You are on page 1of 21

WNDI 2008 1

Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Elections DA Impacts Scholars


Elections DA Impacts Scholars...................................................................................................................................1
Elections DA Impacts Scholars.....................................................................................................1
A2: Health Care .........................................................................................................................................................3
A2: Health Care ............................................................................................................................3
A2: CTBT ...................................................................................................................................................................4
A2: CTBT ......................................................................................................................................4
A2: Leadership ...........................................................................................................................................................5
A2: Leadership ..............................................................................................................................5
A2: Space ...................................................................................................................................................................6
A2: Space .......................................................................................................................................6
A2: Pakistan ...............................................................................................................................................................7
A2: Pakistan ..................................................................................................................................7
A2: Military Readiness ..............................................................................................................................................8
A2: Military Readiness .................................................................................................................8
A2: Military Readiness...............................................................................................................................................9
A2: Military Readiness..................................................................................................................9
Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan .............................................................................................................10
Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan .............................................................................10
Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan..............................................................................................................11
Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan..............................................................................11
Obama Good: Iran Strikes ........................................................................................................................................12
Obama Good: Iran Strikes .........................................................................................................12
Obama Good: African Relations ..............................................................................................................................13
Obama Good: African Relations ...............................................................................................13
Obama Good: China Relations ................................................................................................................................14
Obama Good: China Relations ..................................................................................................14
Obama Good: China Relations.................................................................................................................................15
Obama Good: China Relations...................................................................................................15
Obama good: Australia Relations.............................................................................................................................16
Obama good: Australia Relations...............................................................................................16
Obama Good: NPT ...................................................................................................................................................17
Obama Good: NPT .....................................................................................................................17
Obama Good: Kyoto ................................................................................................................................................18
Obama Good: Kyoto ...................................................................................................................18
WNDI 2008 2
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

McCain Bad: Iran Strikes .........................................................................................................................................19


McCain Bad: Iran Strikes ..........................................................................................................19
Obama Bad: European Relations .............................................................................................................................20
Obama Bad: European Relations ..............................................................................................20
Obama Bad: Social Security ....................................................................................................................................21
Obama Bad: Social Security ......................................................................................................21
WNDI 2008 3
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Health Care


Obama wont pass universal health care
Herb Deninberg. “Supplying answers on the bear market, Obama and blood pressure” 7/14/08.
<http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19849329&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8>
Question: You always say that the great health-care reformers (such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama)
should solve one tiny health-care problem before disrupting the whole system with a total reform. In
other words, they should prove their competence by executing a small reform before they go for the big
one. Exactly where would you recommend they start? Answer: With Mr. Obama, I'd recommend he release
his full health records, in view of his background of smoking, doping, and boozing, and as he's running for
president. But the media gave him a free pass when he released virtually nothing. But to answer your
question, here's a good starter. A recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, found
only one in 10 adult Americans have all the skills needed to manage their health. How about teaching the
other nine what they need to know. Or how about getting doctors to wash their hands. Neither Hillary nor
Barack, when it comes to healthcare reform, have demonstrated they can even walk, yet they want to
fly to the moon by adopting universal health care. I'm sure their version would break the bank and the
system.

Universal health care will inevitably fail


Michael Hampton. “’Universal health care has failed again,” 3/2/07.
<http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/03/02/universal-health-care-has-failed-again/>
Most Americans, not knowing any better, think “universal health care” is a really good idea.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing. To see exactly what American universal health care will look like,
one needs look no farther than the smaller version of universal health care which already exists. A recent
New York Times/CBS News poll shows that 55 percent of Americans think the most important
domestic issue is making health insurance available to all Americans, and 64 percent said the federal
government should provide it, the Times reported Friday. And it sounds great. Everybody would finally
get all the health care they could possibly ever want, and it wouldn’t cost anything. At least, that’s what we’re
told. Okay, maybe taxes would go up a little bit, they’ll admit when pressed. But it’ll be so much better
once everyone gets free medical care and doctors no longer get paid exorbitant rates. But before we
jump headlong into universal health care, just because it sounds so good, we should have some idea what
we’re getting into. “Universal health care” is a national tragedy wherever it has been tried, resulting in
needless death and suffering as fewer and fewer people actually get anything resembling health care
from the national health bureaucracy. The reason for this is simple: no government can effectively run
a social program. Indeed, there’s no need to leave the country to see what universal health care would look
like. You need go no farther than Building 18 of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the
nation’s so-called leading military hospital.
WNDI 2008 4
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: CTBT
CTBT bad for United States
The Heritage Foundation. “Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea
Today” 06/29/07. <http://www.heritage.org/research/Homelanddefense/upload/wm_1533.pdf>
For both procedural and substantive reasons, the Senate should oppose ratification of the CTBT. The
Senate rejected ratification in 1999 for good reasons, and those reasons are still pertinent today. Further, the
effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrence posture has declined in recent years for reasons of atrophy
within the weapons complex and changing international circumstances. The United States has no margin
for error in maintaining its national security in the context of its nuclear deterrent. Senate consent to
the ratification of the CTBT entails nothing less than gambling with the survival of the United States.

