2 percent, the same as the reported jobless rate in March, dropping just one-tenth of a point in the third quarter to 8.1 percent and another tenth of a point to 8 percent in the fourth quarter. Thats better than the 9 -plus percent unemployment in the first nine months of last year, but its not much of an improvement. (And, of course, some argue that the dropping jobless rate is more a product of people leaving the potential labor force than of real job creation.) With these economic numbers, Obama is not close to putting this election away, as some people seem to think he has. The current Intrade odds give the president a 61 percent chance of reelection, but the economic numbers suggest a tightening race, fought down to the last couple of points and states.
Elections DA 69/150
A2: Thumper Foreign Policy Foreign policy irrelevant voters dont care, its already priced in and Romney cant exploit
Cook, 12
(Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 5/7, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12467) A second piece of advice
for Romney: Shut up about foreign policy. Its clearly not your forte. You sound shrill at best and, at worst, uninformed. Romney isnt going to beat Obama on foreign policy. It will be on the economy . Polls show that Obama gets considerably better job-approval ratings on handling foreign policy than on anything else . For Romney, the bad news is that Obama is rated reasonably well on foreign policy. The good news is that voters dont seem to be voting on foreign policy.
Foreign Policy Irrelevant economic issues key

Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/12, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12364)
Romney must quickly reverse directions, probably grinding some gears in the process, but Obamas fate is less in his own hands than in the economys. As of now, foreign policy is a good news/bad news proposition. The good news for the president is that the public generally approves of his handling of foreign policy. Indeed, if judged on that performance alone, he would win the election quite comfortably today. The bad news for him is
that foreign policy doesnt seem to be a driver for many voters; their focus is the economy.
Public doesnt care about foreign policy only economic issues matter
Pew, 12 (Pew Research Center, 1/23, http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/23/public-priorities-deficit-rising-terrorism-slipping/)
As the 2012 State of the Union approaches, the
public continues to give the highest priority to economic issues. Fully 86% say that strengthening the economy should be a top priority for the president and Congress this year, and 82% rate improving the job situation as a top priority. None of the other 20 issues tested in this annual survey rate as a top priority for more than 70% of Americans. More generally, the publics concerns rest more with domestic policy than at any point in the past 15 years; 81% say Obama should be focused on domestic policy, just 9% say foreign policy. In keeping with this, defending against terrorism and strengthening the military are given less priority today than
over the course of the past decade.
Elections DA 70/150
A2: Thumper Health Care
Health care not key and already priced in perception on economic issues outweighs and can still swing
Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 3/26, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12306) Count me among the few who dont believe that this weeks oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and whatever ruling the justices announce, will be pivotal in determining President Obamas fate in November. Notwithstanding the natural tendency for journalists to breathlessly cite everything (and every primary night!) as hugely consequential, some issues have already run their course with the public. President Obamas two-year-old health care law has already been fully litigated in the court of public opinion, with a split and very close decision: A plurality think it and the individual mandate were bad, a handful of points ahead of those who approved of both. These attitudes are fairly stable. This is unlikely to be a topic that dominates conversations around the water cooler, grocery aisle, or backyard fence. Attitudes toward Obamas health care law are already baked into the cake of how people perceive Obama himself, his performance, and whether he should be reelected. An extremely high percentage of those who disapprove of the law also disapprove of him. Similarly, an extremely high percentage of those who approve of the law also approve of him. The few who dont have opinions are more likely to be swayed by other factors. A large majority of Americans already have some fo rm of health insurance coverage. A majority of those people are reasonably satisfied with whatever they have. Their votes in November certainly arent hanging in the balance. A Supreme Court decision is unlikely to change those views of whether the law is good or bad.
Obamacare has become a political Rorschach test: People read into it what they want to. The laws enactment was either a dang erous overreach that would destroy liberty, free enterprise, and our current health care system, or it was badly needed, though imperfect, and will do far more good than bad. But again, it all goes back to the larger question of how voters see Obama. Americans vote with their pocketbooks. A far more important factor in determining whether voters decide to renew Obamas contract for another four years is whether they see his stewardship of the economy as a success. Has he done as well as anyone could realistically have done? Or did he have other prioritieslike health carethat seemed to merit more attention than dealing with a worsening economic downturn and dramatically escalating unemployment? With each passing week we will get a new crop of statistics that will provide clues as to how the economy is faring. Will the narrative be a continuation of the improvement seen since last fall? Or, will this spurt have been more temporary, bumping against headwinds in the form of high energy prices, a global economic downturn, and recession in Europepreventing that pattern from continuing through the November election? How will the economy perform over the seven months between now and the election? Upcoming economic reports are likely to answer the question about whether Obamas presidency will be judged as a success. The Conference Board on Tuesday will release its latest survey of consumer confidence. On Friday, the Thomson/Reuters/University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment will be released. These are the two most closely watched measures of how Americans see the economy now, and what their expectations are for the coming months. A week from Friday, the March unemployment figures will be reported. Analysts will look to see whether the improvement in the jobless picture seen over the winter will continue or whether it has leveled off. Some speculate that rapidly rising gasoline prices may ease sooner, rather than skyrocketing through the spring and summer, as many have forecasted. Which forecasts turn out to be right will be hugely important both politically and for the economy. Up until now, much of the spike in gas prices has been offset by unusually low heating bills paid during the fourth-warmest winter on record, and the warmest since 1990. The Wall Street research firm ISI Group, as of Oct. 3, had charted 16 out of 20 weeks as having more negative economic news and developments than positive ones. Since October 10, it has marked 25 weeks in a row of more positive than negative news and developments. But it has noted that the positive mix last week was not particularly convincinga possible sign that the recent upbeat pattern may be breaking up. Right now, a fair number of voters sit on the fence when it comes to assessing Obamas performance on the economy. They are disappointed that he didnt do better, but they are unwilling to pass final judgment. How the economy fares in the coming months will determine which side of that fence these voters decide to come down on.
Health care ruling not key several reasons

Green, 12 (Laura, Washington Bureau, Palm Beach Post, 6/6, lexis) It's difficult to predict whether voters will switch sides in the presidential election based on the court's ruling. Americans are deeply divided over the law. A CNN poll taken just days before the oral arguments in March found that 23 percent of those surveyed wanted the court to uphold the law in its entirety, while 30 percent wanted the whole law struck down. Another 43 percent thought some of the law's provisions should be overturned. The court's ruling is expected to influence some voters, but generally Americans are more likely to be swayed by other issues, the poll found. Health care was rated the No. 1 issue by only 11 percent of respondents. The economy (53 percent) and federal budget deficit (20 percent) dwarfed health care as an important issue. Health care, however, did outscore the war in Afghanistan, which was rated by just 6 percent as the top issue. Given his role in providing universal health care as governor of Massachusetts, critics say presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is uniquely unqualified to hammer Obama if the law is ruled unconstitutional.
Court will uphold but issue narrow ruling that blunts conservative backlash
Green, 12 (Laura, Washington Bureau, Palm Beach Post, 6/6, lexis)
"If the law is not upheld, then it's back to the drawing boards at a time when our health care system is really in serious danger of imploding," said Elliott Pollack, a lawyer specializing in health care at Pullman & Comley in Connecticut, and the health law writer for the American Bar Association. The court must decide whether, under its commerce clause powers, Congress can regulate the health insurance industry. Congress is permitted by the Constitution to regulate commerce
Elections DA 71/150
between the states, but critics of the law say Americans who are not buying insurance are not engaging in commerce. The law's supporters say that health care is unique because virtually all Americans will need it at some point, and if they become ill without it, they are passing on costs to other Americans. Thus, by not buying insurance, they are still engaging in commerce. Congress has successfully waded into health care with the Medicare and Medicaid programs, Pollack said. "I believe that, on reflection, given the massive nature of the problem, and that fact that Congress has already played such a large role in the health care problem, (the court will find that) health care is an interstate activity," he said. The state of health care in America could drive the court to issue a one-off opinion, as it did in Bush v. Gore, Jarvis said. The court said that its 5-4 decision to stop a statewide recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election should not serve as a precedent. Opponents of the health care law have warned that if Congress can force people to buy insurance, it could order them to buy GM, to prop up the American auto company. Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida famously worried that the health care law could set the stage for Congress to require Americans to purchase broccoli, and struck it down. Issuing an opinion that specifically says it has
no bearing on any other case could potentially blunt that point and appeal to conservatives who believe there must be checks on Congress' power, Jarvis said.
Elections DA 72/150
A2: Thumper Iran strikes
Iran Strikes wont be October surprise several reasons

Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 5/7, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12454) According to The New York Times, top Israeli and U.S. intelligence and military officials agree that Iran has suspended its nuclear-weapons program. They believe that Iran unquestionably had an active program but some time ago stopped short of taking advanced steps to create weapons. Some well-placed foreign-policy officials of close U.S. allies also share this view. In the past two weeks, current and very recent Israel intelligence and military officials have publicly made these points . These officials statements contrast starkly with those of Israels
political leaders, notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who see Irans nuclear capability as an immediate and existential threat to their country. The growing consensus that Iran is no longer actively developing nuclear weapons and that the Persian nation is facing increased economic hardshipwith an embargo slated to begin on July 1has lessened fears of an imminent attack on Iran. This is one reason, along with rising Saudi and domestic U.S. oil production and diminished demand, for the recent drop in oil prices. The American Automobile Associations latest Daily Fuel Gauge Report indicates that the national average for regular-grade gasoline is $3.81 a gallon, 12 cents below the $3.93 of a month ago. It is also 13 cents below the average of a year ago. The perceived threat of war is lower, helping to bring gas prices down some. We dont know, though, whether prices will continue to drop in the coming months or stay relatively high until Election Day. The combination of the fourth-warmest winter on record and historically low natural-gas prices has significantly diminished home-heating costs for many Americans this year, and that has worked to offset spiking gasoline prices during the winter months. So, for now, the threat of major military action in the Middle East before November 6 is less likely than it was just a few months ago. Its just unclear whether the odds have declined enough to create a peace dividend in the form of lower oil and gasoline prices in the next six months. Foreign-policy insiders dont think that Obama will participate in, or support, a unilateral attack on Iran unless he is convinced that Iran is on the cusp of developing a nuclearweapons capability. But they are equally certain that he would act if intelligence showed that capability is drawing near. The insiders say that a knee-jerk reaction to protect Israel wouldnt motivate Obama. The president, they believe, is worried that if Iran developed a nuclear-weapons capability, other countries in the region would immediately go on the market to acquire their own nuclear capabilities from Pakistan or elsewhere, triggering an arms race on his watch that he would consider abhorrent and unacceptable.
No Strikes before the election

National Journal Subscriber, 3-4-2012 http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-plays-hawk-in-chief-on-iran-20120304
But after delivering those more martial pledges, Obama then tried to tamp down what he called loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israels security, Americas security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Obama laid out a timetable for obtaining a diplomatic commitment from Iran to negotiate away its nuclear program that seemed to take him well beyond November . Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July thanks to our diplomatic coordination a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold, he said.
Elections DA 73/150
A2: Thumper X legislation
Nothing will pass before election now

Steinhauer, 12
Jennifer, Bureau Chief, NYT, 6/9, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/congressional-memo-as-recess-nears-little-hope-for-breaking-partisan-impasse.html) As Recess Nears, Little Hope for Breaking Partisan Impasse They are the sort of bills that, once upon a time in Washington, passed easily: money for highways and students, protection for battered women. But in this Congressional climate, it seems unlikely that all or even any of these stalled measures will be enacted before the July 4th recess an ominous sign for the much harder work of preventing an entire fiscal unraveling at the end of the year. Crisis looms, because crisis is all Washington can do these days. Members of Congress are increasingly worried about the lame-duck session after the election, one replete with expiring tax provisions and onerous budget cuts that are increasingly becoming known as the fiscal cliff. But there is also a policy precipice at the end of June, when two important programs will expire if Republicans and Democrats cannot find a way to compromise on t hem. There is frustration among a bipartisan group, said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire. There are an awful lot of red states that need transportation funding, too. Even more remarkably, the two parties are at an impasse on a formerly benign measure that has routinely passed with near unanimous bipartisan support, one that protects women from domestic violence. With both chambers set to recess for a Fourth of July holiday, on top of the House being out all of next week and senators once again racing for the regions airports on Thursday afternoon, it is becoming hard to see how a spate of deals will be done. Absent such action, come July 1, millions of college students will see the interest rates on their federally subsidized loans double to 6.8 percent, and highway financing will again be in jeopardy. The measure that helps protect women would leave uncertainty about future funding for its programs. The mood on Capitol Hill was sizzling with partisan rancor this week, particularly after an article on Politico suggested that Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and majority
leader, had declared 2012 legislation more or less finished. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, took to the Senate floor to berate Mr. Cantor, although there was no actual quotation
in the article to point to, for saying out loud what every Republican on Capitol Hill has been thinking all along they care more about winning elections than creating jobs. Over in the House, a spokeswoman for Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican whip, said on Twitter that the House would be voting well after Harry Reids bedtime. Ouch. And Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, hinted Thursday that the highway bill wou ld remain unresolved, and that a sixmonth extension might be in the offing. The failure of Congress to reach agreement has serious implications for road projects, families with college-age children and women who use shelters and other legal services. This is a major concern for us and our students, said Diane Stemper, the d irector of student financial aid at Ohio State University, where 57 percent of the undergraduates have federal student loans. Our students on average are graduating with $20,000 in debt. In New Hampshire, sections of an expansion of Interstate 93 have already been delayed because the state waited to issue bonds because of uncertainty over a clear revenue stream from Washington, said Cliff Sinnott, the executive director of the Rockingham Planning Commission. The summer impasse also presages tough days ahead for both parties charged with resolving far more controversial tax and spending matters before the end of the year. These things should be pretty easy, s aid Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri. I think it all depends now on what happens with the election. And I ha te to say that because the fact is we have the responsibility to get our work done and we need to get it done, and I would hope that everyone acts like adults and we do the work we need to d o. In the case of each piece of legislation, members of both parties agree on the essential details. With the exception of a handful of very conservative Republicans in both chambers, a majority of members agree that student loan rates should not increase, but the parties are tied in knots over how to cover the $6 billion price tag for doing so. Republicans and Democrats have volleyed some different ideas back and forth over the last week late Thursday, Mr. Reid proposed two ways to shore up private pensions and generate more tax revenues as a means to pay for the loan rate extension, While there seemed to be some signs of movement, no deal seemed in the immediate offing. While the Senate has passed a bipartisan transportation bill, the House has rejected it, because it does not offer the streamlining and program consolidation Republicans seek. The House bill has provisions for the next phase of the Keystone XL pipeline and a measure concerning coal ash. The two sides appear at loggerheads. The Tea Party is holding up a major transportation bill, Ms. Shaheen said. Simi larly, the Senate passed a Violence Against Women Act, and the House has its own version that removes Senate provisions like those that would subject non-Indian suspects of domestic violence to prosecution before tribal courts for crimes allegedly committed on reservations and expand the number of temporary visas for illegal immigrant victims of domestic violence. This bill that once passed by voice vote seems hopelessly stalled. Its always frustrating, said Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, thats part of the legislative life up here always has been. This is an election year, and not many things happen in an election year.
No legislation before election now

Bontempo, 12 (Lisa, energy lobbyist, including 13 years with NPGA, LP/Gas, 3/1, lexis)
In addition, there are few internal congressional deadlines that would force Congress to work together to pass legislation before the elections. Since January, the 10-month extension of the payroll tax cut has passed Congress. The government is already funded through October, and last summer's deal has set the budget funding levels for the next fiscal year . Because funding issues are one of the biggest divides between the parties, expect to see stopgap funding bills this fall for fiscal year 2013 since it's unlikely Congress will complete its regular annual appropriations bills before it leaves for elections. What makes this even more intriguing is the fact that several major issues must be dealt with before the end of 2012, including the expiration of all Bush-era tax cuts. If they are not renewed, it will mean a significant increase in federal revenue and a return to higher tax rates for millions of Americans. Also, the debt ceiling agreement of August 2011 put in place across-the-board cuts for nearly all federal spending of about $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Half of this must come from the Defense Department. Expect Congress to try to act on the Bush tax cuts as well as to try and reverse or change the automatic spending cuts, something the GOP and many Democrats have vowed to do. Election-year agendas designed to exploit political advantage will be dead on arrival : Even if the House's Republican majority passes legislation, it will face a presidential veto and/or not be able to pass the Democratic majority in the Senate.
Elections DA 74/150
Elections DA 75/150
Independents Key
Our link outweighs for swing voters - Fiscal discipline is top issue for independent swing voters and they dont trust federal investments so theres no perception of benefit NSOR, 10 (North Star Opinion Research, Resurgent Republic, Dr. Whit Ayres, president of North Star Opinion Research, co-founded Resurgent Republic with
former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie and Impacto Group CEO Leslie Sanchez. North Star partners with Resurgent Republic to conduct surveys and focus groups on popular issues and trends that help shape public debate over the proper role of government, 7/7, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/summaries/independents-supportconservative-policies-in-health-care-energy-and-fiscal-issues)
With Independent voters siding overwhelmingly with Republican voters again in our latest survey, conservative and market-oriented policies now consistently trump the liberal and government-oriented policies pursued by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. In three key policy areas health care, energy, and fiscal issues conservative policies are more popular than liberal ones. Voters agree that offshore drilling should continue by a 56 to 37 percent margin, including a 56 to 36 percent margin
among Independents and a 71 to 24 percent margin among Republicans. (Democrats oppose any new offshore wells by a 50 to 44 percent margin). This survey also finds that predictions of increased support for the health care bill once voters learned more about it have proved inaccurate. Voters support an argument urging repeal of the new health care reform law by a 53 to 41 percent margin, even when juxtaposed against a strong populist message that we should stand up to the insurance companies, not give in to them. Independents agree that the health care law should be repealed by a 52 to 39 percent margin, compared to a 77 to 21 percent margin among Republicans. Democrats oppose repealing the law by a 61 to 33 percent margin. Fiscal
issues, starting with the passage of the stimulus package last spring, are at the vanguard of Independent dissatisfaction with Congress, and this survey shows Independents continue to oppose new spending and support corporate and capital gains tax cuts. In fact, voters overall agree that we should freeze total federal spending at 2010 levels for the next five years, by a 54 to 38 percent margin, even against a counterargument that freezing total federal spending at 2010 levels for five years is irresponsible. That would require either not paying guaranteed benefits like Social Security and Medicare, or making drastic cuts in the defense budget. Independents agree that we should freeze federal spending for five years by a 52 to 35 percent margin. Our link outweighs perception of economic benefits for swing voters NSOR, 11 (North Star Opinion Research, Resurgent Republic, Dr. Whit Ayres, president of North Star Opinion Research, co-founded Resurgent Republic with
former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie and Impacto Group CEO Leslie Sanchez. North Star partners with Resurgent Republic to conduct surveys and focus groups on popular issues and trends that help shape public debate over the proper role of government, 11/8, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/summaries/independents-supportconservative-policies-in-health-care-energy-and-fiscal-issues)
As shown repeatedly in past Resurgent Republic surveys, a majority of Americans continues to believe that the federal government should be "spending less to reduce the deficit" rather than "spending more to help the economy recover." Voters overall want the federal government to spend less by 54 to 40 percent, including Republicans by 78 to 20 percent and Independents by 58 to 35 percent. Only Democrats want to spend more, by 63 to 30 percent. Our link outweighs for independent swing voters NSOR, 10 (North Star Opinion Research, Resurgent Republic, Dr. Whit Ayres, president of North Star Opinion Research, co-founded Resurgent Republic with
former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie and Impacto Group CEO Leslie Sanchez. North Star partners with Resurgent Republic to conduct surveys and focus groups on popular issues and trends that help shape public debate over the proper role of government, 7/7, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/summaries/independents-supportconservative-policies-in-health-care-energy-and-fiscal-issues) Fiscal Issues 1. Likely
voters say the federal government should freeze spending for five years. Even when voters are given a counterargument that a spending freeze would mean deciding between cutting benefits or defense spending, they agree that a spending freeze is a good idea by a 54 to 38 percent margin, including a 52 to 35 percent margin among Independents. Congressman A says freezing total federal spending at 2010 levels for five years is irresponsible. That would
require either not paying guaranteed benefits like Social Security and Medicare, or making drastic cuts in the defense budget. Congressman B says we should freeze total federal spending at 2010 levels for the next five years. By funding only the top priorities, we will get the budget deficit back under control, and stop bankrupting the country and mortgaging our children's future. 2. Voter concern about deficits is also evident in support for a balanced budget amendment and a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. These voters agree by a 54 to 37 percent margin that we should adopt a balanced budget amendment because it is the only way we will instill some fiscal discipline in politicians and stop them from bankrupting the country, despite
a counterargument that a balanced budget could force draconian cuts in Medicare and national defense, and hurt the governments ability to respond to emergencies like 9-11. Voters also agree that state legislatures should call for a convention to adopt a balanced budget amendment by a 46 to 3 9
percent margin, and agree that we should require a super majority of two-thirds to approve new spending by a 57 to 36 percent margin. 3. Voters support extending the capital gains tax cut and cutting corporate taxes. By a 54 to 40 percent margin, voters agree that we should keep the capital gains tax rate at 15 percent where it is today. Raising capital gains taxes now would hurt economic growth at a time when the economy desperately needs to create more jobs, over the argument that letting the Bush tax cuts on capital gains expirewould raise the tax rate on capital gains from 15 to 20 percent, which would provide critically needed re venue, and ensure that the rich pay their fair share. Voters agree that we should cut the corporate income tax rate from 40 to 25 percent to stimulate job growth in the private sector
Elections DA 76/150
over cutting corporate taxes is a giveaway to the rich which would increase the deficit at the worst possible time by a 50 to 43 percent margin. 4. In contrast to focus group findings, voters indicate some questions about the shrinking tax base. Our research has found mixed responses to questions focused on the fact that the highest earning 53 percent of Americans pay all income taxes, while nearly half pay none. In focus groups, voters were skeptical that was the case, even when presented with information that tax credits eliminate the tax liabilities for many tax filers. This survey framed the issue more in terms of fairness: Congressman A says it is good for the country if the poorest half of Americans pays no income taxes. Those who can best afford to pay should carry most of the burden of funding the federal government. Congressman B says it is bad for the country if half the population pays all the income taxes and half pays nothing. Every American citizen should contribute at least something to support the federal government. In that context, voters agree that it is bad for the country if half the population pays all the income taxes by a 65 to 28 percent margin. Education 1. Voters have a middle-of-the-road attitude when it comes to education, with arguments on either side splitting the electorate. For example, voters agree that the federal government should not set national education standards by a narrow 49 to 47 percent margin, (51 to 44 percent among Independents) given these statements: Congressman A says we need national education standards that are tougher than those in other countries. Only with national standards will we be able to ensure a world-class education for our students. Congressman B says federal government has no business setting national education standards. Education is a state and local responsibility, and the states are best able to meet the needs of their own students. 2. Voters narrowly agree that federal education dollars should be spent exclusively on public schools, that teacher pay should not be tied to teacher performance, and that all teachers should be required to complete teacher training classes. Voters agree that federal education dollars should be spent exclusively in public schools by a 50 to 47 percent margin when presented with these arguments: Congressman A says federal education dollars should go exclusively to public schools. We should not take funding away from struggling public schools to subsidize private education. Congressman B says federal education dollars should follow the student when parents move them from failing public schools. Federal money should support the best possible education for a child, whether public, private, or parochial. Voters also oppose tying teacher pay to performance by a 51 to 42 percent margin (47 to 45 percent among Independents), given the many factors that affect student achievement like the home environment. Fi nally, the argument against alternative certification draws majority support, 55 to 40 percent, when presented with these arguments: Congressman A says we need the best trained people teaching in our public schools. Just because someone knows a lot about a field does not mean they will be an effective teacher. All teachers should be required to complete teacher training classes. Congressman B says we should recruit our most talented people to teach in public schools. Many mid-career professionals could make superb teachers, and it makes no sense to require them to take a full curriculum of teacher training classes. Conclusion Voters
seem not only to be rejecting big government policies in response to the actions of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress, but also seem ready to embrace conservative policies. That movement is driven by Independents, who have been moving away from liberal policy choices for more than a year. The Obama Administrations policy choices have created very fertile ground for conservative alternatives this fall.
Elections DA 77/150
--A2: Theres Not Enough

Swing Voters key contrary claims based on flawed studies
Eberly, 12
Todd Eberly, a political science professor at St. Marys College of Maryland, Center For Politics.org, 5/12/12 But what if the number of independent voters is greater than 10%, or even greater than 20%? Suddenly, winning a majority of independent voters becomes more important. In a recent report written for the centrist Democratic organization Third Way, I examined whether or not leaners are indeed independent. For my research, I used the 2000-2004 panel study conducted by the American National Election Studies (ANES). I selected the panel study for a simple reason: Its one of the few studies available that tracked the same group of voters across multiple elections. Thats important. Most studies of voting and partisanship capture only a snapshot of a point in time and allow researchers to measure partisanship only during a given election cycle. Such snapshots would be fine if partisanship were permanent and not subject to change. That is very much the view of partisanship taken by those who consider independent voters to be a myth. In my research for Third Way, I compared the partisan voting loyalty of Democrats and Republicans by looking at their partisan vote choice across three House elections (2000, 2002 and 2004) compared to their strength of partisanship in 2000. Survey respondents were classified as being strong, weak or independent partisans (leaners). I found that weak and independent partisans are less loyal to party in the short term and especially across time. While roughly 90% of strong partisans voted the party line in 2000, approximately a quarter of weak and independent partisans crossed party lines that year. In 2002 and 2004, strong and weak partisans held steady at roughly 90% and 75% loyalty, but independent partisans were more volatile especially independent Democrats. In 2002, 46% of those who identified as an independent Democrat in 2000 voted Republican. The share was 38% in 2004. I also found that independent partisans were far more likely to switch their partisan identification over time so 2000s independent Democrat could well be 2004s independent Republican. Thats something a nonpanel series could not account for. The study suggested that during a given election period independent partisans are as loyal to party as their weak partisan peers, but that loyalty wanes over time. To me, a voter who switches his or her partisan vote choice from one election cycle to the next is not a loyal partisan rather, that voter is an independent voter. My findings have been criticized largely based on my selection of the 2000-2004 data series. Some contend that the events of Sept. 11 and the subsequent War on Terror made that time period unique and therefore unrepresentative. Unfortunately there is no other comparable data set exploring the same respondents across multiple elections. In a recent post challenging the findings contained in the Third Way report, Alan Abramowitz examined the 2008-2009 panel study and compared the partisan loyalty and partisan vote choice of respondents in the 2008 presidential election. Abramowitz came to the same conclusion as did I in my Third Way report: that independent partisans behave much like their more partisan peers in a given election. Unfortunately, the 2008-2009 panel survey does not allow one to follow partisanship or partisan loyalty across multiple elections. As such it is not a useful data source for the study of partisan loyalty and the presence of independent voters. Additionally, I researched partisan loyalty by examining House elections, because it allows one to study multiple elections across a relatively short timeframe. To address concerns about the 2000-2004 data, I conducted additional analyses with that data source and with the 1992-1997 panel survey by ANES. Having already demonstrated that leaners are less loyal to party over time, I wanted to focus on estimating the number of true independent voters in the electorate. Based on my study for Third Way, I placed the number at approximately 25% of the electorate, which is a number also endorsed by Linda Killian in her book, The Swing Vote. I compared the 1994 and 1996 as well as the 2002 and 2004 partisan vote choice to the choice made in 1992 and 2000 respectively. In other words, what share of the folks who voted Democratic in 1992 voted Republican in 1994 or 1996? What share of folks voting Republican in 2000 voted Democrat in 2002 and 2004? As I am interested in two-party vote shares, I limited my study to only those who voted for one of the two parties in each of the elections covered. Of those who voted for a Democrat in the 1992 House elections, 25% opted to vote Republican in 1994 and 24% opted to vote Republican in 1996. Among Republicans, 12% voted for a Democrat in 1994 and 21% voted for a Democrat in 1996. Based on the two-party vote shares in each election, nearly 19% of those voting in 1992 and 1994 changed their partisan vote choice. The overall share was closer to 23% between 1992 and 1996. When looking at the more recent era, of those who voted for a Democrat in the 2000 House elections, 16% voted Republican in 2002 and 21% voted Republican in 2004. Among Republicans, 11% voted Democrat in 2002 and 21% voted Democrat in 2004. Both panel series show that partisan loyalty declines over time, and that Democratic voters are less loyal than Republican voters. Consistent with the findings of the Third Way report, both panel series show that partisan loyalty is weakest among weak, but especially among independent, partisans (most defections came from independent partisans). Much is made of surveys by Gallup and Pew that suggest that a plurality of voters are independents perhaps as much as 40%. This is simply incorrect. But so too are arguments that independent voters make up less than 10% of the electorate. The stability of a partisan coalition is dependent upon sustained loyalty across elections, but roughly 20% of the voting electorate are not loyal partisans (and that share would grow if I expanded my study to include folks who opted to not vote as non-voters could hardly be considered loyal partisans). In an era of closely matched political parties and relatively narrow two-party vote shares, winning and maintaining the support of that 20% is crucial.
Elections DA 78/150
A2: Fundraising key Campaign contributions not key multiple reasons