CTBT has fundamental flaws


The Heritage Foundation. “Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea
Today” 06/29/07. <http://www.heritage.org/research/Homelanddefense/upload/wm_1533.pdf>
Persistent Problems with the CTBT. Substantively, the shortcomings of the CTBT that the Senate found in
1999 persist today. The requirements of the treaty have not changed in any way since 1999, and the
United States’ security continues to require a nuclear arsenal that is safe, reliable, and militarily
effective. Such an arsenal depends on preserving the option to conduct explosive tests of the weapons
already in the arsenal for the purpose of developing new weapons to meet new requirements. CTBT
ratification by the United States and its entry into force would lead to the same unacceptable outcomes that
caused the Senate to reject the treaty in 1999.

The US signing the CTBT would destroy national security


Robert R. Monroe. “Nuclear testing realities” The Washington Times. 12/4/07. <LEXIS>
Reality No. 1 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would do unbelievably grave damage to U.S. national
security. Nuclear weapons exist - tens of thousands of them. More states now have them than ever before,
and they're being improved. A whole world of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is just around the corner.
More than half the world's population lives in states that have nuclear weapons, and other states and
terrorist organizations are striving to acquire them, and use them. The U.S. will continue to face serious
nuclear weapon threats for generations to come. Our very lives will depend upon our ability to develop
new nuclear weapon strategies and advanced nuclear weapons to deter these threats. Our survival will
depend on our nuclear technology being superior to that of anyone else in the world, decade after
decade. This will certainly require testing, which the CTBT would deny.

Ratifying the CTBT increases proliferation


Robert R. Monroe. “Nuclear testing realities” The Washington Times. 12/4/07. <LEXIS>
Reality No. 3 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would increase proliferation. Some 30 states (e.g.,
Japan, Germany) depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella rather than having their own nuclear forces. If
we ratify the CTBT, denying ourselves the ability to transform our arsenal, the failure of our once-credible
deterrent will force our allies and friends to develop their own nuclear weapons.
WNDI 2008 5
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Leadership
Obama lacks experience
Ashley C. Stinnett. “Can Americans really trust Barack Obama?” The Herald Dispatch. 07/02/08.
<http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2102941045/Can-Americans-really-trust-Barack-Obama>
In this day and age of exit polls and data analysis, it seems only fair to point out an ongoing struggle the
Barack Obama campaign has yet to overcome: So many Americans are leery of his inexperience as a
United States senator. Many will recall not too long ago, Obama was merely a state representative in
Illinois. He was propelled to his current office after serving many years in his home state. Like most
freshman senators, Obama quickly began learning the ups and downs of national politics. He began
shaking hands with prominent political leaders while memorizing the names of top lobbyists. Of course,
anyone who keeps up with national level politics realizes if an individual serves in Washington for more than
a week, he or she will be introduced to lobbyist sharks really soon. It's all part of the game. Now begins the
troubling part. Within a year of entering office, Obama made the conscious decision to run for president. He
began collecting names of influential people, all the while making phone calls to big-money donors. This is
typical behavior of anyone who seeks a major office. Obama spent the majority of 2007 launching his bid
to become president. The young statesman began traveling and reaching out to millions. His campaign
became more of a rock concert aimed at energizing minorities, youth voters and blue-collar workers.
Although everything seems to be going well, his many faults, not to mention the bizarre company he
keeps, begin to surface.

No president, even Obama could restore US credibility


John Brown. “After the honeymoon. Electing Barack Obama president won't be enough to improve America's
standing in the world” 6/26/08.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/26/usforeignpolicy.uselections2008>
The new administration should also not give overseas audiences the false hope that its arrival on the
world scene will mean a sudden, drastic departure from the policies of Bush, despite his low reputation
at home and abroad. The American political system, which leads presidential candidates to adopt "centrist"
positions, leaves the options for restructuring American foreign policy limited. This includes Iraq, a
fiasco that will take years to settle.

Obama’s military and political inexperience would render him an ineffective president
MICHAEL GOODWIN. “HE'S GOT A LOT TO LEARN. McCain's exposing Obama's weaknesses on national
security,”06/01/08. <LEXIS>
Even before he clinches the nomination, a flurry of McCain attacks over Iran, Iraq, Cuba and military
leadership has exposed Obama 's soft underbelly on national security. The effective barrage is a
testament to how the primary battles never tested the rookie Democrat on whether he is ready to be
commander in chief. In Prof. McCain's class, Obama is slowly making progress, but remains far below
grade average. It's not certain he can catch up by November's final exam, where the threshold issue is the
public's confidence a candidate can and will defend America. Perceived weakness is a disqualifier. The
problem for Obama, beyond his lack of experience, is that his instincts are those of the Perfect Liberal
by way of Harvard Law School. Like Bill Clinton's clumsy attempts to salute when he first won the
Oval Office, Obama exhibits discomfort about things military. He is a peacenik by gut and, as critics
note, drew the wrong lessons about Cold War talks JFK and Ronald Reagan had with the Soviets. That didn't
matter during the primary battle, where Obama 's early opposition to Iraq was a defining difference against
Hillary Clinton. But doubts about his national security bona fides are already a handicap in the nascent
general election. McCain, showing it is never too early to shape the battlefield to match your strengths, has
ripped into Obama on a daily basis. Truth be told, Obama has presented him with a target-rich environment.
The first opening surfaced in a July 2007 debate, when Obama was asked if he would, without
preconditions, meet in the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and
North Korea. Obama promptly and famously said, "I would."
WNDI 2008 6
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Space
Obama Supports NASA
Eun Kyung Kim. “Obama says he'll support NASA programs,” 07/29/08. < http://www.news-
press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075>
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged his commitment to NASA in
a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating the agency on its 50th anniversary. The
declaration may surprise many NASA supporters. Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he would
rather see money budgeted for Constellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead toward
education reform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. “I believe we need
to revitalize NASA’s mission to maintain America’s leadership, and recommit our nation to the space
program, and as President I intend to do just that,” he said. Obama took aim at the current Washington
establishment — and the Bush administration — for failing to give NASA the sufficient support it has
needed.

NASA is setting the global standard on research


NASA. “The Good, the Bad and the Ozone,” 06/04/04. < http://www.nasa.gov/missions/earth/f-ozone.html>
NASA's Aura is going to keep tabs on both types of ozone. It's a spacecraft that will provide us the first
comprehensive global view of the Earth's atmosphere, an essential stepping stone to better
understanding the Moon, Mars and beyond. The launch of Aura is a challenging endeavor, a mission on the
cutting edge of scientific discovery characteristic of the Agency's legacy of ground-breaking
exploration.

NASA is key to Mars Exploration


NASA. “NASA 101: from vision to reality,” No date given. < http://legislative.nasa.gov/NASA_101_brochure.pdf>
Announced in 2004, the Vision for Space Exploration communicates the United States’ and NASA’s
commitment to a long-term robotic and human program to explore the solar system, starting with a
return to the moon that will ultimately enable the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The
Vision affirms our commitment to human space exploration and gives NASA a new focus and clear
objectives. It is affordable and sustainable and maintains the highest levels of safety. It has been
endorsed by bipartisan majorities of the U.S. Congress.
WNDI 2008 7
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Pakistan
Obama’s proposed invasion of Pakistan would fight terrorism
JAMES GORDON. “HIS GOOD IDEAS TOO LATE – PROS,” 08/02/07. <LEXIS>
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama yesterday offered a sweeping and sophisticated strategy for
nailing Al Qaeda inside U.S. ally Pakistan's borders - but his best ideas may be too little, too late,
counterterror experts say. Chief among them is to add at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan.
Obama 's speech was a highly detailed assessment of the "forgotten war," arguing for more military might,
close cooperation with allies and increased development aid that could pull Afghanistan back from the
brink and maybe destroy Osama Bin Laden's base in Pakistan. Surging the number of American forces
to over 30,000 by adding up to 7,000 or more G.I.s makes sense, since the Taliban and Al Qaeda continue to
replenish their ranks. Obama also wants better trained Afghan forces included in more combat
missions. But none of it would happen for 18 months, even if he wins in 2008. Robert Grenier, a private
security executive who as CIA station chief in Pakistan oversaw the toppling of the Taliban in 2001, said
adding more U.S. troops would be "re-creating on a smaller scale the same mistake that has been made in
Iraq." "Only Afghans can deal with the phenomenon that is the Taliban," he said. "There needs to be an
Afghan solution." Though vague in his speech about how he would use extra U.S. forces, a key adviser said
Obama does not envision occupying parts of Pakistan, where Al Qaeda - and most likely Bin Laden - have a
safe haven. "Nobody is talking about a ground invasion of Pakistan's tribal areas," said former Bill Clinton
National Security Council aide Susan Rice, an Obama adviser. "That isn't feasible." Rice said surgical
strikes continue to be the best option, adding that Obama wants to strengthen U.S. special operations
forces on the Afghan side to "up the ante" and cajole European NATO allies to get more into the fight.
Obama talked tough by warning Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that if intelligence on Bin
Laden surfaces and Musharraf "won't act, we will." Grenier speculated that as President, Obama would
likely still coordinate any strikes with the Pakistanis, just as President Bush has.
WNDI 2008 8
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Military Readiness


Obama calls for troops to withdraw from Iraq
Brian DeBose. “Obama calls for complete withdrawal by end of '08,” The Washington Times. 09/13/07. <LEXIS>
Sen. Barack Obama yesterday called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at a
steady pace, with all combat troops either at home or redeployed elsewhere by December 2008. "We
must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in
more volatile areas until later, but our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades
each month," Mr. Obama said. A day after hearing the progress report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to
Congress, Mr. Obama rejected the general's recommendations and said Iraq's government has failed to meet
its own goals. His withdrawal proposal reinforces the Iraq war as the major battleground among the
Democratic presidential candidates, who have spent the campaign competing with each other for support
from the party's antiwar voters.

Troops being deployed in Iraq hurts military readiness


Richard Cowan. “US House approves 2008 troop withdrawal from Iraq,” 03/23/07. <LEXIS>
But House Democrats, geared up for battle with Bush in the final two years of his presidency, disagreed.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who says the war has sapped military readiness, said,
"We're going to make a difference ... We're going to bring those troops home." Rep. David Obey of
Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said a vote for the bill would mean "that
we're going to end the permanent, long-term, dead-end baby-sitting service. That's what we are trying to
do." All but two House Republicans voted against the bill, which they say will tie the military's hands and
invite failure.

Military readiness has been harmed because of Iraq


“Making up for lost time in Iraq,” < http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/pdf/prosperity_agenda.pdf>
How the United States extricates its troops from Iraq will impact its broader efforts to restore its
position of leadership in the world. The pace and manner in which it does so will be one of the most
important decisions of the next president and Congress. The capabilities of the Iraqi police and security
forces will play a major role in that decision, as will their allegiances and motivation. However, removing
troops from Iraq should be only one part of the debate. The United States also needs to determine how it will
marshal its considerable economic and diplomatic powers to get Iraqi leaders, countries in the region, and
other global powers to do their share and shoulder a greater part of the burden to help Iraq achieve a degree
of stability and a semblance of prosperity. America ’ s military readiness has been harmed by five years
of continuous deployments, and its image is in tatters as a result of mistakes made in the Iraq War. A
growing bipartisan consensus has pragmatically recognized that the United States cannot afford to simply
stay the course and continue to go it mostly alone in Iraq.