Abramowitz, 12 (Alan, Senior Columnist, Center For Politics.org, Prof Poli Sci @ Emory, 5/31, http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/buying-apresidential-election-its-not-as-easy-as-you-think/
Buying a Presidential Election? Its Not as Easy as You Think It looks like its going to be another tough season for long-suffering fans
of the Chicago Cubs. Two months into the 2012 baseball season, the Cubs are mired in last place in the National League s Central Division with one of the worst records in Major League Baseball. But the patriarch of the family that owns the Cubs, billionaire investor Joe Ricketts, has had more on his mind lately than the Cubs problems. It seems that hes been busy with another major project stopping Barack Obama from winning a second term in the White House. A few weeks ago it was revealed that Ricketts, who made a fortune as the founder of the online brokerage firm TD Ameritrade, was preparing to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign reminding voters in battleground states about Obamas relationship with fiery Chicago pastor Jeremiah Wright. After stories a bout the proposed ad campaign appeared in the media, it was almost universally panned by political commentators on the right as well as the left, and Ricketts announced that he would not be funding it. But that didnt mean that he was giving up on his goal of defeating President Obama. It turns out that Ricketts is providing majo r financial support for another anti-Obama venture. This time its a film being made by the conservative writer Dinesh DSouza, attacking the president for an anti -colonial worldview that he supposedly inherited from his Kenyan father. Like the Jeremiah Wright ad campaign, DSouzas line o f attack has been criticized as inaccurate, misleading and downright silly by prominent conservative commentators, including the Washington Posts George Will. One sign of just how little support there is for DSouzas claims in mainstream conservative circles is the fact that the only candidate to make the Obama as anti-colonial Kenyan claim during the Republican primary campaign was Newt Gingrich. One might simply dismiss Joe Ricketts behavior as the quixotic quest of a lone wolf with more money than he knows what to do with. But Ricketts actions are far from unique. He is one of a small but growing group of conservative billionaires who have taken advantage of lax campaign finance rules reinforced by recent Supreme Court decisions to pour millions of dollars into the 2012 presidential campaign. The Democrats have their own wealthy sugar daddies, of course, but there are fewer of them and, so far at least, they have been much less willing to open their wallets to help reelect the president. During the recent Republican primary campaign, billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson almost single-handedly kept Newt Gingrichs floundering campaign afloat for several months by donating tens of millions of dollars to a pro-Gingrich Super PAC. Another billionaire, financial investor Foster Friess, gave several million dollars to a SuperPAC supporting Rick Santorum, helping the former Pennsylvania senator emerge as Mitt Romneys main challenger for the GOP nomination. And of course, Romney himself ben efited from millions of dollars donated to his own SuperPAC, much of it from a handful of extremely wealthy supporters. In the end, the Republican contest turned out the way most political experts expected it to from the beginning: The candidate with the broadest support from Republican voters and the most endorsements by GOP officeholders, Mitt Romney, locked up the nomination well before the end of the primaries. All
of the millions of dollars spent by billionaire-funded SuperPACS, little impact on the final outcome. So what can we expect from all of the spending by SuperPACs and their billionaire donors in the general election? No doubt much of it will be
most on negative ads attacking other Republican candidates, probably had wasted on negative advertising campaigns and propaganda like the aborted Jeremiah Wright ads or the Obama as anti-colonial Kenyan film. Such messages appeal mainly to a small group of conservatives who dont need to be convinced to vote against Barack Obama. But not all of those ru nning these SuperPACs are political amateurs or ideologues. Republican campaign guru Karl Rove has his own Super PAC that has raised millions of dollars from a relatively small number of wealthy conservative donors. Rove has already launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign in a number of swing states attacking the Presidents economic record by highlighting the continued suffering of ordinary Americans more than three years after Obama took office. Roves message is m uch more likely to resonate with swing voters in key battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. But despite the clever messaging, the Rove Super PACs anti -Obama campaign is also likely to have little or no impact on the outcome of the election. Thats because the tens of millions of dollars th at they are spending on television ads in the swing states is coming on top of hundreds of millions of dollars already being spent on TV ads in these states by the candidates themselves, party organizations, labor unions, liberal and conservative organizations and wealthy individuals. The
airwaves in the eight or 10 states that will decide the outcome of the 2012 presidential election will soon be saturated with ads supporting and opposing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, all aimed at persuading a small group of undecided voters less than 10%, according to most recent polls. These undecided voters are much less interested in the presidential election than those who have already chosen sides. When the ads come on, they generally ignore them. Moreover, undecided voters are not stupid, and theyre generally skeptical about the messages that they see on TV. As a result, the net impact of all of this advertising is likely to be minimal.
Elections DA 79/150
A2: Base/Turnout Key
enthusiasm gap and turnout not key close election guarantees turnout even if voter enthusiasm is low
Silver, 12 (Nate, NYT Blogs, chief pollster for New York Times 538 election polling center. Regarded as top -level pollster based on distinct mathematical models 2/6, lexis) It should be remembered, however, that Republicans have the turnout advantage in November because their voters tend to come from demographic groups (like older Americans and wealthier Americans) who vote more frequently. This usually manifests itself in the fact that polls of likely voters show somewhat more favorable results for Republicans than polls of registered voters. The safest default assumption is probably that this gap will exist again, but that it will amount to a more typical value like 2 or 3 percentage points than the 6-point "enthusiasm gap" that existed in 2010. Or it could be that the middling enthusiasm for Mr. Romney will only make much difference if he appears to be in trouble by November. Democratic turnout was quite poor, for instance, in 1984 for Walter Mondale, a candidate who has some parallels to Mr. Romney. However, it was clear that Ronald Reagan was going to win that election anyway; low Democratic turnout contributed to Reagan's margin of victory, but strong turnout would not have reversed the result. On the other hand, Democrats had somewhat limited enthusiasm for John Kerry in 2004 - but that election was much closer, and they did not have any major problems in getting their voters to the polls. In other words, perhaps if Mr. Obama appears poised for a 6- or 7-point victory
by November based on the economic fundamentals, Republican voters may feel that their vote makes little difference anyway and some of them will stay home as a protest, expanding Mr. Obama's victory margin to 8 or 9 points instead and making it look prettier in the Electoral College. But I'm more skeptical that this will matter much in an environment in which the election will be very close and every vote could make a difference .
Elections DA 80/150
A2: (Dem) Base Key Independent Swing voters key not dem base
Saunders, 12 Debra J. Saunders, Columnist @ San Fransisco Chronicle, Creators Syndicate, January 7, 2012, lexis The bigger issue, however, concerns Team Obama's apparent decision to win re-election by playing to the liberal base, not the American political middle. While the administration should be working to heal the economy, the administration is busy pointing fingers at bad Republicans. Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo likened the Obama strategy to Bush guru Karl Rove's strategy to win re-election in 2004 by ginning up the base. Russo doesn't see how it could work for the Democrats this year. To independent voters especially, the president's failure to work with Congress doesn't compute. "Look, you're president," Russo said. "Why can't you just walk over to Congress and talk to these guys?" To the average Joe, there's only one standard , noted Russo. "You've got to get the job done."
Elections DA 81/150
A2: (GOP) Base Key - Resilient GOP Base enthusiasm is locked up and irreversible moderates key
Epstien, 12 (Reid, Columnist @ Politico, 5/17, lexis) Romney can make the about-face on Clinton, GOP operative Rick Wilson said, because the combination of the primary's end and Obama's embrace of gay marriage have coalesced for him the conservative base. What's left to target is the political middle and voters who remember fondly the Clinton era. "Romney now has the Republican base done and done. Locked up, cooked, in the bag," Wilson said. "He is still soft a little bit with moderates. Bill Clinton is beloved by those folks. He's not seen as a Democratic partisan in the same way he was when he was
president."
Elections DA 82/150
A2: (GOP) Base Key GOP must reach out to independents
Strict opposition to spending or taxes backfires alienates swing voters

Cook, 12
(Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 5/1, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12442) Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg offers up an alternative view. Noting the polls of his own firm and plenty of others, Stan points to signs that, while the Democratic Partys brand has its own issues with favorable-unfavorable and positive-negative gaps (different pollsters test these things in various ways), invariably, the GOP has higher unfavorables and negatives than favorables and positives. Likewise, this applies to comparisons of Democrats in Congress and Republican s in Congress. It would seem that, in the minds of independents (and to a lesser extent in those of others), Democrats have not covered themselves in glory. The GOP brand has taken on considerably more water . Greenbergs theory is that it is not one thing but the combination of factors. In some states, notably in Wisconsin and Ohio, actions by Republican governors and state legislatures pushed way too far. They took positions and pushed policies that looked extreme to many non-ideological independent voters, sometimes rubbing moderate Republicans the wrong way as well. Then there is Washington, where Greenberg argues that Republicans -- particularly Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and his budget, nearly universally embraced by fellow party members in Congress -- come across as too ideological or too harsh. Finally, there was the overheated rhetoric in the 20 or 21 Republican presidential debates.
It was a conversation clearly aimed at the party base but overheard by other voters, who found much of the talk more than a little exotic for their tastes. Each of the eight GOP presidential contenders, in an August debate sponsored by Fox News, said they would not go along with a budget proposal that included $10 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. Positioning that far to the right is way too out there for most independent voters, who respond well to the suggestions of balanced approaches to deficit reduction. While I dont buy into Greenbergs argument of a potential Democratic wave, if any kind of partisan wave is likely to develop -- barring some cataclysmic political, military, or economic development at home or abroad -- it sure seems more likely to break in favor of the Democrats , as he's suggesting, as a result of a backlash against Republicans going too far to the right. I dont yet see signs that the Republicans obsession with their conservative base has reached a tipping poin t that will create a Democratic wave. But if I were a Republican leader, Id at least consider the possibility.
Spending opponents not key, they already hate Obama and the issue only alienates more important swing groups
Cook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/19, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12401) The messaging and signals emanating from Republican presidential candidates, as well as from elected officials in Washington and in state capitals, seem to be aimed at only conservative, white men. This is a group that once dominated the electorate but is now considerably smaller than a
majority. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a poll of 2,373 registered voters, culled from a larger group of 3,008 adults, interviewed April 4-15. Among all registered voters, President Obama led presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney by just 4 percentage points, 49 percent to 45 percent, down from a 12-point lead, 54 percent to 42 percent, a month ago. In the survey, respondents rated the importance of 18 issues and then indicated their preference between Obama and Romney. Not too surprisingly, Obama did best with those who rated the environment as very important; he led that group by 39 percentage points. He also won the folks who picked education as very important by 22 points, birth control by 19 points, and health care by 15 points. See a pattern here? Romney prevailed among those who picked the budget deficit as very important, winning them by 19 points, and among those who named Iran, by 14 points. Those kinds of issues are very different from birth control and health care. The relevance of all of this comes through when you look at key demographic breakouts from the trial heat between Obama and Romney. Overall, Obama led among women by 13 points: 53 percent to 40 percent. Romney was ahead among men by 6 points: 50 percent to 44 percent. Given that women generally make up 51 to 52 percent of the electorate, whenever Republican
candidates lose women by more than they win among men, they can skip ordering the champagne for election night. In all but the most unusual cases, a Republican needs to win among men by a wider margin than a Democrat does among women . But it gets really
interesting when you break the genders down by age: under 50 versus over 50. Among all women 50 and older, Obama beat Romney by 7 points, 50 percent to 43 percent. Among all women under 50, though, Obama prevailed by 18 points, 56 percent to 38 percent. Thats an 11-point difference in the presidents lead between the younger and older groups of women. Among men, Obama actually led among those under 50 by 1 percentage point: 47 percent to 46 percent. But Romney prevailed among men 50 and older by 11 percentage points, 53 percent to 42 percent. So, a 12-point difference in Obamas standing between the younger and older men. When you make the same comparisons among just white voters, the contrast is even starker. Romneys support came overwhelmingly fro m white men, a group he carried by 26 points, 60 percent to 34 percent. In comparison, the Republican had an advantage of just 5 points among white women, 49 percent to 44 percent. The age difference among white women was considerably less important than that among all women. Among white women 50 and older, Romney defeated Obama by 7 points, 50 percent to 43 percent. Among white women under 50, he won by 3 points, 48 percent to 45 percent, for only a 4-point difference between younger and older groups of women. Among white men, Romney won the under-50 cohort by 13 percentage points, 53 percent to 40 percent. Among white men 50 and older, he prevailed by 27 percentage points, 61 percent to 34 percent. Thats a 14-point difference. Taking all of this into consideration and then adding that Obama led by 40 points among Hispanic voters, 67 percent to 27 percent, and by 93 points among African-Americans, 95 percent to 2 percent, its clear that, assuming these groups turn out in numbers approaching 2008, its women under 50 who are the demographic that either will or wont put Obama over the top in the general election. Democrats hope to make the case that Republicans have tailored their priorities for white men, particularly white men over 50, to such a degree that they seem to deliberately exclude women voters, especially younger women. Other polling shows real deterioration for Romney among independent womenmost specifically, those under 50.
Elections DA 83/150
Base support inevitable appealing to them backfires

Cook, 12
(Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 5/7, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12467) Heres some totally unsolicited advice from the peanut gallery, first for Mitt Romney and then for Barack Obama. Having devot ed every waking hour for the last year and a half to catering to the carnivores in his party, Romney needs to cut back on the red-meat rhetoric that was required of him to win the GOP nomination. The vast majority of conservatives would vote for very nearly anyone running against Obama . In a New York Times piece, Campbell Robertson wrote that the antipathy toward the current administration among Republican voters , described here in terms ranging from the vulgar to the apocalyptic, can hardly be exaggerated. While Romney must win a few Democratic votes, he doesnt need to switch to a vegan or even a vegetarian diet. By the same token, independent and swing voters dont eat all their meals at steak houses. He needs a more balanced and reasoned rhetoric, appealing to brains and not just to glands. A discussion with Republicans and conservatives about health care reform has usually entailed talking about big government. Independents, meanwhile, were concerned about Obamas health care law because they already had health insurance. They were reasonably happy with it and were fearful that any major changes to the system would either raise premiums or cut benefits. Unlike conservatives and Republican partisans, independents dont see health care or any other issue through an ideological lens. Transitioning from primary to general-election politics is rarely easy. Candidates and campaign operatives develop Pavlovian conditioning. For months, they talk exclusively to partisans, looking for rhetoric that will elicit heads moving up and down in agreement. This rhetoric may create frowns or at least cause puzzled responses from swing voters. Sitting Romney down in front of a laptop, watching focus groups with swing voters, may resensitize him.
Elections DA 84/150
A2: Business lobbies/Chamber Commerce Key Business lobby wont get involved in presidential election and wouldnt back Obama no matter what
Daily Political, 12 (5/12, http://www.dailypolitical.com/politics/u-s-politics/chamber-of-commerce-to-spend-in-record-numbers-on-2012-election.htm) This business lobby has opposed Obamas administration key domestic policies which includes the 2010 healthcare restructuring law and has historically stayed away from the presidential race. Our strategy is to protect the pro-business majority in the house and advance our interests in the Senate said the groups national political director, Rob Engstrom.
Elections DA 85/150
A2: X Swing State Key - General Swing states are a myth overall support is key elections determined by uniform swings
Bernstein, 12
Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who contributes to the Washington Post, Star Tribune, 6/9, http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=158323795&c=y) Five myths
about swing states Much of what we think we know about these key states has been knocked down by political science research. Swing states: Pundits love to talk about them, and candidates lavish attention on them. Sometimes it seems that the nominees are running for president of the United States of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, and that the rest of us are just spectators. But much of what we think we know about these key states, which switch party allegiances with some frequency, has been knocked down by political science research - and sometimes, by recent history. Here are a few misperceptions about these in-demand states. 1. Swing-state polls are the key to predicting the winner. In fact, the opposite is true, especially this far from November. Generally, elections are determined by a "uniform swing." That is, if the Republican candidate does a little better overall, then he's going to do a little better in close states such as Ohio and Nevada, too. So even though the candidates will spend most of their time and money in the states they expect to matter most, it won't make much difference.
National polls more accurate than battleground state by state polls

Bernstein, 12
Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who contributes to the Washington Post, Star Tribune, 6/9, http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=158323795&c=y)
But much of what we think we know about these key states, which switch party allegiances with some frequency, has been knocked down by political science research - and sometimes, by recent history. Here are a few misperceptions about these in-demand states. 1. Swing-state polls are the key to predicting the winner. In fact, the opposite is true, especially this far from November. Generally, elections are determined by a "uniform swing." That is, if the Republican candidate does a little better overall, then he's going to do a little better in close states such as Ohio and Nevada, too. So even though the candidates will spend most of their time and money in the states they expect to matter most, it won't make much difference. Any candidate who wins the popular vote by at least three percentage points is certain to win the electoral college, and any candidate who wins the popular vote by as much as a full percentage point is overwhelmingly likely to win the electoral college. So the best way to follow the election is to read the national polling averages. National polls have a key advantage: There are a lot more of them, so we're less likely to be fooled by the occasional outlier. And the frequency of national polls , conducted by the same handful of firms, means informed readers can catch any obvious partisan tilts in the results and interpret them accordingly. Granted, political junkies like me won't be able to stop themselves from peeking at what the Des Moines Register thinks is happening in the Hawkeye State. But if we're smart, we'll look at the national polls to find out what's really going on.
Key swing states are a myth

Bernstein, 12
Republicans can't win without Ohio. You'll hear plenty of similar pronouncements every election season . The Republicans have never won
without Ohio, therefore they can't win without Ohio. Or: There is a "blue wall" of states that the Democrats have captured consistently since 1992, so the party has a built-in minimum in the electoral college. That could mean that any poll showing a strong Republican tilt in one of those states indicates that Obama is doomed - or that Gov. Scott Walker's recall victory in "blue wall" Wisconsin shows that Democrats are in trouble. Forget all these "rules." When Republicans won three consecutive presidential elections in the 1980s, pundits became convinced that the GOP had an electoral college lock. That view lasted exactly as long as the party's national vote lead did; as soon as Bill Clinton took the national lead in 1992, it turned out that some of the Republican "lock" states were swingers after all. Sure, if Romney wins Democratic California, he's going to win the election, but that's because if Romney wins California, he's going to be in the process of a huge national landslide. The United States has national elections, and what matters almost every time is the national results . Yes, a candidate must find 270 electoral votes in order to win. But in most years, the electoral college margin will be much larger than the popular vote difference. And the rare times, such as in 2000, when the popular vote is very close, it's not possible to guess in advance which states will be the one or two that really make a difference. So the campaigns will put their resources into those states they expect to be close, because it certainly doesn't hurt, but our elections are much more national than our obsession with swing states implies .
Cant predict what key swing states will be recent history proves
Bernstein, 12
Elections DA 86/150
It's true that some states will perpetually be competitive, but over time, some experience significant changes. West Virginia, for instance, went from being one of the strongest Democratic states in 1980 to being one of the strongest Republican states now. It's very hard to know in advance, certainly until the last few weeks of the campaign, what the key swing states - the ones that will truly determine the winner - will turn out to be. The best illustration of that is to note which states have been closest to the national margin of victory in the past few elections. For example, when Obama won by seven percentage points in 2008, which state results most closely matched that number? Those states would have determined the winner, had the electoral college count been very narrow. The five states closest to the overall margin of victory in 2008 were Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and Minnesota. In 2000, they were Oregon, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Florida; and in 2004, they were Pennsylvania, Nevada, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota. That's 11 states over three cycles, including completely different sets in 2000 and 2004. Sure, we don't expect solidly Republican Wyoming or solidly Democratic Vermont to be competitive. But the
past three cycles show that we can't know right now whether the state that puts Romney or Obama over the top will be Colorado, Ohio, or any of a dozen or more possibilities .
Elections DA 87/150
Elections DA 88/150
***IMPACTS***
Elections DA 89/150
***Iran Strikes***
Elections DA 90/150
Obama wont Strike Obama wont strike Iran empirics and the failure of political pressures prove
Gause, Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and Lustick, Bess W. Heyman Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, 12
(F. Gregory the III, Ian S., Summer 2012, Middle East Policy Council, American and the Regional Powers in a Transforming Middle East, http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/america-and-regionalpowers-transforming-middle-east, accessed 7-4-2012, JKE) U.S. decision makers are confronting an intense campaign of public and private pressure, originating in Israel and from many of Israel's supporters in the United States, reinforced by some of America's Gulf allies, to "do something" about Iran. That "something" differs, among the
The problem posed for Washington in Iran currently is a striking example of how history, not repeating itself, nevertheless often rhymes. advocates, from regime change to carrying out, participating in, or at least authorizing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Once again, the specter of a totalitarian threat to the civilized world is portrayed as rising in Tehran Red Communism in 1953, tyrannical Islamist fundamentalism in 2012. Debates rage, simulations are performed and wagers are made on insider.com. Will the United States and/or Israel attack Iran this year? The very fact that this is an issue of explicit and regular discussion is a major success for the Netanyahu government. It is a substantial justification for wondering if, indeed, the United States is more capable of implementing
Despite this being an election year, when the leverage of Israeli governments over U.S. foreign policy is greatest, the United States will not attack Iran. The Obama administration is proving to be less susceptible to manipulation by its local allies than past administrations were, recognizing that its broader interests in a changing Middle East cannot be secured by military adventures. If such an attack does occur, it will be carried out by Israel against an American red light , not encouraged by an American green or yellow light. The administration's quiet but determined diplomacy has restrained Israel, while simultaneously implementing what is perhaps the most sophisticated and effective array of economic sanctions ever imposed on a country as large and important as Iran. It has organized a broad international front against Iranian proliferation and increased the pressure on Tehran at every level. It might not succeed, in the end, in preventing
policies tailored to its interests now than it was during the Cold War or in Iraq during the George W. Bush administrations. We think it is. Iran from obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability. But its approach has a much greater chance of success in preventing a nuclearized military confrontation in the region than a military strike that would unite Iranians (at least temporarily) behind their government, end domestic differences over nuclear strategy and, at best, set back its program a few years. In a broader context, the Iran case signifies that the United States is finding it easier to adapt to the disappearance of the old order in the Middle
Under this president, the United States is neither paralyzed against action out of fear of error, nor misled into a simplistic and dangerously uniform "doctrine." For evidence of the agility of American policy in the Middle East under the Obama administration, consider the degree to which policies in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria have been specifically tailored to the challenges, opportunities and constraints those very different settings present, much as the administration's approach to the
East than are local allies whose fundamental political logics are contradicted by twenty-first-century winds of change. Iranian nuclear issue has been.
Obama wont strike prefers diplomacy

The Herald, Editorial, March 5th
(3-5-2012, The Herald (Glasgow), Obama Warns of Loose Talks on Iran Strike, HS News; Pg. 3, Lexis-Nexis, accessed 4-3-2012, JKE) PRESIDENT Barack Obama has warned against loose talk of a war with Iran ahead of a meeting at which he will urge Israel s prime minister not to order a strike on the Islamic Republic s nuclear facilities. On the eve of his talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama used a speech to the pro-Israel US lobby group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to pledge his support for the Jewish state and to argue that international sanctions on Iran must be given more time to work. I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed , Obama told a crowd of 13,000 at the AIPAC policy conference. Obama said the bluster about a military strike was counter-productive because it has been driving up global oil prices, boosting demand for Iranian oil and helping to offset the impact of sanctions on its economy. Already, there is too much loose talk of war, the President said.
Elections DA 91/150
Romney Will Strike Romney win guarantees Iran strikes