Obama would increase US troops by 92,000


Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San
Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy,”
01/17/08. <http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4901>Indeed, Obama has promised to enlarge the size of the
uniformed armed forces by more than 92,000 troops. Given that the United States – surrounded by two
oceans and two weak friendly neighbors – is essentially safe from any potential conventional attack,
this position inevitably raises the question of what he intends to do with that expanded military capability.
WNDI 2008 9
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Military Readiness


Readiness is key to deter global conflicts and maintain US leadership
Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FDCH, February 5, 1998
Maintaining a high state of readiness to execute the military tasks assigned by the National Command Authorities
remains our first and most important priority. U.S. military forces remain the best equipped, best trained and most
capable of any in the world. Our military power, in conjunction with a strong, dynamic economy and skilled diplomacy, guarantees that
American citizens and territory are protected and that our standard of living and our democratic values are maintained. Our ability to
maintain strong, capable forces throughout the globe, backed up by flexible, strategically deployable forces
from CONUS, makes us the preeminent military power in the world. This ability to selectively apply military
forces anywhere in the world is a major stabilizing factor in international affairs and a key component in
American world leadership. Since the end of the Cold War, we have used our military forces more frequently to support our security
interests and conduct major operations where U.S. leadership was needed. There is no question that more frequent deployments affect readiness. We are
beginning to see anecdotal evidence of readiness issues in some units, particularly at the tactical level of operations. At the operational and strategic levels,
however, we remain capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict. Readiness issues have our full attention, and we are working
aggressively to refine and improve our mechanisms for tracking readiness and, with Congressional support, for correcting the readiness shortfalls we have
identified. While we are undeniably busier and more fully committed than in the past, the U.S. military remains fully capable of executing the National
Military Strategy with an acceptable level of risk. I can assure the Congress that we are not returning to the 1970's. We are fundamentally healthy and will
continue to report our readiness status to the Congress and American people with candor and accuracy. Contingency operations not funded in the defense
budget continue to impact on how we allocate resources within the military. The extension of operations in Bosnia and increased tensions in the Gulf have
resulted in unfunded contingency requirements in FY98. In addition, the FY99 budget does not explicitly fund Bosnia contingency requirements. To ensure
adequate funding for readiness and normal operations this year, we will request supplemental appropriations in accordance with Congressional language.
Without timely relief, we will be forced to absorb these costs from operations and maintenance accounts, to the detriment of overall readiness. Tempo, the
pace of peacetime activities of the force, is another major concern for senior military leaders. The reality of our current tempo is that we are doing more
operations with a smaller force. While our overall force structure has declined by approximately one third since FY88, our requirements across a broad
range of military operations have greatly increased. On any given day more than 40,000 personnel are participating in ongoing named operations and many
more are away from home supporting other routine, yet no-less demanding, requirements. Unchecked, high tempo may lead to both near-term and long-
term readiness concerns. In the near-term, increased tempo contributes to lost training opportunities and accelerated wear on equipment. In the long-term,
increased tempo has its greatest impact on our people, by negatively impacting their quality of life and jeopardizing our ability to attract and retain quality
people. We have implemented several initiatives to better manage the increased tempo brought on by a changed security environment and our strategy of
engagement. The Joint Staff has led an effort to control selected Low Density/High Demand assets through the Global Military Force Policy (GMFP). In
addition, a 15% man-days reduction in the Joint Exercise Program through FY98 has been directed, and we are studying further reductions now. Other
ongoing efforts include the increased use of Reserve Component assets; global sourcing; increased use of contractors and allied support; use of like systems
(i.e. EP3s in lieu of RC135s); and the Joint Monthly Readiness Review (JMRR), which includes tools to provide better visibility and management of
potential tempo problems. Managing the pace of operations better is directly related to improving personnel readiness - the linchpin of a trained and
ready force. We place our people in a demanding environment that subordinates them to national and professional requirements. Their commitment is
around the clock. Our standards are high, and we demand frequent, personal sacrifices from them, sometimes to the extent of risking their lives. Attracting
and retaining the right people, and developing them as joint warfighters, is as important as anything else we do in the readiness arena.

Readiness is key to maintain credibility, peace, and stability


Admiral Harold Gehman Jr., Vice Chief Of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, FNS, April 17, 1997
Well-trained people, operating modern, well-maintained equipment in the right numbers, constantly
patrolling the world's trouble spots, are the trademarks of your Navy. Readiness is ultimately the
foundation for maintaining the credibility of our forces as an instrument of foreign policy and national
resolve. Today, our Navy remains forward deployed and ready to protect America's interests both at home
and abroad. Our Naval forces are poised to transition instantly from maintaining peace to deterring crises to
resolving conflict. We believe that our readiness is well understood by potential enemies and will
give them pause; thus accomplishing our most important objectives, the deterrence of conflict and the
preservation of peace and stability.
WNDI 2008 10
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan


Obama is key to Japan relations
REIJI YOSHIDA. “Obama scores big in Japan portion of global primary,” Times Japan Times.
02/19/08. <LEXIS>
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama won an overwhelming majority of the votes cast at polling stations in Japan
during the first-ever global primary for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lauren Shannon,
chairwoman of Democrats Abroad in Japan, said Monday that Obama's victory here was due in part to his
multicultural background and overseas experience. "That means a lot to a lot of us," she told a news
conference at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo. Shannon is a supporter of Obama. Obama won 83
percent of the votes cast Feb. 5 in Tokyo, around 80 percent in Kyoto and 70 percent in Nagoya,
Shannon said. The numbers from the three polling stations do not include votes coming in via the Internet or
fax. The final tally will not be available until after Thursday, Shannon said.

Obama, Japan is key to Barak Obama’s support internationally


DAVID MCNEILL. “Citizens of Obama are backing their man,” The Irish Times. 02/27/08. <LEXIS>
JAPAN: Four hours from Tokyo and a long, long way from Washington DC, a Japanese town has picked
a candidate to win the US presidential election, and it's not Hillary Clinton. The former first lady may once
have had supporters in the remote fishing town of Obama, population 32,000, on the Japan Sea coast,
but the best of luck finding them. Just two months since realising that their town shared a name with the
man who may well become the first black US president, the citizens of Obama are among his most
fervent supporters. Pictures of Barack Obama hang in pachinko parlours and restaurants, "I Love
Obama " T-shirts have been cranked out by the hundreds and a song eulogising the dashing senator's charms
is in the can. This is the place to come in Japan for Obama burgers, sweet-bean buns and fish burgers.
Even the town mayor backs the man from Illinois. A supporters club made up mainly of housewives that
meets daily to plan strategy has no doubts at all that their work counts. "Ever since we started backing him he
has been winning," says Satoko Udagawa. "It could be just a coincidence but we don't think so." Win or lose,
she says the supporters plan a trip to see their idol in America. Serendipity has lent a hand to the unlikely
campaign. Apart from that name, supporters have noted that the senator shares a birthday - August
4th - with the town's "chopstick day", founded to commemorate its most famous product: lacquered
chopsticks. The town sent a set to Obama last year with a note in English from mayor Toshio Murakami,
which said: "I am glad if you use it habitually." Obama has at least heard about the little corner of Japan
backing him for the world's most powerful job, although he has yet to stop by. He told Japanese TV in 2006
that his passport was stamped by a man who looked up and told him he was from the town. It was the
start of what may become a beautiful relationship. A viewer told the town office about the coincidence
and the campaign was launched, slowly. "At first we thought Mrs Clinton might win so we weren't so
enthusiastic," says Murakami. To those who would accuse him of opportunism, the mayor has the perfect
answer: President Obama 's policies would be good for the town. A vocal critic of Japan's hardline policies
toward North Korea, which incidentally is closer to Obama than Tokyo, the mayor believes the new
president will bring stability to the region. "I heard Mr Obama say he will talk to North Korea," says
the 75-year-old. "If he does, China and South Korea will also take note, and relations with Japan will
improve." That means more chopstick exports to Asia and more tourists to Obama, but the mayor says
something bigger is at stake. "I believe Mr Obama is a man of peace, someone who will help the world
and also help save the environment. We're proud to back him."
WNDI 2008 11
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan


The US/Japan alliance is key to preventing several scenarios of nuclear war in Asia
INSS Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 10/11/2000,
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SR_01/SR_Japan.htm
Major war in Europe is inconceivable for at least a generation, but the prospects for conflict in Asia are-far from
remote. The region features some of the world’s largest and most modern armies, nuclear-armed major
powers, and several nuclear-capable states. Hostilities that could directly involve the United States in a major
conflict could occur at a moment’s notice on the Korean peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait. The Indian-
subcontinent is a major flashpoint. In each area, war has the potential of nuclear escalation. In addition,
lingering turmoil in Indonesia, the world’ fourth-largest nation, threatens stability in Southeast Asia. The United States is
tied to the region by a series of bilateral security alliances that remain the region’s de facto security architecture. In this promising but
also potentially dangerous setting, the U.S.-Japan bilateral relationship is more important than ever with the world’s
second-largest economy and a well-equipped and competent military , an as our democratic ally, Japan
remains the keystone of the U.S. involvement in Asia. The U.S.-Japan alliance is central to America’s global
security strategy.

Dooming relations means they can’t solve the case – relations are key to heg
Joseph P. Keddell Jr., Specialist in Japanese Politics, Faculty of Law at Tokyo University and Tohoku University,
1993, The Politics of Defense in Japan: Managing Internal and External Pressures, pg. 200
The maintenance of bases in Japan has been important to the United States for two reasons. First is the
bases' .geostrategic location. Such bases had served during the Cold War to help contain the Soviet Union
militarily and were deemed useful for blocking Soviet forces that were trying to move from Vladivostok to
the Sea of Japan and Pacific Ocean in the event of war. The U.S. bases in Japan are also considered useful in
the post-Cold War era for deploying U.S. forces to cope with the increased likelihood of regional conflicts
following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Continuing instability in Indochina and the potential for increased
tensions in Northeast Asia following the demise of aging leaderships in North Korea and China
increase the value of these bases to the United States, as does the loss of the U.S. air and naval bases in the
Philippines. Second is the cost effectiveness of such bases. Japan furnishes military bases to the United
States at no charge and continues to increase its share of financing base costs. For instance, by 1990 the
Japanese government had increased its coverage of U.S. base costs in Japan to over 50 percent.106The
government views its financing of the costs of U.S. military facilities in Japan as a means of ensuring
continuation of the U.S. security guarantee.