Daily Kos, Editorial, April 16th
(4-16-2012, The Daily Kos, President Obama Versus Romney on Iran, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/16/1083726/-President-Obama-versus-Romney-on-Iran, accessed 7-42012, JKE)
To me, however the biggest contrast is their approach to Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu by all accounts is a hawk who is pushing the United States to bomb Iran and has been doing so for a long time. He appears to see no need for negotiation. Granted, he has a right to protect his nation if he believes that its under
we all know how flawed the intelligence was for the Iraq war. And its important to let negotiations play out as far as possible before rushing to war, which would have many unintended consequences for years to come. (See the Iraq war). Heres the big difference. Heres Netanyahus recent response to the ongoing P5+1 talks:
threat. However, http://news.yahoo.com/... Netanyahu -- whose government has not ruled out a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities -- earlier said however that Tehran had simply bought itself some extra time to comply. "My initial impression is that Iran has been given a 'freebie'," Netanyahu said during talks with visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman, the premier's office reported. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition. I think Iran should take immediate steps to stop all enrichment, take out all enrichment material and dismantle the nuclear facility in Qom," he said. "I believe that the world's greatest practitioner of terrorism must not have the opportunity to develop atomic bombs," he said. Heres President Obamas response yesterday to Netanyahu (in a response to a journalist's question) at the press conference in Cartagena: But Obama refuted that statement, saying " The
notion that we've given something away or a freebie would indicate that Iran has gotten something." "In fact, they got the toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming up in a few months if they don't take advantage of those talks. I hope they do," Obama said. "The clock is ticking and I've been very clear to Iran and our negotiating partners that we're not going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process," Obama told reporters after an Americas summit in Colombia. "But so far at least we haven't given away anything -- other than the opportunity for us to negotiate," he said. Obama in conjunction with world powers is negotiating with Iran, trying to prevent a needless war. You can be sure that Mitt Romney would bow to his buddy Netanyahu and attack Iran. He has previously said We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and Israel. As he also said in a debate, before making any decision regarding Israel, he will call his friend Bibi. Bottom line, if somehow the American people elect Mitt Romney, expect more of the bombastic, Bush cowboy approach to foreign policy with a more than likely bombardment of Iran. If the American people are not fooled by this charlatan and they reelect Barack Obama, he will continue in his measured way to deal with the threats around the world, quietly, through the use of negotiation, and force if absolutely necessary, but only as a last
resort, without bragging, and scaring the American people with needless terrorism alerts.
Romney will attack Iran

White, International Business Times National Affairs Reporter, July 3rd
(Jeremy B., 7-3-2012, International Business Times, Romney Foreign Policy: A Replay of the Bush Administration?, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/359154/20120703/romney-full-scale-crisis-russia-iransyria.htm, accessed 7-7-2012, JKE) A President Romney would have less hesitation about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. In response to a question about a recent Weekly Standard article urging Obama to seek congressional authorization for such an operation, Romney said he would be empowered to strike Iran without Congress' consent. "I can assure you that if I am president, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world," Romney said on Face the Nation. "I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm President, that we need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. The President has that capacity now."
Elections DA 92/150
AT - Congress Blocks Romney will strike Iran he has to power to overstep Congress
White, International Business Times National Affairs Reporter, July 3rd
(Jeremy B., 7-3-2012, International Business Times, Romney Foreign Policy: A Replay of the Bush Administration?, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/359154/20120703/romney-full-scale-crisis-russia-iransyria.htm, accessed 7-7-2012, JKE) A President Romney would have less hesitation about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. In response to a question about a recent Weekly Standard article urging Obama to seek congressional authorization for such an operation, Romney said he would be empowered to strike Iran without Congress' consent. "I can assure you that if I am president, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world," Romney said on Face the Nation. "I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm President, that we need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. The President has that capacity now."
Elections DA 93/150
AT - Campaign Rhetoric
Romneys strikes on Iran arent campaign rhetoric Boltons consideration proves

Larison, Ph.D in History, July 21st
(Daniel, 6-21-2012, The American Conservative, Report: Bolton is a Leading Candidate for Secretary of State, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/report-bolton-is-a-leading-candidate-for-secretary-ofstate/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=report-bolton-is-a-leading-candidate-for-secretaryof-state, accessed 7-7-2012, JKE) The Washington Times reports (via Glaser): John R. Bolton, the U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and specialist on arms control and security issues, is said to be a leading candidate for secretary of state.Thats a terrifying prospect, but its also not very surprising. Many of Romneys foreign policy views sound very much like Boltons. Bolton is a prominent supporter of Romney. There is every reason to assume that Romney will govern in a fashion that would generally satisfy Bolton. The hope that Romneys foreign policy statements are all campaign posturing and dont mean anything has always been just thata hope. The fact that Bolton is even being considered for this position ought to provide all the confirmation anyone needs that Romneys positions on Iran and Russia in particular are more than just election-year demagoguery.
Elections DA 94/150
AT No Escalation Cross apply Hirsch Iran strikes cause extinction Draws in Russia and China guarantees escalation
EU Times, Editorial, December 7th (European Union Online Newspaper, 12-7-2011, China Joins Russia, Orders Military to Prepare for
World War III, http://www.eutimes.net/2011/12/china-joins-russia-orders-military-to-prepare-for-world-war-iii/, accessed 7-7-2012, JKE)
A grim Ministry of Defense bulletin issued to Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev today states that President Hu has agreed in principal that the only way to stop the Wests aggression led by the United States is through direct and immediate military action and that the Chinese leader has ordered his Naval Forces to prepare for warfare. Hus call for war joins Chinese Rear Admiral and prominent military commentator Zhang Zhaozhong who, likewise, warned this pa st week that: China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War, and Russian General Nikolai Makarov who grimly stated last week: I do not rule out local and regional armed conflicts developing into a large-scale war, including using nuclear weapons. A new US intelligence report has also stated that China has up to 3000 nuclear weapons compared with general estimates of between 80 and 400. To further pour more gasoline on the fire, the Washington Times
has just reported that North Korea is making missile able to hit the US.
Iran strike collapses China Economy and Regime Stability Bishop, 8/16/2010 [Bill- Forbes, If Israel Attacks Iran, What About China? http://blogs.forbes.com/china/2010/08/16/if-israel-attacks-iran-what-about-china/] An attack on Iran would be devastating to Chinas economy and thus its political stability. As Goldberg writes, such a strike, among many bad outcomes, would likely cause the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973. Israel has tried in the last few months to impress upon the Chinese the seriousness of their intentions to never allow an Iranian nuclear bomb, and the possible consequences for China in the event of an attack. To lobby China for support for tougher UN sanctions, Israel in April sent Major-General Amir Eshel, chief of the IDFs Planning Directorate, to warned China of the international consequences of military action, particularly the potential disruption to oil supplies on which much of Chinas manufacturing and international trade depend. Extinction The Epoch Times, Renxing San, 8/4/2004, 8/4, http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-4/30931.html it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to postpone its life. The CCP, that disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, coupled with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. The speech, free of all disguises, lets the public see the CCP for what it really is: with evil filling its every cell, the CCP intends to fight all of mankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. And that is the theme of the speech. The theme is murderous and utterly evil. We did witness in China beggars who demanded money from people by threatening to stab themselves with knives or prick their throats on long nails. But we have never, until now, seen a rogue who blackmails the world to die with it by wielding biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Anyhow, the bloody confession affirmed the CCPs bloodiness: a monstrous murderer, who has killed 80 million Chinese people, now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives.
Since the Partys life is above all else,
Elections DA 95/150
Elections DA 96/150
Elections DA 97/150
**Climate Change**
2NC Module
Obama key to global climate agreement only chance to solve

Leber, Think Progress, research assistant, 12
(Rebecca, 1-5-12, Think Progress, Report: Future of Global Climate Deal Dependent On 2012 Election, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/05/398600/report-future-of-global-climate-deal-dependent-on-2012election/, accessed 7-5-12, KGH) World leaders struck a deal last month during the Durban United Nations conference that sets a path to a global climate deal by 2015 a precarious agreement including major developing countries like China and India. However, a report by the research branch of the HSBC bank predicts a deal would be trashed if President Obama is not reelected. With climate denial and opposition to emissions limits rampant in the GOP field, HSBC finds a global deal would be almost impossible if a Republican wins the White House: [The] prospects for a new global climate deal in 2015 depend considerably on the election of a pro-climate action president. The election of a President opposed to climate action will not only damage growth prospects for low-carbon solutions in the USA itself, but will make the hard task of negotiating a new global agreement by 2015 almost impossible. If Obama is re-elected with support in both houses, we expect modest measures to introduce a federal clean energy standard for electricity; a stripped down cap and trade programme could reemerge building on the regional scheme on the West and East coasts. Though some GOP contenders havent always positioned themselves as climate zombies, everyone from Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, to Jon Huntsman have doubted climate change science leading up to the primaries. Frontrunner Romney opposes carbon emissions limits and a cap and trade program, despite having supported pollution limits as Massachussets governor. Of course, the future of energy policy also hinges on political developments worldwide. The report also notes that elections worldwide, particularly France, will be an important test of the resilience of pro-nuclear policies in a post-Fukushima world.
Warming causes extinction

Deibel, professor of IR at National War College, Foreign Affairs Strategy, 7
(Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today Anthropogenic caused by CO, KGH) Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are
blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way
Elections DA 98/150
As the newspaper stories quoted above show,
immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be.
we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp t he southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow.
Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the
most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one
was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds con tinuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin t o playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were
just going to burn everything up; were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature
it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but
warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
possible end life on this planet. Global
Obama Solves Emissions
Climate change top priority for Obama

Nash, Personal Liberty Staff Writer, 12
(Bryan, 6-15-12, Personal Liberty Digest, Obama Will Focus On Climate Change If ReElected,http://personalliberty.com/2012/06/15/obama-will-focus-on-climate-change-if-re-elected/, accessed 75-12, KGH). If re-elected, Obama will put the hearts and minds of Americans at ease. He will pour his energy into climate change. According to Ryan Lizza, the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, the President plans to focus on climate change as a way to improve the world. Lizza writes: Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change, one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the Department of Energy has seen its budget increase from $24 billion in 2009 to $38 billion in 2012.
Obama dedicated to climate change

Diaz, The Examiner reporter, 6-14-12
(Dorsi, The Examiner, Climate change top priority for President Obamas second term, http://www. examiner.com/article/climate-change-top-priority-for-president-obama-s-second-term, accessed 7-7-12, KGH) In a bold move sure to start arguments all over again about climate change, President Obama has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change. Obama feels addressing climate change now is one of the few issues that could fundamentally improve the world decades from now. While there are still naysayers that don't believe that climate change is a real issue and believe that global warming has been fabricated to fuel a green agenda, most scientists agree that climate change is the single most important issue facing human existence. In a rapidly warming earth with climate change wreaking havoc all
Elections DA 99/150
around the world, humans are starting to see the effects of climate change including devastating crop losses, sea-level rises, increasing fires, floods and incidences of hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding world-wide. Even with the implementation of new policies concerning climate change, there is no guarantee that the earth has not already passed a critical "tipping point". Making climate change his top priority is in stark reversal to the beginning of his Presidency, when the President made on average fewer mentions of climate change in his first three addresses than Bill Clinton or even George Bush. In an interview that Rolling Stone published in April 2012, the President said he thinks climate change will be a big issue in the coming election and that he will be very clear" about his "belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way." Romney doesnt Solve Emissions
Romney unconcerned by climate change

Lehmann, Reporter E&E, 12
(Evan, 4-16-12, E&E Publishing, Romney, appealing to independents, wont soften on climate change, http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/04/16/1, accessed 7-7-12, KGH) Republican strategists predict that Mitt Romney could intensify his attacks on the president's energy policies, including perhaps on past efforts to reduce carbon emissions, now that the former Massachusetts governor is accelerating into the general election race. But several said it's unlikely Romney will return to the position he held on climate change last summer, when he expressed belief in humans' contribution to climatic alterations. The climate issue is "dead" in this election, said one strategist who believes in global warming. Romney raced into his new role as the presumptive nominee last week with a cascade of blows casting President Obama's economic policies as a failure for women, a category of voters with whom Obama enjoys a double-digit lead over Romney in polling. He accused the president Tuesday of waging a "war on women." With the tone of the race sharpening, Romney could increasingly use similar economic criticisms to challenge Obama's claims of supporting expanded fossil fuel production, like oil and natural gas drilling, the strategists say. The intent, in part, would be to portray the president as an exclusive supporter of renewable energy sources, thereby limiting his appeal among voters, including independents, who favor choices among all resources, said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy adviser and lobbyist who is unaffiliated with the Romney campaign. "He's imprinted on the voters' minds as being the renewable energy president," McKenna said, suggesting that Obama is inextricably linked to the green policies he pursued earlier in his term, like the economic stimulus package, cap and trade, and the clean energy standard. That might not be a detriment in another time, but with gasoline prices climbing against the backdrop of an overcast economy, Republicans see benefits in preventing Obama from pivoting to an "all of the above" approach. "In trying to sell himself as the pro-production president, [Obama's] got the mirror image of the problem George Bush had," McKenna said. "George Bush, creator of ethanol, kept trying to sell, 'Hey, I'm the green president.' Well, dude, you can't spend the first 30 years of your life being an oil and gas guy and then say, 'Hey, I'm really an ethanol and solar power guy.' Obama's got the same problem." Energy skirmishes in battleground states As if on cue, the Romney campaign launched an attack Thursday afternoon called the "magical misery tour." It portrays the Obama campaign airing television ads in swing states as an attempt to sidestep concerns about gas prices. "After three years of promising change, the only thing that the President has delivered is gas prices twice as high as the day he took office," Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Elections DA 100/150
The Obama ad touts the president's record of raising fuel economy standards and increasing renewable energy. It also accuses Romney of siding with fossil fuel companies, which, the ad says, are financing a television campaign to discourage alternative fuel sources. "In all these fights, Mitt Romney stood with Big Oil, for their tax breaks, attacking higher mileage standards and renewables," the ad says. "So when you see these ads, remember who paid for them and what they want." The Obama ad is airing in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- key battleground states where independents could tilt the race in November. Not coincidentally, a super PAC supporting Romney, Crossroads GPS, is airing its own ads in those same states. An energy adviser for the Romney campaign said sustained messaging about gas prices will continue through the summer, even if prices inch downward. It strikes at Obama's perceived weakness on economic policy and also emphasizes Democratic tendencies to use overbearing government regulations, the adviser said. "You don't need to get more complicated than that," the Romney adviser said. "They know when they go to the pump and begin to fill up, it costs a lot of money." Renewables 'tainted' Throughout the primary contest, Romney rarely mentioned renewable energy, unless he was denigrating Obama's use of loan guarantees to help finance companies like the failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.
Republicans want to undermine EPA

Echeverria, Vermont Law School, Georgetown University, Yale Law School, 12
(John, Vermont Law, With Republicans Attacking the EPA, 2012 Could Be a Turning Point for Environmental Regulation, http://watchlist.vermontlaw.edu/republican-assault-on-epa/, accessed 7-6-12, KGH) Among the other things causing Richard Nixon to turn over in his grave may be Republican attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency, which the former president and Congress established in a bipartisan response to public demand for cleaner water, air, and land. Since Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections, they have introduced an unprecedented number of measures designed to weaken longstanding environmental protections and block the EPA from putting forth new regulations. Rep. Henry Waxman, D- Calif., an environmental advocate, has called this the most anti-environmental Congress in history. The perceived assault has prompted the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Waxman, to develop an online database tracking the number and scope of anti-environment bills proposed on the House floor. According to the searchable database, as of September 2011 there have been 170 anti-environment votes under the Republican majority in the 112th Congress. The database breaks down this number by category, finding the vast majority of anti-environment votes targeting the EPA (91 votes). Some of these seek to block actions that prevent pollution (71 votes), and others to dismantle the Clean Air Act specifically (61 votes). Fewer measures have been directed at weakening regulations of the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior, blocking action on climate change and defunding clean energy initiatives. EPA headquarters Included among the more broad-based attacks on the regulatory power of the EPA is the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act. Passed by the House in September, the TRAIN Act would create a special committee to oversee the EPAs rules and regulations, and require the agency to consider economic impacts on polluters when it sets standards concerning how much air pollution is too much. This would mark a dramatic shift from the current approach under the Clean Air Act, in which the EPA weighs only scientific and health considerations. Similarly, the Regulatory Accountability Act, also introduced in September, would require a hearing for each new regulation in which the primary goal would be to find lower-cost alternatives to the agencys proposals, ostensibly forcing cost to become the most important consideration in the rulemaking process. Finally, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, taken up by the House in November, would
require congressional approval of all executive branch regulations if they are deemed major rules. President Obama informed Congress on December 6 that he would veto the measure if it were sent to the White House.
Romney backed by Big Oil wont pass climate change legislation

Adler, Reporter The Nation, 12
(Ben, 4-26-12, The Nation, Meet Mitt, the Man from Big Oil, http://www.thenation.com /blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oil#, accessed 7-7-12, KGH) No sooner had Mitt Romney wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination than environmental groups began alerting the public to the threat they believe he represents. Last week four environmental groupsthe Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), Clean Water Action and Environment America collectively endorsed President Obama. It was the first time that those groups had come together to make a candidate endorsement. They were moved to do so, and quite early in the process, because Romney is heavily backed by the enemies of environmental regulation. Energy companies and the rich tycoons who own them have begun pouring money into Republican causes for the 2012 cycle and are expected to give considerably more before November. And Romney is returning the favor with policy promises. In 2011 the oil and gas industry gave Romney $899,630 according to the Center for Responsive Politics, far more than they gave to President Obama. They were Romneys eleventh-most-supportive industry, whereas they did not rank among President Obamas top twenty. More money will surely fill his coffers this year since Rick Perry is no longer in the race. But the real money supporting Romney is the largesse he will enjoy through unlimited donations to Super PACs. Back in October Politico reported, The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 millionpotentially much moreto conservative groups ahead of Election Day. The term industrialist does not fully capture the Kochs intense personal interest in opposing environmental regulations. The bulk of their fortune comes from refining and distributing products such as petroleum, chemicals and fertilizers. Their libertarian ideology seems to revolve primarily around keeping the government from doing anything that would protect the public interest over their profit margins. Allies of Romney and the Kochs are already putting their money to work attacking Obama. According to Think Progress, In the first three-and-a-half months of 2012, groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads. Romney opposes President Obamas proposal to eliminate billions of dollars worth of subsidies for oil companies in the tax code. Romney justifies this by saying he is against all tax increases and that it is dangerous to single out one industry for losing its special favors. This, of course, blatantly contradicts Romneys own proposals, and Representative Paul Ryans (R-WI) budget, both of which claim to be revenue neutral by slashing tax rates but paying for it by eliminating tax expenditures. Romney and Ryan dont specify which tax expenditures they will eliminate, although Romney recently suggested the mortgage interest deduction for second homes might be one. By his logic, he was calling for a dangerous tax increase then. This is, at least, one rare subject where Romney can claim to be consistent. He supported continuing tax breaks for oil back in the 2008 campaign as well. Ryan made sure to exempt the extractive industries from any austerity in his budget. As Newsweeks Daniel Stone reports, [Ryan] asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries. Coincidentally, as Stone notes, He and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan's budget plan. On other environmental issues Romney also sides with polluting industries. Romney is opposed to the Environmental Protection Agency regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. He seems to oppose the EPA doing much of anything. At a Fox News event in December, he said oil executives tell him life was better under the
Bush-Cheney administration. I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason: It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal, nuclear, Romney said. Romney even opposes fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. AT - Congress Blocks
Congress will support

OKonski, Researcher at Climate Science Watch, former intern for the EPA, 6-13-12
(Katherine, 6-13-12, Climate Science Watch, Campaign 2012: Climate Change and Energy,http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/06/13/campaign-2012-climate-change-and-energy/, accessed 7-6-11, KGH) The tension between climate policy and electoral reality was on display at the Brookings Institution on June 11. Speakers on climate change and energy in the 2012 election suggested that pricing carbon emissions should be a priority for the next administration. But while pricing carbon could play an essential role in a progressive climate policy, it lacks support from a public that a new study finds is more willing to support regulations and mandates as a means of promoting clean energy alternatives. And global warming is thus far not even an issue in the presidential election. As the struggling economy and demand for jobs consume the American publics attention, climate policy has become a second-tier political issue. Although most economists advocate for putting a price on greenhouse gases through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, there is little political appetite to do so. Will the next president be able to make climate and energy a national priority? So read the event description for a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, this Monday, June 11. Panelists included Moderator Darren Samuelsohn (POLITICO); Ted Gayer (Brookings Senior Fellow, Economic Studies); Katherine Sierra (Brookings Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development); and Charles Ebinger (Brookings Senior Fellow, Energy Security). Carbon pricing vs. electoral reality The discussion was centered on Gayers recent paper in which he suggests the next administration elevate climate policy to a national priority by making it a component of fiscal reform. Specifically, he advocates for carbon pricing policies. The economics is clear and convincing, he said. Pricing carbon is the best way to make meaningful reductions in emissions. Carbon pricing achieves the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost, he contended. An economy-wide cap-and-trade program allows the market the flexibility to find the cheapest sources of pollution reduction in order to meet the capped level of emissions. Under his scheme, a carbon pricing policy would double as part of a tax reform policy, where revenues could be used to fund deficit reduction and economically harmful marginal tax rates. Gayer estimates that pricing carbon could generate $100 billion over 25 years a significant sum but not the holy grail. It would have to be one among many taxes to make any dent in the national deficit. A price on carbon would also mean that regulations and mandates (like efficiency standards) could be abandoned, as they would, he believes, become redundant if a price on carbon were in place. Republicans should embrace market-based environmental policies, as they have in the past, as the best means of improving air quality at minimum economic cost, Gayer recommends. The traditional approach taken by EPA, as prescribed by the environmental laws of the 1970s, attempts to achieve environmental improvements through inflexible and economically costly mandates that set uniform technology standards across firms. By demonizing cap-and-trade in the latest debate, Republicans risk a reversion of environmental policy away from marketbased approaches toward these more costly options. A cap-and-trade policy therefore might garner bi-partisan support, he argued, if introduced into the right political climate. Its definitely a long shot in the short term, Gayer conceded. And given GOP attitudes
toward any sort of environmental protection, the push for this kind of policy must come from the White House. AT Regulations hurt Economy
EPA improves economy

EPI, non-profit, non-partisan think tank that analyzes the economic status of America, 11
(9-19-11, Economic Policy Institute, EPI reports clarify economic impact of new EPA rules as House begins debates on regulations, http://www.epi.org/press/epi-reports-clarify-economic-impact-epa/, accessed 7-6-11, KGH) The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules, the only comprehensive tally of the combined costs and benefits of the new major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, debunks arguments that their cumulative impact would harm the struggling economy. The paper, by Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Director of Regulatory Policy Research Isaac Shapiro, released today by EPI, shows the regulations formulated by the Obama Administration will be of tremendous benefit to public health, and the combined compliance cost of the rules both finalized and proposed amounts to only about 0.1 percent of the economy, and thus are not a significant factor in the overall economys direction. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has characterized many of these new EPA rules as regulatory burdens to job creators and has scheduled a series of votes, beginning this week, aimed at halting them. This latest research from EPI explains that Cantors characterization of these rules is inaccurate. EPIs research finds that the dollar value of the benefits of the major rules finalized or proposed by the EPA so far during the Obama administration exceeds the rules costs by an exceptionally wide margin. Health benefits in terms of lives saved and illnesses avoided will be enormous. EPI also finds that the costs of all finalized and proposed rules total to a tiny sliver of the overall economy, suggesting that fears that these rules together will deter economic progress are unjustified. In addition to the new findings in The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules, the findings in A lifesaver, not a job killer by EPI economist Josh Bivens, published in June 2011, reveal EPAs proposed air toxics rule is no threat to job growth, and would instead lead to modest job creation. The House may vote to delay this vital rule this week. Further, a broader assessment of the impact regulations have on jobs and the economy, Regulation, employment, and the economy: Fears of job loss are overblown by Shapiro and EPI research director John Irons, published in April 2011, finds that regulations generally have a modestly positive or neutral effect on the economy, and that an emphasis on deregulation can contribute to dramatic economic dislocation. The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules calculates the dollar value of the benefits and costs of new EPA rules, expressed in 2010 dollars, including the following: Setting aside the Cross-State Air Pollution rule, the combined annual benefits from all finalmajor rules exceed their costs by $10 billion to $95 billion a year. The benefit/cost ratio ranges from 2-to-1 to 20-to-1. The net benefits from the Cross-State Air Pollution rule exceed $100 billion a year (this rule is treated separately because benefits accruing from action under the Bush administration and the Obama administration cannot be disentangled).m The combined annual benefits from three major proposed rules examined here exceed their costs by $62 billion to $188 billion a year. The benefit/cost ratio ranges from 6-to-1 to 15-to-1. When fully in effect in 2014, the combined costs of the major rules finalized by the Obama administrations EPA would amount to significantly less than 0.1% of the economy. Assuming the proposed rules are also finalized, when fully in effect in 2016 the combined costs of the major EPA rules finalized and proposed so far under the Obama administration would amount to about 0.13% of the economy.
Elections DA 104/150 Biodiversity Impact
Warming causes species loss and devastates biodiversity

Science Daily 6 (Science Daily, Global Warming Capable Of Sparking Mass Species Extinctions, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060411230548.htm) KA
The Earth could see massive waves of species extinctions around the world if global warming continues unabated,
according to a new study published in the scientific journal Conservation Biology. Given its potential to damage areas far away from human habitation, the study finds
that global warming represents one of the most pervasive threats to our planet's biodiversity -- in some areas rivaling and even surpassing deforestation as the main threat to biodiversity. The study expands on a much-debated 2004 paper published in
the journal Nature that suggested a quarter of the world's species would be committed to extinction by 2050 as a result of global warming. This latest study picks up where the Nature paper left off, incorporating critiques and suggestions from other scientists while increasing the global scope of the research to include diverse hotspots around the world. The results reinforce the massive species extinction risks identified in the 2004 study. " Climate
change is rapidly becoming the most serious threats to the planet's biodiversity," said lead author Dr. Jay Malcolm, an assistant forestry professor at the University of Toronto. "This study provides even stronger scientific evidence that global warming will result in catastrophic species loss across the planet." Using vegetation models, the research is one of the first attempts to assess the potential effects of climate change on terrestrial biodiversity on a global scale rather than just looking at individual species. Scientists looked specifically at the effect that climate change would have on 25 of the 34 globally outstanding "biodiversity hotspots" -- areas containing a large number of species unique to these regions alone, yet facing enormous threats. "It isn't just polar bears and penguins that we must worry about anymore," said Lee Hannah, co-author of the study and senior fellow for climate change at Conservation International. "The hotspots studied in this paper are essentially refugee camps for many of our planet's most unique plant and animal species. If those areas are no longer habitable due to global warming then we will quite literally be destroying the last sanctuaries many of these species have left." Since
these biodiversity hotspots make up about one percent of the Earth's surface, but contain 44 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species and 35 percent of the world's plant species, they are good indicators of the magnitude of global species that might be affected by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. "These
species lose their last options if we allow climate change to continue unchecked," said Dr. Lara Hansen, Chief Climate Scientist at global
conservation group World Wildlife Fund. "Keeping the natural wealth of this planet means we must avoid dangerous climate change -- and that means we have got to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." Areas particularly vulnerable to climate change include the tropical Andes, the Cape Floristic region of South Africa, Southwest Australia, and the Atlantic forests of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. These areas are particularly vulnerable because the species in these regions have restricted migration options due to geographical limitations.
Species loss leads to human extinction

Diner 94 (Major David N.; Instructor, Administrative and Civil Law Division, The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?" 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161) KA
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it
can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading
Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each
new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Disease Impact
Warming causes Disease