The alliance is key to preventing a China/Taiwan conflict


Ted Osius, US Foreign Service Regional environmental affairs officer for Southeast Asia and the Pacific 2002,
The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance: Why it Matters and How to Strengthen It, pg. 23
To deter conflict, the United States discourages Taipei from declaring independence and Beijing from forcibly attempting to unite
Taiwan with the mainland. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States supplies Taiwan with weapons necessary for defense
against the mainland.3 Given China's size and resources, however, Taiwan cannot achieve security based solely
on independent military capabilities. Taipei relies on Beijing's fear that the United States would defend it
in the event of a cross-strait conflict. Because U.S. forward-deployed forces are in Japan, Taiwan also depends on a
strong and stable U.S.-Japan alliance.

US-Sino conflict over Taiwan causes global nuclear conflict


Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, The
Nation, Pg. 20
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s
minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic
Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese
civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a
war that no wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that
neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that
China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily
escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt
to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
WNDI 2008 12
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Iran Strikes


Obama opposes striking Iran
Barak Obama. “BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING,” 2008.
<http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/>
Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we
should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was
reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran.
Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-
Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
WNDI 2008 13
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: African Relations


Because of his heritage, Obama gives hope to Africa
The Namibian. “Africa; Obama 's Triumph Provides A Moral Lesson About Democracy,” Africa News 07/11/08.
<LEXIS>
On a more familiar note, many have commented that with Barack Obama technically clinching the
Democratic Party nomination it is worth noting what an exceptional moment this is for the United
States. Thinking about this in America's racial historical context, it is indeed extraordinary. In
particular, the polls say he is the odds-on favourite to become the next President. It is also an extraordinary
moment for Africa as a result of Obama 's late Luo father from the little village of Nyangoma-Kogelo in
Kenya. Much of the simplistic discussion around Senator Obama in Africa has been an exchange of
what Obama could do for Africa as the first black President of the United States.
WNDI 2008 14
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: China Relations


Obama perceive as good in China, would help improve relations
Greg Torode. “Friend or Foe?” South China Morning Post. 03/07/08. <LEXIS>
the three, Senator Obama is the least known in the region. Regional governments are building a picture of
the charismatic, eloquent senator from Illinois. Already, senior US-based Chinese diplomats have met
him on several occasions, talking with him about China's role in Africa and other regional issues. He has
courted Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and is soon expected to meet Japanese and Korean
envoys. "Those who have met him walk away simply stunned at his grasp of the region and his
intelligence," said one Asian diplomat. "The word is: he's got it ... drive, judgment and charm." One
Washington source who is very familiar with Senator Obama 's approach to Asia, said this week the
candidate was seeking to offer a significant change in presidential tone and style in his dealings with
regional leaders - part of his wider effort to rebuild US diplomacy. While strengthening and
broadening traditional alliances and engaging new potential regional friends across a deeper range of
issues, Senator Obama would offer a distinct alternative to the unilateralism of the Bush era. He
would also seek to display a new American "humility" - something that may also set him apart from his
rivals for the White House. "Whether we are talking to friends and allies or more difficult regimes, we need
to show we are listening as part of that engagement. Obama is very serious about this," said the source.
"That humility doesn't mean he doesn't want to lead. If anything, it means that he wants our leadership on
issues to be more responsive, realistic and respected. I think we are talking about a marked change in tone
and style ... he's a reconciler. We are confident regional leaders will come to respect his integrity ... it is
something that is at the core of his political makeup."

Maintaining US-Sino ties is crucial to prevent escalation over Taiwan.


Paul Kerr, research analyst at the Arms Control Association. International Security, “Taiwan: Maintain the Current
Ambiguity.” Volume 1, Number 1 - Fall 1999. http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/99FallKerr.html
Stable U.S.-China relations can also help prevent Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. The bottom line is
whether or not Beijing can be persuaded to accept the status quo between the two countries. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan
inextricably links relations between Taipei and Beijing to the relationship between Beijing and
Washington. If the PRC perceives other areas of its relationship with the United States to be strong, such as
U.S.-China trade and negotiations over China's membership in the WTO, it has less incentive to disrupt the status quo in
the Taiwan Strait. Provocative U.S. actions may lead Beijing to believe that it has little to gain by
maintaining peaceful relations with the United States.

Taiwan conflict causes nuclear war. – text modified


Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, The
Nation, Pg. 20
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s
minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic
Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese
civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in
Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a
conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end
in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor.
More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear [war] holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to
China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders
have virtually no deterrent effect.
WNDI 2008 15
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: China Relations


US-China relations are crucial to regional stability.
David Shambaugh, Director of the China Policy Program @ George Washington University. International Security,
Volume 29, Issue 3, Winter 2005. “China Engages Asia.”
http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/views/articles/shambaugh/20050506.pdf
On balance, this complex relationship is characterized by substantial cooperation on bilateral, regional, and global issues. While not a
full condominium of two-power domination, and occasionally displaying traditional balance of power features, Sino-American
cooperation is a significant feature of the current Asian order. Even the absence of Sino-American antagonism is an
important factor. While some Asian countries may hedge against either U.S. or Chinese domination, and adroitly acquire whatever
resources and benefits they can from both China and the United States, every country (except perhaps North Korea) seeks a
stable, cooperative Sino-American relationship. Should Beijing and Washington one day confront each
other, all of these regional states would be put in the awkward position of having to choose sides—and this
they seek to avoid at all costs.