Associated Press 6 ("Global warming causing diseases to rise" MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15717706/ns/health-health_care/t/globalwarming-causing-disease-rise/#.T-xcarUynw5) BSB
Climate affects some of the most important diseases afflicting the world, said Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of the World Health Organization. The impacts may already be significant. Kristie L. Ebi, an American public health consultant for the agency, warned climate change could overwhelm public health services. The specialists laid out recent findings as the two-week U.N.
climate conference entered its final four days, grappling with technical issues concerning operation of the Kyoto Protocol, and trying to set a course for future controls on global greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists
attribute at least some of the past centurys 1-degree rise in global temperatures to the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel-burning sources. A warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world, health experts reported Tuesday, citing surges in Kenya, China and Europe of such diseases as malaria, heart ailments and dengue fever.
Disease causes extinction

Yu 09 [Victoria, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, Dartmouth Journal of Undergraduate
Science, May 22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate] In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists
have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically , two factors account for the viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof -reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for
more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global influenza pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds into a humanviable strain (10).
**US-China Relations**
2NC Module
Romney win crushes US-China relations

Lu and Swaine 12 (Raymond and Michael, postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Chinese Studies, University of California at Berkeley, specializes in Chinese security and foreign policy, U.S.China relations, and East Asian international relations, 3/6/12, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/romney-s-china-policy-strategic-questionsstill-unanswered/a0rl, accessed on 7/5/12, EW)
Raymond Lu and Michael D. Swaine argue that presidential candidate Mitt Romney's rhetoric about China points to a direction of diplomatic neglect and military overreach, while leaving important strategic questions unanswered. During the recent visit of Chinese heir apparent Xi Jinping to the United States, Mitt Romney lambasted the Obama administration for approaching Beijing as a "near supplicant" and permitting "the dawn of a Chinese century" to continue unopposed .
The way forward: tougher economic penalties to reverse Washington's "trade surrender," and an invigorated military presence in the Pacific to force China to abandon its dreams of regional hegemony. The conventional reading of Romney on
China suggests that such chest-thumping rhetoric will fade with the election, giving way to the mainstream consensus that pairs economic and diplomatic engagement with strategic hedging.
Though this is at least partially true, leaving the next administration's China policy to the learning curve is still risky. Romney's tough talk on China conceals some profoundly deterministic--and pessimistic assumptions--about the future of U.S.-China relations that could accelerate existing momentum for future confrontations. Without a critical appraisal of U.S. interests and capabilities, Romney could do both too much and too little to manage the frictions
generated by an increasingly assertive China in Asia. Too much in that an overly aggressive and militarized response against China could set the two great powers on a collision course, and too little in that poorly-conceived interventions in other regions could force the United States to divert its attention and resources away from Asia, sending disturbing messages to China and U.S. allies alike. After 10 years of close but unproductive talks, the U.S. and China still fail to understand one another's nuclear weapons policies, according to a disturbing report by Global Security Newswire. In other words, neither the U.S. nor China knows when the other will or will not use a nuclear weapon against the other. That's not due to hostility, secrecy, or deliberate foreign policy -- it's a combination of mistrust between individual negotiators and poor communication; at times, something as simple as a shoddy translation has prevented the two major powers from coming together. Though nuclear war between the U.S. and China is still extremely unlikely, because the two countries do not fully understand when the other will and will not deploy nuclear weapons, the odds of starting an accidental nuclear conflict are much higher.
Global nuclear war

Wittner, Ph.D. in history, international prof., former president of the Council on Peace Research in History, 11 (Lawrence S., 11/28/11, http://hnn.us/articles/nuclear-war-china-possible, accessed on 7/5/12, EW)
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by Chinas growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged Chinas claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was asserting our own position as a Pacific power. But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of Chinas offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. Of course, China didnt have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons
prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there havent been very manyat least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistans foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, dont nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didnt feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATOs strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing Star Wars and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensiveand probably unworkablemilitary defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would win any nuclear war with China. But what would that victory entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a nuclear winter around the globedestroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars modernizing its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations. If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies. Obama Helps Relations
Obamas re-election is key to US-China relations

Guancha News 7/1 (7/1/12, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-07/01/content_25780083.htm, accessed on 7/4/12, EW) Wang Jisi:Prof at National Defense University of the PLA, Pres. Of the Chinese Association for American Studies, founding member of the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, International Council Member of the Asia Society in New York City, and Advisory Council Member of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies of the Brookings Institution
Sino-U.S. relations have long been considered the most important bilateral ties in the 21st century. Having
endured 40 tumultuous years since the signing of the Shanghai Communiqu in 1972, the relationship between China and the U.S. currently faces many challenges, and yet has also seen many improvements. Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, spoke to Guancha.cn about his views on the current problems in Sino-U.S. relations. Guancha.cn: Why have the problems in Sino-U.S. relations remained unsolved for such a long time? Wang Jisi:
Most of the problems related to Sino-U.S. relations are rooted in the two powers' mutual suspicion of each other. This suspicion can be traced back to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. China's firm belief is that the U.S. has considered it an enemy ever since the founding of the new republic. On the other hand, the U.S. has been hostile to any nation under Communist rule. The [existing] mutual
political suspicion will only grow as time goes by. Q: Is Sino-US hostility caused by political bias or is it the result of two big powers confronting each
huge business opportunities and an expanding market, both of which are quite attractive to the U.S. Despite this,
other? Wang Jisi: Chinese people and American people hold rather different values from each other. But unlike Iraq and the North Korea, China boasts
conflicts between the two countries as a result of national interests are unavoidable. As one of the many interest groups in the United States, businessmen
tend to focus their attention on China's economic systems rather than its ideologies, in the belief that China's economic systems are detrimental to their business. US senators and party leaders have to pay more attention to China's ideologies, including human rights issues, in order to gain electoral support. The Pentagon focuses on China's increasing military expenditure in order to push for increased US military spending. The
Obama administration, which serves as a coordinator among different interest groups, has continuously tried to reassure China that the U.S. has not tried to, and indeed has no wish to negate China. However, these have been in vain. By the same
token, the U.S. has never believed China's promise of a peaceful rise. The seemingly useless efforts made by the two sides are essentially aimed at lulling the other into a false sense of security. Q: Will the mutual suspicion be lessened by the increasing number of non-governmental exchanges between the two sides? Wang Jisi: Not really. Most people, whether in the U.S. or China, who acquire information via domestic mainstream media, will not get a true picture of the other country. Even getting involved in people-to-people communication does not negate wider existing differences. For instance, say that a person travels in America and becomes genuinely fond of the country and people, this individual experience will not eliminate the political differences and mutual suspicion which exist between the two countries. Simply learning more about a country does not necessarily mean you will trust it more. Q: Is China now really mounting a serious challenge to U.S. global hegemony? Wang Jisi: Due to many of the practices of both countries, each has long suspected the other of plots and counter-plots where international issues are concerned. But as far as I know, taking into consideration the current large gap which exists in terms of overall strength between the two countries, China is not yet strong enough to displace the U.S. with regard to global hegemony. Instead of trying to do so, China should improve its international standing by achieving targets which are within its reach and control. Q: Some scholars think that the U.S. is behind the South China Sea and Diaoyu Islands disputes. Is that true or is the U.S. simply being opportunistic as far as these disputes are concerned? Wang Jisi: From the U.S. point of view, increased tension between China and the Philippines over the disputed Huangyan Islands can only be an advantage because, to some degree, the dispute will contain its biggest opponent. On the other hand, it will make the Philippines more reliant on the U.S. China cannot openly blame the U.S. for provoking or exacerbating the disputes, despite the fact that it will certainly suspect the U.S. of being is behind these disputes. Despite this, the U.S. will definitely not become involved in the dispute. International issues are affected by various factors, including official diplomatic debates and media hype. As to the current issues, a USPhilippines joint military drill was held shortly after the Huangyan Islands dispute erupted. Was it plotted in advance or was it simply a coincidence? Official voices from both sides gave different explanations, and the tension was fuelled by international media, leaving a still-existing vacuum where the truth should be. Q: What about China's domestic issues? For instance, does the U.S. deliberately sell arms to Taiwan? Wang Jisi: In terms of timing, the U.S. doesn't "deliberately" sell arms to Taiwan, for you cannot deal with Taiwan when it doesn't actually need weapons. Such deals are a two-way street between U.S. and Taiwan, and they will only happen when necessary for the interests of either side. For the U.S. part, such weapon deals represent economic interest and strategic significance, as well as defense cooperation.
Romney Hurts Relations
Romney will destroy US-China relations his views create a competitive atmosphere from day one
Stokes, National Security Network Policy Analyst, April 25th
(Jacob, 4-25-2012, China-US Focus, The Presidential Election and US-China Relations, http://chinausfocus.com/political-social-development/the-presidential-election-and-us-china-relations/, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) Broadly, Romney views the Sino-American relationship as zero-sum and destined for strategic confrontation. Specifically, Romney promises that, if hes elected, the 21st century will be an American century, not a Chinese century. He also promises to get tough on China on day one by labeling China out as a currency manipulator (although that promise goes against his earlier record on trade enforcement and the positions taken by his top trade policy advisor). Commentaries in the Chinese press have derided Romneys positions on China. A piece in the Peoples Daily Overseas Edition, the Chinese Communist Party organ, sniped that, Even some of the US' allies regard these unscrupulous and irresponsible attacks on its imaginary enemies as nonsense. As for Romneys remarks on currency issues, a Foreign Ministry spokesman called Romneys stance irresponsible and a Xinhua report characterized his stance as an absurd attempt to play on the fears of U.S. voters. AT - Campaign Rhetoric
Romneys views on China arent political the Cold War and China visits shape his views
Hon, Straits Times US Bureau Chief, April 18th
(Chua Chin, 4-18-2012, Straits Times, Romneys Tough Talk on China Sparks Concern, http://www.ytlcommunity.com/commnews/shownews.asp?newsid=59907&category=featured, accessed 7-92012, JKE) The former Massachusetts governor has called China a 'cheat' on economic and trade issues, and wants to vastly expand US naval power so as to preserve American supremacy in the Pacific. A failure to do so would allow China to establish regional hegemony or even a 'global alliance of authoritarian states'. Many regard the tough rhetoric as being politically motivated. Others cite the influence of his stable of neo-conservative advisers. But a closer examination suggests that Mr Romney's views on China have not been entirely shaped by the political needs of the moment. His experiences growing up in the US during the height of the Cold War and his personal visits to China over the years appear to have done as much to shape his deeply mistrustful view of communism and authoritarian states - a trait that could weigh heavily on the future trajectory of bilateral ties. Taiwan Impact
Strong US-China relations prevent China-Taiwan War

Swaine, Carnegie Endowment for International Peaces China Program Senior Associate and Co-Director, 4
(Michael D., March/April 2004, Trouble in Taiwan, Foreign Affairs, Volume: 83, Issue: 2, pg. 39-49, EBSCO, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) Ultimately, the extent to which the United States and Taiwan must rely on deterrence is inversely related to the success of Washington's efforts to reassure China that it is committed to the status quo. As President Bush has recognized, such efforts are likely to be more successful if greater levels of trust can be created through the establishment of a stronger, more cooperative, Sino-American relationship. They are likely to be less successful if the relationship is allowed to deteriorate through insufficient attention to each other's interests. Chinese officials will be less bellicose and more patient if they believe Washington is not colluding with Taipei to favor independence. Insufficient reassurance---even if it is combined with a strong deterrence posture--could eventually provoke China into a desperate use of force, in the belief that Washington might use its superior military capabilities to protect Taiwan from a Chinese attack as the island moved toward independence. Efforts to strengthen deterrence, in other words, must be carefully coordinated with a larger strategy of reassurance if stability is to be maintained.
China-Taiwan conflict goes nuclear

OHanlon, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy, 5
(Michael E., 5-1-2005, Brookings Institution, The Risk of war over Taiwan is real, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2005/0501asia_ohanlon.aspx, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) Nonetheless, Mr Zoellick is more right than wrong. In the absence of strong constraints on future hightechnology sales, lifting the European arms embargo on China would be a big mistake. There really is a chance of a Sino-US war over Taiwan, which may ebb and flow month to month but nonetheless remains quite real. And any European decision to lift the embargo could make any war more likely and more costly in lives and assets. The reasons are simple. First, China is serious about being willing to risk war to prevent Taiwan's secession. Second, although many in China as well as Europe cannot quite believe it, the US is just as serious about defending Taiwan. And third, even though American military power remains far superior to that of China, the Chinese do not need to equal US power to make any war over nearby Taiwan very challenging for American
forces. Given the right catalyst from Taipei, therefore, US deterrence of China could fail and the world's first true war between nuclear weapons states could ensue. It is not just China's ruling communist party that considers Taiwan a part of China; an increasingly nationalistic population does as well. In fact, the Chinese see themselves as patient and restrained because they are simply demanding that Taiwan not secede, rather than insisting on immediate reunification. They worry that if Taiwan broke away, it would encourage other separatist movements in places such as Tibet and Xinjiang province, and weaken China strategically at the very moment it is poised to regain its status as a global power. China's leaders operate on the assumption that Taiwanese secession would doom their own prospects for holding on to power. At a minimum, they would have to show they had gone the extra mile to try to prevent secession, meaning that even an unsuccessful military operation might be preferable to inaction. Economy/Warming Impact
US China Relations key to environment and economy

McDonald 11 (Jon, 1/17/11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/17/us-china-clash-on-energy_n_810002.html, accessed on 7/7/12, EW)
BEIJING In late 2009, President
Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao announced an ambitious array of joint clean energy research projects touted as a mark of a maturing relationship and an alliance to fight climate change.
A year after Obama's visit to China, the envisioned partnership has largely evaporated. The U.S. has filed a complaint at the World Trade Organization against China's policies favoring its producers of wind and solar equipment. Cooperation in climate change talks has been rare. On the eve of Hu's U.S. visit, the conflict is emblematic of a range of areas, from climate to technology to reducing strains in the the global economy, where Beijing sees its interests as very different from Washington even as they pledge cooperation. "On the main issues, there is open hypocrisy on both sides," said Derek Scissors, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. The stakes are significant. The United States and China are the two biggest economies and greenhouse gas emitters and are linked by $250 billion a year in trade. Whether they can cooperate is likely to be key to restoring the world
economy to health and creating an effective program to forestall climate change.

The two governments have worked over the past decade to forge ties with regular Cabinet-level meetings and U.S. officials advise Beijing in fields from health to environmental enforcement. But across many economic issues they are moving toward conflict. Beijing, citing its need to reduce poverty and avoid financial shocks, has rejected binding greenhouse gas limits and U.S. pressure to ease currency controls that critics say keep its yuan weak and swell China's trade surplus. On the U.S. side, a listless economy and high unemployment make it politically harder for Washington to argue for cooperation and add to pressure on Obama to press China over trade complaints. In climate, the two governments trade accusations that they are blocking progress. Similar conflict marks efforts to reinvigorate the world economy and ease global economic imbalances by reducing America's huge trade and budget deficits and narrowing China's multibillion-dollar trade surplus. Beijing committed to boost its domestic consumption to cut reliance on exports and fuel demand for imports. But it has restrained the rise of its yuan against the dollar, which would increase the spending power of Chinese families. Analysts expect a Chinese trade surplus this year of about $200 billion the same as 2010.
Warming will kill all humans

Stein 7 (David, Science Editor, Scientists say Humanity ignores Antarctic melting and Greenhouse gas time-bombs with the price
of Mass-Extinction The Canadian)
Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass
"The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share. The Stephen
planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception. Harper minority government backed by Alberta "Big Oil", the U.S. Republican President Bush administration, and a confederacy of other elites associated with a neoconservative oriented political-military-industrial complex, has only sought to "buy time" against his critics, (and mount a disingenuous public relations campaign under a new Minister of the Environment). It is apparent that The Stephen Harper government has no commitment to providing any leadership on Canadian or global
There are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon, methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. "For several decades it has been hypothesized that rising temperatures
achievement of the minimum standards set on greenhouse gas emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels could be releasing some of and eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add substantially more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," Bill Henderson further elaborates. Given time lags of 30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefore extinction or very near extinction of humanity.
"(T)he science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030 (1). Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands," George Monbiot says. Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson , a geologist writing in the Baltimore Sun, is the best and almost only mainstream media explanation of runaway global warming and how close we are to extinction. "There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide."
Economic decline causes protectionism and war their defense doesnt assume accompanying shifts in global power.
Royal, DoD Cooperative Threat Reduction Director, 10 [Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215] Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining
power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
CTBT
CTBT passage relies on Obamas reelection
Schneidmiller 11 (Chris Schneidmiller, editor of Global Security Newswire, Senate Decision Key to Future of Test Ban Treaty, July 18, 2011,
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/senate-decision-key-to-future-of-test-ban-treaty/) WASHINGTON The
Obama administration is preparing for a lobbying campaign that could determine the future of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (see GSN, July 15). Administration officials have declared in recent months that they
intend to follow through on their long-stated pledge to seek the U.S. Senates advice and consent on the accord. Still to be determined are when that will occur and whether the White House can overcome entrenched divisions on Capitol Hill to secure necessary Republican support for ratification. The
stakes are significant: U.S. approval could draw other holdout nations into the treaty regime, bringing it that much closer to becoming international law, proponents say. Failure would provide those states with continued reason to dismiss the pact -- though critics say they might do that anyway. Before seeking a vote, the administration intends
to carry out a program to educate lawmakers and the public on the value of the treaty, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher has said on multiple occasions this year (see GSN, May 11). The effort would address issues likely to be debated in the Senate -the viability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal without testing, whether all CTBT member states have accepted an absolute ban on any trial blasts, and the ability to catch any state that attempts to cheat. We continue a long, methodical process to lay the groundwork for Senate consideration of the CTBT, the State Department said last month in a statement to Global Security Newswire. Currently,
we are in the process of engaging with members of the Senate and their staff on the importance of the CTBT. It added: We are not moving for a Senate vote, dont expect one anytime soon, and will not push for one until we have done the engagement work needed to secure approval. Several analysts agreed that the White House would not begin the fight until it felt secure the result would be an improvement on the last time a Democratic president tried to persuade the Senate to approve the treaty. The United States signed the pact in 1996, but three years later the Clinton administration ratification effort ran into a brick wall of skeptical
lawmakers. The Senate voted 51-48 against approval. A two-thirds affirmative vote would be required for the United States to become a full participant in the accord. Washington is among 44 capitals that must ratify the test ban before it can enter into force. Thirty-five nations have taken that step, leaving only China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States. President Obama might wait to make his push until after publication of a new National Academy of Sciences report on the treaty, said arms control specialist Jeffrey Lewis. The follow-up to a2002 academy study is expected to assess the effect that ratification would have on the U.S. capability to keep its nuclear weapons in working order without testing and on the capacity to identify atomic detonations in other nations. The new report is undergoing classification review, which could take weeks or years, according to Lewis. A classified National Intelligence Estimate on the matter was sent to Capitol Hill last August, but has not been seen by most lawmakers, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. The document is said to offer an updated, thorough assessment of the ability to detect secret nuclear tests, according to Kimball. Senator Robert Casey (D-Pa.) suggested at the Arms Control Associations annual meeting in May that the Senate might not take up the treaty until after the 2012 election. "In my judgment, we should act before the 2012 elections. I don't have a high degree of confidence that we will," the lawmaker said, echoing time line estimates from other observers. I dont think [the Obama administration is], at least in the near term, serious about putting this to a vote, said Lewis,
director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. I dont think theres a desire to have a vote if they think theyre going to lose, and I dont think the votes are there yet. Only 41 lawmakers
who considered the treaty in 1999 remain in the Senate, Kimball said in a recent issue brief. Newer senators must be briefed on the matter, while the chamber as a whole must be informed of technical developments since 1999 that would promote entry into force. Politics plays a role in congressional policy debates and nuclear security will be a topic of discussion during the 2012 presidential election campaign, Kimball said. The White House is already taking heat over what Republicans say are inadequate attempts to rein in suspected proliferation activities in nations such as Iran and Syria (see GSN, March 30). Still, the Senates ratification last year of the U.S.-Russian New START nuclear arms control pact is cause for optimism about the test bans chances on Capitol Hill, Kimball said. Thirteen GOP senators voted in favor of the bilateral agreement. The two years it took Moscow and Washington to negotiate and approve New START was relatively fast for a treaty, according to Kimball. He said the administration should take whatever time is needed to see the test ban passed. I would hope that the issue of the test ban treaty does not become a partisan political football because there is strong Republican support for the test ban treaty out there, Kimball said. If
the treaty is not seriously considered by the Senate until after 2012, that will be because it took that much time to sort through the issues and to develop enough support to go ahead with the final stages of the ratification effort. That plan, though, would hinge on Obamas re-election. Should he be defeated next year, the pact would almost certainly remain frozen in place in Washington. In arguing for ratification, the administration will be able to point to advancements since 1999, including
the near-completion of the International Monitoring System for detecting nuclear blasts and supercomputing power used in modeling the workings of the weapons. Obama has also pledged $85 billion over the next decade for modernizing the nuclear complex. Its not enough for the Obama administration to point to a really fast computer, there has to be a strategy for persuading the Senate to endorse the treat y, Lewis said. They did very well on New START, but I think this is going to be a little bit tougher. Rumblings so far from the GOP side have not favored ratification.
Prolif CTBT is key to prevent proliferation
US. Department of State 11 (The united states department of state, Government agency, The Case for the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty: Some Key Points, September 1, 2011, http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/171305.htm)
The CTBT helps restrain further nuclear weapons proliferation.
It is in our national security interest to prevent other states from advancing their nuclear weapon capabilities, an objective that would be reinforced through the
adoption and entry into force of the global, legally binding CTBT. With a global ban on nuclear explosive tests, states interested in
pursuing or advancing their nuclear weapons programs would have to either risk deploying weapons uncertain of their effectiveness or face international condemnation and possible sanctions for conducting nuclear tests. With or without nuclear explosive testing, it is possible for states to develop fission weapons,
but without testing there would always be uncertainty how well they would perform. A ban on nuclear explosive testing will prevent more established nuclear weapon states from confirming the performance of more advanced nuclear weapon designs that have not been successfully tested in the past. The United States possesses the most extensively tested and certified nuclear arsenal in the world and remains the worlds pre-eminent conventional weapons superpower. Our nation has been able to maintain military superiority while also observing a unilateral testing moratorium for almost twenty years, thus abiding by the core prohibition of the CTBT. Yet, the absence of U.S. ratification of the Treaty
continues to limit our ability to promote a global ban.
Proliferation leads to extinction
Roberts 99 (Researcher at the Institute for Defense Analysis, Research Institute for Defense Analysis, The Nonproliferation Review Fall)
This brings us then to the question of what is at stake in the effort to combat proliferation. There are two standard answers to the question of what is at stake: human lives, and stability. Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, all of them, though in different ways. The most deadly of these weapons systems can kill millions, and much more quickly than conventional weaponry (though it too is capable of killing millions). A regional war employing mass destruction as a matter of course could cause suffering and death
unknown in human experience. Such a war would cast a harsh light on the argument now in vogue that landmines, small arms, even machetes in the hands of drunk young men are the real weapons of mass destruction. Strictly from the perspective of limiting the effects of war, then, the world community has an interest in preventing the emergence of an international system in which the possession and use of Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons is accepted as normal and customary. The stability argument relates to the unintended consequences associated with acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It
focuses on the weapons-acquiring state and its neighbors and the risk of war that grows among them, including both preemptive and accidental war.
Natural Disasters CTBT increases nuclear detection systems

Tauscher, 11 (Ellen, Under secretary for arms control and international security, Political Transcript Wire, ELLEN TAUSCHER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, REMARKS ON THE NEW START TREATY AND THE CTBT: TWO ESSENTIAL STEPS TOWARD FULFILLING THE PRAGUE AGENDA, 26 Sep 2011, Proquest, jld)
Our case for Treaty ratification consists of three primary arguments. One, the United States no longer needs to conduct nuclear explosive tests. Two, a CTBT that has entered into force will obligate other states not to test and provide a disincentive for states to conduct such tests. And three, we
now have a greater ability to detect testing, a capability that will be enhanced by the CTBT, including its monitoring system and inspection provisions. Let me take these points one by one. From 1945 to 1992, the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear explosive tests - more
than all other nations combined. The cumulative data gathered from these tests have provided an impressive foundation of knowledge for us to base the continuing effectiveness of our arsenal. But historical test data alone is insufficient. Well over a decade ago, we launched an extensive and rigorous Stockpile Stewardship program that has enabled our nuclear weapons laboratories to carry out essential surveillance and warhead life extensions. Every year for the past 15 years, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy from both Democratic and Republican Administrations, and the directors of the nuclear weapons laboratories have certified that our arsenal is safe, secure, and effective. And each year they have affirmed that we do not need to conduct explosive nuclear tests. The lab directors tell us that Stockpile Stewardship has provided a deeper understanding of our arsenal than they ever had when testing was commonplace. We know more now about our nuclear weapons than when we used explosive testing. Think about that for a moment. Our current efforts go a step beyond explosive testing by enabling the labs to anticipate problems in advance and reduce their potential impact on our arsenal-something that nuclear testing could not do. I, for one, would not trade our successful approach based on world-class science and technology for a return to explosive testing. Despite the narrative put forward by some, this Administration inherited an underfunded and underappreciated nuclear complex. We have worked tirelessly to fix that situation and ensure our complex has every asset needed to achieve its mission, and to do it without explosive testing. The President has committed to programs that we believe require an investment of $88 billion in funding over the next decade. These investments will help maintain a modern nuclear arsenal, retain a modern nuclear weapons production complex, and nurture a highly trained workforce. At a time when every part of the budget is under the microscope, our pledge to pursue these programs demonstrates our commitment and should not be discounted. To those who doubt our commitment, I ask them to put their doubts aside and invest the hard work to support our budget requests in the Congress. I do not believe that even the most vocal critics of the CTBT want to resume explosive nuclear testing. What they have chosen instead is a status quo where the United States refrains from testing without using that fact to lock in a legally binding global ban that would significantly benefit the United States. Second, a CTBT that has entered into force will hinder other states from advancing their nuclear weapons capabilities. Were the CTBT to enter into force, states interested in pursuing or advancing a nuclear weapons program would risk either deploying weapons that might not work or incur international condemnation and sanctions for testing. While states can build a crude first generation nuclear weapon without conducting nuclear explosive tests, they would have trouble going further with any confidence. Without explosive testing, more established nuclear weapons states seeking to deploy advanced nuclear weapon capabilities that deviated significantly from previously tested designs also would have serious doubts about reliability. Finally, we
have become very good at detecting explosive testing. If you test, there is a very high risk of getting caught. Upon the Treaty's entry into force, the United States would use the International Monitoring System (IMS) to complement our own state of the art national technical means to verify the Treaty. In 1999 when the
Senate first considered the CTBT, not a single certified IMS station or facility existed. We understand why some senators had doubts about its future, untested capabilities. But today
the IMS is nearing completion. 286 of 337 monitoring facilities have been installed. They work and provide valuable data all day, every day. While IMS capabilities continue to grow, our national technical means remain second to
none and we continue to improve them. Taken together, these verification tools would make it difficult for any state to conduct nuclear tests that escape detection.
Elections DA 115/150 Nuclear detection systems key to detecting natural disasters
Pellerin, 11 (Cheryl, American Forces Press Service, American Forces Press Service, Defense Nuclear Monitoring System Helps in Disasters, Jul 14, 2011, Proquest, jld)
WASHINGTON, July 14, 2011 - The
Defense Department's U.S. Atomic Energy Detection System has monitored the planet for nuclear blasts since 1947, but its sensors also help to pinpoint and assess large natural disasters around the world. Since 1980, this state-of-the-art system, called USAEDS, has been the responsibility of the Air Force Technical Applications Center at
Patrick Air Force Base, Fla. AFTAC's job is to make sure foreign nations adhere to three nuclear test-ban treaties that have been in force since the 1960s and 1970s and that prohibit nuclear testing in the atmosphere and some underground tests. But the increasingly sophisticated tools the network uses in this effort also have more downto-earth applications. USAEDS
has sensors on Global Positioning System and Defense Support System satellites that monitor space and Earth's atmosphere for light flashes, radioactivity and other telltale signs of nuclear explosions. The system's hydroacoustic sensors are microphones that listen for nuclear explosions under the sea. Infrasound sensors measure changes in the atmosphere generated by very-low-frequency acoustic waves that can come from above-ground nuclear explosions. As part of the system, a WC-135 aircraft flies to the sites of explosions and collects air that scientists on the ground analyze for radioactive particles and radioactive gases. And the system's 40 seismic stations around the world -using the same technology scientists use to measure earthquakes -- monitor the planet for underground nuclear explosions. "When nuclear testing was forced underground [in the 1970s], we had to switch over to more dependence on things like seismic sensors, and our
seismic stations started to expand," AFTAC chief scientist David O'Brien told American Forces Press Service. "Our first station was in Turkey, probably in the late 1950s, probably close to where the then-Soviet Union was testing [nuclear devices]," O'Brien said. "As time went on and more and more testing was going on underground," he added, "we started establishing more of our overseas sites." Because of AFTAC's critical mission to detect and report nuclear blasts, system sensors conform to the highest technical standards and operate day and night, 365 days a year. So if anything cataclysmic happens anywhere on Earth -- a large earthquake, for example -- the system knows about it. "If
it's a very large earthquake, anything over about magnitude 6.0, we will notify the U.S. Geological Survey, which is responsible for participating in the International Tsunami Early Warning System, O'Brien said. "This is not a nuclear explosion, this is an earthquake [but] it's large and it could be causing a lot of damage so we will immediately let the USGS know," O'Brien said. "The USGS probably has detected it too," he added, "but this augments their information as well." The USGS National Earthquake Information Center in
Colorado has a domestic network of seismic stations called the Advanced National Seismic System, and it is part of an international system called the Global Seismographic Network. USGS, the U.S. National Science Foundation and an organization called the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology formed the international system, which has more than 150 seismic stations around the world. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii, part of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, uses USGS seismic data and a
range of sensors in oceans around the world to issue earthquake and tsunami warnings for Hawaii, American territories in the Pacific, 25 countries in the Pacific Ocean basin, and the Indian Ocean region. But there's a big difference between these dedicated disaster warning systems and AFTAC's nuclear detection network. "We install our systems in areas where there is very low seismic noise," O'Brien said. "The USGS may have their stations close to cities where there's lots of vibration in the ground," he said, or in areas like California or New Zealand that have lots of seismic activity. "The USGS is really looking for big earthquakes," the scientist added. "They don't have the requirements that we do -- to look for very, very small explosions" that may occur underground during a nuclear test." The U.S. Atomic Energy Detection System looks for sometimes-subtle indicators of an atomic explosion, he said. "I can't tell you how low we go," he said, referring to the lowest-level magnitude the system can detect, "but we go very much lower than a disaster network might go." Unlike many disaster and research networks, USAEDS runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, he said. "Data is continually coming in, in real time from all these worldwide sensors. We analyze data as soon as it comes into the building," O'Brien said. "Our responsibility is to provide immediate notification if an explosion occurs anywhere in the world," he said. Another network that, like the Defense Department, monitors for nuclear explosions but also detects natural disasters is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization's International Monitoring System. The treaty opened for signature in 1996 and is signed by most countries in the world but not yet ratified by enough countries to put the treaty into force. In the meantime, the treaty organization, headquartered in Vienna, Austria, is building a global network of sensors and other program elements that ultimately will help enforce the treaty. AFTAC experts have advised the organization about building its 337-facility network, and both AFTAC and the United States contribute data to the system. "The United States is part of the International Monitoring System," O'Brien said. "When we signed the treaty, which we have not ratified yet, we agreed to put stations on U.S. soil to participate in the system. That includes seismic and hydroacoustic stations," he said. "Some of the sites we have in our USAEDS network also contribute to the IMS, he added, "but not all." In foreign countries where USAEDS has established seismic sites, the United States has agreements with those countries, O'Brien
to contribute to the International Monitoring System" or any other seismic network, he said. "We want the data, but whether they give it to somebody else or not, we don't care," O'Brien said, "although [sharing the data] certainly benefits the International Monitoring System. That's a positive aspect." In May, after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami affected hundreds of thousands of people and damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan, USAEDS was
explained. "Each country can decide whether or not they want
pressed into service, the scientist said. The
system's seismic stations "most certainly detected the earthquake and many aftershocks," O'Brien said, and the system was recruited to support U.S. efforts in response to the Japanese nuclear reactor accident. "We deployed our WC-135 aircraft to collect air over the ocean east of Japan to determine radioactivity levels there," he said. Also in May, radionuclide sensors that are part of the International Monitoring System picked up traces
of radioactive particles and gases from the stricken power plant. So far, more than 35 radionuclide stations have provided information on the spread of radioactivity from the Fukushima accident. In addition to its primary mission, USAEDS also contributes to a U.S. program established through the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. "One thing the [new] Department of Homeland Security had to address was the possibility that a terrorist could detonate a nuclear device in the United States," O'Brien said. The result, he said, was the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Program, an interagency effort that involves the departments of Homeland Security, Security, Energy and Justice -- primarily the FBI -- as well as the Defense Department and the intelligence community. The team, O'Brien said, "would respond to a nuclear explosion in the United States for the purpose of trying to determine who did it. It's called attribution." In that effort, he added, USAEDS would use its aircraft to sample radioactive debris. "The Army would do ground sampling," O'Brien said, "but because we have been doing analysis on radioactive debris for many years and have laboratories in the United States that support us, we would oversee all the analysis of radioactivity." Whether radioactivity is detected by the Department of Energy or AFTAC's aircraft or the FBI, the scientist said, "we would be the single point for the nation to do analysis of that debris for the attribution process."
Natural disasters cause extinction Sid-Ahmed 05 (Mohamed, January 2005, The Post-earthquake World", Al-Ahram Weekly, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm. Mohamed SidAhmed is a political analyst.) RS The year 2005
began with a calamity, resulting not from conflicts between people but from an unprecedented natural disaster that has so far claimed over 155,000 lives, a figure that is expected to rise still more over the coming period. Is this Nature's reaction to the abuse it is suffering at the hands of the human race, its revenge on us for challenging its laws beyond acceptable limits? The earthquake that
struck deep under the Indian Ocean was the strongest in over a century. What is still more critical is that what we have witnessed so far is only the beginning of the catastrophe. According to a spokesman from the World Health organisation, "there is certainly a chance that we could have as many dying from communicable diseases as from the tsunamis". The logistics of providing the survivors with clean water, vaccines and medicines are formidable, and, with many thousands of bodies lying unburied, epidemics spread by waterborne diseases are expected to claim many thousands of victims. There is also the possibility of seismic activity elsewhere in the world because disturbances in the inner structure of the earth's crust have occurred and there are no means to foresee how they will unfold. Will they build up into still broader disarray and eventually move our planet out of its orbit around the sun? Moreover, even if we can avoid the worse possible scenario, how can we contain the earthquake's effects ecologically, meteorologically, economically and socially? The contradiction between Man and Nature has
reached unprecedented heights, forcing us to re-examine our understanding of the existing world system. US President George W Bush has announced the creation of an international alliance between the US, Japan, India, Australia and any other nation wishing to join that will work to help the stricken region overcome the huge problems it is facing in the wake of the tsunamis. Actually, the
implications of the disaster are not only regional but global, not to say cosmic. Is it possible to mobilise all the inhabitants of our planet to the extent and at the speed necessary to avert similar disasters in future? How to engender the required state of emergency, that is, a different type of inter-human relations which rise to the level of the challenge before contradictions between the various sections of the world community make that collective effort unrealisable? The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach
welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life.
Deterrence Nuclear testing makes our nukes look more powerful, solving deterrence Bailey 01 (Dr. Kathleen C., The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: An Update on the Debate, National Institute for Foreign Policy, March 2001,
http://www.nipp.org/National%20Institute%20Press/Archives/Publication%20Archive%20PDF/CTBT%20Update.pdf. Dr. Kathleen Bailey, a consultant on defense and arms control issues, is currently a Senior Associate at the National Institute for Public Policy in Washington DC. Also, she currently serves on the US Secretary of States Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board.) RS
Many things can and have gone wrong with deployed U.S. nuclear weapons. Some defects have been design flaws; some have been introduced during the weapons manufacture; others developed as a result of aging. Despite the fact
that weapons designs in the stockpile have been extensively tested, problems continue to arise. John C. Browne, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified in 1999 that We
also continue to find problems that were introduced during the original manufacturing of some specific weapons. We have identified several issues that, if they had occurred when testing was active, most likely would have been resolved by nuclear testing. In the future, warhead problems associated with manufacturing may be even more prevalent. This is due to the fact that older weapons will need to be remanufactured. Many materials and components used in original manufacture are no longer available and substitutes must be used; older processes and procedures may have to be changed (e.g. they are outd ated or unsafe by todays standards). These changes could severely impact weapons reliability. Nuclear testing is the only way to validate, with certainty, that the new materials, components, processes, and procedures used in weapons remanufacture do not affect weapons performance.
**US-Russia Relations**
2NC Module
Election determines US-Russia relations

Investors Business Daily, Editorial, July 5th
(7-5-2012, Investors Business Daily, Russia Hearts Obama, Not Romney, Lexis-Nexis, accessed 7-11-2012, JKE) Geopolitics: A highly ranked Russian official warns us that if we elects the Republican candidate there will be a major crisis in the first year. Didn't they say the same thing about the president who won the Cold War? Faced with the prospect of a new U.S. president who unapologetically believes in American exceptionalism, Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the State Duma, said in a recent interview that Russian leaders have noted likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney's comments with concern. "We don't think that for us Romney will be an easy partner," said Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin . "We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration." Pushkov also noted Romney's statements that the U.S. should assert its dominance in the 21 st century. President Obama would be an "acceptable" partner for Russia in a second term, Pushkov said. Romney upset Moscow with a CNN interview in March in which he said that Russia was "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."
Relations key to solve us/russia war

Rumer, 2004 (Eugene, Strategic Forum, Collision Avoidance: Us-Russian Bilatral Relations And Former
Soviet States, April 2004, NC) The need for cooperation is dictated by two converging trends. The first is the unprecedented American involvement in countries and regions on the Russian periphery, which many Russians have come to view as their country's sphere of influence. The second is the emergence of a powerful consensus among Russian politicians of all parties about the need to consolidate Russia's neighborhood into its exclusive sphere of influence. Each of these trends is a pillar of the two countries' respective national security strategies. Unless the United States and Russia make a deliberate and determined effort to work with each other, collision appears unavoidable. Cooperation is the only option, for an all-out competition for influence in the former Soviet lands between the two nations would hurt the interests of both and--most importantly--undermine the fragile gains the region has made since independence.
Extinction
Starr, 2006(Steven, Total Global Nuclear Arsenal 2006 27,000 Nuclear Weapons With 5,000 Mt Total
Yield, Fall 2006)

Today the U.S. and Russia keep 9,000 operational strategic nuclear weapons deployed and constantly maintained so that they can be rapidly launched at predetermined targets. These weapons have a combined firepower of 3076
Megatons, which is more than 1000 times greater than the combined explosive force of all the bombs exploded in World War II. A single strategic nuclear weapon, when detonated above a city, would within tens of minutes create a mass fire over an area of 20 to 100 square miles. This firestorm would generate ground winds of hurricane force with average air temperatures well above the boiling point of water . There would be no possible escape from the fire zone. The firestorm would extinguish all life and destroy almost everything else within its boundaries . Imagine this event
happening, in less than an hour, with not one, but with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons detonating in the cities of the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, India, and Pakistan. The details of such a holocaust are already inscribed in
the guidance mechanisms of themissiles waiting to deliver the warheads. Now you have some idea of what the global nuclear arsenals, continually kept at launch-on-warning status, are capable of doing.
Obama Helps Relations
Obama will reset US-Russia relations

Burwell, Atlantic Council vice president, US-EU relations expert, and Cornell, Central AsiaCaucasus Institute, former Course Chair of Caucasus Area Studies at the Foreign Service Institute 12(Frances and Svante, 4/4/12, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0404/Obama-must-reset-relationswith-Russia-along-economic-lines, accessed on 7/7/12, EW)
As Vladimir Putin prepares for his May inauguration and return to the Russian presidency, theUnited States must design a new relationship with this often difficult leader and his country. The
Russian Reset of President Obamas first term sought to overcome the strain in relations of recent years in order to achieve some specific foreign policy goals. It brought a new arms control treaty, Russian cooperation in
transiting military material toAfghanistan, and help in pressuring Iran. But simply continuing the reset along the same lines is a dead end. There is little likelihood of any significant progress in nuclear arms control because any new accord would require more meaningful reductions in weapons. The US and NATO engagement in Afghanistan is winding down. And Russia seems unwilling to pursue further sanctions against the Iranian threat of proliferation. When Mr. Putin arrives in Camp David for the G8 summit in May, President Obama must be ready to lay out the framework for a new reset. Foreign policy cooperation, including on Iran, will still be important. But this reset must have a more comprehensive goal: to integrate Russia more fully into the international economy and community. By giving Russia and Putin a greater stake in strong relations with the West, the reset can also create incentives for better behavior, both domestically and internationally, at the Kremlin. This new approach should have three components: an economic one that uses Russias anticipated entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) to boost support for rule-of-law and build stronger commercial ties; a diplomatic one that involves much closer coordination with European allies to present a united front to the Russians; and more firm and clear promotion of human rights and media freedom in Russia. First, the economics. In December, Russia reached agreement with the WTO and its members including the United States and European governments on the terms of its accession. All that remains is for the Duma, or parliament, to ratify the accord. While Putin has been somewhat skeptical of WTO accession, there is no other choice for Russia if the new government wishes to modernize an economy thats overly dependent on oil and gas exports. The US and Europe should push Russia to comple te its entry into the WTO and then begin close monitoring of its implementation of trade rules. As with China, the process of adopting and enforcing those rules is likely to be slow. Just as the US and European Union pushed together for Chinese adherence to WTO rules on protection of intellectual property, so they must cooperate closely to gain Russian adherence to those rules and others. WTO membership presents a valuable opportunity to strengthen rule-of-law in that country including laws on contracts, property ownership, and investment protection. The US European Union should also support Russian organizations, including business associations, that seek to make WTO membership an effective and practical reality
Romney Hurts Relations
Romney kills Russia Relations, limited foreign policy and stuck in cold war
David, Reuters Journalist 12 (Morgan, 4/1/12, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/01/us-usa-campaign-romneyrussia-idUSBRE8300FK20120401, accessed on 7/13/12, EW)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday came under political fire from two of President Barack Obama's top lieutenants, who dismissed Romney's tough talk on Russia as being behind the times.In separate interviews, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to cast Romney as stuck in the days of the Cold War and unaware of the strategic interests that the United States and Russia share on Iran, Afghanistan and the world's oil supply.The
two were hitting back at Romney for criticizing Obama last week after the Democratic president assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with the contentious issue of missile defense after the November 6 general election in the United States.Republicans seeking to oust Obama from the White House in November pounced on his comments, which had been caught inadvertently by an open microphone. Romney expressed alarm that Obama had offered assurances to Russia, which he called "our number one geopolitical foe."The former Massachusetts governor has
increasingly trained his attacks on Obama while seeking to establish himself as the Republican candidate most likely candidate for the party's nomination to challenge the president in November.Biden
and Clinton took aim at Romney's limited experience on foreign relations issues."He acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on, Russia is still our major adversary. I don't know where he has been," Biden shot back
during a Sunday interview on the CBS current affairs program "Face the Nation.""This is not 1956," Biden added. "We have disagreements with Russia, but they're united with us on Iran. One of only two ways we're getting material into Afghanistan to our troops is through Russia ... if there is an oil shutdown in any way in the Gulf, they'll consider increasing oil supplies to Europe."Meanwhile, Clinton told CNN that
Romney needed to be more realistic about U.S.-
Russian relations."I think it's somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don't agree," she said in an
interview during a visit to Turkey.The Romney campaign quickly jumped to their candidate's defense."Vice President Biden appears to have forgotten the Russian government's opposition to crippling sanctions on Iran, its obstructionism on Syria and its own backsliding into authoritarianism. And Secretary Clinton herself asked recently of Russia, 'whose side are they on?'," Romney policy director Lanhee Chen said in a statement.
Romney wrecks US-Russian relations whereas Obama is more acceptable Russian statements prove
Investors Business Daily, Editorial, July 5th (7-5-2012, Investors Business Daily, Russia Hearts
Obama, Not Romney, Lexis-Nexis, accessed 7-11-2012, JKE) Geopolitics: A highly ranked Russian official warns us that if we elects the Republican candidate there will be a major crisis in the first year. Didn't they say the same thing about the president who won the Cold War? Faced with the prospect of a new U.S. president who unapologetically believes in American exceptionalism, Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the State Duma, said in a recent interview that Russian leaders have noted likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney's comments with concern. "We don't think that for us Romney will be an easy partner," said Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin . "We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration." Pushkov also noted Romney's statements that the U.S. should assert its dominance in the 21 st century. President Obama would be an "acceptable" partner for Russia in a second term, Pushkov said. Romney upset Moscow with a CNN interview in March in which he said that Russia was "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."
Romney bad for US-Russia Relations

Larison, Ph.D in history, contributing editor at The American Conservative, 7/2 (Daniel, 7/2/12, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/revisiting-romneys-russiablunder/, accessed on 7/4/12, EW)
Another part of the report on the Romney campaigns foreign policy predicamentidentifies a more significant problem, which is that some of the people working on the campaign dont understand when their candidate has blundered. Here the report quotes Romneys foreign and legal policy advise r, Alex Wong: Wong declined to discuss his own qualifications for the job or the criticism that he is inexperienced. He said the candidates Russia remark was a legitimate criticism of Obamas approach to Moscow. Wong said that in the same CNN interview, the governor also said an Iran pursuin g nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to the U.S. I thought it was quite ironic that the Obama campaign thought [the Russia] remarks were an opening for them [bold mine-DL], said Wong. Russia is a unique geopolitical challenge, it holds a veto at the U.N. Security Council, it has a nuclear arsenal, it holds vast energy reserves, it has a government that is backsliding into authoritarianism, and it has shown a penchant for protecting some of the worlds worst actors at the U.N. Romney may not alw ays listen to his advisers, but Wong isnt doing him any favors here. Granted, hes supposed to put the best spin on a bad statement, but it doesnt work very well. Eac h thing Wong mentions in this quote is basically correct, but even when all of them are considered together it still makes absolutely no sense to describe Russia as our number one geopolitical foe. Everyone knows that Russia has a nuclear arsenal. Romney
is on record opposing an arms reduction treaty that limits the size of that arsenal and re-establishes a verification regime to ensure compliance. Everyone knows that Russia has vast energy reserves. For some reason, Romney wants to antagonize the government that controls the supplies that Europe depends on for much of its energy. Everyone knows that Russia has a veto at the Security Council. Romney seems interested in provoking them into using it as often as possible. Russia isnt Americas number one geopolitical foe, but for some reason Romney wants to treat it that way.It was fairly obvious that Romney had given the other campaign an opening with his number one geopolitical foe remark. Theres nothing ironic in taking advantage of an opponents erroneous statement. The remark was almost perfectly crafted to fit
into the Obama campaigns plan to portray Romney as out-of-date and out-of-touch. It lends credibility to the charge that Romney wants to return the country to the Bush era in foreign policy, because he is giving every indication that this is what he would do. What should concern R epublicans is not that Romney isnt paying enough attention to foreign policy, but that he doesnt even seem to know when he has erred. He made his number one geopolitical foe blunder three months ago, and there are still campaign advisers and would-be allies trying to argue that his error was actually a profound insight. Romney isnt required to agree with current Russia policy. One would expect a partisan opponent to try to find fault with a major administration initiative. What separates Romneys reset -bashing from the usual attacks an inexperienced challenger makes is the shoddy, apparently uninformed nature of the attacks. Romneys number one geopolitical foe remark was so bad for him not just because it was clearly wrong, but because it was the sort of error on foreign policy that anyone could easily recognize as a blunder. On top of that, it was part of a pattern of Romney statements on policies related to Russia that have relied on fabrications and falsehoods. His complaints about missile defense are basically unfounded or deeply misleading, and his criticism of New START washilariously bad. If the number one geopolitical foe crack had been an isolated episode, it would
Because it belonged to a pattern of errors related to policies concerning Russia, it became a much bigger target for criticism. It confirmed the impression that Romneys foreign policy is needlessly confrontational and informed
have been embarrassing but not very important. by an anachronistic view of the world. The Obama campaign would have been mocked for inexcusable incompetence if they hadnt seized on the remark
Romney kills Russia relations- no New-START and missile defense

Lyman, International Policy Digest, Editor-in-Chief, 7/7 (John, Foreign Policy Digest, Administrative Editor, United States Congressional Campaign, Policy Director, 7/7/12, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/07/07/romneysapproach-to-foreign-policy/, accessed on 7/13/12, EW)
Writing in the Washington Post in July of 2010 as debate surrounding the ratification of the New START Treaty was heating up in the U.S. Senate, Romney
wrote, (Obamas) New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratifiedNew-START impedes missile defense, our protection from nuclear-proliferating rogue states such as Iran and North KoreaAnd Russia has expressly reserved the right to walk away from the treaty if it believes that the United States has significantly increased its missile defense capability. Perhaps most ominous is Romneys conclusion that significant nuclear stockpiles are necessary as a deterrent to Russia. New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1, Romney writes. Does Romney believe that a nuclear war with Russia is still a possibility? Romneys muddled foreign policy message has been to place himself in opposition to every Obama administration policy and initiative from the Arab Spring to U.S.-Russian relations. While, this might be expected,
it opens candidate Romney to criticisms that he hasnt offered any substantive details about what he would do differently as president other than to offer very vague generic talking points. In this regard he might be avoiding Obamas problem. While not necessarily on par with Hubert Humph rey by promising something to everyone while running for president in 2008 Obama made very substantive campaign promises that never materialized and have continued to haunt him. Comprehensive immigration never saw the light of day, militants captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere are still being housed at Guantanamo Bay and while Obama did see the Affordable Care Act passed into law it was not without spending significant political capital and Obamacare very well could contribute to Obamas defeat in November. But as November nears, Romney
and by extension his campaign will need to fine-tune their argument why a Romney presidency would be more successful than the Obama presidency. While the Obama administration has had many misses
they do have some areas that they can argue have been successful as in the complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the bin Laden raid, decreasing the ranks of Al Qaeda, opening the Af-Pak border crossing for NATO and U.S. supplies and a U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement.
Romney Russia statements reveal actually policy outcomes

Glaser, Antiwar assistant editor, The American Conservative editorial assistant 6/21 (John, 6/21/12, http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/21/vying-for-war-on-iran-romney-floatingbolton-for-sec-of-state/, accessed on 7/7/12, EW)
John R. Bolton, the U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and specialist on arms control and security issues, is said to be a leading candidate for secretary of state. Thats a terrifying prospect, but its also not very surprising. Many of Romneys foreign policy views sound very much like Boltons. Bolton is a prominent supporter of Romney. There is every reason to assume that Romney will govern in a fashion that would generally satisfy Bolton. The hope that Romneys foreign policy statements are all campaign posturing and dont mean anything has always been just thata hope. The fact that Bolton is even being considered for this position ought to provide all the confirmation anyone needs that Romneys positions on Iran and Russia in particular are more than just election-year demagoguery. Someone might object that Bolton has a very poor chance of being confirmed for this position. Its possible that Romney wouldnt be willing to go through a contentious, losing confirmation battle at the very beginning of his term. For that reason, he might not nominate someone as polarizing and controversial as Bolton. On the other hand, perhaps it is a mistake to assume that Bolton couldnt be confirmed. It is still fairly unusual for a new administrations major Cabinet nominations to be blocked by the other party. We should assume that a Bolton nomination is quite possible in the event of a Romney victory, and a Bolton confirmation might be as well.
Elections DA 121/150 Accidents Impact
Relations solve accidents and miscalculation

Cirincione, 2007(Joseph, Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Nuclear Summer, 7/23/11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/nuclear_summer.html/print.html, accessed 6/26/11, NC) With Russian early-warning capabilities eroding, we increasingly rely on good relations between the White House and the Kremlin to ensure that no Russian president will misinterpret a false alarm and make a catastrophic decision. This summer, behind the smiles at the Lobster Summit" in Maine, that good will was in short supply, weakening an important safety net crucial to preventing an accidental nuclear exchange. Later in July, the mutual diplomatic expulsions between Russia and the United Kingdom, which fields 185 nuclear weapons, ratcheted tensions up another notch and should shake current complacent policies that take good relations for granted and scorn any further negotiated nuclear reductions.
Extinction
Mintz, 01(Morton Mintz is a former chair of the Fund for Investigative Journalism and a former Washington
Post reporter, http://prospect.org/article/two-minutes-launch, The American Prospect, 2/26/01, NC)
The bitter disputes
over national missile defense (NMD) have obscured a related but dramatically more urgent issue of national security: the4,800 nuclear warheads -- weapons with a combined destructive power nearly 100,000 times greater than the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima -- currently on "hair-trigger" alert. Hair-trigger alert means this: The missiles carrying those warheads are armed and fueled at all times. Two thousand or so of these warheads are on the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) targeted by Russia at the United States; 1,800 are on the ICBMs targeted by the United Statesat Russia; and approximately 1,000 are on the submarine-based missiles targeted by the two nations at each other . These missiles would launch on receipt of three
computer-delivered messages. Launch crews -- on duty every second of every day -- are under orders to send the messages on receipt of a single computer-delivered command. In no more than two minutes, if all went according to plan, Russia or theUnited Statescould launch missiles at predetermined targets: Washington or New York; Moscow or St. Petersburg. The early-warning systems on which the launch crews rely would detect the other side's missiles within tens of seconds, causing the intended -- or accidental -enemy to mount retaliatory strikes. "Within a half-hour, there could be a nuclear war that would extinguish all of us ," explains Bruce Blair. "It would be, basically, a nuclear war by checklist, by rote."
Terrorism Impact
Relations key to solve terrorism and prolif