Strong US-China ties are preventing a global economic collapse now.


LA Times, 7/18/05
Ties between the U.S. and China are far more extensive. Chinese immigrants have played a key role in the American high-
tech boom and have served as a bridge between the two countries. Trade between the U.S. and China has grown thirtyfold
in the last decade, propelled by global retailers and producers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., shifting production from other low-cost
countries to China. China has become the world's top destination for foreign funds. Last year, that country received nearly $61 billion in
foreign investment and more than half of that country's exports are from factories owned by foreigners. China has also become the
fastest-growing market for many U.S. industries such as high-tech and natural resource extraction. Low-cost goods from China
keep U.S. inflation down, while Chinese buying of U.S. Treasury securities helps keep American
mortgage rates down. If China's growth were to slow significantly, it could trigger a global slowdown
and major disruptions in key U.S. industries dependent on Chinese imports or components. "Until recently, we
were not very dependent on China at all," said Edward Gresser, a former Clinton administration trade official and analyst with the
Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic think tank. "Now, we're relying heavily on China as a source of finance for our growth and
our budget deficit." With so much at stake in its dealings with China, the United States must walk a tightrope --
encouraging China to move forward with economic and political reforms without triggering a costly
confrontation.
WNDI 2008 16
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama good: Australia Relations


Obama would lead to more US Australia cooperation
Phillip Coorey. “Clinton embraces PM, Obama praises Howard's end,” Sydney Morning Herald. 04/2/08. <LEXIS>
THE US Democratic presidential frontrunner, Barack Obama, has not forgotten John Howard 's attack on
him more than a year ago and raised it yesterday during a lengthy phone conversation with Kevin Rudd. Mr
Rudd, in Washington, spoke with Senator Obama for about 30 minutes after meeting the other
Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton. Early this morning, Mr Rudd was scheduled to meet the Republican
presumptive nominee, John McCain. Sources familiar with the Obama phone call said the Illinois Senator
raised Mr Howard's attack as he congratulated Mr Rudd on becoming Prime Minister. In February last
year, a day after Senator Obama launched his presidential campaign, Mr Howard said Senator Obama 's
Iraq policy made both him and the Democrats al-Qaeda's party of choice. The controversial comment was
construed as potentially damaging to the alliance and prompted Senator Obama to challenge Mr Howard to
send 20,000 more troops if he was so serious about Iraq. Following yesterday's phone call, Senator Obama
released a lengthy statement saying Mr Rudd's "progressive" policy agenda suited "this new chapter
in US-Australia relations". "His progressive domestic policy agenda, innovative and realistic
diplomacy, and optimistic vision enrich the already solid base of our bilateral dialogue, reminding us
that we can accomplish more when we listen to our friends and allies than when we lecture them."

US/Australian relations are the lynchpin of South Asian stability


Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. “The Australia-United States Alliance and East Asian
Security,” Speech at the University of Sydney conference, 29 June 2001
http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/speeches/foreign/2001/010629_fa_us_alliance.html
I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty and
the alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable trade-
offs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining
strong relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest that
the depth and strength of our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense. In fact,
ANZUS was seen from the outset as a means of enhancing our ties with the region: Percy Spender, who
pushed so strongly to conclude the ANZUS Treaty, did so with a clear and expressed conviction that Australia’s
destiny was bound up with Asia. He saw the Australia – US alliance as a linchpin for stability in the
region. On the eve of his departure for the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Spender said that “Australia and the United
States of America are the two countries which can, in co-operation one with the other, make the greatest
contribution to stability and to democratic development of the countries of South-East Asia.” This was 13 months before
the crucial Canberra negotiations at which the fundamentals of ANZUS were hammered out. And the preamble to the treaty itself noted
the desire of the parties “to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific Area”. The contemporary argument in favour of ANZUS and the
Australia-US alliance doesn't rest fundamentally on the genuinely close emotional and cultural links between the two countries - as
important and long-standing as they are - but on the continuing congruence of Australian and US national interests
and values in so many areas. In short, it is mutually beneficial. Let me make four key points in support of my argument. First,
from the outset, ANZUS was conceived as a security pact flexible enough to be relevant to a range of challenges. Initially, this was
Australia’s concern to be protected against the threat of a militarily resurgent Japan. Then, in the Cold War, it was protection against the
threat of Communist expansionism. Now, in what President Bush has recently described as an era in which the threats come from
uncertainty, it provides a bedrock of certainty and security on which both Australia and the United States
know they can always rely.