Perry and Scowcroft, 09 (William and brent, Chairs CFR, april, US Nuclear Weapons Policy, NC)
Despite nearly universal opposition, North Korea has developed a small nuclear arsenal, and Iran appears to be following in its footsteps. Other states, particularly in the Middle East, are starting nuclear power programs modeled after that of Iran. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and fissile materials is thus dangerously close to a tipping point. Beyond this danger, there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world. If just one of these thousands of weapons fell into the hands of terrorists, it could be detonated with catastrophic results . So, although the old danger of a massive nuclear exchange between great powers has declined, a new risk looms of a few nuclear
detonations being set off by a terrorist group or a nuclear-capable rogue state, or of a nuclear power making a tragic mistake. The threat of nuclear terrorism is already serious, and, as more nations acquire nuclear weapons or the fissile material needed for nuclear weapons, it will increase. Of course, the detonation of a relatively primitive nuclear
bomb in one American city would not be equivalent to the type of nuclear exchange that was feared during the Cold War. Nonetheless, the results would be catastrophic, with the devastation extending well beyond the staggering fatalities. The direct economic losses would amount to many hundreds of billions of dollars, but the
indirect economic impact would be even greater. The social and political effects are incalculable, especially if the detonation were in Washington, DC, and disabled a significant part of the U.S. government. The terror and disruption would be beyond imagination. High priority should be accorded to policies that serve to prevent such a
catastrophe, specifically programs that reduce and protect existing nuclear arsenals and that keep new arsenals from being created. All such preventive programs, by their nature, have international dimensions. Their success depends on the United States being able to work cooperatively with other countries, most notably Russia. That such international
cooperation can be successful is illustrated by the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program in the 1990s. U.S.-Russian efforts on that program led to thousands of nuclear weapons and their launchers being dismantled and thus made the world safer. But unless U.S.-Russia relations improve, it is difficult to imagine those two governments cooperating on future programs that require such a high level of mutual trust.
Extinction
Sid-Ahmed, 2004 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, Extinction! August 26-September 1, Issue
no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm, NC) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences ofa nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
Russia Relations
Republican control destroys US- Russia relations AP 10- (Associated Press, US Republican Wins Could Be Felt in Europe November 1, 2010,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39845295/US_Republican_Wins_Could_Be_Felt_in_Europe)
A big Republican win in Tuesday's U.S. congressional elections could jolt U.S. relations with Europe by affecting issues such as arms control, climate change and relations with Turkey. Getty Images Foreign policy has not been a factor in the campaign, which has been dominated by economic and other domestic issues. But if Republicans, as expected, win control of the House of Representatives and make gains in the Senate, the impact will be felt beyond U.S. borders. Though Congress does not run U.S. foreign policy, it can influence it in many ways, and President Barack Obama could find many of his priorities stalled or tripped up by lawmakers. Obama's arms control agenda and U.S.-Russian relations could be the first foreign policy casualties of the election. The administration has been trying for months to win enough Republican support in the Senate to ratify the New Strategic Arms Control Treaty with
Russia. The treaty, signed in April by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, would lower limits on the two countries' nuclear arsenals, but some
Republicans are not satisfied that the United States could verify whether Russia was sticking to its terms. Defeat in the Senate would have two obvious consequences. Since arms negotiations have been the centerpiece of Obama's opening to improve relations with Russia, a failure to ratify the treaty would be a setback. Without a victory, Obama's broader agenda on reducing the risk from nuclear weapons could be in doubt. For instance, plans to ratify a nuclear test ban treaty already look beyond reach.
The administration is pushing for a vote on New START shortly after the election before most newly elected senators are seated in January, because it will be much more difficult with fewer Democrats in office next year. But in a twist of election law, three newly elected senators will take office immediately after the election because they are running for seats that were vacated by predecessors including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. It remains unclear whether Democrats can pick up enough Republican votes or have enough time to win passage in the postelections session. In
another possible pitfall for U.S.-Russian relations, Obama's support for Russia to join the World Trade Organization could be blocked by Congress. Before the United States can approve Russia's bid, Congress must first repeal the Jackson-Vanik agreement, a Soviet-era regulation that can restrict bilateral trade. Republican gains also could add uncertainties for relations with Turkey. Republicans have traditionally supported the NATO ally. But anger in both major parties has risen over Turkish conflict with Israel and ties with Iran. In previous periods of Republican control of the House of Representatives, party leaders have blocked attempts to pass resolutions recognizing the World-War I-era killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide. The third-ranking Republican lawmaker, Rep. Mike Pence, who helps guide party strategy in the House, has said he might reconsider opposition to a
resolution because of Turkish positions on Israel. The passage of a resolution on Armenia could upend relations with Turkey, a rising power that vociferously opposes it. The election campaigns already have damaged Obama's chances of passing legislation that would curb climate-warming emissions. In a sign of the legislation's unpopularity, candidates from both parties railed against proposed legislation as antibusiness at a time of high unemployment and slow economic growth. With
poor prospects for U.S. legislation on reducing emissions, it is unlikely that Obama can lobby effectively or a global pact that would bind the countries of the world to limits on greenhouse gasses. The issue has become a political loser
domestically. If voters appear to rebuke him Tuesday, Obama will be looking for other initiatives that can improve his own re-election chances in 2012. Pure political partisanship after Tuesday's elections also could have foreign policy implications with Republican leaders in Congress talking about opposition, not compromise. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support free trade. But a
Republican win may not do much to advance global free trade talks, which are unpopular politically. Republicans are wary about handing Obama victories ahead of the 2012 elections. If Republicans take over one chamber or two, they will gain power over the budget and could force changes in funding for programs such as U.S. foreign aid, which some would like to cut, and missile defense, which some would like to boost.
Romney views Russia as the enemy- cooperation impossible Oppel 5/11 (RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr, staff writer at the New York TimesRomneys Adversarial View of Russia Stirs Debate, May 11, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/us/politics/romneys-view-of-russia-sparks-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all, jld) WASHINGTON Mitt Romneys
recent declaration that Russia is Americas top geopolitical adversary drew raised eyebrows and worse from many Democrats, some Republicans and the Russians themselves, all of whom suggested that Mr. Romney was misguidedly stuck in a cold war mind-set. But his statement was not off the cuff and it was not the first time Mr. Romney had stirred debate over his hawkish views on Russia. Interviews
with Republican foreign policy experts close to his campaign and his writings on the subject show that his stance toward Russia reflects a broader foreign policy view that gives great weight to economic power and control of natural resources. It also exhibits Mr. Romneys confidence that his private-sector experience would make him a better negotiator on national security issues than President Obama has been. Mr. Romneys views on Russia have set off disa greements among some of his foreign policy advisers. They put him in sync with the more conservative members of his party in Congress, who have similarly criticized Mr. Obama as being too accommodating to Russia, and generally reflect the posture of some neoconservatives. But they have frequently put him at odds with members of the Republican foreign policy establishment, like Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, who was defeated in a primary this week, and the partys shrinking band of foreig n policy realists those who advocate a less ideological and more pragmatic view of relations with rival powers. The Romney camp aign has been critical of Mr. Obamas
record and positions on a variety of national security issues, including containing Irans nuclear ambitions and confronting Chinas rise. But many of the positions taken by Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have either been vague or not fundamentally different from those of the administration. Russia,
however, is an exception, one where Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has carved out a clear contrast to Mr. Obama, who came to office promising to reset relations with Moscow, only to find that Russia can be a
difficult partner. Just this week, President Vladimir V. Putin abruptly canceled his plans to visit the United States next week for the Group of 8 summit meeting and for talks with Mr. Obama at Camp David. Mr.
Romney was a leading opponent of the most recent arms-reduction treaty with Russia, ratified by the Senate and signed last year by Mr. Obama. Russia figures prominently in Mr. Romneys book, where he calls it one of four competitors for world leadership, along with the United States, China and violent jihadism
embraced by Iran and terrorist groups. Some advisers close to Mr. Romney, who declined to be quoted or identified by name, say Russia is a good illustration of his belief that national security threats are closely tied to economic power in this case stemming from Russias oil and gas reserves, which it has used to muscle European countries dependent on energy imports.
Nuclear war Allison 10/31 (Graham, Director Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvards Kennedy School, and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Robert D. Blackwill, Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, 10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters, Politico, 2011, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=161EF282-72F9-4D48-8B9C-C5B3396CA0E6) That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests. Prime Minister Vladimir Putins decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S. policymakers to advance our nations interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the U nited S tates from the map in 30 minutes. As every president since John F. Kennedy has recognized, Russias cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war . Second, Russia is our most consequential partner in preventing nuclear terrorism. Through a combination of more than $11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, and impressive Russian professionalism, two decades after the collapse of the evil empire, not one nucle ar weapon has been found loose. Third,
Russia plays an essential role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile-delivery systems. As choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and the possibility of success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the worlds largest oil producer and second largest gas producer. Over the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets
Washington seeks to stop Irans drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel Russias impact at our gas pumps. Seventh,
Moscow is an important player in todays international system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as a member of the G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S. economy. Ninth, Russias brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places first in most
math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei Brin. Tenth,
Russias potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate. Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Councilresolutions. So next time you hear a policymaker dismissing Russia with rhetoric about who cares? ask them to identify nations that matter more to U.S. success, or failure, in advancing our national interests.
**Healthcare**
2NC Module
Election determines if healthcare reform stays or goes

Metzler, US News and World Report Political Writer, June 29th
(Rebekah, 6-29-2012, US News and World Report, Republicans and Democrats See Political Advantage in Healthcare Ruling, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/06/29/republicans-and-democratssee-political-advantage-in-healthcare-ruling, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) Following the Supreme Court ruling to uphold Democrats' signature healthcare reform law, leaders in both parties sought to spin things to their advantage. Democrats basked in vindication after two years of enduring GOP attacks that the law was unconstitutional and receiving a beating during the 2010 mid-term elections. Republicans, meanwhile, doubled-down on plans to repeal the law and held the court ruling as a call-to-arms for voters in the fall to support the effort as the last chance to stop it from taking effect. At the top of the ticket, President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney have already staked out their separate ground on the issue - Obama said on Thursday he never pursued the reforms because it was good politics, but because it was good policy. Romney on the other hand vowed in no uncertain terms that he would seek to repeal the law if elected.
Universal Healthcare is key to prevent bioterror

Green, Ph D, 04
(Shane, May 2004, Bioterrorism and Health Care Reform: No Preparedness Without. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2004/05/pfor2-0405.html Accessed: 7/4/12 Azimi) Using infectious diseases as weapons, bioterrorism threatens to weaken the civilian workforce and, hence, a nation's ability to go about its daily business. Moreover, in the case of diseases that are transmissible person to person, each infected individual becomes a human weapon, infecting others, who then infect others, and so on, tying up medical responders and overwhelming medical resources. A nation's greatest defense against bioterrorism, both in preparation for and in response to an attack, is a population in which an introduced biological agent cannot get a foothold, ie, healthy people with easy access to health care.
Bioterror leads to extinction

Ochs, president of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition, 02
[Richard Ochs, , June 9, 2002, Biological Weapons Must Be Abolished Immediately, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html, Accessed: July 5th 2012, Azimi] Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause.
Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once
a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological
weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. Ironically, the Bush administration has just changed the U.S. nuclear doctrine to allow nuclear retaliation against threats upon allies by conventional
weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last resort when our nations survival was at stake. Will the new policy also all ow easier use of US bioweapons? How slippery is this slope?
Romney Will Repeal
Romney will repeal healthcare

Klein, MSNBC contributor, 6/29
(Erza, 6/29/12, WASHINGTON POST, If Romney wins, he can repeal health reform. And he should., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/29/if-romney-wins-he-can-repeal-health-reform-and-he-should/, Accessed: 7/4/12, Azimi)
Romney wont have 60 votes in the Senate. But if he has 51, he can use the budget reconciliation process, which is filibusterproof, to get rid of the laws spending. One objection to that is that budget reconciliation is supposed to be used for laws that reduce the deficit, and the Congressional Budget Office would score repeal of the Affordable Care Act as increasing the deficit by about $300 billion. Sure, but Romney wouldnt be the one supporting this health-care Frankenstein. He and other Republicans would be working to repeal it. And are Democrats really going to
stand together on the floor of the United States Senate and filibuster in order to keep the individual mandate in place, which will now be forcing people to buy insurance
And to go even a bit further, if Mitt Romney wins the election and Republicans take control of the Senate, they should repeal the Affordable Care Act. At that point, they will have won two straight elections atop a platform in which repealing the ACA was a central, explicit promise. The American people will have spoken with unusual clarity, and part of what they will have said, whether they meant to say it or not, is repeal the ACA. If Republicans failed to follow through, they would be breaking a central campaign promise.
they cant afford without the subsidies that made the whole thing work? Theyd have to be suicidal to do that.
Romney will repeal healthcare its the third part of his November campaign platform
Shear, New York Times Syndicated Blogger, Parker, New York Times Reporter, June 28th
(Michael D., Ashley, 6-28-2012, New York Times The Caucus Blog, Romney Says He Will Repeal Obamacare if Elected, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacareif-elected/, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) Mitt Romney declared Thursday that he would act to repeal Obamacare if he was elected president, saying that he agreed with the dissenting justices in the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday. With the Capitol over his shoulder and standing in front of a podium with a sign that read Repeal and Replace Obamacare, Mr. Romney said the health of the American economy depended on getting rid of the health care law. Our mission is clear: if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we are going to have to replace President Obama, Mr. Romney said. That is my mission. That is our work. And Im asking the American people to join me. Mr. Romney said the courts ruling underscored the choice before American voters, one that he said was between bigger government that could take away health insurance choices or a Republican plan to preserve them. We have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so, Mr. Romney said in the brief statement. This is now the time for the American people to make a choice. Mr. Romney might have been hoping for a different court decision, but his campaign staff was not complaining. No question that politically it is a huge energizer, said a top campaign aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely about the campaigns thinking. Politically it is a big positive for Romney campaign. Mr. Romneys promise to repeal the presidents health care plan in his standard stump speech always gets applause, and now Mr. Romney can tie
repeal to the November election. If we want to get rid of Obamacare, were going to have to replace President Obama, Mr. Romney said Thursday afternoon, offering a line that his aides are already echoing. Mr. Romney can be nuanced, which has tripped him up at times. But his campaign prefers one or two simple arguments (see: jobs and the economy), and they seem to have found another one in the ruling on Thursday: Repeal Obamacare/replace President Obama). Romney Can Repeal
Romney means healthcare repeal he has developed ways around congressional blocks
MacAskill, Guardian Washington DC Bureau Chief, June 29th
(Ewen, 6-29-2012, The Guardian, Romney Rakes in Millions in Wake of Supreme Court Health Decision, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/29/mitt-romney-campaign-millions, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) But this Plan A had to be scrapped when the supreme court issued its ruling. Instead, Romney had to resort to Plan B, saying that he would do what the court failed to do and move to scrap it on the first day of his presidency. Speaking in Washington, in front a podium decked with the slogan 'repeal and replace Obamacare', Romney said: "Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country." The Romney campaign team claimed the supreme court ruling had galvanised the support of opponents of the law and that in the first three hours after the ruling $1m in donations poured into the Romney headquarters. The team will be hoping the supreme court move might rekindle the Tea Party movement, diverting its energy behind his campaign. Romney will fight the election on healthcare but nowhere near to the extent to which he will on the economy, the issue which both he and Obama acknowledge will determine the outcome. The health issue is no longer as big a positive for Romney as it was for the Republicans in the Congressional elections in 2010. Most voters have made up their minds, so there do not seem to be new votes to be won over. The crucial difference is that many of those opposed who profess to be opposed to the act want to keep some of the measures. There are practical problems too with repeal. Although Romney said he would act to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act from day one of his presidency, that is near impossible. There is almost no chance of the Republicans securing in November the 60 seats in the Senate they would need to prevent the Democrats from filibustering any attempts to repeal the legislation. An alternative for Romney, and one he has described on the campaign trail, would be to try to wreck Obama's healthcare reform - or at least some of it. One way to do that would be to issue waivers to states allowing them to opt out. Defense/Innovation Impact
Repeal bad kills defense spending and medical innovation which solves disease
Frum, National Post Contributor, 6-28
(David, 6-30-2012,NATIONAL POST David Frum: How Americas healthcare debate affects the world Accessed: 7/4/12, Azimi)
The American healthcare debate is not a debate for Americans only. In two ways at least, the debate implicates the well-being of everybody in the developed world. The first implication: medical innovation. The profit-seeking American healthcare system is always looking for new products to sell: new drugs, new surgical procedures, new ways of delivering care. The result is that the United States has become the leading often, the unique source of progress in the treatment of disease. The second implication: global peace and security. The U.S. taxpayer pays the cost of the military protection that shelters Canada, Europe and all the other democracies. The U.S. defence budget costs about 4% of Gross Domestic Product. Rapidly rising U.S. health costs call into question Americas ability to pay that bill. The United
States operates far and away the most expensive healthcare system on earth: 17% of GDP and still rising. Most other developed countries spend between 10% and 12%. Runner-up Switzerland pays 13%.Remember: Despite the supposedly private nature of U.S. healthcare, the majority of the dollars in the system are tax dollars: Medicare (for the elderly), Medicaid (for the poor), benefits for veterans, Indian tribes, public employees and poorer children. The first of the baby boomers became eligible for Medicare in 2011. Medicare will soon surpass defence as the largest single item in the U.S. federal budget and federal budgetcutters will begin eyeing defence as a source of Medicare funding. Thats what happened in Europe, where defence budgets have declined below 2% of GDP, in many countries nearer to 1%. At 3% of GDP, the United States could still buy the worlds most powerful military but not a military so powerful as todays, and likely not a military that can secure all of Americas allies as they would like to be secured. When Americans talk about todays health costs, they are also talking about tomorrows defence budget the budget that protects us all from a world of dangers.
Defense spending cuts kills hegemony

Horn, Atlantic assoc. editor, 2/1
(Heather, 2/1/12, Why Defense Cuts Could Hurt, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/whydefense-cuts-could-hurt/252313/, Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi)
This summer, when Democrats and Republicans finally reached their debt ceiling deal, it included
$400 billion worth of cuts on national
security. But due to other cuts on the table, we could be looking at roughly $1 trillion total. In short, it's a post-war pullback, and though the size of it, according to the Brookings report, "is not unusual by historical standards," it's happening in the midst of China's rise, North Korea's leadership handoff, the menace of a nuclear Iran, and continuing unrest in the Middle East. But that's not even the main point of the report. What the report highlights is that "the current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as the U.S. defense industrial base is in a much different place than it was in the past." Cutting-edge technology is a big part of the United States' edge, both in actual conflict and as a deterrent, and thus what the signatories of the Brookings piece seem particularly concerned about is the procurement budget -- part of the so-called "investment accounts" -- along with research and development. Right now, "Reagan -era weaponry is wearing out, and the recent increase in procurement spending has not lasted long enough to replenish the nation's key weapons arsenals with new weaponry" -- we've mainly been focusing on "filling certain gaps in counterinsurgency capabilities." Meanwhile, "unlike the period just after the Cold War, there
are no obvious surpluses of defense firms, such that a natural paring process will find the fittest firms and ensure their survival."
Heg collapse leads to extinction

Ferguson, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow, 4
(Niall, 7/1/04, A World Without Power, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/07/01/a_world_without_power?page=0,3, Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi)

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this
Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous -- roughly 20 times more -- so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite . Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades,
globalization -- the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital -- has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The
reversal of globalization -- which a new Dark Age would produce -- would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy -- from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai -- would become the targets of plunderers and pirates.
With ease, terrorists
could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few
while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all
these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony -- its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier -its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The
alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity -- a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
Pandemics outweigh WMD attacks and terrorism

Zarkaria, Foreign Affairs managing editor, 05
(Fareed, 10/30/05, A Threat Worse Than Terror, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/10/30/a-threatworse-than-terror.html, Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi) A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a threat assessment on the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions. Small Business Impact
Repeal kills small business

Knapp, vice-chair American Sustainable Business Council 4/2
(Frank Knapp Jr., 4/2/12, THE HILL, Obamacare repeal a disaster for small businesses, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/219491-obamacare-repeal-a-disaster-for-small-businesses, Accessed: 7/4/12 Azimi) While the ACA is only two years old, the benefits to small businesses, as well as citizens in general, have been very sizable. While repeal business groups like the NFIB say that they are representing business interests in their efforts, it is clear that those interests are not those of small businesses. While the ACA has no mandate for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (about 97% of all businesses) to offer health insurance, the ACA benefits already in place and to come for small businesses include: Giving tax credits of up to 35% that literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses offering health insurance to employees are receiving today; Providing affordable health insurance today for tens of thousands of self-employed and other citizens who, without the ACAs Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, are otherwise uninsurable due to preexisting conditions; Keeping insurance premiums down today by requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases over 10% and top use 80% of small group premiums on actual medical coverage; Establishing an insurance exchange that will create more competition between health insurance companies to drive down premiums and end small businesses paying up to 18% higher insurance premiums simply because they are small; Dramatically increasing the number of Americans with insurance thus eliminating the hidden tax of $1,000 a year on every family health insurance policy small businesses and other policyholders pay to provide for the uncompensated care of the uninsured; Stopping the practice of small businesses paying higher premiums for all employees when they have a worker with a pre-existing condition; Providing low-income employees (family income of up to 133% of poverty) with Medicaid thus making private health insurance more affordable for the small-business owner to offer coverage to the other workers; Cutting the healthcare
chord that keeps an entrepreneur tethered to an employers health insurance plan thus encouraging new small business start -ups. The
repeal groups seek to take away all the above benefits for small businesses while offering no effective or comprehensive alternativ e.
For the repeal groups it is simply a matter of saying NO to these benefits that will make health insurance more affordable for small businesses compared to the healthcare system without the ACA.
Small business is key to the economy

Lee, KSL reporter, 5/26
(Jasen, 5/26/12, KSL News, Small business support key for U.S. economy, http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=20529951, Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi) SALT LAKE CITY For America to once again become the leading economic force worldwide, the country will have to invest heavily in the long- term success of small business. "It's critically important that we nurture the entrepreneurial foundation of our nation if we want to grow and compete (in the global economy)," said Fiorina. Too much power and influence today is wielded in Washington D.C. by big business and big labor, Fiorina said, to the detriment of "the little guys that make our economy go."
Economic decline causes protectionism and war

Royal Department of Defense Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction 10
(Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Econ omic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215) Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a
permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary
theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995),
and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic
support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
**Missile Defense**
2NC Module
Romney is committed to continue NMD

Lakshmanan, contributor to Bloomberg, 11
(Indira, 10/ 7/11, Romney Promises To Boost Defense Spending, Deter Irans Nuclear Ambitions, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-07/romney-promises-to-boost-defense-spending-deter-iran.html, Accessed, 7/7/12, Azimi) Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney today accused President Barack Obama of bowing to global adversaries and promised, if elected, to boost Americas military strength by expanding the Navy and missile defenses. America must lead the world, or someone else will, Romney said, reprising the argument from his 2010 book, No Apology, that U.S. military strength and leadership are essential to deterring tyrants and keeping world peace. In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. Romney pledged in his first 100 days, if elected, to boost naval shipbuilding, deploy Navy carriers to deter Irans suspected military ambitions, increase intelligence cooperation with Israel, review military and aid spending in Afghanistan and invest heavily in missile defense and cybersecurity.
NMD bad it leads to proliferation

Snyder and Snyder, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies and a physicist in San Diego, 1
(Timothy and Philip, 2/1/01, CSM, Why missile defense is a bad idea, http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0202/p11s2.html, Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi) Missile defense has two basic problems: It can't do what it is supposed to do, and it creates the very threats to American national security it is supposed to resolve. Why won't missile defense work? As a technical matter, it is enormously easier to send a missile up into the air than to destroy a missile coming down from the sky. No known technology could protect Americans from a missile attack. Every test so far has been rigged; even so, nearly every test has been a failure. Physicists largely agree that the technology to build effective national missile defense does not exist. (See the December 2000 issue of Physics Today, or the website of the American Physical Society, www.aps.org.) Let's assume we were able to hit a missile coming down from the sky, which we are not. Any state that wished to defeat our system could build cheap countermeasures. Just as it will always be easier to send a missile into the sky than to shoot it down from the ground, it will always be cheaper to build countermeasures than it will be to improve missile defense. Against basic physics even the most expensive government programs are powerless. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on missile defense would create a false sense of security regarding the very real threat of international terrorism. Missile defense isn't designed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks by means other than ballistic missiles, and ballistic missiles aren't a likely terrorist weapon. The costly attempt to build missile defense diverts resources and attention from prosaic policies that would reduce our vulnerability to attacks by biological, chemical, or nuclear agents. For one thing, they know how Russia and China will react. Although missile defense will not work, the Russians and Chinese must assume the contrary. Since it is much cheaper to build nuclear missiles than it is to build missile defense, they can afford to make this assumption. The Chinese, who today have only a modest nuclear arsenal, would probably become a major nuclear power. A Chinese buildup, combined with what the Japanese would see as irresponsible US policy, would force the Japanese to consider building nuclear weapons. After a Chinese buildup, India would enlarge its nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan would do the same. Iran would probably go nuclear. Peacemaking efforts in the Mideast and Korea would suffer. If the US builds national missile defense,
we create a world full of nuclear weapons, where our allies strike out on their own, rivals become enemies, and no one feels bound by previous agreements. Missile defense is likely to contribute to new world anarchy, and will not protect us from the consequences. These are matters to be considered before any final decision is taken.
Proliferation leads to extinction

Taylor, American Physical Society Fellow and Nuclear Agency Deputy Director of the Defense, 1
(Theodore, Chairman of NOVA, Former Nuclear Weapons Designer, Recipient of the US Atomic Energy Commissions 1965 Lawrence Memorial Award, Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking, http://wwwee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html, Accessed 7/7/12, Azimi) Nuclear proliferation is greatly enhancing the likelihood of nuclear war. It dramatically increases the number of scenarios for small-scale nuclear wars or nuclear terrorism, that could escalate to nuclear war between the superpowers. Deterrence, the cornerstone of national security in present strategies, fails against nuclear terrorism simply because there are no well-defined targets against which to retaliate. Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. A sudden rush of nuclear proliferation among nations may be triggered by small nuclear wars that are won by a country with more effective nuclear forces than its adversary, or by success of nuclear terrorists in forcing adherence to their demands. Proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations could spread at an awesome rate in such circumstances, since "latent proliferation" is far along in at least several dozen nations, and is increasing rapidly as more nuclear power plants and supporting facilities are built in more countries. In summary, much more serious international attention than is now evident needs to be given to the consequences of nuclear proliferation among nations, terrorists, or criminals. Continuing to neglect this menace is a recipe for disaster. Obama Opposes BMD
Obama has dropped missile defence

Harding and Traynor 9 (Luke, award-winning foreign correspondent with the Guardian, and Ian, the Guardian's European editor, Obama abandons missile defence shield in Europe, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barackobama) KA
has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe that had long soured relations with Russia. In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush administration, Obama said the new approach
Barack Obama would offer "stronger, swifter and smarter" defence for the US and its allies. He said it would focus on the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, rather than its intercontinental nuclear capabilities. Obama announced the reversal officially at a news conference today. "This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems to offer greater defences to the threat of attack than the 2007 European missile defence programme," he said. He
phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic last night to tell them he had dropped plans to site missile interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries. Russia had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted Moscow's nuclear arsenal. The change of tack had been prompted by advances in missile technology and new
intelligence about Iran's existing missile capabilities, Obama said.
Obama cancelled NMD

IBD 12 (Investors Business Daily, Russia Finds Obama Acceptable, Romney Inflexible , http://news.investors.com/article/617073/201207031851/russia-not-terribly-fond-ofromney.htm) KA
Romney upset Moscow with a CNN interview in March in which he said that Russia was "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed." We think so too, and have said as much. We hope and believe Romney will be similar to President George W. Bush in more than just rhetoric, at least in regard to national missile defense.
Bush had plans for a robust fulfillment of President Reagan's dream of protecting America and the free world from missile attack. This included ground-based missile interceptors in Poland and missile defense radar in the Czech Republic. Pushkov's criticisms of Romney sound like an echo of Soviet statements about Reagan in 1980. Typical of the way Obama has treated loyal allies such as Britain and Israel, the Poles were notified with a midnight phone call on Sept. 17, 2009, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland from the east as the Nazis swept in from the west. Obama announced we were pulling the plug on the agreement our NATO allies had made with Bush. The president caved after the Russians threatened to bombard our proposed missile defense sites in these two countries before they became operational and threatened to deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad on the Polish border. Of course Obama would be "acceptable" to the Russians. This was made obvious by the March 26 open microphone moment at a photo-op between President Obama and outgoing
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that took place after a 90-minute meeting in Seoul, Korea, during the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit.
Obama has stopped pursuing NMD

Baker 9 (Peter, reporter for the NY Times, Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html?_r=1) KA
President Obama sent a secret letter to Russias president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday. The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. The
officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russias military, diplomatic and commerci al ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washingtons hard line against Iran.
Romney Supports BMD
Romney is fully committed to continuing American NMD

Dreazen, National Journal Group Senior Military Affairs and National Security Correspondent, June 7th
(Yochi J., 6-7-2012, National Journal Group, Tone Poem, http://www.nationaljournal.com/issues/posture-notsubstance-divides-obama-romney-on-national-security-20120607, accessed 7-10-2012, JKE) Romney has a starkly different national-defense philosophy. He has promised to reverse what he calls Obamas massive defense cuts and boost the Pentagons budget. The presumptive GOP nominee says he wants to add 100,000 ground troops, increase the Navys ship-buying budget from nine to 15 vessels a year, and maintain the current fleet of carrier battle groups, the most powerfuland most expensiveweapon in the U.S. seaborne arsenal. The Republican also wants to purchase more F-35s, a next-generation model of amazingly advanced, but staggeringly expensive, stealth warplanes. The former Massachusetts governors spending plans dont stop there. He has promised to devote more money to missile defenseincluding systems designed to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missilesto protect the U.S. from potential attacks from Iran or North Korea. Romney hasnt specified how much the new programs would cost, but, if fully implemented, they would amount to
billions of dollars in new spending. He has also called for protecting the Pentagon from the sequester and allowing the full budgetary ax to fall solely on domestic programs. AT - Congress Stops
Kyl supports NMD

Grossman 11 (Elaine M., GOP leaders aim to enforce Obama's nuclear modernization promises, May 10, 2011, http://www.govexec.com/defense/2011/05/gop-leaders-aim-to-enforce-obamasnuclear-modernization-promises/33939/)
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, are
spearheading legislation aimed at holding the Obama administration accountable for nuclear modernization pledges it made last year. "We're going to ensure that the administration
complies with the commitments that it made," Kyl, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader, said Monday at a media round table. "Better to have it in writing, understood by both parties exactly what's required, so that we don't have confusion in the future." Bills drawn up by the two lawmakers for consideration in both chambers also seek
to prohibit unilateral U.S. warhead reductions and preserve the nation's missile defense options. Turner introduced his
proposal, H.R. 1750, in the House on Friday, while Kyl could file his version in the Senate as early as today.
Kyl controls the Senate.

McConnell 10 (Mitch, Senate Minority Leader, Jon Kyl, Time 100, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1984685_1984864_1984901,00 .html, EMM)
In the Senate, Arizona's Jon Kyl has built a reputation for his encyclopedic knowledge of domestic and foreign policy, and his hard work and leadership. Few people have his command of policy, his knowledge of its nuances or his grip on how they fit together. This is why so many of his Senate colleagues look to him for policy advice. Kyl, 68, is a principled conservative who knows what is attainable. He believes in the wisdom contained in a sign on President Reagan's desk that said, "There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Jon Kyl is a great persuader. As minority whip, the No. 2 position in the Senate Republican leadership, he is responsible for rallying his Republican colleagues for key legislative votes. What is unique is his single-minded focus on convincing them that a particular vote is in the best interests of their state and the nation. Jon demonstrates continually that the essence of Senate power is the power to persuade.
Congress supports missile defense Patriot missiles proves

Hildreth 7 (Steven A., Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22120.pdf) KA
Nonetheless, Congress
and the Department of Defense determined subsequently that the Patriot concept to defend against shorter range ballistic missile threats to U.S. forces overseas warranted further support. The Patriot system had been
upgraded several times by the time of the recent war against Iraq. On the battlefield, Patriot was considered more successful than in 1991, but with mixed results. 5
Congress and the Pentagon continue to support development of highly effective TMD systems, especially a maritime TMD capability built around existing naval systems and infrastructure that have been deployed or in development for decades. 6 In terms of program and testing success, most observers agree that the U.S. effort to develop and deploy effective BMD against
short-range missiles has been more successful relative to the U.S. effort to develop and deploy effective BMD against long-range or strategic ballistic missiles.
Romneys serious explicitly said he will reinvigorate NMD
Traub 12 (James, a fellow of the Center on International Cooperation, Making Enemies from Friends, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/06/making_enemies_from_friends_0) KA
In recent months the Obama administration has notably hardened its own rhetoric, including Clinton's dramatic accusation that Russia was stoking Syria's killing machine by supplying and servicing attack helicopters for the Assad regime. Romney says that the time has come to "reset the reset," but you could argue that the administration has already begun to do just that. The rosy era of "engagement," when Obama believed that he could establish a more benign global environment through gestures of deference to national sensibilities, quotations from the Quran, or inspiring autobiographical references is over. A second Obama term, should it happen, would probably focus more on strengthening bonds with traditional allies -- in Asia, as we have now heard ad nauseam -- and less on trying to convert rivals and adversaries. A realistic reckoning with the limits of America's capacity to change the behavior of unfriendly states is very different from the idea of greeting hostility with hostility, as Romney and the neocons among his team of advisors seem prepared to do.
Romney says that he would "review the implementation of the New START treaty" and return to a missile defense plan that Russia views, no matter how absurdly, as a threat to its survival. Romney says that Russia needs to be "tempered," whatever that means.
Of course, Putin will greet any overt attempt to block or encircle Russia as a direct provocation; and he is a man who goes around looking for provocations to respond to. A President
Romney, in short, might well turn Russia into the geopolitical foe which candidate Romney claims it already is.
Romney believes in American strength he will continue NMD

Shelley 12 (Matthew, writer for CBS News, Romney keeps up strong rhetoric on Russia, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57456060-503544/romney-keeps-up-strongrhetoric-on-russia/) KA
Showing no sign of backing down on his hawkish stance on Russia, Mitt Romney said in a radio interview broadcast on Tuesday that the country is continuing "to pursue a course which is antithetical" to that of the United States. In the interview with Fox Radio, Romney repeated his earlier characterization of Russia as "geopolitical foe" - a remark that has raised questions
among Democrats and even some Republicans about whether he remains stuck in a Cold War mindset. He sought to put the notion to rest, but did not deviate from his earlier controversial assertions. "The nation which consistently opposes our actions at The United Nations has been Russia," Romney said. "We're of course not enemies. We're not fighting each other. There's no Cold War, but Russia is a geopolitical foe in that regard." Romney's remarks came as President Obama has been meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at Mexico's G20 summit to try to seek common ground over how to deal with Syria, one of Russia's allies. Romney
blasted Obama for what he called an ill-advised concession on withdrawing missile-defense sites from Eastern Europe, which he called Putin's "number one foreign-policy objective." "I think it was an enormous mistake to give them that and
what he got in return shows the extraordinary naivet of a Presidency that does not understand the power of resolve and strength," he said. Asked if he thinks Putin respects Obama, Romney replied: "I
believe that people around the world tend to act on their own self-interests as they perceive it. I do not believe that they respond to magnetic personalities and pleasantries, and believe that the best way to shape the course of American foreign policy is show strength -- strength in our homes and our economy and our military. And to have a president who shows resolve and locks arms with our allies, as opposed to attacking our allies and trying to
control our geopolitical foes." On another subject, Romney was asked about the heckling between his supporters and Obama supporters that has escalated at his recent campaign stops. He said it would be "a nice thing" if he could reach agreement with Obama strategist David Axelrod, but added: "I'm not sure it's possible."
Russia Impact
Missile Defense strains US-Russia Relations

Weir 5/22 (Fred Weir is a Canadian journalist who lives in Moscow and specializes in Russian affairs) Russia exasperated with US over missile defense (http://news.yahoo.com/russiaexasperated-us-over-missile-defense-162433489.html) md
"This is a very sensitive subject for us," says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's international affairs committee. "It looks like the Americans are just stringing us along. If
this anti-missile system is really not directed against Russia, why not sign a legal document declaring that? Why not to give Russia access to real monitoring of the system?" Russian military experts say the planned missile shield would, in its later stages, undermine the country's nuclear deterrent. Unless the US makes a legally binding pledge never to use the weapons against Russia and makes Moscow an equal partner in a joint system, they say, a new arms race with the West looks inevitable. At a Defense Ministry meeting Tuesday, President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia
was already preparing a range of countermeasures to defeat NATO missile defense, including forward deployments of tactical nuclear missiles in Russia's Baltic
"We
enclave of Kaliningrad. "We are not closing the doors for communication, but we really need to prepare ourselves to the change of situation," Mr. Medvedev said.
need to be fully armed by 2017-18 ... we must get ready for a serious rearming of the armed forces so that we could be in a due shape and capable to respond to the missile defense in Europe." Flurry of excitement ends in disappointment Russian experts say the Kremlin has been extremely disappointed by the lack of response to its concerns by the Obama administration.
Low Russia Relations leads to Russia proliferation

Blank 10 (Stephen, Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Non-Proliferation, Russian Style, http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2010/19/blank.php) md
This misconceived approach is entirely our own fault. Moscow
has made it abundantly clear that on proliferation issues it follows its own interestsinterests that are qualitatively different from, and often opposed to, those of the United States. To be sure, Moscow opposes adding new members to the nuclear club and regards proliferation writ large as a threat.2 But beyond that, it diverges from U.S. thinking. Indeed, proliferation ranks a distant fifth in terms of threats in Russias new defense doctrine, behind a whole series of U.S.-inspired threats, among them NATO enlargement and the U.S. deployment of missile defenses.3 Also, unlike America, Russia evaluates proliferation issues not according to whether the regime in question is democratic, but on the basis of whether a countrys nuclearization would seriously threaten itself and its interests.4 Thus, when then-President Vladimir Putinin an effort to assuage American fears over Iran
proposed in June 2007 to allow the United States to jointly manage the Russian missile defense radar at Gabala, Azerbaijan, then-Russian General Staff Chief Yuri Baluyevsky downplayed the danger from Iran, insisting this trend is not something catastrophic, which would require a global missile defense system deployed near Russian borders.5 Accordingly, Moscow has tended to view American policy towards nonproliferation in jaundiced fashion, displaying a visible schadenfreude when
Russian officialdom views Washingtons insistence on nonproliferation controls largely as an effort to pressure competitors in the nuclear and arms markets.6
North Korea tested missiles and then a nuclear weapon in July and October 2006. Or alternatively,
Proliferation leads to global nuclear war

Cimbala 08 (Stephen, Distinguished Prof. Pol. Sci. Penn. State Brandywine, Comparative Strategy, Anticipatory Attacks: Nuclear Crisis Stability in Future Asia, 27, InformaWorld, 2008) md
If the possibility existed of a mistaken preemption during and immediately after the Cold War, between the experienced nuclear forces and command systems of America and Russia, then it may be a matter of even more concern with regard to states with newer and more opaque forces and command systems. In addition, the Americans and Soviets (and then Russians) had a great deal of experience getting to know one anothers military operational p roclivities and doctrinal idiosyncrasies, including those that might influence the decision for or against war. Another consideration, relative to nuclear stability in the present century, is that the Americans and
Future threats to American or Russian security from weapons of mass destruction may be presented by states or non-state actors motivated by cultural and social predispositions not easily understood by those in the West nor subject to favorable manipulation during a crisis. The spread of nuclear weapons in Asia presents a complicated mosaic of possibilities in this regard. States with nuclear forces of variable force structure, operational experience, and command-control systems will be thrown into a matrix of complex political, social, and cultural crosscurrents contributory to the possibility of war. In addition to the existing nuclear powers in
their NATO allies shared with the Soviets and Russians a commonality of culture and historical experience. Asia, others may seek nuclear weapons if they feel threatened by regional rivals or hostile alliances. Containment of nuclear proliferation in Asia is a desirable political
the present century is unlikely to see the nuclear hesitancy or risk aversion that marked the Cold War, in part, because the military and political discipline imposed by the Cold War superpowers no longer exists, but also because states in Asia have new aspirations for regional or global respect.12 The spread of ballistic missiles and other nuclear-capable delivery systems in Asia, or in the Middle East with reach into Asia, is especially dangerous because plausible adversaries live close together and are already engaged in ongoing disputes about territory or other issues.13 The Cold War Americans and Soviets required missiles and airborne delivery systems of intercontinental range to strike at one anothers vitals. But short-range ballistic missiles or fighter-bombers suffice for India and Pakistan to launch attacks at one another with potentially strategic effects. China shares borders with Russia, North Korea, India, and Pakistan; Russia, with China and NorthKorea; India, with Pakistan and China; Pakistan, with India and China; and so on. The short flight times of ballistic missiles between the cities or military forces of contiguous states means that very little time will be available for warning and attack assessment by the defender. Conventionally armed missiles could easily be mistaken for a tactical nuclear
objective for all of the obvious reasons. Nevertheless,
first use. Fighter-bombers appearing over the horizon could just as easily be carrying nuclear weapons as conventional ordnance. In addition to the challenges posed
by shorter flight times and uncertain weapons loads, potential victims of nuclear attack in Asia may also have first strikevulnerable forces and command-control
This potpourri of possibilities challenges conventional wisdom about nuclear deterrence and proliferation on the part of policymakers and academic theorists. For
systems that increase decision pressures for rapid, and possibly mistaken, retaliation. policymakers in the United States and NATO, spreading nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in Asia could profoundly shift the geopolitics of mass destruction from a European center of gravity (in the twentieth century) to an Asian and/or Middle Eastern center of gravity (in the present century).14 This would profoundly shake up prognostications to the effect that wars of mass destruction are now passe, on account of the emergence o f the Revolution in Military Affairs and its encouragement of information-based warfare.15 Together with this, there has emerged the argument that large-scale war between states or coalitions of states, as
The spread of WMD and ballistic missiles in Asia could overturn these expectations for the obsolescence or marginalization of major interstate warfare.
opposed to varieties of unconventional warfare and failed states, are exceptional and potentially obsolete.16
**Tax Cuts**
2NC Module
Election determines future of Bush tax cuts extension collapses competitiveness and economy
Ayres, Center for American Progress Economic Policy Research Assistant, Boushey, Center for American Progress Senior Economist, July 2nd
(Sarah, Heather, 7-2-2012, Center for American Progress, Economists Agree Romneys Plan Would Spark a New Recession, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/07/romney_economic_plan.html., accessed 7-9-2012, JKE) The private sector of the U.S. economy has added jobs for the past 27 months in a row, corporate profits have hit an all-time high, and the U.S. auto industry is back, with manufacturers consistently adding jobs for the longest period since the mid-1990s. Still, as President Barack Obama has said, we are still not creating (jobs) as fast as we want. And the biggest hurdle to swifter job creation is the embrace of austerity by Republicans in Congress who refuse to implement measures that would boost employmenta position supported by their presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. This austerity has realnegativeeconomic consequences. Increasingly, economists are pointing to austerity as a key reason for too-slow job creation. Despite considerable warnings from economic experts that government spending is critical to creating jobs, conservative leaders in Congress are inflicting these austerity programs on us at the federal, state, and local level. According to Yale economists Ben Polak and Peter Schott: Without this hidden austerity program, the economy would look very different. If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent. Even though austerity is not good for the U.S. economy, this is exactly the economic policy promoted by Romney. His ideologically driven agenda would continue the failed supply-side policies of President George W. Bush by giving even more tax breaks to the richa policy that has not generated strong and sustained economic growthwhile slashing investments in our middle class and Americas future competitiveness, such as education, public safety, basic research and development, and infrastructure upgrades. Romneys plan for spending cuts is deliberately vague, but it is clear that it will require drastic cuts to programs that support middle-class families and support economic growth in order to fund tax cuts for the rich.
US competitiveness suppresses conflict escalation

Baru 9 (Sanjaya, Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global Financial Crisis, Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 168)
The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital aspect of statecraft from time immemorial. Kautilyas Arthashastra says, From the strength of the treasury the army is born. men without wealth do not attain their objectives even after hundreds of trials Only through wealth can material gains be acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by elephants (tamed) A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes only a liability.4 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.5 In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. Victory (in war), Kennedy claimed, has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base.6 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. The fact remains, Kennedy argued, that all of the major shifts in the worlds military-power
balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material resources.7
Economic decline causes protectionism and war

Royal Department of Defense Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction 10
(Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Sign aling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmit h and Brauer, p. 213-215) Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a
permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary
theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995),
and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic
support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Obama wont Extend
Obama wont extend Bush tax Cuts

Stein, Huffington Post Political Reporter, 11
(Sam, 8/2/11, Huffington Post, Obama Won't Extend Bush Tax Cuts Again: Pledge To House Dems, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/obama-pledges-no-bush-tax-cut-extension_n_870680.html, Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi) WASHINGTON -- In a meeting with House Democrats on Thursday, President Obama stressed that his administration would draw a firm line on taxes and revenues both in the deficit- and debt-reduction debates and in the buildup to the 2012 elections. "I've been very clear about revenues as a part of a balanced package, and I will continue to be," said Obama.
Underscoring his commitment, Obama noted taxes would be a defining area of contrast with Republicans on the campaign trail. He insisted that he would not compromise again on his position that the tax rates for the top earners be raised to pre-Bush levels.
Obama wont extend Bush tax Cuts

Newsmax, 6/6 (News Organization, 6/6/12, Obama Reiterates Opposition to Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obama-Bush-tax-cuts/2012/06/06/id/441422, 7/7/12, Azimi) President Barack Obama continues to oppose extending Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans, the White House said on Wednesday, shrugging off calls for a temporary extension to allow more time for a deal on deficits. "President Obama has been clear about his position and it has not changed," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling with Obama to California on board Air Force One. "We should not extend and he will not extend the ... Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Romney will Extend
Romney will extend bush era tax cuts.

Klein, MSNBC Contributor, 1/10
(Erza, 1/10/12, Romney wants more tax cuts than Bush did, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezraklein/post/romney-wants-more-tax-cuts-than-bush-did/2011/08/25/gIQAvjCuoP_blog.html, 7/7/12, Azimi) Romney intends to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. So hes taking the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed as a way to pay down a surplus and making them permanent in a time of deficits. That doesnt just leave him supporting the same upper-income tax cuts that Bush proposed. Because larger sacrifices will be required to pay for them now than in 2001, it leaves him supporting those tax cuts at a time when paying for them will require much more sacrifice on the part of low-income Americans. And, on top of that, Romney layers on another set of tax cuts tilted towards high earners. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Romneys tax plan will save earners in the top 1 percent $82,000 a year, but do very little for workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. The Tax Policy Center also estimates that Romneys plan will cost $180 billion over and above the Bush tax cuts in 2015. So we can conservatively estimate that his plan will cost more than $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Add in the full extension of the Bush tax cuts, and Romney is promising at least $6 trillion and likely much more in tax cuts.
Romney will extend and add onto the bush tax cuts
Linden and Hanlon, Center for American Progress Action Fund Director of Tax and Budget Policy and Director of Fiscal Reform, 1/12
(Michael and Seth, 1/12/12, Mitt Romneys Tax Plan in 5 Charts Hes Ready to Hand Out Billions More to the 1 Percent, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/01/romney_tax_plan.html, Accessed: 7/4/12, Azimi)
If you liked former President George W. Bushs tax policies, then youll love Mitt Romneys. Republican
presidential candidate Romneys plan for federal taxation begins with a hefty portion of Bush-era tax policy: Permanently extend all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including those that mainly benefit the extremely wealthy. Then Romney layers on a heaping batch of new tax cuts for the rich, including a full repeal of the estate taxwhich is currently paid by only the richest 0.14 percent of estatesand a massive corporate tax cut. The result is a tax code that asks even less of the rich than George W. Bushs did. Just like President Bush, Romneys tax plan doesnt come close to being fiscally responsible. Under President Bush, average
annual tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it had been under any president since Harry Trumanjust 17.6 percent of GDP. Romneys tax plan would result in average revenues of only 16.5 percent.
Strangely, Romneys tax plan has been described as moderate or timid. Compared to the full -tilt insanity of the plans of some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates (9-9-9! 15 percent flat tax!), its true that Romneys plan appears more reasonable. But back here in the real world, Romneys
plan is an enormously irresponsible giveaway to the rich, boasting a tax cut for millionaires twice the size of President Bushs. Theres nothing moderate about that. The charts below illustrate five key points about Romneys plan: It would deliver twice as many tax cuts to the rich as did Bushs tax plan. It would pile on more tax cuts focused almost exclusively on the wealthy. It would not balance the federal budget. It would increase taxes for the middle class and working families. It would leave all corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks intact. AT - Congress Blocks
Obama is pressing for an extension of Bush-era text cuts

Bloomberg 7/9 ("Obama Calls for Extending Middle-Income Tax Rates" http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-09/obama-to-urge-one-year-bushtax-cut-extension-for-middle-class#p1) BSB
President Barack Obama urged Congress to pass a one-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners, sharpening differences with congressional Republicans and their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. The country is being held back by the partisan deadlock in Washington, and nowhere is that stalemate more pronounced than on the issue of taxes, Obama said in remarks today at the White House. Its time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- folks like myself -- to expire. Republican congressional leaders rejected Obamas call,
saying the economy is too weak to raise taxes for anyone. They vowed to press ahead with legislation to extend all the tax cuts, a measure Obama said he would veto. Obama is focusing on the issue of tax fairness three days after a government jobs report showed the nations unemployment rate stuck at 8.2 percent. He argued that
tax cuts for the wealthy havent helped the economy and are contributing to the deficit.
Obama is asking for an extension for tax cuts

Register Guard 7/10 ("EDITORIAL: Posturing on tax cuts Parties engage in political theater as election nears"
http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/28363599-47/tax-cuts-proposal-republicans-americans.html.csp) BSB Congressional Republicans call it Taxmageddon the
tax increase coming at the end of this year when the George W. Bushera tax cuts are scheduled to expire unless Congress votes to extend them or make them permanent. President Obama proposed a reasonable alternative Monday, calling on lawmakers to temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 while letting the taxes of the wealthiest go up to pre-tax-cut levels. That would protect the vast majority of Americans 98 percent of households and 97 percent of small businesses from tax increases at a time when many are struggling in a stagnant economy. And it would raise revenue without harming the nations slow-motion recovery, because tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans do not reduce consumer spending nearly as much as those imposed on the middle class. Leading Republicans predictably rejected Obamas proposal, insisting that it would be a mistake to raise anyones taxes under current economic conditions. The president proposed the one-year extension as an alternative to a proposal by House Republicans, scheduled for a vote later this month, to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for at least one year.
Obama is only pushing tax cuts so he can be reelected. He actually doesn't care
Register Guard 7/10 ("EDITORIAL: Posturing on tax cuts Parties engage in political theater as election nears"
http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/28363599-47/tax-cuts-proposal-republicans-americans.html.csp) BSB
With the presidential election less than four months away and Democrats in control of the Senate, the House proposal is a purely political maneuver intended to enhance GOP chances of winning the White House and making gains in Congress in November. The presidents proposal is intended to do the same for Democrats by
making Republicans look like the party of the wealthy and elite, and unwilling to consider a reasonable compromise on the tax cuts. Given that the battle over tax cuts is largely symbolic until after the election and perhaps even until the next Congress
takes office its worth reflecting briefly on the merits of the presidents proposal, which deserved better than the swift burial provided Monday by House Republicans. Under
this approach, middle- and upper middle-income taxpayers, those who spend most of their incomes, would keep their Bush tax cuts for at least another year. Yes, that would add about $140 billion a year to the deficit, but
consumer spending is vital to the economy right now. Meanwhile, revenue from letting the tax cuts for wealthiest Americans expire an estimated $40 billion annually could be used for targeted economic stimulus and deficit reduction. Obamas proposal is flawed in one respect its
extension of middle class tax cuts that fiscal sanity dictates must eventually be scaled back or eliminated to help bring the deficit under control. By kicking the can further down the road, the president ensures that Congress will face the same difficult decision a year from now. Meanwhile, history has shown that the longer that a temporary tax cut lasts the more Americans and their elected representatives in Washington, D.C., regard it as permanent. AT - Campaign Rhetoric
Obama vowed never to extend tax cuts again

OBrien, MSNBC politics editor, 7-10-12
(Michael, MSNBC, Obama calls for extending most tax cuts, setting up election year fight, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/09/12643446-obama-calls-for-extending-most-tax-cuts-settingup-election-year-fight?lite, accessed 7-13-12, KGH) "My opponent will fight to keep them in place; I will fight to end them, Obama said in reference to Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. All of the tax cuts, which were first proposed by President George W. Bush, were set to expire at the end of 2010. After having initially resisted their extension, Obama relented and agreed to a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income brackets a compromise that allowed the administration to advance some of its legislative priorities through that years lame-duck Congress. At the time of that extension, Obama said he would refuse to again agree to any extension of the high-end tax cuts.
Obama will pass during less hostile house