South Asian conflict ensures nuclear winter


Ghulam Nabi Fai, Kashmiri American Council, July 8, 2001, Washington Times
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a
unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a
disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan.
It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could
trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no
sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense
Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India
and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles.
Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off
Convention.
WNDI 2008 17
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: NPT


Obama supports the NPT
Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco,
where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy,” 01/17/08.
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4901>
In a break with the other leading presidential contenders, Obama supports the United States’ commitment
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate nuclear stockpiles.
However, although the United States possesses by far the largest number of nuclear weapons and delivery
systems on earth, Obama hasn’t indicated support for any unilateral American initiatives to move the process
forward, such as cuts in weapons or delivery systems where the United States has a qualitative advantage.
WNDI 2008 18
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Kyoto


Obama would ratify the Kyoto Protocol
Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco,
where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy,” 01/17/08.
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4901>
In addition to calling on the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, Obama has
called for a series of policy initiatives “to bring developing countries into the global effort to develop
alternative sources of energy and prepare for the ravages of a changing climate,” including “funding to
leverage the investment and venture capital needed to expand the developing world’s renewable energy
portfolio.” Despite his emphasis on climate change as a national security issue, however, many
environmentalists find that his proposals do not go nearly far enough
WNDI 2008 19
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

McCain Bad: Iran Strikes


McCain will use military force against Iran

The Associated Press. "Giuliani, McCain: U.S. should prepare to use force against Iran." 10/16/07
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.html (CVD)

Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain said Tuesday they would be
prepared as president to use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.
Giuliani characterized Iran as a state sponsor of terror that is seeking nuclear weapons and said Tehran needs
to understand how the United States would respond to that development. "Anybody who wants to be
president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use
American military power," the former New York City mayor said. "But as president, you can't hesitate to do
that, if it's in the best interest of the United States." "You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants and
terrorists," he added. "Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe." On Iran specifically, Giuliani said,
"We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will never
find out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them." Said
McCain, "At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons." The
presidential candidates spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Last week, Giuliani reiterated during a
presidential debate his stance in favor of a military option against a nuclear Iran. On another subject,
Giuliani said he would not negotiate with the Palestinians on the situation in the Middle East until two
conditions are met: acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and a good-faith effort to stop
terror. "If they do those two things and mean it, then of course we can negotiate," Giuliani said. "We would
like to have peace. But we don't want to have a peace in which we are taken advantage of. We don't want to
have a peace in which Americans and Israelis are getting killed. And we certainly don't want to create another
terrorist-supporting state. We have too many of them already."

McCain likes the Beach Boys and will bomb Iran


CNN "McCain sings 'Bomb, bomb Iran." 4/19/07
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007 /04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html (CVD).
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At a town hall meeting in South Carolina Wednesday, Arizona Sen. John
McCain was asked if there is a plan to attack Iran. McCain began his answer by changing the words to
a classic Beach Boys' song. "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republican
presidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He finished his
answer by discussing the Iran's nuclear ambitions and the country's desire to wipe Israel off the map to
emphasize the real dangers that it poses to the world.

McCain WILL order Iranian missile strikes and mass bombing strikes
Arnaud de Borchgrave, Specialist in International Affairs. "Israel: We Will Strike Iran Alone."
Newsmax. 7/26/08
http://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/israel_iran_nuclear/2008/06/26/107691.html (CVD)
If, on the other hand, John McCain moves into the White House on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2009, he
presumably would approve of Israeli bombing raids and cruise-missile strikes against Iran's nascent
nuclear weapons capability. There is only one thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has said, and that
is an Iranian nuclear bomb.
WNDI 2008 20
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Bad: European Relations


Obama would not live up to European expectations and hurt relations
Denis MacShane; MacShane is Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham and a former minister for Europe.
“Welcome To Natoland,” Newsweek. 02/04/08.<LEXIS>
Of all the lazy thinking in Europe's capitals, the laziest is the notion that the next U.S. administration
will usher in a new era of sweetness and light in transatlantic relations. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Barack Obama is the darling of the anti-Bush crowd in Europe. But in his book "The Audacity
of Hope" he declares, "We have the right to take unilateral action to eliminate an imminent threat to
our security." Obama insists that the U.N. Security Council should not have a veto "over our actions."
He even offers an old metaphor as he accuses Russia and China of seeking "to throw their weight around,"
which means "there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This
will not change. Nor should it."
WNDI 2008 21
Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Bad: Social Security


Obama would raise taxes to support social security
TEDDY DAVIS. “Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike,” 09/22/07.
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1>
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is considering a major tax hike on the rich to shore up the nation's Social
Security system. Obama Iowa "If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all
earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate
the entire Social Security shortfall." Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's
Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion
over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be
paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.

Tax hike to support Social Security would tank the economy


Michael Tanner. “The Democrats Want to Raise Social Security Taxes,” No date given.
<http://www.socialsecurity.org/>
Moreover, raising the tax cap would not just impact the super rich, as is often argued, but would fall most
heavily on the upper middle class. Some 9.2 million Americans would see their taxes increased. Roughly
three quarters are managers or other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. 16 percent work
in sales or office occupations, while the remainder includes teachers, nurses, truck drivers, farmers, and
police officers. Small businesses would be particularly hammered: about one-third of the workers
affected by raising the cap would be small business owners. Eliminating the cap would saddle the
United States with the highest marginal tax rate in the world, higher even than countries like Sweden.
Studies suggest that it would cost the United States as much as $136 billion in lost economic growth over
the next 10 years, and as many as 1.1 million lost jobs. In exchange for this economic catastrophe, we
would gain surprisingly little in terms of Social Security's finances. Even the most drastic, and politically
unlikely proposal -- completely eliminating the cap without allowing any additional credit toward
benefits -- would result in only eight additional years of cash-flow solvency. Rather than beginning to run
a deficit in 2017, Social Security would continue to run a surplus until 2025. That's very little gain for so
much pain. Nor would eliminating the cap address Social Security's other problems. It would not enable
workers to decide how their money is invested. It would not allow low- and middle-income workers to
accumulate a nest egg of real, inheritable wealth. It would not improve Social Security's rate of return for
younger workers.