Scher, Campaign for Americas Future Campaign Manager, 7-9-12
(Bill, Digg, A Clear Choice on Taxes: Progressive Obama or Regressive Romney, http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/a_clear_choice_on_taxes_progressive_obama_or_regressive_romney, accessed 7-13-12, KGH) After the 2010 tax cut deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans, some on the left presumed Obama was giving up on ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But I argued at the time that he was simply playing for time while facing a hostile House, and 2012 would feature a straight-up debate on whether to keep them or not. Now there is no question about it. President Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, drawing attention to Mitt Romney's commitment to cut taxes even more for the wealthiest Americans. Obama is for letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire on schedule at the end of this year, returning the top rate to where it was in the 1990s, 39.6%. He also wants the capital gains tax to increase from 15% to 23.8%
Tax cuts legislative priority

Cowan, Thomson Reuters Correspondent, 7-11-12
(Richard, Chicago Tribune, Obama, Democrats put tax cuts at center of 2012 agenda, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-11/news/sns-rt-us-usa-congress-democratsbre86a1go20120711_1_tax-cuts-middle-class-tax-tax-bill, accessed 7-13-12, KGH) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama on Wednesday plotted their legislative priorities for the months leading up to November's elections, showcasing an extension of middle-class tax cuts as well as with measures to keep government agencies functioning beyond September 30. Later this month, the Democratic-led Senate is expected to stage a vote on continuing tax cuts for families earning up to $250,000 - an election-year initiative that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not go along with. Instead, Republicans want to renew all Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire on December 31, including those for families earning above $250,000, despite Obama's opposition. The House is expected to vote this month on full renewal. Both of these tax initiatives are aimed at more at energizing Democratic and Republican voters than actually enacting legislation before November's election as few think the House and Senate are capable of agreeing on much of anything. A senior Senate Democratic aide said that the Democrats' tax bill this month likely will also include the extension of some additional middle-class tax breaks, such as a child tax credit and another for college tuition. Senator Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, told reporters that few, "if any, Democratic senators," will back the extension of all Bush-era tax cuts. Some have said they favor a extending the cut beyond the $250,000 earning level - which they say no longer defines the middle class in some expensive areas of the country - to those earning up to $1 million. But Obama spokesman Jay Carney predicted "overwhelming Democratic support" for letting income tax breaks expire for those making more than $250,000.
AT Austerity Solves
Romney Tax Plans cost 3.4 trillion

Riley, CNN staff reporter, 2/29
(Charles, 2/29/12, CNN MONEY, New Romney tax cuts would cost $3.4 trillion, http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/news/economy/romney_tax_deficit/index.htm, 7/7/12, Azimi) NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney made two big changes to his tax plan last week, and according to a new analysis, they will be very expensive. Like $3.4 trillion expensive. Previously, Romney had said he would "maintain current tax rates on personal income" as president before moving to a "fairer, flatter, simpler tax structure" in the future. Now Romney appears to be accelerating that timetable, announcing a move that would reduce the current top rate paid on income from 35% to 28%, with similar reductions across all tax brackets. Americans in the lowest bracket would pay 8% instead of 10%. Individuals closer to the middle would pay 20% instead of 25%. In addition to the changes to the marginal income tax rates, Romney also said he plans to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. The twin changes will come at a cost of more than $3.4 trillion over 10 years, according to a new estimate from the Tax Policy Center. By 2022, the 20% reduction in rates would add $357 billion in debt that year alone, while eliminating the AMT would cost $94 billion.
And that's assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, something most experts think will happen -- at least for a majority of taxpayers.
Bush Era tax cuts are bad hurts the economy

Bartlett, Reagan domestic policy adviser/Bush Treasury official, 10
(Bruce, 9/10/12, Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on Economy, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1, Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi) The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the governments revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, which all Republicans claim to abhor. Subsequent research by Federal Reserve economists has found little, if any, impact on growth from the 2003 tax cut. The main effect was to raise dividend payouts. But companies cut back on share repurchases by a similar amount, suggesting that only the form of payouts changed. (See here, here, and here.) Moreover, according to a study by Steven Bank of the UCLA law school, the fact that the dividend tax cut was temporary was a key motivation for higher dividend payouts; had the dividend tax cut been permanent, as the supply-siders favored, the impact probably would have been much less. The mediocre economic and employment growth of the Bush years is still a bad memory for most voters. Almost two years into the Obama administration, a majority of Americans still hold Bush and the Republicans more responsible for the economys dismal condition than Obama and the Democrats. According to a CNN poll earlier this month, 53 percent blame the former and 33 percent blame the latter. Disease Impact
Tax cuts kill health agency budgets.

Moran 11 [Tom, July 25 2011, In federal budget fight, discretionary spending cuts slash critical services,
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2011/07/in_federal_budget_fight_discre.html] ATP
The CDC budget was cut by 11 percent this year, and will undoubtedly take a bigger hit next year. They've had to
cancel successful programs, freeze staff salaries, and pinch off the spigot of aid to states that are working on these issues. "Now if you have people who can find a job elsewhere, they will," Arias says. "And a number of state health departments have had to let people go" as the CDC cuts block grants. When
Republicans say they will not raise any taxes, or even end tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, it means agencies like the CDC take an even deeper hit. And this happens at a time when the federal tax bite is at a post World War II low. Their no-compromise position on taxes is weakening the nation. The CDC is but one small example.
Health agencies key to preventing the spread of disease

CDC 6 [Centers for Disease Control, Controlling the Spread of Contagious Diseases:
Quarantine and Isolation, http://www.redcross.org/preparedness/cdc_english/IsoQuar.asp] ATP The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
is the U.S. government agency responsible for identifying, tracking and controlling the spread of disease. With the help of the CDC, state and local health departments have created emergency preparedness and response plans. In addition to early detection, rapid diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics or antivirals, these plans use two main traditional strategiesquarantine and isolation*1*to contain the spread of illness. These are common health care practices to control the spread of a contagious disease by limiting people's exposure to it.
Diseases lead to extinction

Yu 9 [Victoria, May 22 2009, Dartmouth U, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate] ATP However, for
more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global influenza pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds into a human-viable strain (10). Trade Wars Impact
Tax cuts lead to rising deficit

Klein 12
(Ezra, 2/3/12, Washington Post Wonkbook: Yes, tax cuts increaes the deficit http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezraklein/post/wonkbook-yes-tax-cuts-increase-the-deficit/2012/02/03/gIQABW9fmQ_blog.html#comments, Accessed 7/13/12, , JGC).
But there's a more important economic debate here. Republicans occasionally flirt with the idea that tax cuts don't increase deficits. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has said this directly. Speaker John Boehner has decreed that tax cuts don't need to be offset, but spending proposals do. But there's a very easy way to see that Republicans don't really mean this: They believe that tax cuts cause deficits when Democrats are behind them. The ongoing debate over the payroll tax is a good example. When Republicans proposed a payroll tax cut as stimulus in 2009, it wasn't offset. When they agreed to it in the 2010 tax deal, it wasn't offset. But since it has become the White House's favored policy, House Republicans -- the same House Republicans who passed the CUTGO rules stating that spending proposals had to be paid for but tax cuts didn't -- are insisting the payroll tax cut be offset. Then
there's the Bush tax cuts. When Republicans tally up Obama's deficits over the last few years, they're adding $620 billion for the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. When they project his deficits for the next five years, they're assuming the extension of the Bush tax cuts. And they're doing so explicitly. Earlier in the week, I worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on a column summing up the projected
budgetary impact of every single piece of legislation Obama had signed into law. In the end, my numbers showed, Obama has passed policies adding about a trillion dollars to the deficit. But Keith Hennessey, who directed the National Economic Council under George W. Bush, responded that I had ignored the trillions of dollars in deficits "from policies President Obama proposes to enact in the future (like extending most but not all tax cuts rates beyond 2012)". And Hennessey is right. Not about my analysis, which was restricted to actual policies, not proposed policies (should I also have subtracted $4 trillion from the deficit because Obama favors a deficit deal of that size?). But about the Bush tax cuts, which will add trillions of dollars to the deficit if Obama extends all or most of them in 2012.
Rising deficit leads to trade war with china O'NEIL 98

(Mark October 20, 1998, South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), Bush fears trade war as key talks delayed, Lexis Nexis, Accessed 7/13/12, , JGC).
The mainland has increased exports to the US to make up for markets lost in Asia. According to mainland figures, in the first eight months exports to the US were US$ 23.57 billion, up 17.4 per cent on the same period a year earlier, with imports at $ 10.3 billion, up 2.3 per cent. US figures, which include goods transshipped via Hong Kong, show a deficit of about $ 1 billion a week. Mr
Bush, at a lunch arranged by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, was asked about the reaction of Congress to this rising deficit. "My fear would be a trade war and trade barriers in the US. I don't think it would happen. There could be a denial of MFN status to China, which would be a disaster," he said. There was a growing concern in
Congress about the surplus and the two sides had to find ways to deal with it. "I would encourage China to give more access to its markets for financial firms like Hancock," he said
Trade wars become shooting wars going nuclear Miller and Elwood 88
(Vincent and James, Founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, and VicePresident of the ISIL, FREE TRADE OR PROTECTIONISM? The Case Against Trade Restrictions, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html)
WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: * Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. * British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports a major factor leading to the American Civil War. * In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. * In 1930, facing only a mild recession,
US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was
The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age?
plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE
Warming
Romney dystroys warming regulation.
Pittsburg Post Gazette 12 (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,June 17,
2012, Unhealthy politics: On mercury and soot, the EPA is a strong guardian, http://www.post -gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/unhealthy-politics-on-mercuryand-soot-the-epa-is-a-strong-guardian-640722/) One of the questions for November's presidential election is how Americans feel about the environment and whether they are comfortable with the role of its guardian, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Judging by their actions, Republicans in Congress have made up their mind. Together with their party's presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, they are convinced that the EPA is one of the prime villains of a regulatory overload crushing the economy. In Congress, they have launched dozens of bills and amendments seeking to gut the EPA's regulatory
powers.
Epa regulations key to stop greenhouse gasses and stop global warming.
Broder 9 (John M., journalist for the New York Times, E.P.A. Clears Way for Greenhouse Gas Rules, The
New York Times, 4/17/09, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html)
WASHINGTON The
Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States. The E.P.A. said the science supporting the proposed endangerment finding was compelling and overwhelming. The ruling initiates a 60-day comment period before any proposals for regulations governing emissions of heat-trapping gases are published.
Although the finding had been expected, supporters and critics said its issuance was a significant moment in the debate on global warming. Many Republicans in Congress and industry spokesmen warned that regulation of carbon dioxide emissions would raise energy costs and kill jobs; Democrats and environmental advocates said the decision was long overdue and would bring long-term social and economic benefits. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said: This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations . Fortunately, it follows President Obamas call for a low-carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation. The United States has
come under fierce international criticism for trailing other industrialized nations in regulating emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants tied to global warming. With this move and steps by Congress toward a cap-and-trade system to curb heat-trapping gases, the American government can now point to progress as nations begin to write a new international treaty on climate change. According to the E.P.A. announcement, the finding was based on rigorous scientific analysis of six gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride that have been widely studied by scientists. The agency said its studies showed that concentrations of the gases were at unprecedented levels as a result of human activity and that it was highly likely that those elevated levels were responsible for an increase in average temperatures and other climate changes. Among the ill effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of the gases, the agency found, were increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, a steeper rise in sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems. Environmental advocates applauded the decision, which they had sought for years. Auto companies, utilities and others tied to polluting emissions
had long dreaded this day but generally reacted with caution because the regulatory process had just begun and they hoped to address their concerns in the legislation before Congress. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said its members were developing cars and trucks to meet the expected tougher emissions standards.
Global Warming causes Extinction Sify 2010 Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and Director of the Global Change Institute, and John Bruno,
associate professor of Marine Science at UNC (Sify News, Could unbridled climate changes lead to human extinction?, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridledclimate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html, WEA) The findings of the comprehensive report: 'The
impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems' emerged from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine scientists. One of the authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the director of its Global Change Institute (GCI). 'We may see sudden, unexpected changes that have serious ramifications for the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of the planet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great extinction event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind, particularly if the trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent of human-generated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added. 'We are entering a period in which the ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and in some cases beginning to fail', he added. The 'fundamental and comprehensive' changes to marine life identified in the report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water circulation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths. These are driving major changes in marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms. Study co-author John F Bruno, associate professor in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are modifying many physical and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways
according to a GCI release. These findings were published in Science
'unprecedented in nearly a million years'. 'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way marine ecosystems function,' Bruno warned, Africa War Warming leads to Africa Civil War
Stanford Report 09 [Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa, Stanford researchers say 11 -23-09
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html]//gv
Climate change is likely to increase the number of civil wars raging in Africa, according to Stanford researchers. Historical records show that in warmer-than-average years, the number of conflicts rises. The researchers predict that by 2030, Africa could see a greater than 50 percent increase in civil wars, which could mean an additional 390,000 deaths just from fighting alone. Climate change could increase the likelihood of civil war in subSaharan Africa by over 50 percent within the next two decades, according to a new study led by a team of researchers at Stanford University, the
University of California-Berkeley, New York University and Harvard University. The study is to be published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The
study provides the first quantitative evidence linking climate change and the risk of
civil conflict. It concludes by urging accelerated support by African governments and foreign aid donors for new and/or expanded policies to assist with African
adaptation to climate change. "Despite recent high-level statements suggesting that climate change could worsen the risk of civil conflict, until now we had little quantitative evidence linking the two," said Marshall Burke, the study's lead author and a researcher at Stanfords Program o n Food Security and the Environment when the study was done.
"Unfortunately, our study finds that climate change could increase the risk of African civil war by over 50 percent in 2030 relative to 1990, with huge potential costs to human livelihoods." In the study, the researchers first
combined historical data on civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa with rainfall and temperature records across the continent. They found that between 1980 and 2002, civil wars were significantly more likely in warmer-than-average years, with a 1-degree Celsius increase in temperature in a given year raising the incidence of conflict across the continent by nearly 50 percent.
Civil War Escalates

Sage 10 Andre Le Sage is the Senior Research Fellow for Africa at the Institute for National Strategic Studies [Africas Irregular S ecurity Threats: Challenges for
U.S. Engagement May 2010 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8Zm3pY9Wb2AJ:kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/116242/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/ac6c684b143b-496f-be0e-9d8985684cbc/en/SF255.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjrElq_ieoHHAfJ_GltjeXlbJru2Sue7gMMwV0hbFM0Ae68c8eVx1pEqLqpX5VpIkg_WHEmB9VLwXSyQnQioRkJpKjthwz96zbNpLnHoudNsgPzia8GzRW9HGO6ooUDMbvkX1&sig=AHIEtbRIKrC4-Nrh85yARgEb1MXiMoQNhg]//gv Any survey of irregular, nonscomplex nature of armed conflict on the continent. Militias and nonstatutory forces are fielded by both insurgents and governments.
Civil wars across the continent are waged most commonly by tribally based militias. Many governments have responded by fielding their own tribal militias as proxies (as with the Janjaweed in Darfur), deploying their own militaries (which are no less tribally based or predatory), or conducting brutal counterinsurgency operations to suppress rebels and their civilian support base. In this context, the 1998 Ethiopia-Eritrea border war is one of only a few recent instances of conventional interstate conflict on the continent. Africas civil wars have become known for their brutality, as well as their complex organization around overlapping ethnic, regional, and religious lines and ever-splintering factions.1 Given the ethnic basis of militia mobilization, the targeting of civilians has sadly come to make sense in African conflicts.2 Civilians are viewed as the support base of both governments and antigovernment rebellions. Moreover, they are also a source of
enrichment by primitive accumulation through the stripping of assets.3 Rebels target pro -government civilians as a means of claiming wealth (in the form of property, land, cattle, and so forth) that the rebels
deem to be the ill-gotten gains of a corrupt regime acting in an adversary ethnic
groups favor. Conversely, pro-government forces target civilians in a strategy of collective punishment, holding entire ethnic groups accountable for atr ocities
committed by rebel leaders who purport to represent that group. Ethnic cleansing is used to seize land presently occupied by other groups, to ensure access to valuable resources contained within that land, or to prevent civilians in that group from casting ballots in elections.tate threats in Africa must confront the diverse and
Coral Reef Loss Warming damages Coral Reefs

The Daily Telegraph 11 [Global warming good for fish, bad for coral reef http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/global-warminggood-for-fish-bad-for-coral-reef/story-e6freuzi-1226214588820]//gv But after new research found tropical fish could not only adapt but thrive in water temperatures at the highest end of global warming predictions, climate change supporters have hit back, arguing that perhaps their homes may not. In research that challenged scientific thinking, scientists from the CSIRO and James Cook University found it took just two generations of tropical damsel fish, common on the Great Barrier Reef, to adapt when reared from birth in water up to 3C hotter than normal. In the past it was claimed even marginal rises in sea temperature could devastate fish life on the world's great reefs.
But Climate Change Research Centre scientist Dr Alex Sen Gupta said while the latest report was "great news for damsel fish" it did not bode well for the coral in which it and other tropical species relied on as home. "With reefs you really have a double-whammy," he said. "If temperatures get warmer you tend to get coral bleaching and the thinking with
happen with their habitat?"
climate warming is the frequency of bleaching is much, much higher. "It's a good news story ... for damsel fish but what's going to Coral Reefs key-economy, ecosystem, biodiversity
NOAA 08 NOAA is key to providing education on oceanic and atmospheric importance [Importance of Coral
Reefshttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_importance.html]//gv
Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Coral reefs support more species per unit area than any other marine environment, including about 4,000 species of fish, 800 species of hard corals and hundreds of other species. Scientists estimate that there may be another 1 to 8 million undiscovered species of organisms living in and around reefs (Reaka-Kudla, 1997). This biodiversity is considered key to finding new medicines for the 21st century. Many drugs are now being developed from coral reef animals and plants as possible cures for cancer, arthritis, human bacterial infections, viruses, and other diseases. Storehouses of immense biological wealth, reefs also provide economic and environmental
services to millions of people. Coral reefs may provide goods and services worth $375 billion each year. This is an amazing figure for an environment that covers less than 1 percent of the Earths surface (Costanza et al., 1997). Healthy
reefs contribute to local economies through tourism. Diving tours, fishing trips, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses based near reef systems provide millions of jobs and contribute billions of dollars all over the world. Recent studies show that millions of people visit coral reefs in the Florida Keys every year. These reefs alone are estimated to have an asset value of $7.6 billion (Johns et al., 2001). The commercial value of U.S.
fisheries from coral reefs is over $100 million (NMFS/NOAA, 2001). In addition, the annual value of reef-dependent recreational fisheries probably exceeds $100 million per year. In developing countries, coral reefs contribute about one-quarter of the total fish catch, providing critical food resources for tens of millions of people (Jameson et al., 1995). Coral reefs buffer adjacent shorelines from wave action and prevent erosion, property damage and loss of life. Reefs also protect the highly productive wetlands along the coast, as well as ports and harbors and the economies they support. Globally, half a billion people are estimated to live within 100 kilometers of a coral reef and benefit from its production and protection.
Ecosystem Collapse leads to extinction

Sodhi Navjot S. Sodhi is a renowned tropical conservation biologist [Causes and Consequences of Species
Extinctionshttp://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5_8879.pdf]//gv Although extinctions are a normal part of evolution, human modications to the planet in the last few centuries, and perhaps even millennia, have greatly accelerated the rate at which extinctions occur.
Habitat loss remains the main driver of extinctions, but it may act synergistically with other drivers such as Large-bodied species, rare species, and habitat specialists are particularly prone to extinction as a result of rapid human modications of the planet. Extinctions can disrupt vital ecological processes such as pollination and seed dispersal, leading to cascading losses, ecosystem collapse, and a higher extinction rate overall.
over- harvesting and pollution, and, in the future, climate change.
Biodiversity key to prevent extinction

Murray 11 Louise Murray has been commissioned by leading magazines around the world [Is the sixth mass extinction of life on earth already happening? 3 4-11 http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/sixth-mass-extinction-life-earth-already-happening/373/]//gv This compares to an average rate of two extinctions per million years in the fossil record. But there is cause for hope as well as despair. 'We
still have a lot of the Earth's biodiversity to save,' said Barnosky, 'Our findings highlight how essential it is to save endangered species. It's very important to devote resources and legislation towards species conservation if we don't want to be the species who causes the next mass extinction. Resource Warming leads to resource wars
Thompson 07 Andrea Thompson was Senior Writer for our sister sites LiveScience and SPACE.com [Global Warming Could Fuel War 7-9-07
http://www.livescience.com/1660-global-warming-fuel-war.html]//gv
Food and water shortages fueled in the future by global warming could spur conflicts and even wars over these essential resources, the authors of a new study warn. History suggests the controversial idea might be on track. Changes in climate, such as temperature and rainfall, can significantly alter the availability of crops, livestock and drinking water. Resource shortages could, in turn, prompt people to turn to war to get what they need to survive, several experts have warned. A new study, detailed in the August 2007 issue of the journal Human Ecology, suggests this was the case in the past. The authors reviewed 899 wars fought in China between 1000 and 1911 and found a correlation between the frequency of warfare and records of temperature changes. It was the oscillations of agricultural production brought by long-term climate change that drove Chinas
historical war-peace cycles, wrote lead author David Zhang of the University of Hong Kong. Similarly, several top retired American military leaders released a report in April warning of the national security threat posed by global warming, predicting wars over water, refugees displaced by rising sea levels and higher rates of famine and disease. Climate
change could possibly improve growing conditions in some areas (particularly higher latitudes), while hurting them in others (especially the tropics), explained William Easterling of Pennsylvania State University. What that sets up is a sort of winners and losers situation, said Easterling, who was not affiliated wi th the new study. Easterling, a co-author of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the potential impacts of climate change, told LiveScience that all-out war is unlikely unless international institutions and global markets completely fail, but the change in distribution of resou rces could cause international tensions [to] intensify. As an example of these tensions, Easterling cited Israels control over regional water resources and its use of that monopoly in the conflict wit h the Palestinians. It became a huge political tool, Easterling said. Easterling also said that the correlation cited by the auth ors of the new study did not necessarily prove that temperature changes caused increased warfare, but that there could certainly be a relationship between the two. Separately, other scientists have argued that a looming peak in oil production could potentially generate conflict on a global scale as industrialized nations fight over dwindling petroleum supplies in an era of soaring demand.
Resource Wars causes extinction

News Gateway 04 [Book Excerpt: Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Port-Carbon World
by Richard Heinberg 9-26-04 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2291]//gv We live in a time in which several storms are colliding, as in the book and movie The Perfect Storm: Resource
depletion: From the standpoint of the global economy, probably the most immediate threat comes from he depletion of fossil fuels (both oil and, in North
America and Britain, natural gas). But fresh water resources, wild oceanic fish stocks, phosphates (necessary for agriculture), and topsoil are also dwindling. Continued population growth: While the rate of global population growth shows signs of slowing, the total reached six billion in 1998, and in the six years since that time we have added an additional 400 million humans nearly the population of North America. Declining per-capita food production: For nearly the entire 20th century, food production outpaced population growth. However, world grain harvest for the past five years reveal a frightening trend: it appears that the trajectory of per-capita grain production has leveled off and may be beginning to fall, probably for a variety of reasons (including loss of arable land to urbanization, fresh water shortages, and bad weather). Global
climate change and other signs of environmental degradation: The relatively stable, benign global climatic regime appears to be coming to an end, almost certainly as the result of a human-induced enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. If the worlds sea levels rise significantly, as they are predicted to do as a result of the partial melting of polar
ice, many coastal cities would be inundated. Concerns are now being raised that cold, fresh water from melting Greenland glaciers may halt the Gulf Stream and plunge Europe and much of North America into a new ice age. Unsustainable levels of US debt and a potential dollar collapse: Since World War II, the world has relied on the US dollar as the basis for monetary stability. Increasingly, the US has taken advantage of this situation by running up every-larger trade deficits and more foreignfinanced government debt. The current level of American debt is unprecedented and unsustainable. International political instability: The recent declaration by the US that it has a right to preemptive war, and its use of that right as a rationale for its invasion of Iraq, could potentially plunge internati onal affairs into an era of lawlessness. These problems are related to one another in complex, often mutually reinforcing ways .
Taken together, they constitute the most severe challenge our species has ever faced. They represent not merely a likely culmination of human history, in their ongoing and potential environmental impacts, they also may collectively signal one of the most momentous events of geological time. We have already overshot Earths long-term carrying capacity for humans and have drawn down essential resources to such an extent that some form of societal collapse (a substantial reduction in social complexity) is now inevitable. Historians will likely view the period from roughly 1800 to 2000 as the growth phase of industrial civilization, and the period from 2000 to 2100 or 2200 as its contraction or collapse phase. We are in deep trouble, and it is essential that we understand the nature of the trouble we are in. The four principal options available to industrial societies during the
next few decades are: Last One Standing The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues with current policies, the next decades will be filled with war, economic crises, and environmental catastrophe.
Resource depletion and population pressure are about to catch up with us, and no one is prepared. The political elites, especially in the US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their preferred solution is
simply to commandeer other nations resources, using military force. The worst -case scenario would be the general destruction of human civilization and most of the ecological life-support system of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer not to contemplate it except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded. This is general true among non-human animals, among which competition for diminishing resources typically leads to aggressive behaviour. Iraq is actually the nexus of several different kinds of conflict between consuming nations (e.g., France and the US); between western industrial nations and terrorist groups; and most obviously between a powerful consuming nation and a weaker, troublesome, producing nation. Politicians may find it easier to persuade their constituents to fight a common enemy than to conserve and share. War is always grim, but as resources become more scarce and valuable, as societies become more centralized and therefore more vulnerable, and as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and widely dispersed, warfare could become even more destructive that the case during the past century. By far the greatest concern for the future of warfare.

Obama's Close Race and Preventing War with Iran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Obama's Close Race and Preventing War with Iran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elections DA 1/150

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Reuters Poll, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/obama -romney-

Valley High School Rishi Shah

A2: Gallup Poll

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

A2: Spendng Now

Valley High School Rishi Shah

A2: Infrastructure Not Key

Valley High School Rishi Shah

A2: Bush Blamed for Econ

Valley High School Rishi Shah

A2: Uniqueness O/Ws Link

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

growth in commercial air service is

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

1NC Bering Strait

Valley High School Rishi Shah

2NC Bering Strait

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

1NC Gas Tax

Valley High School Rishi Shah

2NC Gas Tax

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

1NC Marine Highways

Valley High School Rishi Shah

1NC Mass Transit

Valley High School Rishi Shah

far as transportation projects are

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Valley High School Rishi Shah

Link Booster Tiny Shifts Matter

Valley High School Rishi Shah